Пълен протокол на разискванията

Вторник, 12 септември 2017 г. - Страсбург

1. Откриване на заседанието

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

2. Китолов в Норвегия (внесени предложения за резолюция): вж. протокола

3. Насърчаване на свързаността с интернет в местните общности (разискване)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Carlos Zorrinho, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities (COM(2016)0589 – C8-0378/2016 – 2016/0287(COD)) (A8-0181/2017).

  Carlos Zorrinho, relator. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária - bem-vinda ao Parlamento -, Senhor Representante do Conselho Europeu, caras e caros Colegas, as pessoas, um pouco por todo o mundo, estão a recorrer cada vez mais às tecnologias e aos serviços digitais.

A transformação digital é hoje um processo absolutamente imparável e a história ensina-nos que deixar a tecnologia decidir o futuro das sociedades nunca deu bons resultados. Temos que ser nós a decidir o futuro da tecnologia e, sobretudo, temos que ser nós a determinar aquilo que com essa tecnologia podemos fazer acontecer para termos uma sociedade mais decente, mais justa, segura, sustentável, com mais oportunidades e com maior qualidade de vida para as pessoas e essa escolha constitui um desafio em que podemos envolver, devemos envolver, os cidadãos europeus. Esta é uma oportunidade para motivar esses cidadãos a participarem na refundação da sociedade europeia. É uma oportunidade para voltar a conectá-los com o projeto europeu. A Iniciativa WIFI4EU é um passo importante para atingir este objetivo de reconexão e para concretizar esta visão.

Proporcionar a todos os europeus um acesso gratuito e livre de restrições à Internet de alta qualidade em sítios públicos é uma medida de grande simbolismo que tem muita força política e tem um grande potencial transformador. É, aliás, uma medida com tanta força, que o Presidente da Comissão Europeia a usou, o ano passado, no discurso do Estado da União como uma das âncoras da sua intervenção.

A partir do desafio lançado nesse momento, o momento mais nobre da prestação de contas da Comissão perante os europeus, fizemos um trabalho estimulante de mobilização e negociação que nos permitiu chegar até aqui. Um trabalho em rede com as regiões, as empresas, a sociedade civil, as instituições e os governos, que permitiu chegar ao ato legislativo que hoje aqui debatemos.

A proposta em apreciação garante a neutralidade no acesso à Internet. Garante, também, a seleção da melhor tecnologia a aplicar em cada caso. Garante o acesso, de forma independente da localização geográfica e também dos rendimentos dos utilizadores. Não discrimina ninguém nem nenhum território. Tem um sistema simples de candidatura e uma validação única e, por isso, o WIFI4EU é o embrião de uma Sociedade Europeia a Gigabits competitiva e inclusiva. É, aliás, o embrião de uma identidade digital europeia que resultará da inclusão dos nossos valores comuns na nova sociedade digital.

Agradeço, por isso, a todos os que comigo trabalharam neste projeto de relatório. Agradeço ao Comité Económico Social e ao Comité das Regiões, que desde o primeiro momento trabalharam de forma articulada com o Parlamento Europeu e com a Comissão e com o Conselho. Agradeço à Comissão Europeia e ao Conselho pela convergência na procura permanente de boas soluções políticas, económicas, técnicas e financeiras.

Agradeço particularmente a todos os meus colegas do Parlamento Europeu, e particularmente aos relatores-sombra, pela força e pelo entusiasmo que colocaram no seu contributo ativo. Agradeço aos secretariados técnicos e políticos, sempre disponíveis para um trabalho que não foi fácil, mas que nos trouxe a bom porto, abrindo novas oportunidades para as pessoas. Apelo, por isso, à aprovação do ato legislativo em debate. É importante que ainda este ano as primeiras candidaturas ocorram e as raízes do WIFI4EU comecem a disseminar-se por toda a União.

Termino, o WIFI4EU é um pequeno passo. É um pequeno passo para nós, mas é um grande passo para que a União Europeia tenha um papel liderante no desenvolvimento de uma sociedade digital inclusiva, aberta, transparente, criativa e amiga das pessoas. Liguemo-nos a esta ideia, por um futuro melhor para a União Europeia e para o mundo.

  Mariya Gabriel, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, en effet, c’est mon premier débat en séance plénière dans ma nouvelle fonction en tant que commissaire chargée de l’économie et de la société numériques. L’émotion est d’autant plus grande que ce sont de nouveau les citoyens qui sont au cœur de ce débat et qui constituent la priorité commune à nous tous.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, tout d’abord je voudrais remercier le rapporteur, M. Zorrinho. Je voudrais également remercier les rapporteurs fictifs ainsi que les rapporteurs des commissions BUDG, TRAN et REGI pour leur travail.

D’une manière générale, la Commission tient à remercier le Parlement européen de l’accord politique obtenu suite à un seul trilogue, en mai dernier.

Pour commencer, permettez-moi de citer le président Juncker, un an jour pour jour après son discours sur l’état de l’Union: «toute personne devrait bénéficier de la connectivité dans les espaces publics partout en Europe, quel que soit l’endroit où elle vit ou combien elle gagne».

L’initiative WiFi4EU est une étape concrète et décisive dans cette direction. Au cours des trois prochaines années, elle donnera accès à Internet aux habitants et visiteurs de 6 000 à 8 000 communautés locales dans toute l’Union européenne. Au cours des trois prochaines années, je voudrais aussi dire que la Commission européenne se réjouit que le Parlement européen soit d’accord sur l’importance de fournir un accès à l'internet de grande qualité à nos citoyens. Le Conseil, le Comité des régions et le Comité économique et social partagent également cette approche.

Je souhaiterais faire référence à trois éléments principaux de l’initiative, qui ont été débattus et pour lesquels la contribution du Parlement a été décisive.

Premièrement, le financement sera attribué en veillant à assurer un équilibre géographique dans les pays de l’Union et, en principe, sur la base du «premier arrivé, premier servi». Lorsque les bons seront distribués, le principe de subsidiarité s’applique dans son intégralité. Les municipalités seront ainsi libres de choisir ce qu’elles considèrent comme les principaux centres de leur communauté: une bibliothèque publique, l’hôtel de ville, les centres de soins locaux, une place, des parcs, etc., et ce en faisant en sorte de ne pas fausser la concurrence avec les opérateurs privés.

Dès lors, il est exclu, dans le champ d’application de l’initiative, de faire double emploi avec des réseaux existants ayant des caractéristiques similaires. Nous veillerons aussi à ce que les connexions des utilisateurs restent gratuites et sans conditions discriminatoires.

En second lieu, l’accès à une connectivité à haut débit sera simple. Après un enregistrement unique, les utilisateurs pourront se connecter automatiquement à tous les points d’accès WiFi4EU en Europe. En outre, grâce à un amendement fort utile, introduit par le Parlement, l’initiative sera également ouverte aux réseaux publics existants, de sorte que toute autorité locale en Europe soit invitée à rejoindre le réseauWiFi4EU.

Enfin, la présente initiative porte également sur le contenu. Nous voulons favoriser le développement de services numériques plus nombreux et plus performants par les acteurs locaux. Je pense ici au tourisme en ligne, à la santé en ligne et à l’administration en ligne.

Une fois encore, je tiens à remercier le Parlement européen pour le travail effectué sur cette initiative WiFi4EU. Je vous remercie de votre attention et je me réjouis par avance des discussions à venir.

  Claudia Țapardel, Comisia pentru transport și turism. – Lansat acum un an în acest plen, WIFI4EU este un proiect care demonstrează că Uniunea Europeană are un impact vizibil, direct și pozitiv asupra vieții cetățenilor. În concordanță cu viziunea expusă în Strategia pentru o piață unică digitală, accesul la internet și, implicit, la informație devin condiții esențiale pentru garantarea competitivității europene pe termen lung. Digitalizarea fiecărui sector economic reprezintă viitorul Europei, asigurând dezvoltarea fiecărei comunități, inclusiv din punct de vedere social, dacă este să ne raportăm doar la impactul asupra educației sau al funcționării administrației publice locale.

Din perspectiva transporturilor și a turismului, integrarea serviciilor digitale devine vitală pentru îndeplinirea obiectivelor de conectivitate și îmbunătățirea calității serviciilor europene, lucru asupra căruia am insistat și în avizul Comisiei pentru transporturi. Instalarea de puncte wireless gratuite va ajuta la o mai bună contextualizare a tiparelor de mobilitate, datele culese putând fi folosite pentru evaluarea politicilor publice pentru transport. Autoritățile publice vor putea crea rute mai sigure și diminua disconfortul cauzat de trafic prin optimizarea și flexibilizarea rutelor de transport. Totodată, pentru turiști, posibilitatea de a se putea conecta la internet când vizitează un oraș va însemna un plus de siguranță și o experiență turistică mai plăcută.

Cum putem, însă, maximiza impactul WIFI4EU și să ne asigurăm că nu rămâne un succes doar pe hârtie? În primul rând, prin a ne asigura că există cu adevărat o repartizare geografică echitabilă a sprijinului financiar. Fondurile europene trebuie folosite acolo unde este realmente nevoie de ele și unde chiar vor face diferența în viața oamenilor. În al doilea rând, Comisia Europeană trebuie să demareze o campanie de informare cu privire la disponibilitatea acestui sprijin și la beneficiile aduse. Nu în ultimul rând, sprijinul financiar este extrem de important. Proiectul WIFI4EU trebuie să fie compatibil cu alte programe regionale și naționale, urmând a fi identificate posibile sinergii cu acestea.

  Anne Sander, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, chère Madame la Commissaire, je suis contente de vous retrouver pour votre premier débat dans cet hémicycle, il y en aura d’autres.

On se demande toujours ce que fait l’Europe concrètement pour ses citoyens. En finançant le déploiement de réseaux wifi gratuits dans les espaces publics, l’initiative WiFi4EU, que nous voterons demain, est justement un exemple d’une Europe visible et utile dans le quotidien des Européens.

Pour moi, tous les citoyens devraient avoir accès à Internet, quoi qu’ils gagnent et où qu’ils habitent. Encore trop de villages ruraux n’ont pas de connexion de qualité. Pire, près de la moitié de la population de l’Union européenne ne possède pas de compétences numériques suffisantes. L’enjeu du texte est donc de favoriser les zones rurales et celles qui en ont le plus besoin.

Si le mode d’allocation se fera sur la base du principe «premier arrivé, premier servi», nous avons souhaité une répartition équilibrée en fonction des régions. Le système doit être le plus simple possible pour éviter la paperasserie souvent associée aux fonds européens et permettre aux petites communes de participer. Le financement se fera donc par des bons d’achat de 20 000 euros, avec des conditions de contrôle allégées. La négociation budgétaire fut difficile. Nous avons sécurisé 120 millions d’euros, mais nous savons que ce n’est pas suffisant pour couvrir les besoins des centaines de milliers de communes européennes.

Cependant, avec la création d’un système d’authentification unique pour chacun des utilisateurs, WiFi4EU peut devenir le catalyseur du déploiement d’un wifi européen gratuit dans tous les lieux publics.

La connectivité Internet n’est pas une fin en soi. Elle est le préalable à la transformation numérique de notre économie et de notre société. Avec WiFi4EU, nous favorisons cette connectivité pour permettre à tous de profiter pleinement de la révolution numérique.

  Dan Nica, în numele grupului S&D. – Piața unică digitală poate fi realizată și prin reducerea decalajului digital dintre statele membre, dintre diverse regiuni, categorii de cetățeni europeni și diverse sectoare industriale. Investițiile și inovarea digitală vor asigura creșterea economiei digitale și vor oferi oportunități de dezvoltare noilor sectoare industriale. Îl felicit pe colegul nostru raportor, pe Carlos Zorrinho, pentru munca depusă și pentru acordul la care a ajuns cu privire la acest regulament, prin care se va asigura accesul la conectivitate fără fir, de înaltă calitate, pe întreg teritoriul Uniunii.

Inițiativa WIFI4EU va avea un impact puternic asupra a circa 6 000-8 000 de municipalități din toate statele membre pentru care 120 de milioane de euro vor fi alocate în vederea finanțării echipamentului pentru servicii WI-FI gratuite. Subliniez că bugetul disponibil ar trebui să se aloce proiectelor într-o manieră echilibrată din punct de vedere geografic între statele membre, inclusiv permițând participarea mai activă a solicitanților din statele membre în care utilizarea granturilor sau a altor forme de ajutor financiar a fost comparativ scăzută.

Inițiativa WIFI4EU contribuie la depășirea decalajului digital și respectă normele Uniunii Europene privind protecția datelor, neutralitatea rețelei, susține echipamentele de ultimă oră și asigură securitatea informatică. Foarte important, utilizarea comercială a datelor obținute prin intermediul inițiativei este interzisă. Îmbunătățirea accesului la internet de mare și foarte mare viteză în bandă largă și, prin urmare, la serviciile online, în special în zonele rurale și locurile îndepărtate, va crește calitatea vieții prin facilitarea accesului la servicii, de exemplu e-sănătate, e-guvernare, și ar putea promova dezvoltarea întreprinderilor mici și mijlocii locale.

Cred că un angajament important îl reprezintă și declarația comună a celor trei instituții că, în cazul în care majorarea sumei destinate pachetului financiar pentru punerea în aplicare a Mecanismului pentru interconectarea Europei din sectorul telecomunicațiilor de la 25 de milioane de euro la 50 de milioane de euro nu poate fi asigurată în totalitate, Comisia ar putea să propună realocări pentru a facilita finanțarea deplină a sumei de 120 de milioane de euro.

  Anneleen Van Bossuyt, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Het is vandaag een trieste dag, vind ik, voor alle hardwerkende Europeanen. Vandaag gaan zij de dupe worden van de verspilzucht van de Europese instellingen. Een jaar geleden stond voorzitter Juncker inderdaad hier, het is reeds aangehaald, en lanceerde hij in zijn State of the Union het ideetje van gratis wifi voor de burgers. Nu gaat 120 miljoen EUR belastinggeld vrijgemaakt worden om aan ongeveer 7 000 gemeenten een gratis wifistation te geven. Ik heb hiertegen drie concrete bezwaren. Ten eerste denk ik dat het naïef is om te denken dat we met dit project een digitale revolutie zullen inzetten. Ik denk dat we het geld veel beter kunnen investeren in cruciale nieuwe technologieën, zoals 5G, en in supersnel internet. Ten tweede zullen de senioren en de doorsneetoerist, twee doelgroepen die toch expliciet geviseerd worden, amper gebruik maken van een gratis hotspot. Ik zie geen senioren, die weinig mobiel zijn, zich plots naar het marktplein begeven om hun e-mail te checken. Toeristen zullen, nu we gratis roaming hebben, hun plekje op het strand heus niet verlaten om hun Facebook te gaan checken. Ten derde leidt het plan ook tot de uitbreiding van de transferunie, want goed presterende regio's zullen gestraft worden. Daarom zeg ik: Europa moet niet inzetten op het uitdelen van dure cadeaus maar wel op jobs, veiligheid en migratie.

  Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, we have heard very positive words about the initiative. We have also heard now somewhat reluctant words. I would say the truth is somewhere in between. It is an opportunity: the programme itself has certain elements which are relatively new. I think they definitely cut the administrative burden, which is already a precedent for, let us say, other initiatives in the future.

Secondly, it is a carrot in the telecom package. I think it is a carrot which can create impetus, and that is important. Of course, whether it be four, six or eight thousand communities, it will not be a revolution. But we all know that in a number of Member States, in some remote areas, the culture is relatively low in this respect in terms of developing in this field, and that is what I understand the initiative to be: to create an impetus that would really make a difference. If I were a mayor of a village which has not applied, and I see that in the next community they have applied and they have received their contribution and WiFi is being engaged, I might see people from my community suddenly leaving for the next village in the evening for entertainment or something else, but that is an added value. What I am looking for is a spillover effect, and that is why the Commission should be very careful and very pragmatic in terms of evaluation of the effect that will have.

Promotion will be absolutely key, so if we really want to achieve what we are aiming at – and I see a number of positives: single authentication, low administrative burden and a relatively speedy approach – then I think that gradual implementation and the permanent engagement of the Commission is crucial.

A final remark on the budget: I find the horse trading, whether it is EUR 95 million or 120 million, a bit of a disgrace bearing in mind what the objective is, what the money concerned is, and what we are really looking forward to. I hope that we will comply with the statement that is existing on the table and that we will increase the budget.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα κατ’ αρχάς να ευχαριστήσω τον συνάδελφο Zorrinho για την καλή συνεργασία που είχαμε. Η πρωτοβουλία για την προώθηση της δωρεάν WiFi στις τοπικές κοινότητες είναι πολύ σημαντική, αλλά πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε πως θα λειτουργήσει προς όφελος των πολιτών απ’ όλα τα κοινωνικά στρώματα, επιτυγχάνοντας το μέγιστο δυνατό δημόσιο όφελος. Επίσης πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε πως θα είναι δωρεάν και δεν θα υπάρχει καμία χρέωση. Προτεραιότητά μας πρέπει να είναι επίσης να επωφεληθούν από την ασύρματη συνδεσιμότητα ιδιαίτερα τα κράτη και οι περιοχές που είναι λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένες, τα νησιά και οι ορεινές απομακρυσμένες και δυσπρόσιτες περιοχές.

Χαιρετίζουμε τις θετικές αυτές αναφορές που έχουν περιληφθεί στο τελικό κείμενο βελτιώνοντας την πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Εξ ίσου σημαντική είναι η προσθήκη που πετύχαμε πως ο διαθέσιμος προϋπολογισμός πρέπει να κατανεμηθεί με γεωγραφικά ισορροπημένο τρόπο. Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής να κατατίθεται ο προϋπολογισμός στα κράτη μέλη, κατά κανόνα με βάση τη σειρά παραλαβής των προτάσεων, ‘fist come, first served’, κατά τη γνώμη μας είναι λανθασμένη: αντί αυτής, θα πρέπει να κατατεθεί ένα ολοκληρωμένο σχέδιο δράσης το οποίο να διασφαλίζει ότι θα επωφεληθούν όλα τα κράτη ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους.

Κλείνοντας, ζητάμε από την Επιτροπή να προβεί άμεσα σε διάφορες ενέργειες, ώστε να ενημερωθούν επαρκώς όλα τα κράτη και οι τοπικές αρχές για τους σχετικούς όρους της πρότασης, αλλά και να στηριχθούν επαρκώς ώστε να ξεκινήσουν άμεσα τις προεργασίες για την υποβολή των αιτήσεων.

  Michel Reimon, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich danke den Berichterstattern und den anderen Schattenberichterstattern für die gute Zusammenarbeit und freue mich, dass die Kommissarin heute selbst an der Diskussion teilnimmt, denn sie wird mit der Umsetzung dieses Projekts betraut sein.

Auch wenn der Beschluss ganz gut ist, gibt es mehrere Punkte, die jetzt in der Umsetzung sehr gut oder sehr schlecht gemacht werden können. Wenn sich 6 000 bis 7 000 europäische Kommunen für kostenloses WLAN bewerben können und der Zugang über Bewerbungen und die Reihenfolge der Bewerbungen geregelt ist, dann kann das dazu führen, dass sich große Kommunen, leistungsfähige Kommunen als erste bewerben und dieses Geld nicht dorthin kommt, wo wir es eigentlich haben wollten, nämlich in kleine, strukturschwache Regionen. Es wird die Aufgabe der Kommission sein, gerade die kleinen und schwachen Kommunen zu motivieren, sich möglichst schnell zu bewerben, damit auch die zum Zug kommen. Das ist jetzt leider eine Umsetzungsfrage; wir konnten es nicht im Gesetz verankern.

Es kommt noch eine zweite Sache dazu, die wir in den nächsten Jahren zusätzlich ausbauen werden müssen: Wir können leistungsfähiges kostenloses WLAN nur dort anbieten, wo es schon leistungsfähiges Internet gibt. Deshalb hat es keinen Sinn, auf einem öffentlichen Platz WLAN anzubieten, wenn dahinter kein leistungsfähiges Netz ist. Wir werden auch ein Programm brauchen, damit es in strukturschwachen Regionen überhaupt erst leistungsfähiges Internet gibt, sonst haben wir hier einen Engpass. Darüber wurde leider nicht gesprochen. Das wird in der nächsten Periode vielleicht noch wesentlich mehr kosten als 120 Mio. EUR.

Ein letzter Punkt: Auf Datenschutz muss wahnsinnig viel Wert gelegt werden. Es wird hier viel über den Wert für die Demokratie gesprochen, den dieses Programm hat. Das geht nur mit Datenschutz, wenn wir echte Anonymität gewähren.

  Jonathan Bullock, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, I must say that promotion of the internet connectivity in local communities is of course absolutely vital, but why are we doing it at some EU level? This is something which can be done perfectly well at nation-state level. Indeed, EUR 120 million – where is the money going to go? Is it going to be properly audited, what is going to happen to it? I think my constituency will be very concerned about EUR 120 million being spent on this.

And why are we looking at it in a European perspective? It is of course the World Wide Web, invented by Britain, I might add. And of course we always do this, we sort of think that Europe can tackle something, well let’s think wider: would Mr Juncker restrict himself to European wine? I think not. There is good wine in Australia and South Africa. So let’s look at this at nation-state or worldwide level, not at European level.

  Barbara Kappel, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Natürlich werden wir keine Internetrevolution auslösen mit 120 Mio. EUR, wie heute gesagt wurde. Aber ich halte diesen Bericht von Carlos Zorrinho deshalb für wichtig, weil er eine sehr hohe Symbolkraft hat – eine Symbolkraft dafür, dass man gerade die kleinen Gemeinden in der ländlichen Region einbindet und das Bewusstsein in den Gemeindestuben dafür weckt, dass digitale Vernetzung, dass die digitale Gesellschaft wichtig ist und dafür ein konkreter Anreiz geschaffen wird. Deshalb möchte ich mich auch beim Berichterstatter bedanken, dass er uns alle gut zusammengeführt hat – ich war Schattenberichterstatterin – und dass er dieses Ergebnis erzielt hat, das meiner Meinung nach eine hohe Symbolwirkung entfalten wird. Immerhin sollen in den nächsten drei Jahren bis zu 8 000 Gemeinden mit kostenlosem WLAN ausgestattet werden. Das kommt sowohl einem wachsenden Bedarf an Konnektivität als auch digitaler Vernetzung zugute. Das Pilotprojekt soll dazu beitragen, die Entwicklung einer inklusiven digitalen Gesellschaft zu forcieren, damit alle Europäer den Eintritt in die Gigabit Society schaffen.

120 Mio. Euro – das wurde schon gesagt – werden aus der Connecting Europe Facility zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Finanzminister der EU haben sich darauf bereits geeinigt, und noch im Laufe dieses Jahres sollen die ersten Mittel ausgeschüttet werden. Die Initiative WiFi4EU übernimmt dabei die Kosten für die Ausrüstung und Installation, und die ansuchende öffentliche Stelle, also die Kommune, zahlt die Netzanbindung und die Instandhaltung für einen Zeitraum von drei Jahren. Die Gemeinden sollen dadurch auch ermutigt werden – und das halte ich für besonders wichtig –, mehr digitale Dienste wie elektronische Gesundheitsdienste oder Behördendienste anzubieten und auch entsprechende Apps zu entwickeln. Die Fördervergabe ist unbürokratisch, was ein wesentlicher Vorteil ist, basiert auf einem Gutscheinsystem nach dem Modell first come, first served. Ich halte die Initiative für wichtig. Geografische Ausgewogenheit muss gewährleistet sein und auch die entsprechende Nachhaltigkeit, damit alle Europäer in die Gigabit Society eintreten können.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on a very good initiative, and also the rapporteur for his great work, all the shadow rapporteurs, and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) members. Thanks to the Maltese Presidency, the negotiations were not very complicated because there was great political support for the idea. Even if there are some doubts, listening to our colleagues, if we think of a more inclusive Europe, of course we should start with such an idea. It is quite obvious. It is a big step towards our digital union.

WiFi4EU, with free hotspots in thousands of towns and villages, may be a real game-changer in some areas – better education, local business, tourism, citizens’ daily lives – but we need to go beyond that. In the ITRE Committee we are committed to developing better connectivity throughout Europe, better coordination of the radio spectrum, for example, which is very important, and to stimulate investments in the high-capacity networks across the continent.

So if you would like to fight for a more inclusive Europe, let us go forward. Even if it is a great success, we should not stop now. Digital union is a very important idea in front of us.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! In diesen Zeiten gibt es auch Erfolgsgeschichten auf europäischer Ebene. Ganz generell betrachtet sind das die Bestrebungen, den digitalen Binnenmarkt zu verwirklichen. Das geht zügig voran, und wir hoffen hier auf die gute Zusammenarbeit mit der neuen Kommissarin. WiFi4EU ist in diesem Zusammenhang eine ganz besondere Erfolgsgeschichte. Innerhalb eines Jahres wurde die Verordnung umgesetzt. Das Parlament hat eindrucksvoll Handlungsfähigkeit bewiesen, und Carlos Zorrinho gebührt unser besonderer Dank.

Die Verordnung ist ein wichtiger Anstoß zur Versorgung des öffentlichen Raums mit WiFi und es zeigt, dass die öffentliche Hand bei der Versorgung von Dienstleistungen von allgemeinem Interesse nicht untätig bleiben darf. Die Menschen haben schon lange darauf gewartet, und es lohnt sich, auf die Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu hören. Wir hatten letzte Woche im Haus der EU in Wien eine Informationsveranstaltung zur neuen Verordnung und waren überrascht von dem großen Interesse von Gemeindevertretern aus der ganzen Republik. Das zeigt uns, dass wir auf dem richtigen Weg sind.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, the news that new funding will be available for free wifi hotspots across the EU will be welcomed by local authorities and citizens who are able to avail of the scheme. As with the elimination of roaming charges, this has the potential to benefit tourists, residents and businesses alike. However, it is also clear that we have some way to go in terms of our broadband infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. In the modern era, access to the internet has become almost as important as utilities such as electricity.

It is deeply concerning that there is a level of inequality in the terms of access to broadband connections. For instance, broadband provision in my own constituency of Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole and, within Northern Ireland, there is a divide between urban and rural areas. I want to see our rural communities flourish and local businesses grow and remain competitive in an increasingly digitised marketplace. We need to support businesses and consumers with high-quality broadband infrastructure and equality in terms of access.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, bem-vinda Senhora Comissária, eu quero começar por agradecer o trabalho do relator. Creio que este relatório é importante por várias razões, mas sobretudo porque coloca uma dimensão social muito forte naquilo que, eu creio, que é uma necessidade quotidiana. O acesso à Internet sem fios nos espaços públicos de forma gratuita e livre é um projeto desta Casa do qual eu me orgulho e digo—o sem nenhum problema. Nós temos, no entanto, de salvaguardar que, para que este investimento seja eficaz, o apoio técnico, a informação e os recursos devem ir, sobretudo, para as zonas mais remotas, para as zonas rurais, para as populações e para as comunidades que não têm acesso a ela e eu creio que, nessa dimensão, nós teremos que continuar a fazer trabalho.

É importante garantir que o acesso possa ser financiado para toda a gente e, por isso, mais uma vez, saúdo o trabalho que foi feito. Mas temos que continuar a avaliar para que esse dinheiro, esse recurso, esse apoio técnico, essa informação não chegue aos mesmos de sempre, porque a exclusão digital é uma realidade. Eu creio que este relatório é um passo importante para combater a exclusão digital e temos de continuar a trabalhar nesse sentido.

  Christelle Lechevalier (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, le projet présenté aujourd’hui veut faire de l’internet très haut débit un service gratuit dans quelques espaces publics privilégiés de l’Union pour un budget de 120 millions d’euros.

Interrogeons-nous, chers collègues, sur ce que nous aurions pu faire avec ces 120 millions d’euros dans le domaine de l’internet. Ces 120 millions, nous aurions dû les utiliser pour réduire la fracture numérique, à l’heure où seuls 18 % des foyers situés dans les zones rurales de l’Union sont connectés.

Cet argent public, nous devrions le dédier à l’accès privé des entreprises, pour qui l’internet est indispensable au maintien de l’emploi, et des particuliers des zones enclavées, car ce dont ils ont besoin, ce n’est pas d’un wifi gratuit à proximité de chez eux, mais d’une possibilité de connexion sur leur lieu de travail et de vie.

Par ailleurs, ce texte est symptomatique des excès de l’Union européenne. Le dispositif revendique la mise en avant auprès des utilisateurs des «valeurs et avantages de l’Union» et véhiculera donc une propagande ultra-européiste. De même, il donne tout pouvoir de décision à l’Union et aux collectivités locales au mépris des intérêts nationaux.

Pour ces raisons, la délégation française du groupe ENF ne soutiendra pas cette initiative.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ich finde den Vorschlag sehr gut, und ich bedanke mich bei der Kommission und auch bei unserem Berichterstatter und den Kollegen, dass sie hier diesen Vorschlag auch noch etwas verbessert haben.

6 000 bis 8 000 Gemeinden sollen WLAN-Anschlüsse finanziert bekommen. Man kann in der Tat sagen: Das ist doch ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein. Was soll das? Warum machen wir das? 120 Mio. EUR hierfür zur Verfügung zu stellen, ist nicht die Welt. Aber ich halte es für ganz wichtig und für richtig, weil es ein wichtiges politisches Signal ist, dass wir eben flächendeckendes Internet brauchen – in ganz Europa, nicht nur in den Ballungszentren, sondern gerade auch in kleineren Regionen, in kleineren Gemeinden und Kommunen. Deshalb unterstütze ich den Vorschlag.

Ich möchte aber heute auch noch ein zweites Thema ansprechen und mich nicht auf die 6 000 bis 8 000 Gemeinden konzentrieren: Wir haben Hunderttausende von anderen Gemeinden, die keine Finanzierung bekommen. Ich möchte vor allem in Richtung Kommission auch sagen: Es gibt in vielen Regierungen zu Hause – auch bei mir, im Freistaat Bayern – Initiativen. Wir unterstützen auch bei uns den Breitbandausbau, erleben aber dann immer wieder, dass das Beihilferecht so rigide angewandt wird in Europa – auch durch die Kommission –, dass es ewig dauert, bis wir mit unseren eigenen Fördermitteln auch den Ausbau sicherstellen können. Also heute meine Bitte auch an Sie, Frau Kommissarin, bei den Beihilferegeln einfach bei der Anwendung sicherzustellen, dass hier unbürokratisch auch vor Ort noch mehr geleistet werden kann und nicht alles über die europäischen Kassen finanziert werden muss.

  Martina Werner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Gutscheine für die Einrichtung von kostenlosem WLAN in bis zu 8 000 Gemeinden in Europa – ganz konkret und völlig unbürokratisch: WiFi4EU ist ein tolles Beispiel dafür, wie Europa mehr Menschen auch den Zugang zum schnellen Internet ermöglicht. Ein zukunftsfestes WLAN in ländlichen Räumen kann es aber nur geben, wenn die Gemeinden auch selbst ans Breitband-Netz angeschlossen sind und das ist auch Voraussetzung für den Verbleib von Industriebetrieben oder für eine moderne öffentliche Daseinsvorsorge.

Und gerade da macht mir der Blick auf Deutschland Sorgen, weil nämlich gerade mal mickrige 6,6 % der Haushalte an Glasfaserleitungen angeschlossen sind. Mit dem neuen EU—Kommunikationskodex schaffen wir jetzt die Voraussetzungen für Investitionen in Zukunftsnetze. Wenn diese Vorlage nicht genutzt wird und stattdessen viel Geld in alte Übergangstechnologien fließt, verlieren zahlreiche Regionen den Anschluss.

Ich hoffe, dass WiFi4EU ein Baustein ist, der europaweit dazu beiträgt, diese Erkenntnis jetzt endlich zu wecken. Ab Ende 2017/Anfang 2018 können Projektvorschläge eingereicht werden und es würde mich wirklich sehr freuen, wenn sich sehr viele Gemeinden daran beteiligen.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, let me start by saying that this is a genuinely excellent initiative and is yet another example of the value of the EU. I congratulate colleagues Zorrinho and Sander for the work they have put into bringing this forward. Internet access for all citizens is crucially important and this means that nobody should be excluded, particularly because they happen to live in rural areas. Rural growth is dependent on increased connectivity, and WiFi4EU will help in this regard and perhaps be a blueprint for similar bigger initiatives.

With this initiative, we take one of the needed steps to reduce the digital divide by putting wifi terminals in public spaces. This simple and fast financing mechanism can deliver high-quality internet quite quickly and I welcome its potential to revitalise rural communities.

As a representative of the Ireland South constituency, this is particularly relevant to me. Parts of my constituency still see some of the lowest broadband speeds in Ireland, with our average speeds being around half of those found in Dublin. Examples can be seen in places like Murroe in Limerick, Dromahane in Cork, Clonmore in Carlow and Cahir in Tipperary, all of which have to put up with internet speeds that are way below what is acceptable. While the WiFi4EU is not the ultimate solution for such areas, it would at least be a help.

I hereby invite Irish communities with poor connectivity to get their applications in for this great new initiative and reap the benefits of this excellent EU initiative, and thus make their areas more attractive to live in, more attractive for investors, and stem the tide of rural decline.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un saluto innanzitutto alla commissaria per questa sua prima presenza in Aula, anche se con lei la nostra commissione sta già lavorando intensamente.

L'iniziativa di cui oggi discutiamo è un'iniziativa assolutamente opportuna e ottima, e io penso che sia stata anche molto completata, rispetto all'iniziale proposta, dal prezioso lavoro del collega Zorrinho. È un'iniziativa di cui voglio solo sottolineare due aspetti, come hanno fatto anche altri colleghi.

Il primo è che in questo modo l'Europa afferma che Internet deve essere in qualche modo democratico, cioè deve essere potenzialmente accessibile a tutti: non deve essere un ulteriore discriminante nella nostra società ma, semmai, contribuire ad abbattere, a ridurre le differenze tra le opportunità che può offrire a chi da solo non ci arriva.

Quindi questo aspetto, diciamo, simbolico, oltre che concreto, lo considero molto importante e considero importante anche – e mi raccomando alla commissaria e a chi seguirà concretamente questa iniziativa – che non si perda l'immagine dell'Europa: l'Europa fa molte cose ma quando arrivano i cittadini alle municipalità, l'Europa sparisce. Qui bisogna far capire che l'Europa ha fatto un gesto simbolico e concreto per avvicinarsi alle persone e alle comunità e per offrire loro qualcosa di utile.

Quindi rimanga il logo, rimanga l'immagine, rimanga insomma questa volontà dell'Europa di essere vicina i cittadini.

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, nopeat tietoliikenneyhteydet ovat yksi tärkeimmistä investointikohteista Euroopassa. Olemme asettaneet tavoitteeksi, että vuonna 2020 kaikilla eurooppalaisilla olisi kattava laajakaistayhteys ja puolella heistä ultranopea yhteys. Tällä hetkellä tiedämme, että vain 70 prosentilla EU:n kansalaisista on pääsy nopeaan internetiin ja että maaseutualueilla tuo määrä on huomattavasti pienempi.

Jotta saavuttaisimme nuo yhteistavoitteet, se edellyttää meiltä arvion mukaan noin 500 miljardin euron investointeja seuraavina vuosina nimenomaan nopeisiin yhteyksiin koko Euroopassa. Se on tärkeä edellytys sille, että voimme luoda digitaalista taloutta ja digitaalisia palveluja Euroopassa. Nyt esittelyssä olevaa WiFi-verkkoa koskeva aloite on tärkeä osa tätä. Tavoitteena on erityisesti tuoda WiFi-verkot maaseutualueille, julkisiin kohteisiin, asukkaiden käytettäväksi. Se on tervetullutta ja tärkeää. Samaan aikaan on kuitenkin muistettava, että me tarvitsemme ennen kaikkea yksityisiä investointeja vauhdittamaan nyt Euroopan kehittymistä digitaaliseksi unioniksi, ja meidän on tärkeää luoda sellaista markkinaehtoista ympäristöä, joka innostaa yrityksiä investoimaan yhteyksiin.

Hyvä esimerkki tästä on oma kotimaani Suomi, jossa on hyvin voimakkaasti investoitu nimenomaan mobiiliteknologiaan, ja suomalaiset käyttävät mobiilidataa kymmenkertaisesti enemmän kuin eurooppalaiset keskimäärin, koska meillä on erittäin hyvät mobiiliyhteydet, ja kilpailun ansiosta hinnat ovat matalat. Sen vuoksi on tärkeää myös muistaa, että meillä täytyy olla teknologianeutraali lähestymistapa. Eri jäsenmaissa voi olla hyvin erilaisia tapoja jo tällä hetkellä järjestää internetyhteyksiä, nopeita yhteyksiä, ja on huolehdittava myös siitä, että nämä toimivat hyvällä tavalla yhteen.

  Miroslav Poche (S&D). – Paní předsedající, já samozřejmě vítám to, že byl dosažen kompromis ohledně parametrů a financování projektu WiFi4EU. Z mého pohledu je to vedle roamingu v oblasti digitální jeden z nejhmatatelnějších výsledků v tomto volebním období, který bude zcela zřejmý pro naše občany. Ale upozornil bych na dva aspekty, které mohou být riskantní.

První je samozřejmě nutnost dodržení geografické rovnováhy ve financování a správné definování skutečně relevantních zájemců o finanční podporu. Jsem přesvědčen, že budou financovány smysluplné projekty, které povedou k naplnění toho původního záměru, ale bude nutné nejenom na evropské úrovni, ale i na úrovni členských států posílit kontrolní mechanismy a jakousi synergii i s evropskými fondy nebo náhradním spolufinancováním tak, aby ten výsledek byl zcela hmatatelný. Transparentnost financování projektů je, z mého pohledu, klíčová.

  Pascal Arimont (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin – ich möchte Sie auch hier begrüßen an der anderen Seite des Tisches und wünsche uns allen gute Zusammenarbeit –, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Freies Internet in 6 000 bis 8 000 Krankenhäusern und Parks, öffentlichen Bibliotheken, Rathäusern – ich finde, das ist eine hervorragende Idee! Wir sind hier in einem Parlament. Da sagen die einen, es ist schlecht, und die anderen sagen, es ist gut. Ich finde es ausnahmslos gut, was wir hier machen. Denn zum einen bedeutet das, dass Europa sehr konkret wird, und zum anderen ist es – Frau Niebler hat es eben gesagt – auch ein Signal.

Wofür ist es ein Signal? Es ist ein Signal dafür, dass ein Hotspot nur dort funktioniert, wo auch wirklich Internet ist und wo schnelles Internet ist. Das bedeutet für uns, dass wir uns ungemein anstrengen müssen, damit es dieses schnelle Internet in ganz Europa geben wird. Es gibt nach wie vor – vor allen Dingen in ländlichen Gebieten – die sogenannten weißen Flecken. Dort gibt es überhaupt kein Internet. Das, was früher mal Straße und Strom war, wo man seitens der öffentlichen Hand viel Geld investiert hat, das heißt heute Internet, und da müssen wir viel Geld in die Hand nehmen. Dieses WiFi4EU ist ein Signal, um dies zu tun. Wir müssen diese Anstrengungen machen, damit die digitale Agenda, die wir uns ganz groß auf unsere Fahnen geschrieben haben, sich auch realisiert. Ich habe in meinem Wahlkreis den Gemeinden sehr angeraten, sich für diese Initiative zu bewerben. Es ist eine gute Initiative.

Das Fazit lautet: Lasst es uns tun und lasst es uns unbürokratisch tun. Dann hat jeder etwas davon.

  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, in the 21st century, high-quality internet connection, not just in large cities but also in small, remote villages, is key for the successful development of our society. We all know the reasons: internet access gives people access to information and the ability to get entertainment. It is key for government to provide online services to serve citizens better at lower cost and it is also essential for job creation and support for tourism that is very vital for these small communities.

There are hundreds and hundreds of companies that provide internet connections, but their focus is on large communities. In small places, for economic reasons, they do not do it because the investments are not matched by the revenues and, as a result, people there do not have access to services and this will undermine development of their communities.

This is exactly the moment when the governments should step in and some of them do, but some of them do not. As a consequence, people will be at a big disadvantage.

We should assign importance to that because these people are Europeans, they should have at least the chance, and this is where the project can play a very important role if it is implemented properly. We are not talking about huge amounts of money and a huge impact, but we are talking about good things, about an important message and example, an example that I believe will be followed, that is why it has my full support.

  Fernando Ruas (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, é um gosto vê-la nestas novas funções. Queria deixar aqui apenas duas breves notas: em primeiro lugar, para me congratular, e para congratular a Comissão, pela apresentação desta proposta. Possui um sistema de vouchers e de candidaturas simplificadas totalmente inovador, capaz de assegurar o financiamento de equipamentos Wi-fi gratuitos em diversos espaços públicos. Esta medida contemplará áreas situadas pelo menos em 6.000 municípios de todos os Estados—Membros - um número que poderá subir até aos 8.000 municípios caso existam candidaturas suficientes.

E uma segunda nota para saudar o trabalho desta Casa, o relator Carlos Zorrinho, que soube introduzir bastantes melhorias no documento inicial num trabalho conjunto bastante profícuo liderado pela Comissão ITRE, mas que envolveu outras três comissões através de pareceres.

Na Comissão REGI, de que fui relator—sombra, propus diversas alterações à proposta inicial da Comissão, que vejo com agrado inseridas neste relatório, e refiro-me concretamente à importância da eliminação das barreiras linguísticas na página de acesso e à inclusão dos princípios da coesão económica, social e territorial no articulado deste regulamento, aliás de acordo com o artigo 174.° do Tratado de Lisboa.

Termino solicitando apenas à Comissão uma rápida concretização destas ideias constantes portanto, deste regulamento, no território da União.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θεωρώ ευτυχή συγκυρία και χαιρόμαστε γιατί βρίσκεται στο πηδάλιο και επικεφαλής της ψηφιακής οικονομίας η Mariya Gabriel, η οποία έχει και ισχυρή θέληση και αποφασιστικότητα, αλλά και το όραμα να υλοποιήσει τους μεγάλους και φιλόδοξους στόχους για την ψηφιακή επανάσταση και την ψηφιακή οικονομία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Κι αυτό είναι ένα μικρό μεν αλλά πολύ μεγάλο άλμα εις την πορεία υλοποίησης μεγάλων φιλόδοξων στόχων για την ψηφιακή επανάσταση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και κανένας δεν μπορεί να το αψηφήσει. Το να υπάρξει σήμερα το «WiFi for you» ουσιαστικά δίνει την πρόσβαση σε κοινότητες να έχουν ελεύθερη πρόσβαση στο WiFi είναι ένα βήμα το οποίο το χαιρετίζουμε και το στηρίζουμε. Ταυτόχρονα όμως πρέπει να υπάρξουν και άλλες ενέργειες προς την κατεύθυνση να ενισχύσουμε την ελεύθερη πρόσβαση και το δικαίωμα πρόσβασης και σε άλλους πολίτες, τόσο στις ευάλωτες ομάδες και στους συνταξιούχους, όσο και σε απομονωμένες περιοχές.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, félicitations à vous pour l’initiative et félicitations aussi à M. Zorrinho pour son rapport car en effet, la fracture numérique dans le monde rural s’est considérablement accrue parce que la libéralisation du secteur a tout simplement fait que les investissements des compagnies privées se sont d’abord centrés sur les villes.

Qu’aujourd’hui la puissance publique et notamment européenne vienne aider à réduire cette fracture numérique est évidemment une excellente initiative. Pourquoi? Parce que les territoires ruraux – et c’est davantage l’élu local qui parle aujourd’hui devant vous – sont aussi des territoires de vie où les gens doivent travailler. Je pense à des médecins, je pense à un chirurgien orthopédiste dans ma commune à Anthisnes qui n'a pas accès aux protocoles de ses patients. Je pense à des architectes, à des graphistes ou à des étudiants qui ont de la peine à étudier aujourd’hui quand ils reçoivent des documents par Internet et qu’ils n’ont pas le haut débit.

Cette initiative va donc dans le bon sens – pourvu qu’elle en appelle d’autres – et c’est pourquoi j’appelle évidemment aussi beaucoup de communes rurales à s’inscrire dans ce processus et à faire en sorte, avec l’Union européenne, qu’on réduise cette fracture numérique.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, promicanje internetske povezivosti na otocima i u ruralnim sredinama općenito od iznimnog je značaja za zemlje poput Hrvatske. Lokalne zajednice u tim krajevima rapidno gube stanovništvo, naročito mlade, što naravno ozbiljno ugrožava njihov opstanak. Danas, kad dobar dio novih poslova ovisi o internetu, jačanje internetske povezivosti u ruralnim krajevima itekako može pomoći u zadržavanju stanovnika.

Digitalno opismenjavanje starijeg stanovništva također može imati pozitivne učinke i ljudima olakšati život daleko od administrativnih centara. Davanje prednosti lokalnim tvrtkama pri nabavi, postavljanju i održavanju opreme za lokalnu bežičnu povezivost još je jedan kvalitetan prijedlog.

No, voljela bih kad se ova inicijativa ne bi zadržala samo na WiFi hotspotovima jer to u kontekstu stvarnog stanja infrastrukture u ruralnim sredinama izgleda kao kozmetičko rješenje. Trebaju nam kapitalna ulaganja u internetsku infrastrukturu, a javno dostupni hotspotovi onda mogu biti dobrodošao dodatak.

  Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospođo predsjednice, smatram da je ovo vrlo važna tema i u potpunosti podržavam inicijativu Komisije da se oslobode financijska sredstva kako bi se omogućile ove točke pristupa interneta u udaljenim područjima. Smatram kako je upravo to dobar potez da se pokaže kako se Europska unija približava lokalnoj razini, kako se približava svojim građanima i mislim da upravo rezultati referenduma koji je bio u Velikoj Britaniji pokazuju da su upravo ta područja bila ona koja zapravo nisu bila za ostanak Velike Britanije u Europskoj uniji.

Uloga je naravno jako važna da se uspostave inicijative koje je Europska komisija pokrenula, a to su Smart Island i Smart Village. Dakle, kako približiti internet, kako približiti nove tehnologije udaljenim zajednicama. Isto tako, da je ovo jako dobra poruka za države članice kako se uz određena ulaganja, koja mogu biti i, naravno, pristupačna, može omogućiti da građani aktivno participiraju u lokalnoj vlasti.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η υψηλής ταχύτητας δημόσια προσβασιμότητα αποτελεί δείκτη αποτελεσματικότητος των ηλεκτρονικών υπηρεσιών της δημόσιας διοίκησης με δωρεάν και δίχως περιορισμούς ευχερή πρόσβαση, με γεωγραφική ισορροπία που θα εξασφαλίζει τη συνοχή, με δίκαια κατανομή δυναμικότητας μεταξύ των χρηστών και με υιοθέτηση βέλτιστων και προσαρμοστικών τεχνολογικών επιλογών. Ο μη εμπορικός χαρακτήρας στοχευμένης παρέμβασης, οι περιορισμένοι οικονομικοί πόροι και ο διοικητικός φόρτος των τοπικών δημόσιων υπηρεσιών απαιτούν την πάταξη της γραφειοκρατίας. Όμως, η προωθούμενη χρήση του συστήματος «κουπονιών» και ο δειγματοληπτικός έλεγχος δεν εξασφαλίζουν πρακτικά τη χρηστή δημοσιονομική διαχείριση. Οι κανόνες της αποτελεσματικής δημόσιας χρηματοδότησης εξασφαλίζονται μέσω μακροπρόθεσμα βιώσιμων και διατηρήσιμων ενεργειών, με γνώμονα τη μέγιστη διαλειτουργικότητα Δυστυχώς, το υπαρκτό και σύνθετο ψηφιακό χάσμα δεν αντιμετωπίζεται με αποσπασματικές πολιτικές πρωτοβουλίες περιορισμένης διάρκειας και χρηματοδοτικής ισχύος και χωρίς αποδεδειγμένη προστιθέμενη ή πολλαπλασιαστική αξία.

  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, čestitam kolegi Zorrinhi na ovom izvješću i također sam izuzetno radosna što je upravo za ovaj sektor zadužena naša bivša kolegica, gospođa Mariya Gabriel, koja dobro razumije potrebe ruralnih prostora i zna da preko 41 % ljudi koji žive u ruralnim područjima nikada nije koristilo internet. Zbog toga je važno da se ova inicijativa usmjeri upravo na ruralna područja i sve one zone u kojima postoji opasnost od depopulacije i napuštanja prostora.

Da bi ljudi ostali živjeti na selu moramo im osigurati adekvatnu društvenu, socijalnu i komunalnu infrastrukturu, a razmjena komunikacije i informacija je bitna jer omogućava brže korištenje javnih usluga, brže otvaranje posla, konkurentnost ruralnog sektora poput poljoprivrede i šumarstva, što je izuzetno važno. S obzirom da i osobno živim na selu, mogu posvjedočiti koliko je teško raditi i funkcionirati ako imate loš internet i ako vam sustav pada. Nemaju sve države članice jednake mogućnosti i polazne osnove, stoga pohvaljujem ovu inicijativu i podržavam je.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Internet e connettività digitale incidono oramai in maniera determinante nella nostra vita privata e professionale. L'accesso a connettività locale senza fili gratuita in luoghi frequentati può rappresentare un considerevole valore aggiunto e trasformare i tempi morti e di transito in momenti produttivi, rilassanti e informativi.

Il regolamento che approveremo quest'oggi prevede un meccanismo di finanziamento semplice per l'installazione di punti di accesso locali senza fili, e si rivolge agli organismi investiti di attribuzioni di servizio pubblico.

Considerata la limitatezza dei finanziamenti disponibili per ogni progetto e l'elevato numero di potenziali candidature, occorre assicurare un sistema amministrativo che garantisca decisioni rapide ed efficaci. Dovrà essere garantito il principio dell'equilibrio geografico tra i diversi Stati membri – e negli Stati membri – per quanto riguarda l'accesso alle risorse dell'iniziativa.

Per assicurare la natura mirata dell'intervento e realizzare il massimo beneficio pubblico, il finanziamento dovrebbe limitarsi ai casi in cui non è disponibile alcun punto di accesso gratuito, pubblico o privato, che fornisca connettività a banda larga.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Mariya Gabriel, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, tout d’abord, encore une fois, Monsieur Zorrinho, félicitations pour votre travail.

Je voudrais aussi remercier les membres du Parlement européen pour leurs opinions, leurs suggestions et leurs remarques.

Je voudrais conclure en distinguant deux aspects. D’une part, la Commission estime que le texte approuvé constitue un bon équilibre et qu’il prévoit davantage de clarté sur plusieurs questions importantes que vous avez soulevées. Oui, une campagne d’information est prévue. La protection des données, c’est important et c’est prévu. Nous n’avons pas non plus négligé l’importance des petites communes, ni les seniors.

En ce qui concerne le budget, la Commission se félicite de la déclaration commune des trois institutions pour le maintien d’un budget global pour l’initiative de 120 millions d’euros. Je compte également sur le Parlement pour s’assurer que l’impact de cette initiative sera significatif et que cette initiative aura son extension et sa valeur ajoutée.

Je voudrais également clarifier un point qui a été soulevé par plusieurs membres. Nous avons une valeur ajoutée au niveau de l’action de l’Union européenne. Je rappelle que l’identification sera unique pour toute l’Union européenne. Pour répondre à la question de Mme Toia, un logo est également prévu.

Ensuite, qu’en est-il des prochaines étapes? Une fois cette nouvelle législation entrée en vigueur, nous procéderons à la modification du programme de travail du mécanisme pour l’interconnexion en Europe et, immédiatement après, nous ouvrirons le portail pour les inscriptions et les prestataires des services wifi.

Nous entamons également un dialogue avec les États membres, qui ont un rôle important à jouer dans la mise en œuvre de cette initiative pour qu’elle soit un succès. Nous travaillons dur pour faire en sorte que tout le processus de la candidature soit extrêmement simple, point que vous avez aussi soulevé. L'absence de lourdeurs administratives évitera le recours à des intermédiaires ou à des consultants, et nous savons combien c’est important pour les petites communes. Les municipalités s’inscriront directement via un portail en ligne.

Je suis consciente que l’initiative a créé beaucoup d’attentes et nous espérons être en mesure d’attribuer les 1 000 premiers bons aux municipalités dans toute l’Europe, au début de l’année 2018.

Chers membres du Parlement européen, des aspects que vous jugiez importants ne m’ont pas échappé: évaluation continue, dimension sociale, zones rurales, liens avec les objectifs du marché unique numérique, le code, le spectre, la connectivité. Je remercie M. Buzek, Mme Werner, Mme Niebler. Je vous propose tout simplement de continuer à y travailler ensemble.

  Carlos Zorrinho, relator. – Eu queria agradecer de novo o apoio construtivo de todos os meus colegas e da Comissão Europeia. Depois do sucesso que foi o Roam like at home, temos agora um novo desafio: High Quality, Free Wi-Fi near home. É o tipo de programas que ligam o projeto europeu às necessidades concretas dos cidadãos e, como a Sra. Comissária referiu, nós temos agora um enorme potencial para fornecer serviços inovadores.

Os conteúdos são muito importantes para o sucesso deste projeto e, ao mesmo tempo, também um outro desafio que é disseminar as competências digitais. Este programa resolve quase tudo, menos a falta de competências digitais de muitos europeus, mas desafia-nos a responder em relação a isso.

Este é um caminho que temos que percorrer. Este é apenas um primeiro passo - eu tenho dois minutos Sra. Presidente - de um longo caminho, mas eu estou convencido de que, tendo conseguido mobilizar, numa negociação técnica complexa 120 milhões de euros para arrancar, vamos conseguir juntar fundos estruturais, fundos nacionais, públicos e privados, para termos um processo muito robusto, muito forte e muito importante para o futuro da Europa.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Daniel Buda (PPE), în scris. – Investițiile în rețele de foarte mare capacitate și asigurarea accesului la internet tuturor cetățenilor pe întreg teritoriul Uniunii Europene, inclusiv în zonele rurale și îndepărtate, sunt absolut necesare pentru stimularea inovației, a incluziunii sociale și a creșterii competitivității. Având posibilitatea de a oferi acces la internet turiștilor, întreprinderile mici și mijlocii locale, orientate în special spre turism, vor avea posibilitatea de a se dezvolta, devenind mai atractive pentru cetățenii de pretutindeni.

De asemenea, în agricultură, accesul la rețele de mare viteză și la serviciile tehnologiei informației și comunicațiilor, ar reprezenta un pas extrem de important în atingerea obiectivului privind instalarea tinerilor fermieri. Numărul total al fermierilor din UE a scăzut rapid în ultimul deceniu, de la 14,5 milioane în 2005 la 10,7 milioane în 2013. În aceeași perioadă, numărul tinerilor fermieri s-a redus de la 3,3 milioane la 2,3 milioane. Or, dacă ne dorim ca agricultura să fie sustenabilă de-a lungul generațiilor, este vital ca tinerii fermieri să beneficieze de un sprijin eficace constând atât în sprijinul financiar acordat de către UE, cât și în furnizarea de internet.

Să nu uităm, conectivitatea la internet nu este un lux, ci o necesitate stringentă a lumii moderne fără de care nu vom înregistra progresele dorite.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. – A WiFi4EU kezdeményezés támogatásával 2020-ra ingyenesen hozzáférhető WiFi hotspotokat hoznak létre az Unió egész területén a helyi közösségekben (köztereken, parkokban, kórházakban, könyvtárakban és egyéb nyilvános helyeken). A WiFi4EU egy rendkívül előremutató kezdeményezés, ugyanis a közterületeken elérhető ingyenes vezeték nélküli internet hozzáférés minden polgár számára hasznos. A kezdeményezés megvalósítására 120 millió eurót biztosít az Unió, mely a nyilvános WiFi szolgáltatásokhoz szükséges berendezések finanszírozását biztosítja 6-8000 településen. Azok a közigazgatási szervek (helyi önkormányzatok, önkormányzati társulások) tudnak pályázni a programra, melyek ingyenes WiFi hozzáférést szeretnének nyújtani az ilyen szolgáltatással sem állami, sem magáncég által nem lefedett közterületeken. Örvendetesnek tartom, hogy az uniós intézmények közötti tárgyalások során sikerült erősíteni a tagállamok közötti földrajzi egyensúlyt a forrásokhoz való hozzáférés tekintetében. A WiFi4EU kezdeményezés összhangban van a Digitális Jólét Program céljával, hogy az internet mindenki számára elérhető legyen, ezért támogatom, hogy minél több magyar közigazgatási szerv pályázzon a programra.

  András Gyürk (PPE), írásban. – Üdvözlöm az első olvasatos megállapodást. A WIFI4EU egy olyan kezdeményezés, ami segíti a fő célunk megvalósítását, azt, hogy az internet az összes európai állampolgár számára elérhető legyen. Természetesen nem egy forradalmi változásra kell most gondolnunk, de bízom abban, hogy egyes kis, helyi közösségeket jelentősen segíthet a kezdeményezés és megkönnyíti a mindennapokat. Szerepel a javaslatban, hogy a pénzügyi támogatás elosztása földrajzilag kiegyensúlyozottan fog végbemenni. Ez azért is fontos, mert vidéken a lefedettség minősége továbbra is jelentősen rosszabb, mint a városban. Különösen örülök annak, hogy a rendelet hangsúlyozza a helyi kis- és középvállalkozások elsődlegességét a kivitelezés során.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), na piśmie. – Inicjatywa WIFI4EU jest propozycją, która przyczyni się do wzmocnienia rozwoju bardziej integracyjnego europejskiego społeczeństwa informatycznego. Przewodniczący Juncker zaproponował, aby do 2020 r. główne ośrodki życia społecznego w każdej europejskiej wsi i każdym europejskim mieście zostały wyposażone w bezpłatny dostęp do bezprzewodowego internetu. Zostanie to przeprowadzone zgodnie z planem, którego założeniem jest równy dostęp do łączności internetowej bez względu na miejsce zamieszkania czy poziom dochodów. Zaproponowane poprawki mają zapewnić lepsze uregulowanie zasad, na których opiera się cały projekt. Kwestia rozwoju infrastruktury telekomunikacyjnej, a w tym przypadku łączy internetowych, jest w dzisiejszych czasach niezwykle istotna. Wpływa to na rozwój każdej instytucji, ale także na komfort życia mieszkańców.

Sama mieszkam w Bieszczadach, w południowo-wschodniej Polsce, gdzie nawet dostęp do sieci komórkowej jest miejscami ograniczony, nie wspominając o łączu internetowym. Jako przedstawicielka tego regionu uważam, że inicjatywa zapewnienia lepszej łączności telekomunikacyjnej na terenach jej pozbawionych korzystnie wpłynie na ogólny rozwój społeczny i gospodarczy. Ciężko jest sobie wyobrazić, że w dzisiejszych czasach niektórzy mieszkańcy Europy nie mają dostępu do tak powszechnego sposobu komunikacji z otoczeniem, jakim jest internet. Rozwój to w dużej mierze cyfryzacja, na którą nie będziemy gotowi dopóty, dopóki nie zwiększymy dostępności do łącz internetowych.

  Ева Майдел (PPE), в писмена форма. – Днес ние не гласуваме просто една програма за 120 милиона евро. Иска ми се да вярвам, че днес ние правим много повече – поредната крачка по две трансформации, от които ЕС се нуждае толкова много. Първата е дигиталната трансформация на Европа, която ни позволява да настигнем нашите глобални конкуренти в дигиталната икономика и иновациите. Втората трансформация е тази в усещането на гражданите за Европа. С програми като WiFi4EU ние променяме образa на ЕС, който вече не подава формуляр, а е полезен за хората.

Така че WIFI4EU е в голяма степен Transformation4EU.

Отвъд тези перспективи обаче трябва да си дадем сметка, че сме по средата на пътя за постигане на покритие с безжичен интернет. Оттук нататък трябва ние като евродепутатите да работим заедно с местните власти, за да сме сигурни, че WIFI4EU няма да стигне само до тези, които вече и без това знаят какво е широколентов интернет. Важно е той да стигне там, където може да създаде повече шансове за знание, за нови начинания и идеи.

  Csaba Molnár (S&D), írásban. – Azok az államok sikeresek, amelyek felismerik a digitális technológia terjesztésének fontosságát az élet minden területén. És nemcsak a fővárosokban, hanem a kistérségekben is. Éppen ezért fájó, hogy a legújabb mérések szerint 2017-ben a magyarok ötöde soha nem internetezett még. A helyzet még rosszabb, ha csak a vidéki régiókat nézzük: az Alföldön és Dél-Dunántúlon 10-ből három embernek nincs internetkapcsolata. A legszegényebb magyaroknak pedig csak harmada tud netezni. Ez azt jelenti, hogy 2,5 millió embernek nincs esélye részt venni a digitális világban. Az internet és a digitális technikák terjesztése nem önmagában cél, amelynek végén több számítógép, vagy nagyobb monitorok kerülnek a háztartásokba, az iskolákba. A digitális eszközök lehetővé teszik az esélyek bővülését, a munkalehetőségek kiszélesedését, az élethosszig tartó tanulást, valamint az esélyegyenlőség megteremtését. Akinek van internete, könnyebben talál munkát, dolgozhat otthonról, könnyen tanulhat idegen nyelven. A 21. században az internet nélkülözhetetlen alapjog, az információs társadalomban való részvételhez, az egyenlőtlenség megszüntetéséhez, a személyes fejlődéshez. Ezért régóta támogatjuk, hogy uniós szinten garantáljuk az internethez való hozzáférés alapjogát.

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF), în scris. – Așa cum am mai spus, susțin fără nicio rezervă ideea că orice creștere a conectivității la internet este un pas înainte în direcția dezvoltării economice. Ne aflăm în situația de a furniza cetățenilor europeni un serviciu gratuit. Un serviciu care înseamnă, în primul rând, tehnologie.

Ne place sau nu, smartphone-ul, tableta sau laptop-ul au devenit accesorii indispensabile omului modern. Programul pentru care am votat astăzi duce la o democratizare a accesului la infosferă și, prin aceasta, la o creștere a incluziunii sociale.

Dar există și aspecte criticabile. Desfășurarea acestui program sub umbrela centralizată a Uniunii face ca această incluziune să se realizeze mai degrabă într-o lume virtuală, decât în realitatea fizică a comunității în care trăiește un utilizator oarecare. S-ar putea ajunge, în acest fel, la un clivaj profund. Unele zone vor avea acces la internet gratuit, rămânând în același timp fără acces la apă potabilă sau canalizare.

Aș dori, de aceea, să avertizez asupra pericolului ca, pentru mulți cetățeni din zonele mai puțin dezvoltate, acest program să devină o sursă de alienare și nu una de progres. De unul singur, acest program nu rezolvă problemele comunităților defavorizate. Este nevoie, simultan, și de investiții în economia clasică.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), în scris. – Salut inițiativa Comisiei Europene de a aloca 120 milioane euro pentru cca 6 000 de municipii în vederea îmbunătățirii accesului la internet. Această inițiativă va trebui fructificată pe deplin, în special de către municipalitățile din statele membre cu un nivel de dezvoltare economică mai mic.

Internetul și, pe un plan mai larg, economia digitală, reprezintă o cale sigură pentru creșterea productivității și atingerea unei convergențe mărite cu statele membre dezvoltate economic.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), în scris. – Inițiativa WiFi4EU, anunțat de președintele Juncker în luna septembrie 2016, face parte din pachetul de telecomunicații și își propune să promoveze conectivitatea Wi-Fi gratuită pentru cetățeni și vizitatori în spații publice cum ar fi parcuri, piețe, clădiri publice, biblioteci, centre de sănătate și muzee de pretutindeni în UE printr-un portal comun gratuit Wi-Fi: WiFi4EU.

Evident, suntem de acord cu faptul că fiecare cetățean european ar trebui să beneficieze de conectivitate Wi-Fi, indiferent de locul în care trăiește sau de cât câștigă, dar WiFi4EU trebuie să fie în conformitate cu normele UE privind protecția datelor, precum și cu neutralitatea rețelei și securitatea informatică.

Asigurarea accesului gratuit la serviciile de bandă largă de mare viteză este esențială pentru construirea unei uniuni digitale care să nu lase pe nimeni în urmă. Mai mult decât atât, conectivitatea fără fir locală, gratuită și fără condiții discriminatorii ar putea contribui la reducerea decalajului digital, în special în comunitățile rămase în urmă în ceea ce privește alfabetizarea digitală, inclusiv în zonele rurale și locurile îndepărtate, precum și la creșterea calității vieții prin facilitarea accesului la servicii electronice (e-sănătate și e-guvernare).

Importanța acestei inițiative derivă, de asemenea, din îmbunătățirea competențelor digitale și promovarea dezvoltării întreprinderilor mici și mijlocii locale.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

4. Мерки за гарантиране на сигурността на доставките на газ (разискване)

  President. – The next item is the report by Jerzy Buzek, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on measures to safeguard the security of gas supply (COM(2016)0052 – C8-0035/2016 – 2016/0030(COD)) (A8-0310/2016).

  Jerzy Buzek, sprawozdawca. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Witam Pana komisarza Cañete i chciałem od razu podziękować za bardzo intensywny udział w naszych negocjacjach. Trwały one kilkadziesiąt godzin. Ostatnią rundę skończyliśmy nad ranem. Było coś niezwykłego w tych negocjacjach. Zdecydowaliśmy się mianowicie, aby w odniesieniu do wielu krajów, które zgłaszały zastrzeżenia do oryginalnych rozwiązań podanych przez Komisję, pójść elastycznie na pewne ustępstwa. Nie chciałbym wymieniać wszystkich krajów, ale na pewno były to postulaty włoskie, niemieckie, francuskie, polskie, austriackie, węgierskie i tak dalej, i mimo, że dokonaliśmy takich ruchów, udało nam się zakończyć negocjacje bardzo dobrym rozporządzeniem, które zapewnia dostawy gazu do naszych domów, innych odbiorców chronionych, szpitali, służb ratunkowych, domów opieki, hospicjów zawsze, nawet w sytuacjach największego kryzysu, jakie przecież miały miejsce w Unii Europejskiej.

To jest również wskazówka do negocjacji następnych elementów naszego pakietu energetycznego. Jeśli chcemy uzyskać dobry lub bardzo dobry wynik, musimy być również elastyczni, bo nasi obywatele mogą nie rozumieć geopolityki, ale czują gdy się im wyłącza gaz w mieszkaniach w zimie. Jeden kraj może spowodować taki kryzys, ale jeden kraj na pewno go nie rozwiąże, stąd to rozporządzenie jest tak ważne.

Powiem o trzech sprawach, które udało się załatwić dzięki elastyczności, jaką się wykazaliśmy. Po pierwsze, prawnie wiążący mechanizm solidarności w przypadku poważnych problemów dostaw gazu i lista odbiorców chronionych. Pierwszy raz osiągnęliśmy takie porozumienie.

Po drugie, współpraca regionalna, której wcześniej nie było, a więc ocenianie zagrożeń, przygotowanie działań zapobiegawczych, planów kryzysowych, wprowadzenie przez Parlament tak zwanych korytarzy dostaw awaryjnych – to była odpowiedź na obawy kilku państw związane z obowiązkową współpracą regionalną, która pozostała łącznie z tymi korytarzami awaryjnymi.

I wreszcie większa przejrzystość umów gazowych. Proszę pamiętać, że mówimy w tym rozporządzeniu o dostawach z zewnątrz, które stanowią zdecydowanie powyżej 50% zapotrzebowania Unii Europejskiej na gaz, a więc to te umowy zewnętrzne decydują o naszym bezpieczeństwie wewnątrz Unii Europejskiej. Najważniejsze umowy będą do wglądu Komisji Europejskiej, a także instytucji krajowych, a w uzasadnionych przypadkach również Komisja Europejska może obejrzeć inne umowy na dostawy gazu. Jest to ważne, jeśli mamy w skali Unii Europejskiej poczuć się naprawdę dobrze.

Ja chciałbym jeszcze raz wspomnieć, że mieliśmy pomoc w tym zakresie w zasadzie całej Komisji Europejskiej, a nie tylko pewnych wyspecjalizowanych służb. Jest z nami również pan dyrektor Ristori, który był w czasie wszystkich negocjacji na sali, za co dziękujemy. Chciałbym jeszcze wspomnieć prezydencję maltańską, która już się wprawdzie skończyła, ale jej udział w uzyskaniu dobrego rozwiązania naprawdę był solidny, i to są nasze wnioski na przyszłość.

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I warmly welcome the ambitious and well-balanced agreement reached between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the last trilogue in April on the review of the Regulation on Security of Gas Supply. It is a major political success on which we have worked hard together in record time. This is also thanks to you, Mr Buzek, and I congratulate you on your excellent work and thank you and all shadow-rapporteurs for your commitment in this file.

The review of the Regulation on Security of Gas Supply is an important milestone in rolling out the Energy Union Strategy. This agreement now completes the Energy Security package proposed by the Commission just last year, in February 2016. One of the Energy Union objectives is to ensure secure, sustainable, competitive and affordable energy supplies for European consumers – for households and for businesses.

Europe’s energy market is changing rapidly and significantly. While the current Regulation on Security of Gas Supply of 2010 has already significantly improved Member States’ preparedness for a gas disruption, it was clear from the stress tests conducted in 2014 that the instruments available under that Regulation needed substantial improvements.

The new Regulation that is subject to a vote today brings a step change, enhancing and making operational the necessary instruments to prepare for and mitigate potential gas disruption: regional cooperation becomes real and operational; better transparency on gas supply contracts will help improve the risk assessment; the spirit of solidarity is for the first time translated into concrete action and cooperation between Member States so that no household in any Member State remains in the cold during a gas supply crisis.

I am very happy that the most important elements of the Commission proposals have been preserved or even strengthened during the negotiations. Let me just highlight some of these elements, starting with regional cooperation. The current Regulation includes only an optional cooperation between neighbours. In the new Regulation, regional cooperation becomes mandatory and will take place in the risk groups created on the basis of the assessment of major transnational risks, drawing also on insights from European Union-wide simulations done by ENTSOG (the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas). The regional and national risk assessments will provide a sound basis for the national plans, with regional chapters containing meaningful cross-border measures.

The spirit of solidarity is a cornerstone of the new Regulation, ensuring that all households will receive gas supplies even during a crisis. With the new processes laid down in the Regulation, for the first time, solidarity is not only a political declaration but an obligation and a concrete way to help.

Finally, transparency. Information exchange and the transparency of gas supply contracts is also significantly strengthened and will allow for a more complete and in-depth assessment of risk to security of supply. First, the companies will provide contractual information to their national authorities. If the national authority has doubts about possible risks for security of supply related with the contract, it will notify the contract to the Commission.

The notification threshold of 28% for all gas supply contracts – existing and new – is well balanced. It is important to note that at any time the Commission retains the power to ask for any contracts if it is concerned that a given contract is relevant for the assessment of the security of supply. And confidentiality will be guaranteed. The information on gas supply contracts will be sent to the Commission in a non-aggregated but anonymised form. Energy efficiency will be taken into account throughout the Regulation, in particular when designing preventive measures.

With the new Regulation, cooperation on gas security of supply with the Contracting Parties of the Energy Community will become much closer and stronger. All the instruments provided through this new Regulation will make the Member States, and the European Union as a whole, better prepared for a gas crisis and better equipped to mitigate a gas crisis should it arise. On this basis, I am confident that the vote in plenary today will give a strong backing to the important agreement that we have achieved together.

  Ruža Tomašić, izvjestiteljica za mišljenje Odbora REGI. – Gospođo predsjednice, krize u opskrbi plinom kojima smo svjedočili nekoliko puta u posljednjih 15-tak godina dale su naslutiti da će Europska unija, želi li energetsku sigurnost i dugoročnu stabilnost, morati promijeniti svoju energetsku politiku, ali i pravila ponašanja u krizi. Ovaj je prijedlog važan korak u pravom smjeru.

Bilo koja vrsta krize u Uniji izaziva isti obrazac ponašanja kod država članica, a to je zatvaranje u sebe. Kod neke buduće energetske krize važno je osigurati da se prekogranična distribucija plina ne prekida i to je ovim prijedlogom kvalitetno riješeno.

Izvješće snažno promovira raznolikost izvora energije i obnovljive izvore. Složila bih se s tim, ali uz napomenu da naši energetski ciljevi moraju biti usklađeni s fiskalnom realnošću. Najviše bismo trebali ulagati u one izvore koji nude najveću vrijednost za uloženi novac i stvaraju najmanju štetu, a to često nisu oni izvori koje određeni lobiji snažno guraju.

  Krišjānis Kariņš, PPE grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētājas kundze! Komisāra kungs! Jebkurā tirgū ir svarīgi vienādi spēles noteikumi visiem. Gāzes tirgus nav izņēmums. Ļoti svarīgi — ja mēs gribam gāzes piegādes drošību paaugstināt, mums arī tirgus ir jāstiprina. Šajā regulā kas ir svarīgi: ka mēs esam ne tikai noskaidrojuši, kādā veidā dalībvalstis palīdzēs cita citai, bet mēs arī būtiski palielinām tā saucamo caurspīdīgumu — kas notiek ar gāzes kontraktiem starp Eiropas patērētāju un trešās valsts piegādātāju. Konkrēti, par ko ir runa?

Eiropā mums ir milzu asimetrija. Trešo daļu no mūsu gāzes mēs iepērkam no viena piegādātāja — no Krievijas, bet Krievijas pusē ir viens monopola eksporta uzņēmums “Gazprom”. Viens uzņēmums. Eiropas pusē mēs esam saskaldīti: 28 dalībvalstis un daudzreiz vairāk gāzes kompāniju. Viņiem ir visa informācija, Eiropas pusē nav. Viņiem ir cenu kontrole, Eiropas pusē nav. Ar šo regulu tagad, ar regulas palīdzību Eiropas Komisijai būs tiesības arī ieskatīties šajos gāzes piegādes līgumos, šajos nozīmīgajos līgumos, lai nodrošinātu, ka Eiropas likumi tiek ievēroti un — galvenais — ka Eiropas patērētāju gāzes drošība ir augsta, bet ka mēs Eiropā arī nepārmaksājam par šo dabas resursu.

  Dan Nica, în numele grupului S&D. – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, din păcate, în 2015, mai mult de jumătate din consumul intern brut de energie al UE-28 provenea din surse importate.

Prezentul regulament este extrem de important, deoarece stabilește dispoziții care vizează garantarea siguranței furnizării de gaze prin asigurarea funcționării corecte și continue a pieței interne a gazelor naturale, permițând aplicarea unor măsuri excepționale atunci când piața nu mai este în măsură să furnizeze cantitățile de gaze necesare, inclusiv a unei măsuri de solidaritate de ultimă instanță. Responsabilitățile între întreprinderile din sectorul gazelor naturale, statele membre și Uniune sunt clar stabilite, atât în ceea ce privește acțiunile preventive, cât și reacția la perturbările efective ale furnizării. Prezentul regulament stabilește, de asemenea, mecanisme transparente, în spiritul solidarității, privind coordonarea planificării de măsuri și de reacții în cazul unor situații de urgență la nivel național, al regiunilor și al Uniunii.

Parlamentul a reușit să îmbunătățească textul – și îi felicităm aici pe domnul raportor Buzek și pe raportorii din umbră –, astfel încât acesta să reflecte mai bine principiul solidarității, protejând, în același timp, compensațiile echitabile pentru companiile din domeniul gazelor naturale.

Acesta este un pas important spre consolidarea securității energetice a Uniunii Europene iar, în cazul unei crize serioase a aprovizionării cu gaze naturale, țările UE vor trebui să își ajute vecinii, fără a-și neglija consumatorii protejați, pentru a evita ca cetățenii europeni să rămână fără încălzire pe vreme rece. Trebuie să subliniem că solidaritatea se aplică doar pentru cetățeni și pentru servicii precum spitale, școli și așa mai departe.

Principiul transparenței este un element cheie, deoarece statele membre vor trebui să notifice contractele noi sau modificările, imediat după încheierea lor. Pentru a asigura transparența, fiabilitatea, contractele existente ar trebui de asemenea notificate. Subliniez: și contractele existente. Obligația de notificare ar trebui să includă, totodată, toate acordurile comerciale relevante pentru executarea contractului de furnizare a gazelor, inclusiv acordurile relevante care ar putea avea legătură cu infrastructura, stocarea și orice alt aspect important pentru siguranța furnizării de gaze.

  Edward Czesak, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Dziękuję za udzielenie głosu. Dziękuję także sprawozdawcy oraz sprawozdawcom cieniom za współpracę, a sprawozdawcy gratuluję. Sytuacja na naszej wschodniej granicy szybko się zmienia i jest coraz bardziej niepokojąca. Niniejsze rozporządzenie mające na celu zapewnienie bezpieczeństwa dostaw gazu jest więc dobrym krokiem przyjętym we właściwym czasie. Istotne elementy niniejszego rozporządzenia to ułatwienie dwukierunkowego przepływu gazu, wzrost wymiany ważnych informacji w zakresie bezpieczeństwa dostaw z Komisją Europejską i organami krajowymi oraz ściślejsza współpraca ze wspólnotą energetyczną. Umożliwi to bardziej skoordynowaną reakcję na przyszłe zagrożenia. Chociaż uważam, że przyjęcie tego rozporządzenia jest krokiem w dobrym kierunku, Unia Europejska i jej bezpieczeństwo dostaw gazu właśnie stają w obliczu nowego wyzwania, mianowicie Nord Stream II. Ten geopolityczny projekt podważa solidarność europejską i jest niezgodny z duchem tego rozporządzenia oraz jednym z głównych celów unii energetycznej, to jest dywersyfikacji dostaw gazu. W duchu niniejszego rozporządzenia musimy zatem działać spójnie, aby skutecznie poradzić sobie z tym problemem. Dyskusja nad oświadczeniem Komisji w sprawie Nord Stream II odbędzie się już w czwartek i mam nadzieję, że potwierdzi potrzebę jednolitych działań gwarantujących bezpieczeństwo dostaw gazu do wszystkich krajów Unii Europejskiej.

  Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, this is a very important file and marks real progress: it was politically difficult, politically sensitive and also very demanding technically. We have already spoken today about regional cooperation, solidarity among Member States, protected customers, and transparency of contracts. I would also add – something that has not been mentioned – that we have also included fair compensation, so we are still primarily market—based, and we are of course talking about last resort. All that is key because from now on our citizens, my compatriots, should feel that there is more energy security and that contracts are not being concluded somewhere by someone where we do not know exactly what is in them and whether it will affect us or not. We should be in a position where the Commission will eventually be assessing the implications of that. So major progress has been made and I think that all that you have said today, all the positive elements, are absolutely legitimate and valid.

On the background to that, I would like to draw attention to one important element. We have been speaking for a couple of years now about energy union and a functioning energy market – all those elements that I have mentioned and that you have mentioned – but those of us who participated in the negotiations know how difficult it was and that it was quite often horse trading about the percentage, about real transparency and about solidarity. To those who spoke quite often two years ago about the crucial importance of the energy union, I must say that in the Council those were quite often the bottlenecks of these negotiations. I do not think that it is coincidental that we had a very difficult round of talks on transparency, because some Member States still feel that they would do it better, and that, if they had the possibly to negotiate on their own, they would be better off. So let us remind ourselves that Parliament has played an important and crucial role with good interaction with the Commission, but the idea and the objectives of the energy union are not yet deeply rooted in the Member States. So let us make sure that we implement thoroughly what we have managed to negotiate.

(Applause)

  Xabier Benito Ziluaga, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, otro paso más de la estrategia gasística de la Unión de la energía; otra regulación europea para perpetuar la dependencia de este combustible fósil que se intenta disfrazar de limpio o de no contaminante. El gas natural tiene, la verdad, poco de natural. Más bien deberíamos referirnos a él como gas sucio o gas fósil. Según los estudios científicos, este gas tiene una capacidad de calentamiento global ochenta y seis veces superior al dióxido de carbono, lo que lo convierte en realidad en una extraña forma de luchar contra el cambio climático.

Con el argumento del riesgo de nuevos cortes del suministro del gas ruso, la Comisión Europea aprovecha para extender nuevas infraestructuras y nuevas conexiones a terceros países, a pesar de que las infraestructuras existentes para importación se usan al 58 % de su capacidad, a pesar de que el consumo de gas desciende año a año y a pesar de que la Comisión infla sus predicciones de consumo de gas año a año.

La única manera de evitar riesgos con el gas es reducir el consumo de gas, y ahora tenemos una fantástica oportunidad con la revisión de las Directivas sobre energías renovables y eficiencia energética. Sin embargo, la Comisión Europea solo ha propuesto un objetivo del 30 %, sabiendo que con un 1 % más se reducirían las importaciones de gas un 4 % anualmente, así hasta un posible objetivo del 40 %. Todo esto sin aumentar las emisiones de metano y sin construir costosas infraestructuras que los ciudadanos pagan de sus bolsillos, como es el caso de Castor, que el comisario conocerá muy bien. El gas, mejor debajo del suelo.

  Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, we should be extremely proud of what we have achieved with this legislation, under the leadership of Jerzy Buzek, with a good negotiation team where some of us had to play the bad guys at certain moments to move the show forward, and very good cooperation with the Commission. I am happy to see Mr Arias Cañete, but also Mr Ristori, whose services helped us a lot.

What did we achieve here? This is concrete solidarity. We now have a solution for one of the biggest divides in Europe, which was that Gazprom and Russia could abuse not only markets, but also gas, to put political pressure on eastern Europe. With this legislation I think we have a real weapon against this and it is important that we got it. It was a bit shameful that we had an uphill fight against Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, a bit of Belgium; western European governments not understanding why it is so important for eastern Europe to have this solidarity.

I am so proud that in this House this divide between western Europe and eastern Europe did not play a role, and that I and Theresa Griffin, we stood with eastern Europe in fighting Germany and France to get this legislation.

The second thing we should be proud of is that this is the first piece of energy legislation where we go beyond our dilemma, which is everything only at one national level or everything only at EU level. This is the first piece of EU legislation in which regional cooperation along the pipelines has been enshrined and where Member States, before considering national politics, have to sit together and share openly information about where they are in a crisis situation. This should also now be the basis of our electricity legislation: on security of supply, on markets, I would even say in the future, on renewable developments. We should do more at regional level.

So I want to thank colleagues very much for this brilliant exercise of parliamentary pressure to get things done.

  Christelle Lechevalier, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, officiellement, les deux grands objectifs de ce texte sont d’améliorer la transparence dans le secteur gazier européen et de renforcer la solidarité entre États membres pour prévenir et pallier les crises d’approvisionnement.

En réalité, le projet qui nous est proposé aujourd’hui nous semble avoir pour priorité un tout autre objectif, qui est de libéraliser et de fédéraliser davantage le marché gazier européen.

Ce nouveau règlement veut imposer aux États membres d’obtenir l’approbation de la Commission pour passer des accords intergouvernementaux dans un domaine où il est naturel qu’ils défendent leurs intérêts économiques et éventuellement géopolitiques.

Par ailleurs, si nous validons ce projet, il entrera en vigueur dans seulement vingt jours, sans même que les parlements nationaux aient été consultés.

L’objectif de la Commission semble être aussi d’imposer aux États ses choix géopolitiques en imposant le Qatar et les États-Unis là où certains États se sont engagés sur des projets d’envergure pour se fournir en gaz russe.

Deux États membres – l’Autriche et la Bulgarie – ont déjà émis des avis défavorables sur ce projet, dénonçant la violation du principe de subsidiarité et des souverainetés nationales. Notre groupe partage cette position.

(L’oratrice refuse une question «carton bleu» de Claude Turmes (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony, a földgázellátás biztonságát szolgáló rendelet több fontos hasznos technikai együttműködési kérdést tisztáz. Ugyanakkor teljesen világos, hogy a biztonság alapja az, hogy van-e elegendő energiaforrás, és van-e elegendő egymást kiváltani tudó szállítási útvonal. Teljesen világos, hogy az orosz földgázról az Európai Unió nem mondhat le, így a biztonságot az alternatív útvonalak jelentenék, ezért érthetetlen, hogy a Déli Áramlatot különböző versenyjogi szabályok miatt meghiúsította az Európai Unió, ugyanakkor az új alternatívát nem jelentő Északi Áramlat 2-t viszont lehetővé teszi. A jelenlegi rendelet több tekintetben sérti a szubszidiaritás elvét, az ellátási zavarok esetén létrehozandó régiókat felhatalmazási alapon a Bizottság állítaná össze, és gyakorlatilag harmadik országokkal kötendő együttműködés tekintetében is gyakorlatilag vétójoga van az Európai Bizottságnak, ez sérti a tagállami önállóságot és érdeket.

  András Gyürk (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, tisztelt Biztos Úr, Képviselőtársaim, engedjék meg, hogy mindenekelőtt megköszönjem Jerzy Buzek munkáját, volt tennivalója bőven, mert az első javaslat, amit a Bizottság letett az asztalra, sajnos több sebtől is vérzett. Példa erre a végiggondolatlan régiós lista, a jelentéskötelezettség kapcsán megjelenő kettős mérce, valamint a szolidaritási akciók gyenge definíciója. A jelentés mindezen pontokon jelentős javulást mutat. Az előre rögzített régiós csoportok helyett a kockázatok mentén kerülnek kialakításra a régiók. A jelentéskötelezettségi határt illetően elért kompromisszumos szám eloszlatja annak látszatát, hogy bármilyen különbség lenne régi és új tagállamok között. A szolidaritási akciók tekintetében pedig sokkal részletesebb leírást találunk arról, hogy milyen feltételek teljesülése esetén és hogyan kell kisegíteniük egymást a tagállamoknak.

Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim, azt gondolom, hogy az európai földgázellátás biztonságának garantálása egy olyan téma, amivel folyamatosan foglalkoznunk kell. Az újabb és újabb tapasztalatok birtokában az ellátásbiztonsági rendelet felülvizsgálata tehát – fogadjuk el – állandó feladatunk lesz. Azt azonban nyugodtan állíthatjuk, hogy ennek a jelentésnek köszönhetően tovább erősödik majd a regionális együttműködés és a szolidaritás, amire elsősorban Kelet-Közép-Európa országaiban nélkülözhetetlen szükség van az energiaszektorban.

  Martina Werner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Die neue europäische Verordnung zur Gewährleistung einer sicheren Gasversorgung macht uns fit in Europa für kommende Gaskrisen. Die Erfahrungen aus den letzten Krisen und die Stresstests der Europäischen Kommission haben ja ganz eindeutig gezeigt, dass nationale Maßnahmen nicht mehr ausreichen. Von nun an gilt das Solidaritätsprinzip. Benachbarte Mitgliedstaaten müssen sich ab jetzt bei Krisen darin unterstützen, die Gasversorgung für Haushalte und soziale Einrichtungen zu sichern.

Darüber hinaus müssen die Präventions- und Notfallpläne der Mitgliedstaaten zum ersten Mal regionale Kapitel beinhalten. Das heißt ganz konkret, dass Mitgliedstaaten sich schon vor einer möglichen Krise ganz genau Gedanken darüber machen müssen, wie sie im Ernstfall zusammenarbeiten. Energieeffizienz wird als eine Maßnahme anerkannt, die unsere Abhängigkeit von Energielieferungen aus Drittstaaten senkt. Von nun an muss Energieeffizienz bei der Aufstellung der nationalen Präventionspläne berücksichtigt werden.

Die sicherste und kostengünstigste Energie ist immer nur die, die erst gar nicht produziert werden muss.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, Evropská unie v minulosti zažila v oblasti dodávek energie několik krizových stavů. Dodávky plynu po krizovém stavu, který nastal po přerušení před rokem 2010, měla zajistit směrnice o strategických zásobách tohoto média.

Každý stát má povinnost disponovat dostatečnou zásobou odpovídající 90ti denní spotřebě v zimním období. Vedle tohoto opatření bylo rozhodnuto urychleně vybudovat propojení plynovodů ve směru sever-jih. V současné době se na trhu Evropské unie se zemním plynem objevily nové možnosti související s dodávkami zkapalněného zemního plynu. Trh se tedy postupně diverzifikuje a bez ohledu na přípravu nového nařízení se bezpečnost dodávek zvyšuje.

Snaha o výrazné politické ovlivnění situace a zpomalení přípravy propojek plynovodu sever-jih ze strany Polska jsou v současné době největším potenciálním ohrožením dodávek plynu do zemí Evropské unie. Zcela nepochopitelným je pro mne tvrdý, negativní postoj k vybudování alternativních plynovodů zásobujících Evropskou unii z  jihu, konkrétně South Stream. Protože zpráva Jerzyho Buzka obsahuje řadu pozitivních momentů, má moji podporu.

PRZEWODNICTWO: RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Tim Aker (EFDD). – Mr President, it is quite something when Scottish Power has its head office in Bilbao, Spain. Many constituents will be surprised to find that a majority of power companies operating in the United Kingdom are either owned by foreign companies or foreign governments. In 2011, these companies were exposed by a national newspaper as hiking prices in the UK way above and beyond prices in their own countries. Prices are hiked in the UK to subsidise lower prices at home. As always, it is the UK that pays, and pay we do!

Millions of Brits face the tough choice each winter between heating and eating. We suffered tens of thousands of excess winter deaths. In plain English, that is folk who would otherwise be alive if they could afford decent heating.

This debate is about security of gas supply. The surest way to do that is to ensure energy is readily available to those that need it most – our elderly and vulnerable. If it means bringing British energy back under British control to reduce prices, then so be it.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Michael Theurer (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege! Sie haben beklagt, dass in Großbritannien Energieunternehmen in ausländischem Besitz oder sogar im Besitz ausländischer Regierungen sind. Sind Sie ernsthaft der Meinung, dass die Europäische Union Großbritannien daran gehindert hat, Anteile oder Eigentum an Energieunternehmen zu haben? Und was schlagen Sie der britischen Regierung vor, um wieder eigene Energieunternehmen zu bekommen? Ich jedenfalls glaube nicht, dass die EU Großbritannien daran gehindert hat, eigene Energieunternehmen zu betreiben.

  Tim Aker (EFDD), blue-card answer. – In some ways the rules of this place and the single market prevent the British Government from taking an active role in the economy, and Mr Corbyn will not be able to fulfil his programme if we are still part of the single market or part of the European Union.

Outside of it, we have new opportunities where the government, if it wishes to take a golden share or own energy companies, will be free to do so. I think that when we have got tens of thousands of people dying every year because they cannot afford to heat their homes, then everything – every option – should be on the table.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το φυσικό αέριο αποτελεί τον πλέον σημαντικό παράγοντα, όχι μόνο για την οικονομία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως αλλά και για την επιβίωση κατοίκων μεγάλων περιοχών στις οποίες επικρατούν δύσκολες καιρικές συνθήκες. Για τον λόγο αυτό, η ασφάλεια του εφοδιασμού με φυσικό αέριο αποτελεί έναν βασικό στόχο της ενεργειακής στρατηγικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως. Αυτή τη στιγμή το 50 % του καταναλισκομένου φυσικού αερίου παράγεται από φυσικές πηγές. Το υπόλοιπο παρέχεται από τρίτες χώρες και κυρίως από τη Ρωσία. Προκειμένου η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αποφύγει τις επιπτώσεις μιας πιθανής διαταράξεως αυτού του εφοδιασμού με φυσικό αέριο πρέπει να στηρίζεται σε παραγωγή αερίου από εγχώριες πηγές. Με βάση τα δεδομένα που επικρατούν αυτή τη στιγμή, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει μια πρώτης τάξεως ευκαιρία να εκμεταλλευτεί τα μεγάλα αποθέματα φυσικού αερίου που υπάρχουν στα οικόπεδα του κοιτάσματος της Αφροδίτης στην Κύπρο, καθώς επίσης και στη λεκάνη του Ηροδότου νοτίως της Κρήτης, αλλά και σε άλλες περιοχές της Ελλάδος. Εάν επιτύχει αυτό, και με κατάλληλο σχεδιασμό των οδών εφοδιασμού, θα κατορθώσει να επιτύχει ενεργειακή ασφάλεια σε φυσικό αέριο.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, mulțumesc domnului Buzek, raportor, precum și colegilor care au lucrat și au negociat acest important raport cu Consiliul. Susțin pe deplin măsurile prevăzute pentru asigurarea securității furnizării gazului natural - atât măsurile care privesc eforturile pe care fiecare stat membru trebuie să le depună, cât și solidaritatea necesară între statele membre atunci când o țară se confruntă cu o criză a gazului natural. Cred că este un pas important în ceea ce dorim cu toții, acea piață unică europeană a energiei. Doresc, însă, să subliniez că nu putem vorbi de o securitate reală a furnizării gazului natural în Europa atât timp cât nu avem conducte care să lege bazinul Mării Caspice, bazinul Mării Negre, unde se fac explorări în prezent, și s-au descoperit zăcăminte de gaze naturale importante în sudul și centrul Europei. Din păcate, cred că eforturile Uniunii Europene în această direcție sunt încă insuficiente.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Nyt käsillä oleva mietintö on tärkeä osa EU:n muuttuvaa ja tiivistyvää energiapolitiikkaa. Haluan kiittää valiokuntaani hyvästä mietinnöstä, joka edistää maiden välistä yhteistyötä kaasun toimitusvarmuuden takaamiseksi. Lisäksi mietinnössä on erinomaisia keinoja, joilla voidaan parantaa energiaturvallisuutta.

Esimerkiksi oma kotimaani Suomi on yhden tuontiputken varassa Venäjältä, mutta Keski-Eurooppaa paremmassa asemassa siksi, että kaasulla ei juuri lämmitetä yksittäisiä taloja. Kaukolämpö voi hyödyntää monipuolisesti eri energialähteitä, ja sen käytön laajentaminen muuallakin Euroopassa vähentäisi riskiä yksittäisestä polttoaineesta. Samaa ajaa myös uusiutuvien hajautettu tuotanto.

Mietintö listaa ehkäisevinä toimina maiden välisten yhteyksien lisäksi energiatehokkuuden, virtuaaliset kaasuvarannot, varastoinnin sekä nesteytetyn maakaasun terminaalit. Turvallisuus tulee nähdä osana muitakin käsittelyssä olevia energia-asioita. Direktiivi rakennusten energiatehokkuudesta, jota esittelijä Bendtsenin kanssa uudistamme, pyrkii vauhdittamaan energiatehokkuusremontteja. Sen lisäksi, että kysyntä laskisi, toivomme, että voimme tarjota eurooppalaisille kodeille mahdollisuuden irrottautua vain yhdestä polttoaineesta.

(Puhuja lupasi vastata työjärjestyksen 162 artiklan 8 kohdan mukaiseen sinisen kortin kysymykseen).

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte an die Kollegin Kumpula-Natri die Frage stellen, ob sie glaubt, dass ein Beitritt Russlands zur Energiecharta zu einer deutlichen Verbesserung der Beziehungen führen könnte.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D), blue-card answer. – I think that every time we can agree on something politically it will be an improvement for all sectors of society. But we know that in relations with Russia it is not only energy we are looking at; unfortunately, the country is using multi-targeted politics towards the European Union. We have to remain coherent, but not to forget that energy is one of a vital part.

Talking about climate change, talking about coal in the Arctic, on the ice, we need Russia on board to prevent really fast, rapid climate change that the black coal is causing in the Arctic, and that is why we need to find a broad political understanding.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you for accepting the card. I noticed that in your speech you spoke about diversity of energy supplies, and during this whole debate people have been speaking about the concern about keeping control of energy supplies flowing. Would it not be sensible, in that case, for this place not to have ruled out in so many cases further research into nuclear energy or into fracking – which are, after all, the sources of energy of the future, far cheaper, and things we can develop here without having to rely on Russia, for example?

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D), blue-card answer. – I am very happy to work in this Parliament in the ITRE Committee, because we clearly understand that the European Union working together can improve the energy supply and energy security. It does not limit us taking national decisions in Member States on whether you want to use nuclear or not, or whether you want to use more renewables than the quotas set by the Union. The energy mix is decided in every Member State. The European Union can only improve the security of energy, and there we have a concrete result now on the table, with many more to come.

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Mr President, I very much welcome the conclusion of the trilogue negotiations on security of gas supply and I would like to congratulate our colleague, Jerzy Buzek, for this successful achievement.

With the new rules, based on the principle of real solidarity and closer regional cooperation, the EU will be better prepared to face any potential disruption of gas supplies. This is good news. The document we are discussing today again shows that the European Union and closer cooperation among Member States benefit European citizens.

I would like to raise one specific point: the priority for gas supplies goes to households and essential social services, so we know that we are protecting our citizens against any unforeseen and sudden disruption of gas supply.

I congratulate the Council, the Commission and the Parliament negotiation team on this compromise agreement. Remember that gas is a strategic commodity and ensuring security of gas supplies is one of our utmost and most paramount tasks here in this Parliament.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il regolamento che approviamo rappresenta sicuramente un passo avanti, un passo nuovo nell'approccio energetico dell'Unione europea. E voglio ringraziare in modo non formale il presidente Buzek per il grande lavoro che ha fatto, ma anche perché, come lui stesso ha detto nell'introduzione citando la realtà di alcuni paesi, ha saputo conciliare una chiarezza di obiettivi con una flessibilità è un ascolto, però, delle necessità dei vari Stati membri che, pur credendo alla cooperazione tra Stati, devono naturalmente trovare nelle zonizzazioni e nelle aggregazioni, delle ragioni di coerenza e di praticità. Quindi penso che sia stato un buon lavoro, che ha portato a un risultato frutto della consultazione di tutte le parti.

Conosciamo i contenuti di questo piano, quindi io voglio brevemente solo fare un riferimento, parlando con il commissario e con i colleghi. Noi sappiamo tutti che la politica energetica comune è nata proprio di fronte a un rischio di approvvigionamento: crisi all'inizio degli anni Duemila, Ucraina e Russia, guarda caso, già allora... E quindi l'Europa si è trovata scoperta, ha capito che la dipendenza era un rischio e che la dipendenza senza solidarietà era un doppio rischio mortale. E da qui è nata anche questa necessità non solo di affrontare la questione dell'approvvigionamento ma anche di creare, prima ancora delle basi giuridiche di Lisbona, un'unione, una politica energetica comune.

Allora, mi auguro che questa spinta sia solo un passo avanti per andare davvero verso un'Unione energetica. Penso al lavoro di Notre Europe, di tanti lungimiranti personaggi, a quanto fatto da Delors, ecc. Ecco, facciamo passi avanti, signor commissario, visto che stiamo lavorando bene, verso una vera Unione dell'energia.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συγχαίρουμε πραγματικά τον αγαπητό συνάδελφο, τον κύριο Buzek, για την ιδιαίτερα σημαντική έκθεση την οποία εκπόνησε και η οποία είναι χρήσιμος οδηγός και καθοδηγητής για τα επόμενα χρόνια για τα ενεργειακά ζητήματα. Όμως, πιστεύω ακράδαντα, εάν πραγματικά θέλουμε μια σωστή ισχυρή ενεργειακή Ένωση και ενεργειακή ασφάλεια οφείλουμε πρωτίστως να βασιστούμε στις δικές μας δυνάμεις. Πολύ ορθά λέχθηκε προηγουμένως ότι δεν νοείται μια τρίτη χώρα να είναι ουσιαστικά προμηθευτής του 1/3 του φυσικού αερίου των 28 κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αυτό είναι και προσβλητικό για την ίδια την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Οφείλουμε να αξιοποιήσουμε τις δικές μας δυνάμεις. Εγώ, από δική μου εμπειρία σας προτείνω να αξιοποιήσουμε την Ανατολική Μεσόγειο. Η Κύπρος με το Ισραήλ και την Ελλάδα, καθώς και η Κύπρος με την Αίγυπτο και την Ελλάδα συνήψαν τριμερείς συμφωνίες για ενεργειακά ζητήματα τα οποία μπορεί να αξιοποιήσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Όπως επίσης μπορεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αξιοποιήσει τη δυνατότητα που έχει η Κύπρος να επενδύσει σε τερματικό υγροποιημένου φυσικού αερίου το οποίο, λόγω οικονομικής δυνατότητας, αδυνατεί να το πράξει η Κύπρος.

Να επενδύσετε, κύριε Επίτροπε, με ενωσιακά κονδύλια ύψους 10 δισεκατομμυρίων ώστε να μπορέσει, όχι μόνο η Κύπρος και η περιοχή, αλλά και ολόκληρη η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αποκτήσει ενεργειακή ασφάλεια και αυτάρκεια κι αυτό να μην γίνει μόνο για την Ανατολική Μεσόγειο αλλά για όλες τις περιοχές όπου υπάρχει δυνατότητα να επενδύσει απευθείας η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για την ενεργειακή της ασφάλεια.

  Csaba Molnár (S&D). – Elnök Úr, egy nagyon-nagyon fontos európai szabályozást tárgyalunk a mai napon. Ez a vita arról szól itt az Európai Parlament üléstermében, hogy hogyan tudunk olcsó és biztonságos módon gázt biztosítani az embereknek Európában. A földgáz ára az elmúlt években Európában közel a felére zuhant, de a magyar emberek még mindig ugyanazt az árat fizetik, mint három évvel ezelőtt. A két ár közötti különbözet pedig svájci off-shore számlákra került. A Fidesz a rezsihazugság címszava alatt minden egyes magyar családdal 23 ezer forint felárat fizettet a gázért minden egyes évben. Ha nem lenne ez a korrupt árképzés Magyarországon, akkor minden magyar család egyhavi fűtésszámlát spórolhatna meg minden évben. A valóság azonban ezzel szemben az, hogy ezt nem lehet megcsinálni Magyarországon. Fideszes üzletemberek és orosz barátaik csak az elmúlt évben 50 milliárd forintnyi extraprofitra tettek szert a korrupt gázárképzés miatt. Elfogadhatatlan, hogy ilyen előnytelen gázárszerződések miatt Magyarországon sokkal magasabb a gáz ára, mint amennyi a valóságban lehetne. Ha tényleg valóban csatlakoznánk az európai energiaunióhoz, akkor nem kellene minden évben százezer magyar ember lakásában kikapcsolni a gázt. Ezért választjuk Európát és az európai energiauniót az orbáni korrupt gázárképzés helyett.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome this very important piece of legislation which we are voting on today. Without a doubt, energy security is vital for Europe, for industrial competitiveness, and for investment. I think that as a result of this legislation we will see greater cooperation between Member States, which is part and parcel of what the European Union is all about. I also welcome the regional approach taken here, but I am concerned about my own country, Ireland, because by the mid-2020s – when the United Kingdom is out of the EU – we will be dependent on them for 95% of our gas. This will mean we will be geographically cut off from the EU system and exposed to United Kingdom price shocks. However, there are projects in the pipeline such as Shannon LNG, which I am very familiar with. Others are mentioned as well, but Shannon LNG has the potential to help us have energy security. It has been a number of years in the pipeline, it has PCA (Pipeline Construction Authorisation) status, and by giving funding to it I think we can help it progress and ensure that post-Brexit Ireland will have security of supply.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja też chciałem na wstępie serdecznie pogratulować panu premierowi Buzkowi, że udało mu się doprowadzić negocjacje w tej bardzo trudnej sprawie do tak znakomitego końca. Chciałbym też powiedzieć, że ten projekt nowego rozporządzenia o bezpieczeństwie dostaw gazu dopełnia przepisy przyjęte przez Parlament Europejski w marcu, a dotyczące umów międzyrządowych w dziedzinie energii, głównie gazu, które wprowadziły obowiązkowy mechanizm weryfikacji tych umów przed ich podpisaniem i obie te regulacje niewątpliwie zwiększą bezpieczeństwo energetyczne Europejczyków.

Chciałbym jednak zwrócić też uwagę na to, że pozostaje pewna luka. Otóż te nowe przepisy nie będą w pełni skuteczne, dopóki kontroli nie będą podlegały też tak zwane instrumenty niewiążące, na przykład memoranda o współpracy oraz umowy hybrydowe zawierane między państwami członkowskimi a koncernami krajów trzecich, albo na przykład między unijnymi koncernami i państwami trzecimi, lub też koncernami kontrolowanymi przez państwa trzecie, których najlepszym przykładem jest Gazprom.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Po pierwsze, wielkie gratulacje dla pana premiera Buzka za wykonaną pracę. Po drugie, cieszę się, że nasze prace legislacyjne dobiegają końca i wkrótce będziemy mieć nowe lepsze rozporządzenie dotyczące bezpieczeństwa dostaw gazu. Jestem przekonany, że dzięki lepszej współpracy regionalnej, solidarności między krajami oraz przejrzystości kontraktów gazowych Unia Europejska będzie silnym i zjednoczonym partnerem dla dostawców z zewnątrz. Mam jednak nadzieję, że te wszystkie bardzo pozytywne zmiany i wielka praca wykonana tutaj w Parlamencie nie okażą się jedynie martwym zapisem na papierze. Zagrożeniem dla bezpieczeństwa dostaw gazu, dla naszej europejskiej siły jedności jest bowiem powstanie gazociągu Nord Stream II. Oznacza on niestety koncentrację dróg dostaw, ominięcie Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej oraz podkopanie pozycji Ukrainy, czyli wszystkie te kwestie, z którymi od lat wspólnie walczymy. Panie Komisarzu! Jestem przekonany, że kluczowym jest, byśmy byli zjednoczeni wobec projektów takich jak Nord Stream II i poddawali je europejskim zasadom energetycznym.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, taking into account that the European Union is highly dependent on gas imports, mainly from Russia, I strongly believe that the proposal gives much—needed impetus to our efforts to secure gas supply and ensure a well—interconnected and well—functioning internal gas market.

While efforts have been made, uncertainty over gas supply and regional disparities continue to raise big concerns. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of the solidarity principle and I strongly believe that the latter paves the way towards the achievement of a genuine energy union by making one of its cornerstones, which is energy security for all, more effective.

With this objective in mind, I consider that it is absolutely necessary that Member States engage in stronger regional cooperation at the level above both preventive action and reaction to disruptions of supply. Indeed, safeguarding the security of gas supply demands more cooperation, more coordination and more transparency in the common energy union.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte mich ganz herzlich in diesem Fall nicht nur bei Jerzy Buzek, der Berichterstatter für dieses Thema war, sondern bei dem ganzen Verhandlungsteam bedanken. Es war ganz eindeutig eine gute Zusammenarbeit des Parlaments, und ich denke, wir haben hier insofern einen Durchbruch erzielt, als es ein wirklicher Schritt hin zu einer Energieunion ist. Die haben wir noch lange nicht, aber wir brauchen sie.

Dass vor ein paar Jahren Russland das Gas abgestellt hat, um die Ukraine zu strafen und damit einige osteuropäische Länder getroffen hat, wo dann die Menschen im Kalten saßen – so etwas darf nicht wieder passieren. Darum müssen wir wirklich sehen, dass wir gemeinsam die Gasversorgung möglichst sicher hinbekommen, ohne zu stark von irgendwelchen Drittstaaten abhängig zu sein, die uns vielleicht gerade politisch nicht besonders gewogen sind. Natürlich spielt auch Biogas eine Rolle, das hatte die finnische Kollegin gesagt, aber wir wollen ja auf erneuerbare Energie setzen. Wenn wir das regional—dezentral hinbekommen, ist das auch gut. Regionale Zusammenarbeit bei der Gasversorgung ist ganz wichtig – auch gerade für den Verkehrsbereich, den ich vertrete, für LNG und CNG. Dafür brauchen wir eine gute Zusammenarbeit, und ich glaube, die können wir jetzt schnell erreichen.

  Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prvo želim čestitati gospodinu Buzeku na izvrsnom radu. Smatram da je ovom Uredbom postignut veliki napredak u ostvarivanju dobrih temelja za jedan od stupova energetske unije, a to je solidarnost i sigurnost opskrbe energijom u Europskoj uniji; konačno je prepoznatljiva važnost regionalne suradnje, ne samo zbog toga što je to također predviđeno u dokumentima energetske unije, već i zbog toga što države članice neće više pojedinačno ulagati u kapacitete nego će to raditi na regionalnoj razini, a to u konačnici znači jeftiniju cijenu energije za naše gospodarstvo i za naše građane, što je jedan od osnovnih ciljeva energetske unije.

Također, našem uvaženom povjereniku Cañeteu dan je snažan alat, a to je da se na ovaj način osigurava i postizanje klimatskih ciljeva jer će prirodni plin koji će se na ovaj način iskoristiti pomoći toj tranziciji do 2050. godine prema našim zacrtanim putovima.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, il faut revenir à la réalité. Toutes les études montrent que l’Europe dépendra toujours du gaz russe pour les vingt ou trente ans à venir, et ce n’est pas le gaz américain ou celui du Qatar qui changera quelque chose.

Deuxième point, seuls les contrats à long terme permettent la sécurité énergétique des États. Ils sont les maillons de la chaîne de sécurité énergétique. En fragilisant les contrats à long terme, en fragilisant les États dans leur pouvoir de négociation, en mettant en avant le marché spot au profit de la spéculation, la Commission et ce Parlement n’assurent pas la sécurité énergétique de l’Europe mais son insécurité énergétique.

Il faut sortir de cette Europe.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, cred că nu mai trebuie să punem la îndoială importanța garantării aprovizionării cu gaz și securitatea energetică. Până la urmă, aceste lucruri țin de viața oamenilor. Felicit echipa și comisiile care au lucrat sub coordonarea raportorului și cred că trebuie, domnule comisar, să fim atenți acum la cum lucrează Comisia cu autoritățile naționale, pentru că eu cred în coordonarea activității și cred foarte mult în propunerile din raport legate de eficientizarea energetică. Aici trebuie să corelăm cu alte rapoarte și cu alte măsuri. Eficientizarea energetică este extrem de importantă pentru economia energiei, investițiile în tehnologii, de asemenea, măsură care poate ajuta la eficientizare.

Raportul conține și alte propuneri pe care le susțin, cum ar fi diversificarea surselor de energie, dar toate trebuie citite într-o singură cheie: solidaritate, solidaritate citită așa cum se spune în contract. Fără cooperare și fără solidaritate, niciun stat singur nu se va putea descurca și este nevoie să avem soluții pentru cazuri de urgență. Domnule comisar, este vital să coordonați acest lucru.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sicurezza energetica nell'approvvigionamento del gas è una priorità strategica per l'Unione europea, finalizzata alla riduzione delle cicliche perturbazioni delle forniture di gas naturale e del loro impatto sull'economia degli Stati membri. L'eccessiva dipendenza da un numero limitato di fonti di approvvigionamento, la bilateralità degli accordi, lo scarso coordinamento delle politiche nazionali e la complessità delle dinamiche geopolitiche hanno rappresentato storicamente gli elementi di maggiore complessità nella costruzione di un mercato unico interno dell'energia.

Già il regolamento n. 994/2010 compiva un passo importante verso una maggiore integrazione e sicurezza nell'approvvigionamento del gas, ma manteneva un'impostazione preminentemente nazionale. Ritengo la proposta una significativa evoluzione nel quadro normativo europeo della sicurezza energetica, in linea con l'esigenza di diversificazione delle fonti e gli obiettivi di trasparenza, solidarietà e fiducia tra gli Stati membri.

Occorre infine non sottovalutare l'approccio comportamentale sia di imprese che di singoli, delle politiche europee per ridurre la dipendenza da combustibili fossili a vantaggio di fonti energetiche alternative e rinnovabili, soprattutto in chiave di sostenibilità ambientale.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I wish to thank again our rapporteur Mr Buzek for his very constructive approach to this proposal. Following fruitful cooperation between the three institutions, we have reached an ambitious but balanced agreement. With this regulation we have completed the energy security package tabled by the Commission in February 2016. The agreement on this politically so important dossier was reached in only 14 months – a real record, Mr Buzek, and thank you for your support.

With this, we will significantly improve security of gas supply not only in the European Union, but also beyond in close cooperation with Energy Community countries. It demonstrates that when there is political commitment and we share the same objectives, we are able to take rapid action that addresses the needs of European citizens and businesses. Let us maintain this positive spirit in the negotiations on the ‘Clean Energy for All Europeans’ package that is now on the table of this Parliament and the Council.

Statement of the Commission as regards Article 15 of the Proposal for a revised Gas Security of Supply Regulation

The Commission welcomes the co-cooperation mechanisms set out in Article 15 of the proposed Regulation as submitted to Coreper as an important tool for ensuring consistency of preventive action and emergency plans with Energy Community Contracting Parties.

The Commission stresses the importance of effectively ensuring that no measures are put in place by Energy Community Contracting Parties that may negatively affect the security of supply situation in the EU and its Member State and vice versa.

In this respect, the Commission will, without prejudice to its initial Commission proposal of 16 February 2016, consider proposing to the Council in due course a recommendation under Art. 218 TFEU for negotiations on amendments of the Energy Community Treaty with a view to establishing an appropriate legal framework and mechanisms to allow applicability of selected provisions of the Regulation and other relevant parts of the acquis communautaire in the field of energy between the EU and its Member States on the one hand, and Contracting Parties of the Energy Community on the other, so as to ensure effective implementation of a reinforced security of gas supply framework.

  Jerzy Buzek, sprawozdawca. – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym nawiązać do słów komisarza Cañete. Rzeczywiście te negocjacje były bardzo długie, ale samo przygotowanie i wejście w życie rozporządzenia wyjątkowo krótkie. W negocjacjach uzyskaliśmy niezwykłe porozumienie w Parlamencie Europejskim i stanowiliśmy zwarty zespół. Potem do tego zespołu, przyznam, dołączyła Komisja Europejska (bardzo dziękujemy za wielką współpracę i za udział w negocjacjach bezpośredni obydwu panów tutaj obecnych) i wreszcie udało nam się absolutnie wciągnąć do naszego zespołu prezydencję maltańską. Musimy przyznać, że prezydencja maltańska podjęła wiele wysiłków, aby przekonać poszczególne państwa członkowskie. My także. Poszczególni członkowie Parlamentu rozmawiali z przedstawicielstwami poszczególnych państw członkowskich. Komisja też wykonywała takie działania. Mówię o tym dlatego, że przed nami cały pakiet energetyczny, osiem rozporządzeń, dyrektyw, które leżą na stole. Wszystkie trzeba będzie wynegocjować. Z jednej strony jest to sposób utrzymania głównej linii i otwierania się na siebie.

Bardzo krótkie punkty na zakończenie. Mówiliśmy: rynek przede wszystkim. Proszę o tym pamiętać. Dopiero w trudnych sytuacjach stosujemy inne rozwiązania. Bardzo ważna jest wymiana informacji. Również wcześniejsze umowy i umowy dotyczące infrastruktury. Kolejna sprawa, na którą zwróciliśmy ogromną uwagę, to zachowanie poufności umów komercyjnych.

I wreszcie – unia energetyczna, którą tworzymy. Chcielibyśmy ją stworzyć razem z państwami leżącymi na wschód od Unii Europejskiej, czyli Bałkanami Zachodnimi, Mołdawią, Ukrainą i Gruzją, i tak się dzisiaj dzieje, w tym kierunku idziemy.

Oczywiście trzeba wspomnieć o umowach międzyrządowych, bo to jest również wspólny element naszej regulacji, których autorem był pan kolega Krasnodębski. To wszystko razem stworzyło warunki do tego, żebyśmy mogli uzyskać naprawdę dobre rozporządzenie, ale to jest dopiero pierwszy etap naszej pracy. Przed nami wielka praca nad unią energetyczną.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek 12 września 2017 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE), in writing. – Security of gas supply is a crucial factor in the European Union’s sovereignty. Unstable international cooperation encourages the EU to secure the energy system and protect consumers in case of the disruption of foreign gas supply. This security can be achieved only by maximising local production, completing the interconnection of Member States’ gas grids, developing liquefied natural gas hubs and finalising the gas corridors.

Furthermore, considering that a considerable part of the imported gas is transformed into electricity, the Union should continue to boost the diversification of electricity resources and, perhaps, take into consideration more and more the massive wind resources available in the European sea basins that, through the rapid progress of technology, can fill the gap in the electricity market.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – This regulation is among the most crucial ones to ensuring the EU’s resilience towards hostile policy from outside the EU. It is important to understand that the regulation is basically a legally-binding solidarity mechanism, aimed at protecting states and citizens against blackmail and political pressure. The EU needs to complete its own instruments to make sure that gas supplies cannot be used against any Member State as a political weapon. It leaves Member States enough leverage to design their own prevention and crisis mitigation plans.

At the same time, the regulation makes it obligatory to take into account regional concerns by including a common regional chapter in every national plan. The 13 EU regions are defined as risk-based groups in order to meet their particular regional needs flexibly. The solidarity clause, which is triggered automatically whenever one of the Member States is affected by a very serious cut in gas supply, is a crucial step towards completing the Energy Union. Lastly, increased transparency in the gas sector is advantageous for the energy security of the EU as a whole. This aspect sets out that all gas contracts crucial for European energy security and that exceed a certain threshold of energy consumption need to be notified. This will significantly increase accountability.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE), na piśmie. – Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady dotyczące środków zapewniających bezpieczeństwo dostaw gazu ziemnego to dowód na to, że unia energetyczna nie pozostaje pustym sloganem, ale staje się realnym i efektywnym mechanizmem wsparcia dla państw członkowskich w przypadku przerwy w dostawach gazu. Należy pamiętać o tym, iż 90% gazu, który przepływa przez Europę, przekracza co najmniej jedną granicę państwową. Związane z tym ryzyko rozprzestrzenienia się skutków zakłóceń w dostawach na skalę międzynarodową wymaga jak najszerszej współpracy na poziomie europejskim. W przeszłości bowiem możliwość „zakręcenie kurka z gazem” była wykorzystywana przez Rosję jako instrument politycznego nacisku czy wręcz szantażu wobec krajów zależnych od rosyjskiego gazu, co w sposób szczególny dotyczyło państw Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, w tym Polski.

Dzięki takim przedsięwzięciom, jak przyjęte rozporządzenie dotyczące środków zapewniających bezpieczeństwo dostaw gazu ziemnego, moja wiara w sens zjednoczonej Europy broni się przed rozczarowaniem wynikającym z mnożących się w Europie protekcjonizmów i partykularyzmów. Jednocześnie jednak wyrażam nadzieję, że równie szybko i skutecznie zostanie zablokowana realizacja projektu gazociągu NordStream 2 bezpośrednio godzącego w bezpieczeństwo energetyczne Europy, jak i samą ideę unii energetycznej.

  Владимир Уручев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Газовата криза през януари 2009 г. по маршрута Русия – Украйна – ЕС показа ясно колко уязвими са страните от Централна и Източна Европа и че те не могат да се справят сами в подобна ситуация. Договореният нов регламент за сигурността на доставките на природен газ гарантира един работещ механизъм за адекватно реагиране на подобни кризисни сценарии чрез обвързващо регионално сътрудничество, базирано на съвместна оценка на риска за дадената страна и регион. Новото законодателство налага ново поведение на солидарност и взаимодействие между страните-съседи при евентуални прекъсвания на газовите доставки и превръща духа на солидарност в Европа от политическа декларация в конкретно правно-обвързващо действие. Новата законова рамка установява въвеждането на списък на защитени клиенти, в това число обществени сгради, болници и училища, които трябва да бъдат приоритетно снабдявани в случай на извънредно прекъсване на доставките. Регламентът създава и невиждана досега откритост в договорите на компаниите за доставки на газ от трети страни, които трябва да бъдат предоставяни на националните регулатори и ЕК за оценяване дали влияят върху сигурността на доставките. Така днешният регламент, заедно с вече приетия механизъм за предварителна обмяна на информация по междуправителствените споразумения с трети страни, завършва законодателния пакет за сигурност на енергийните доставки, важна стъпка към Енергийния съюз.

5. Скандалът с фипронил: начини за подобряване на Системата на ЕС за бързо предупреждение за храни и фуражи (разискване)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie skandalu związanego z fipronilem: jak ulepszyć unijny system szybkiego ostrzegania o żywności i paszach (2017/2825(RSP)).

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, it appears that on 20 July the Belgian authorities informed the other Member States and the Commission about their findings of residues of fipronil in eggs. Since then, the Commission and the Member States have been carrying out investigations and taking all necessary measures to protect consumers. It is now clear that the residues result from an illegal use of the product.

While the overall responsibility for the investigations and protective measures remains with the Commission and the Member States, the Presidency of the Council has been following developments closely. On 5 September, at the informal meeting of the Agriculture Ministers held in Tallinn, Commissioner Andriukaitis provided the Ministers with an overview of the state of play and of the further actions planned. After this presentation, Ministers held a discussion including, among other things, the need to ensure an efficient circulation of information in such cases.

Indeed, since the first contamination cases were reported, concerns have been raised, including in Parliament, regarding possible weaknesses in the EU’s rapid alert system and the speed of information sharing. The question of how we can strengthen cooperation and the exchange of information between countries in order to deal more efficiently with such crisis situations will be further discussed at the High Level Ministerial Meeting organised by the Commission in Brussels on 26 September, and we are grateful to the Commission for taking this initiative.

The outcome of that meeting will be presented to Agriculture Ministers at the October Council session on 9—10 October this year. The ongoing investigations and follow—up discussions should give us a clear overall picture of what precisely happened and why, what went wrong and what can be improved. We will need this full clarity for our future debates.

The Council has consistently acknowledged the importance of food safety, high—level protection of public health and the prevention of food fraud. In its conclusions on the role of law enforcement cooperation in combating food crime adopted in 2014, the Council encouraged the Commission to continue its work on the fight against fraudulent and deceptive practices along the food supply chain and to develop any further action necessary for high-level protection of public health.

Furthermore, during the negotiations leading to the adoption of the new Official Controls Regulation that entered into force on 27 April this year, Parliament and the Council agreed to reinforce the legal provisions to fight such practices. Those reinforced provisions do not just include general rules. They also provide for the designation of European Union reference centres for the authenticity and integrity of the agri—food chain, reinforced administrative assistance and cooperation mechanisms between Member States, and enhanced coordinated assistance and follow—up by the Commission.

As I already mentioned, it seems clear that the present fipronil contamination is the result of fraudulent activity. There should be zero tolerance for such fraud. However, the infestation of hens by red mites is a real problem for many farms. Therefore, we must also make every effort to ensure that legal and efficient ways to prevent and treat that infestation remain available.

Let me conclude by calling on all of us to support and encourage the actions taken by the Commission and Member States to ensure the safety of our daily food, to avoid these types of fraud and to resolve them efficiently whenever they occur.

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by thanking you for this possibility to provide the House with the latest update on the recent contamination of eggs and egg products with fipronil.

Let me begin by assuring you that public health and food safety are always considered a top priority for me and are treated as such by the Commission. Coherently with this approach, the Commission took immediately very seriously the fipronil issue. The situation continues to evolve, but I think it is important to clarify right from the beginning the succession of events.

In November 2016, the Dutch Food Authority was informed of the illegal use of fipronil in poultry but since there were no analytical results indicating the presence of fipronil in eggs or chicken meat, and also no danger to public health, the source of the problem was not established.

Tests on samples kept from September 2016 that revealed the presence of fipronil were done only recently and are under investigation by prosecutors from three countries – Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium – to check these historical samples to assess what was known, when and by whom. Prosecutors will help to answer these questions.

On 2 June 2017, following self-controls by a Belgian food business operator, the Belgian authorities were notified of the presence of fipronil in eggs and started initiating an investigation to understand the source of the problem. As a consequence of this investigation, on 6 July the Belgian authorities initiated a request for information from the Netherlands in the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation System. This is a different system, related to RASFF.

This system allows Member States to liaise bilaterally or multilaterally to confirm rapidly suspected cases of fraud and is only actively monitored by the Commission when a ‘European Commission coordinated case’ is created. Belgium initiated a normal case, not a European Commission created case, which means that the Commission was not an addressee of the notification and no follow-up was expected by the Commission. Once the Belgian authorities had identified the source of fipronil in eggs and the possible extent of the problem, they notified the European Union Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) on 20 July 2017.

Therefore the Commission was only informed of the fipronil contamination on 20 July. But as soon as the issue was notified through the RASFF system, the Commission took control of the situation, focusing on managing and minimising the consequences of the contamination.

Having said that, I want to start by stressing two points. Firstly, that the risk to human health remains very low and has been successfully contained thanks to the measures which have been taken at European Union level. And secondly, this incident is clearly the result of a criminal act resulting in food fraud. This is not to minimise the incident, as it relates to illegal use of an unauthorised substance, which is totally unacceptable, but this is not about a health risk issue. All contaminated eggs have been withdrawn from the market and the eggs from the few farms with acute risk levels have been recalled from consumers.

So all in all, consumer safety has not been compromised. Nevertheless, it appals me that the criminal actions of a few could jeopardise the integrity and reputation of our entire food chain. Those criminals must be investigated and punished.

So where are we now, today? The situation evolves every day, as you know; 26 Member States and 23 non-EU countries have been affected by the contamination. Since the very beginning of this criminal situation I have been systematically in contact with my counterparts in the Member States most concerned. I have also asked for certain gaps in information to be verified and for detailed analysis and common views to be presented to me. I spoke with ministers for Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria.

In response to the finding of fipronil the Commission requested that specific measures be taken at national level; in particular we have instructed via RASFF that the following measures be taken.

First, on 31 July we shared information on applicable maximum residual levels and the measures to be taken as regards illegally treated farms.

Second, on 7 August Member States were requested to be vigilant with respect to the possible use of other unauthorised substances used to control red mites in poultry establishments.

Third, on 16 August we reminded all Member States that any past distribution of contaminated eggs, egg products or chicken meat had to be timely notified to RASFF in order to ensure the appropriate follow-up by the authorities of the country of destination.

Apart from the immediate risk management actions, the Commission has also taken additional important steps.

On 21 August, a note on fipronil contamination was shared with our global partners to ensure transparency. The Commission has also been in direct contact with a number of non-EU countries in order to limit the impact on the EU’s export capacity.

On 30 August, we organised a meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, which agreed on an EU-wide monitoring exercise to investigate the possible use of illegal substances, including amitraz, in egg producing farms.

I personally informed the European Union ministers of the situation, collectively and bilaterally, in the context of the informal meeting of the Agricultural and Fisheries Ministers last week in Tallinn.

Finally, to avoid any potential side effects on the food chain, we are asking the competent authorities to ensure that contaminated food or animal bypass products do not find their way into animal feed and thus back into the food chain.

Let me assure you that my services are working hand in hand with those of Commissioners Malmström and Hogan to ensure that the Commission’s response remains coordinated, comprehensive and forward-looking.

We also met with both the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, where I was yesterday, and their suggestions, alongside yours today, will inform the ongoing response.

Now however we need to collectively examine what lessons can be learned and how we communicate and exchange information. This issue will also be discussed by the Chief Veterinary Officers who will meet later this week, on 13 and 14 September. In addition the JRC will organise proficiency tests for official control laboratories in September. With this in mind, the Commission is organising fact-finding missions in early October to the four Member States where the original contamination occurred to gather information on the actions taken.

This incident highlights the fact that we need to strengthen the way the European Union networks dealing with food safety and food fraud are used. It is precisely for the reason of providing follow-up at political level that I have taken the initiative to call a High-level Ministerial Meeting on 26 September where we can reflect and agree on, first, how best to strengthen the way the EU networks dealing with food safety and food fraud are used, and second, how to improve coordination between the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation System and the European Union Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.

Bear with me now a moment while I touch on the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed which has been subjected to some misplaced criticism of late.

The system was created in 1979 in response to the import of oranges contaminated with mercury. Since then, RASFF has ensured that the Commission and Member States were able to respond effectively to several crises, including crop contamination after Chernobyl in 1980s, mad cow disease in mid-1990s and the more recent detection of e-coli bacteria in sprouts in the summer of 2011.

RASFF has identified hazards involving mycotoxins, heavy metals, allergens and pesticide residues. When it is used correctly and when it is fed with clear, rapid and reliable information by the control authorities of the Member States, this system works.

In practice, the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed is mobilised when a Member State notifies the system of a danger to public health. As the system’s manager, the Commission verifies the notification and immediately communicates it to the other Member States, and this is precisely what happened in the current situation. Indeed, the use of RASFF, in combination with food traceability provisions, has allowed us to quickly find and destroy the relevant food products in the EU. Affected farms have been blocked and will remain so until Member States are certain that their production is safe.

Let me be clear therefore, thanks to RASFF multiple food-safety risks have been averted before they could harm European citizens. In 2016 alone almost 3 000 original notifications were transmitted through the system. Many of these were alerts requiring and resulting in rapid actions. The original fipronil notification has led to nearly 600 follow—up alerts.

While it is true that every system can be improved, it is worth stressing here that our analysis should focus more on the efficient use of, and interaction between, RASFF and the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation System rather than on their reliability.

With this goal in mind, the Commission is developing a common platform for these systems and exploring the possibility of a single network of Member State authorities. Now that we have a new official control law, I think this will help us to be more effective.

Let me finish by emphasising once more that close coordination and the steady flow of information between all parties is essential, especially in this case.

We have constructed the European Union’s food system and food fraud systems and networks together; now we must work collectively to maximise their potential and safeguard the highest standards of food safety for European citizens. Parliament will be important in this regard and I am keen to hear your views on the matter today.

  Ivo Belet, namens de PPE-Fractie. –Dank u wel, voorzitter, mijnheer de commissaris, bedankt voor de toelichting. Ik denk dat de fipronilcrisis ons, zoals u zelf al zei, één zaak glashelder heeft aangetoond, namelijk dat de informatie-uitwisseling tussen de verschillende nationale agentschappen mank loopt. Daar zijn we het over eens. Die informatie over de voedselveiligheid moet gewoon automatisch gedeeld worden en snel gedeeld worden. Ik denk dat we nu weken, misschien wel maanden verloren hebben alvorens die informatie vlot van de ene lidstaat naar de andere, van het ene agentschap naar het andere ging. Dat snelle waarschuwingssysteem heeft, om het zacht uit te drukken, niet echt snel gefunctioneerd. Dat is op z'n minst de perceptie en dat moet dringend anders. Het is goed dat u gisteravond in onze commissie en hier ook toezegt om met concrete maatregelen te komen om dat uit de wereld te helpen. Die nationale waarschuwingssystemen moeten direct gekoppeld worden aan het Europese Rapid Alert System. Dat moet één geoliede machine worden. Dat is wat u zegt en we rekenen erop dat u dat ook gaat doen en dat we dat op 26 september op de Europese Raad concreet zullen uitrollen. Nog één ding, nog één punt: de lidstaten hanteren ook verschillende criteria en een verschillende timing om de consumenten in te lichten. Dat leidt tot heel wat verwarring bij de consumenten en bij de producenten. Ik denk dat we dat veel efficiënter kunnen aanpakken en we rekenen erop, commissaris, dat u ook op dat vlak concrete maatregelen zult voorstellen en implementeren, zeer binnenkort.

  Miriam Dalli, f’isem il-grupp S&D. – Grazzi President u Kummissarju, bla dubju ta’ xejn huwa każ abbużiv dak li qegħdin nitkellmu fuqu. Huwa każ ta’ użu illegali ta’ pestiċida li spiċċat fil-katina tal-ikel tal-bniedem u inti, Sur Kummissarju, sejjaħtlu anki każ kriminali.

Però, huwa x’inhu, ir-realtà hi li hemm ħafna nies hemm barra, fosthom jien l-ewwel waħda, li daħlilna dubju serju dwar is-sigurtà tal-ikel li nkunu qegħdin nieklu.

Għalija mhuwiex aċċettabbli li jkun hemm nuqqas ta’ informazzjoni f’waqtha u nuqqas ta’ trasparenza, kif semmejt inti. Mhuwiex aċċettabbli li l-Istat Membru li fih beda l-każ ikun ilu jaf ix-xhur b’dan il-każ u jżomm kollox sigriet taħt l-iskuża li għaddejja investigazzjoni. Meta hemm saħħet in-nies fin-nofs u meta dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn wassal biex il-każ jinfirex f’xejn anqas minn 24 Stat Membru.

Li jkollok pajjiż wieħed jieħu deċiżjoni bħal dik, li setgħet affettwat ferm aktar serjament is-saħħa pubblika tan-nies fl-Istati Membri kollha, għalija hija mhux biss inkwetanti u serja, imma hija wkoll inaċċettabbli.

U qed jingħad, kif għedt inti wkoll, li f’dan il-każ ir-riskju fuq saħħet il-bniedem huwa wieħed baxx; u tajjeb ħafna. Konna fortunati jekk dan kien il-każ. Għaliex tant kien każ mifrux li allaħares ma kienx hekk. U hawnhekk l-appell tiegħi lilek, Kummissarju, però anki wkoll lill-Kunsill: ejjew naraw li s-sistemi li jkollna jkunu verament “fool proof”, li l-informazzjoni tingħata, li verament ikunu effettivi u effiċjenti, għaliex inkella għal xejn noqogħdu ngħajtulhom “Rapid Alert System” jekk ma jkunu rapidi xejn u lanqas jittrigerjaw “alert”. U nitolbok, Kummissarju, taċċertana kif jista’ jkollna dawn is-sistemi bejn il-Kummissjoni u anki l-Istati Membri, magħqudin flimkien fuq pjattaforma waħda, biex naċċertaw ruħna li, iva, meta jkun hemm każijiet bħal dawn, l-informazzjoni tingħata, u tingħata fil-ħin.

  Mark Demesmaeker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Het fipronilschandaal is een zaak van manifeste fraude. Het is, denk ik, belangrijk om dat in de eerste plaats te benadrukken. Net zoals bij het fraudeschandaal met paardenvlees uit 2013 hebben we te maken met misdadigers die puur uit winstbejag de consument bedriegen op de kap van de sector zelf. We moeten die fraudeurs in hun portemonnee pakken. Wie moedwillig bedriegt, moet opdraaien voor de kosten. Ten tweede moeten we de nodige lessen trekken uit dit schandaal. Ik pleit ervoor om dit debat op een nuchtere manier te voeren, niet te reageren zoals kippen zonder kop. Met intentieprocessen tegen voedselagentschappen is niemand gebaat. Op Europees niveau blijft de belangrijkste uitdaging de snelle en de doeltreffende communicatie tussen lidstaten en ondanks de waarschuwingssystemen blijkt dat belangrijke informatie te traag, te onvoldoende werd gedeeld. Dat kan anders en dat moet anders. Om het vertrouwen van de consument te herstellen moeten we fraudeurs bestraffen, bedrog voorkomen en ontraden en het gebruik van het EU-waarschuwingssysteem bijsturen waar het nodig is.

  Ulrike Müller, im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ursache für diesen Eierskandal war der illegale Einsatz von verbotenen Stoffen – kriminelle Machenschaften, die mit aller Härte bekämpft und bestraft werden müssen. Selbst das beste Gesetz schreckt anscheinend nicht genug ab, um tatsächlich diese kriminelle Energie und diesen Betrug zu unterbinden. Trotzdem dürfen wir nicht handlungsunfähig werden, und wir müssen das Thema Fipronil-Skandal aufarbeiten. Die Diskussionen im Agrarausschuss, gestern im Umweltausschuss und heute im Plenum zeigen die Ernsthaftigkeit des Themas. Der Fipronil-Skandal hat gezeigt, dass das bisherige Warnsystem Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed – kurz RASFF – nicht schnell genug und effizient ist. Ein europäisches Schnellwarnsystem sollte aber genau das halten, was sein Name verspricht: Es muss umgehend und europaweit warnen.

Herr Kommissar, wenn ich jetzt Ihre Ausführungen verfolge, dann stellen Sie fest, dass letztendlich nicht das System versagt hat, sondern die Stufe davor: die Meldung der Mitgliedstaaten. Es ist aber erschreckend, dass die zuständigen Behörden in einem EU-Land über ein halbes Jahr gewusst haben, dass dieses Insektizid unerlaubterweise im Einsatz ist, und die Meldung dann so spät erfolgt ist. Die Folgen wären eine Verunsicherung der Verbraucher, eine betrogene Landwirtschaft, die einen enormen wirtschaftlichen Schaden zu tragen hat, und jede Menge negative Presse. Diesen Vertrauensverlust müssen alle landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe bezahlen und auch tragen. Wir müssen jetzt das System wirklich so weit nach vorne bringen, dass wir die Warenströme innerhalb Europas im Auge haben und tatsächlich eine Lebensmittelsicherheit gewährleisten können.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Maria Grapini (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Sunt total de acord cu ce ați spus dumneavoastră, pentru că securitatea alimentară este vitală. Vreau, însă, să vă întreb din alt punct de vedere: în anii din urmă s-au făcut greșeli foarte mari în ceea ce privește vinovăția celor care au pus un produs alimentar periculos pe piață. Credeți că actuala reglementare cuprinde clar și ce se întâmplă cu cei care induc în eroare? Și în țara mea s-a întâmplat acest lucru cu un produs alimentar certificat la nivel de Uniune Europeană. S-a constatat după aceea că nu era el, însă s-a distrus afacerea unor întreprinzători.

  Ulrike Müller (ALDE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ja, ich glaube schon, dass wir natürlich die Unterschiedlichkeiten der Mitgliedstaaten im Blick haben müssen, und die Lebensmittelsicherheit steht an oberster Stelle. Auch ist mir vollkommen bewusst, was so ein Meldesystem für einen Rattenschwanz nach sich zieht, wir haben es gehört: 600 Folgewarnungen, wie der Kommissar uns mitgeteilt hat. Allerdings glaube ich schon, dass die Kommission hier als oberste Behörde von den Mitgliedstaaten Informationen einhalten muss und dann abwägen sollte, inwieweit es im System dann letztendlich umgesetzt wird.

  Anja Hazekamp, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – De fipronilaffaire heeft opnieuw aangetoond dat er iets grandioos mis is met de grootschalige wijze waarop wij in Europa onze dieren houden. Alleen al in Nederland zijn de afgelopen weken 2,5 miljoen kippen vergast. Zij zijn de dupe geworden van dit verziekte en fraudegevoelige systeem. Deze crisis vraagt om een systeemverandering en niet om technische maatregelen en symptoombestrijding. Fipronil is niet alleen schadelijk voor mensen en kippen, maar het is ook funest voor bijen en andere insecten. En toch is fipronil gewoon toegelaten als bestrijdingsmiddel in de Europese akkerbouw. De commissaris heeft gisteren gezegd dat een verbod op fipronil onmogelijk is en dat het een ramp zou betekenen. Maar, commissaris, bent u echt van mening dat een verbod op fipronil een grotere ramp is dan de ramp waar we nu inzitten? Ik wil de commissaris daarom nogmaals oproepen om aan de ministers op de fiproniltop voor te stellen om fipronil geheel uit de Europese landbouw te weren om zo de gezondheid van mens èn dier te waarborgen voor de toekomst. Voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

  Bart Staes, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Ik dank het Ests voorzitterschap en de commissaris voor de inleiding. Eén ding is duidelijk: het gaat om fraude. Criminelen, gewetenloze criminelen hebben willens nillens de hele zaak belazerd. Ze hebben de volksgezondheid in gevaar gebracht zonder enig moreel besef. Dat is het uitgangspunt en ze hebben dat gedaan onder verhullende namen als Chickfriend, Poultry Vision; hoe verhullender, hoe beter. Ten tweede: de zaak duurt al veel langer dan 20 juli, het moment waarop België de zaak aankaartte bij het snelle waarschuwingssysteem. Commissaris, u heeft gezegd dat er al in september 2016 sporen zijn. Er circuleren zelfs facturen die aantonen dat de Belgische crimineel die aan de grond ligt van de hele zaak, al fipronil aankocht in mei 2016, 3 000 liter; later nog eens 5 000 liter; later nog eens 10 000 liter. En dan komen we bij dat snelle waarschuwingssysteem, waarvan ik vind dat dat een krachtig instrument is, een goede tool, iets dat we hebben ingevoerd na vorige crisissen. Maar alles staat en valt natuurlijk bij het inbrengen van informatie. Als bepaalde lidstaten gewoon te lang aarzelen of weigeren bepaalde informatie in te brengen, ja, dan sta je voor Piet Snot. Als België al op 2 juni weet dat er in een bedrijf een besmetting is die 240 keer groter is dan de maximumresidulimiet, en midden juni al weet dat er een link is naar Nederland, maar toch wacht tot 20 juli om de hele zaak in stelling te brengen via het snelle waarschuwingssysteem, dan hebben we een probleem. Dus, commissaris, ik verwacht van u dat u op 26 september met voorstellen komt om de levensmiddelenverordening die het hele snelle waarschuwingssysteem regelt, aan te passen. Volgens die levensmiddelenverordening moeten lidstaten onverwijld optreden. Welnu, er moeten boetes komen voor die lidstaten die daar niet aan voldoen. Dat is, denk ik, de essentie van de zaak.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, fipronil raises two key points which must be answered.

First, what is the reality of the threat to human health? The mere fact that something is prohibited tells us nothing about the severity of the threat. Nor did the discussion in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Are we talking about potential organ failure or would you have to consume such vast quantities that, in reality, there may be a technical hazard but the risk is minimal? We do need to know. Controlling red mite on chickens is a very big animal welfare issue and there must be a sound reason not to use the best materials.

Secondly, this is demonstrating a failure of the single market. Although used on British cats and dogs, this material cannot be used by British egg producers because it has not been allocated a Health and Safety Executive number. Meanwhile British consumers eat imported EU eggs whose producers benefit from the competitive advantage that fipronil brings. The scandal has resulted in British consumers losing confidence in eggs generically and the British producer is paying the price for the sins of other EU producers.

  Mireille D’Ornano, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, ces derniers mois, des millions d’œufs ont été contaminés dans plusieurs pays européens.

Comme je le disais hier à M. le commissaire, la France compte désormais 39 produits, vendus jusqu’ici en grande surface, dans lesquels la quantité de fipronil dépasse le maximum autorisé. Or, l’Organisation mondiale de la santé classe cet insecticide comme étant moyennement toxique pour l’homme. Si la consommation d’un aliment isolé contenant des traces de fipronil comporte des risques limités, la consommation régulière de ces produits peut endommager véritablement la santé.

Le scandale du fipronil est d’autant plus retentissant que l’identification et l’indication de l’origine des pays concernant les ovoproduits sont particulièrement mal conçues. On sait que l’usage illégal du fipronil remonte à novembre 2016. Or, la Commission européenne se justifie en affirmant que la Belgique n’a donné l’alerte que le 20 juillet. Bruxelles assure ne pas avoir été destinataire de la notification de la Belgique aux Pays-Bas dans le cadre du système d’assistance administrative et de coopération.

Si elle avait des soupçons sur des activités semblant être contraires à la législation, la Commission pouvait toujours réaliser des inspections ou demander à l’État concerné d’intensifier les contrôles. Il est pour le moins surprenant qu’en huit mois la Commission n’ait pas eu connaissance de la moindre information sur l’usage frauduleux du fipronil dans plusieurs pays.

Concernant les traces d’un deuxième insecticide – l’amitraze – retrouvé, là encore, dans plusieurs élevages européens, les autorités françaises assurent n’avoir reçu aucune communication du système d’alerte rapide pour les aliments.

Cette absence d’alerte et de recommandations de la part de l’Union européenne ne fait que renforcer la méfiance des citoyens et démontre malheureusement l’incapacité de Bruxelles à veiller sur la santé et la sécurité alimentaire.

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, it is a fact that fipronil is not permitted for use around animals destined for human consumption. This situation is yet though another example of why the European Union’s fundamental principle of the free movement of goods, services and people is in direct conflict with the protection of citizens of Member States, in this context in terms of public health.

The free movement of goods allowed these insecticide-contaminated goods into the human food chain in the same way that horse meat from eastern Europe turned up in supposedly beef products. Checks were simply not enforced. Furthermore, the fact that the Netherlands chose not to act upon the 2016 tip-off completely rubbishes the idea that the European Union enhances cooperation between Member States.

Whilst the European Union obsesses – and I mean obsesses – about regulation, its own inherent freedom of movement weakness creates a perfect breeding ground for dangerous products to slip into the food chain and endanger public health. Just last month, Bloomberg agreed with this point of view in an article entitled ‘Even European Union regulators can’t stamp out food scandals’.

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE). – Op 9 augustus, voorzitter, heb ik de Commissie vragen gesteld aangaande de reconstructie van alle meldingen die via het waarschuwingssysteem voor levensmiddelen en diervoeders zijn binnengekomen. De Europese Commissie moet in de toekomst een coördinerende rol op zich nemen, zodat alle meldingen via het waarschuwingssysteem bij de juiste instanties terechtkomen. Daar moeten we keihard aan werken. Fipronil is in heel Europa gebruikt. En dan? Wat vindt de Commissie van de verregaande publiekswaarschuwingen van de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit? Want die hebben met name heel duidelijk andere zaken uitgesproken. De Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit, die het vertrouwen van de consument in de sector ernstig heeft beschadigd, met vele financiële consequenties voor de sector zelf. Was dat noodzakelijk als andere lidstaten niet zulke enorm strenge waarden hanteerden? En dan de reiniging van stallen en afzet van mest: in Nederland moet kippenmest met zeer lage concentraties worden verbrand. Daar is onvoldoende verbrandingscapaciteit voor, met hoge kosten. Waarom mag de mest niet rechtstreeks uitgereden worden en hoe gaat dat eigenlijk in andere landen? Dat wil ik dan wel eens weten. Veel pluimveehouders zijn buiten hun schuld om getroffen door deze crisis. Hoe gaan we daarmee om? En daar gaat het hier eigenlijk om: hoe gaan we om met de familiegezinsbedrijven in deze trieste situatie en hoe bieden wij hun een helpende hand? En het zijn, kijk ik naar Anja Hazekamp die weg is, niet alleen de grote intensieve bedrijven. Met name heel veel biologische kleine bedrijven zijn getroffen. En daarom, voorzitter, vraag ik u ook om financiële steun voor deze boeren in deze moeilijke overgangssituatie want daar staan we hier te weinig bij stil. Ik vraag u ook, net zoals gisteravond, in overleg te gaan met commissaris Hogan en Malmström voor goede oplossingen Ik wens u veel sterkte.

(De spreker gaat in op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Quite rightly, this debate is focused on the fraud and the failure of information. But there is a vital fundamental problem we are not addressing, and that is the nature of our industrialised farming system, which has been linked to a long list of previous animal diseases and diseases in animal products. When animals are kept in cramped, unsanitary and inhumane conditions, disease breaks out. So I would like to ask Mrs Schreijer-Pierik, whilst fipronil is obviously prohibited now, does she not recognise that link between the style of farming and these continuing problems that we are seeing?

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Dank u wel voor deze vraag. We hebben bij de Universiteit van Wageningen onderzoek hiernaar gedaan en daaruit blijkt dat met name grotere bedrijven ook hun dierhouderij goed verzorgen. Ik spreek dan met name ook heel duidelijk over hoe wij daar in Nederland gigantisch bovenop zitten en deze discussie voeren. Daarom zei ik ook net tegen collega Hazekamp, zij spreekt over de intensieve veehouderij en stelt dat het daaruit voortkomt. Dat is totaal niet waar. Met name nu is de biologische sector hierdoor getroffen. We halen heel veel zaken door elkaar.

(De spreker gaat in op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), Question "carton bleu". – Madame Schreijer-Pierik, vous avez dit que les Pays-Bas produisaient beaucoup de fientes de poule et qu’ils n'avaient pas assez de capacités pour les incinérer. Ils comptent donc sur des régions qui sont peut-être plus respectueuses de l'environnement et ont des élevages moins intensifs pour épandre les fientes qu’ils ont en excédent. Ne pensez-vous pas que votre pays ferait mieux d'investir dans des capacités d'incinération suffisantes, de manière à pouvoir traiter la surproduction de fientes de poule, plutôt que de compter sur les régions voisines? C’est peut-être une question de responsabilité de votre État membre.

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Ik ben echt heel blij met deze vraag. In Nederland lopen wij in de pluimveehouderijsector voorop met de verbrandingscapaciteit voor pluimveemest. Nu hebben we ermee te maken, omdat er toch een lichte concentratie fipronil in die mest zit. Daarom moet alles verbrand worden en dat heeft te maken met cijfers en met hoe wij in Europa dat in elkaar hebben gezet. Dan is mijn concrete vraag: met die kleine concentratie, die er dan nog inzit, mag dat dan niet uitgereden worden over de Nederlandse akkers, bij de Nederlandse akkerbouwbedrijven? Waarom vraag ik dit? Omdat bij zaad- en pootgoed, ja, we halen hier echt soms appels en peren door elkaar, ook fipronil wordt gebruikt in kleine concentraties. Vandaar de vraag.

(De spreker gaat in op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – I am sorry we are asking our colleague so many questions but her speech was a very good one.

Colleague, do you accept that the worst thing about this situation is the fact that the competent authorities knew about this but unfortunately it took months and months before consumers were alerted, when 22 countries were affected? Do you not think the worst thing is that we should have to fight against this kind of a situation?

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Dank voor deze vraag. Ik ben het helemaal met u eens. Daarom heb ik ook meteen de vraag gesteld aan de Commissie. Wat ligt hieraan ten grondslag? Waarom hebben we zo lang gewacht om elkaar te informeren? Ook zeker in mijn land met de NVWA: als op onze boerderij de varkens naar het buitenland verplaatst gaan worden, naar slachterijen, komt er een NVWA-er op bezoek. Dan komt de eerste NVWA-dokter en die wordt weer gecontroleerd door een andere dierenarts. Men zit er gigantisch bovenop. Dan denk ik dat het in deze situatie toch te is gek geworden dat het zo lang geduurd heeft.

  Eric Andrieu (S&D). –Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, c'est comme l'histoire de cet homme qui tombe d'un immeuble de 50 étages. Au fur et à mesure de sa chute, il répète, pour se rassurer: jusqu'ici tout va bien, jusqu'ici tout va bien. Cette phrase est extraite d'un film français qui s'appelle «La haine» et elle pourrait s'appliquer excellemment à la question du fipronil.

Des pesticides interdits ou supérieurs aux doses autorisées, de la viande de cheval vendue pour du bœuf, un désherbant contesté et reconnu par certains scientifiques comme cancérogène probable mais toujours en vente libre dans les grandes surfaces, des perturbateurs endocriniens au bisphénol A, en passant par les nitrates ou le miel frelaté, il n'y a pas un mois sans que n'éclate un nouveau scandale sanitaire.

Les citoyens européens s'inquiètent à juste titre de leur alimentation et donc de leur agriculture et de leur environnement. Et maintenant, les œufs contaminés au fipronil! On veut nous rassurer en nous disant que ces œufs contaminés n'étaient pas dangereux pour la santé des consommateurs, mais je pose la question: qu'en aurait-il été si ces œufs avaient été toxiques et avaient présenté une menace pour la santé de nos de concitoyens? Est-ce qu'on aurait attendu un an, comme c'est le cas ici?

Ce nouveau scandale n'est pas acceptable, il démontre trois choses. Premièrement que nos systèmes d'alerte rapide européens sont perfectibles et qu'il faut les améliorer très vite, et cela a été dit. Deuxièmement, que nous devons tout mettre en œuvre pour renforcer les contrôles afin de protéger les consommateurs de l'Union de ces pratiques frauduleuses. Et enfin, qu'il est fondamental de défendre et de soutenir nos filières, qui se trouvent déstabilisées et prises au piège par quelques tricheurs sans scrupules.

L'important n'est pas la chute, Monsieur le Commissaire, c'est l'atterrissage.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Zabierając głos w debacie poświęconej skandalowi związanemu ze skażeniem fipronilem jaj i mięsa drobiowego z farm w Holandii i Belgii, chcę zwrócić uwagę, że pomiędzy pojawieniem się pierwszego zagrożenia a reakcją stosownych władz tych krajów minęło aż osiem miesięcy. Otóż w Holandii już w listopadzie 2016 r. było prowadzone śledztwo w sprawie nielegalnego dodatku fipronilu do preparatu Dega 16, a mimo tego nie zdecydowano się wtedy na kontrole zawartości tej substancji w jajach i mięsie kurzym pochodzącym z ferm drobiarskich, na których ten wspomagany fipronilem preparat był stosowany. To właśnie brak reakcji stosownych władz w Holandii i Belgii już na początku pojawienia się zagrożenia skażenia jaj i mięsa kurzego spowodowało pojawienie się tych produktów prawie we wszystkich krajach Unii Europejskiej. I właśnie przede wszystkim z tego wielomiesięcznego opóźnienia należy wyciągnąć wnioski dla funkcjonowania unijnego systemu szybkiego ostrzegania o żywności i paszach RAS.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162. ust. 8 Regulaminu))

  Przewodniczący. – Proszę Państwa! Mamy bardzo mało czasu, więc po raz ostatni udzielę niebieskiej karty. Bardzo proszę, pani poseł Wiśniewska, jeśli pan poseł Kuźmiuk akceptuje niebieską kartę.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. –Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe jest sprawą kluczową. Żywność staje się niestety realnym zagrożeniem zdrowia konsumentów. System powiadamiania o zagrożeniach okazał się fikcją. Chciałabym zapytać Pana, Panie Pośle, jak Pan sądzi czy Holender Frans Timmermans, wiceprzewodniczący Komisji Europejskiej, tak bojowy w sprawie fikcyjnych problemów w Polsce, rozpocznie, a może już rozpoczął, procedurę w sprawie ukarania Holandii za narażenie na utratę zdrowia ludzi na całym świecie?

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani Poseł! Rzeczywiście przed chwileczką powiedziałem, że to ośmiomiesięczne opóźnienie wynikało z określonych zachowań władz Holandii i Belgii. I mam nadzieję, że pan komisarz Andriukaitis rozmawiał albo będzie rozmawiał także z panem komisarzem Timmermansem, który reprezentuje w komisji Holandię. No i, jak widzimy, ten kraj właśnie jest odpowiedzialny za doprowadzenie do tej sytuacji.

  Jan Huitema (ALDE). – Ondernemers zijn emotioneel en financieel gigantisch hard getroffen door de fipronilcrisis, ongeacht of het nu gaat om kooi-, scharrel-, vrije uitloop- of biologische bedrijven. Ik leef ontzettend met hen mee. Concreet heb ik daarom de volgende vraag: pluimveebedrijven waarvan de eieren, vlees of mest fipronilwaarden hebben boven de Europese MRL, krijgen geen exportcertificaat. Voor mest is er echter geen Europese MRL bekend. Dit betekent in de praktijk een absolute nultolerantie voor fipronil in mest. Voor bedrijven is het zeer moeilijk daaraan te voldoen. Pluimveebedrijven krijgen geen exportcertificaat voor hun eieren, dieren en vlees die vrij zijn van fipronil, omdat er sporen van fipronil worden gevonden in de mest. Mest die overigens wordt verbrand. De gevolgen voor pluimveebedrijven met bijvoorbeeld moederdieren is groot. Een groot deel van de broedeieren wordt bij deze bedrijven geëxporteerd. Zonder exportcertificaat lopen deze bedrijven het risico voor een lange termijn geen afzet te hebben en daardoor failliet te gaan. Kan de Europese Commissie ervoor zorgen dat eieren geëxporteerd mogen worden als ze vrij zijn van fipronil ondanks sporen van fipronil in de mest?

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, dnes tady řešíme, že se kvůli nedostatečné ochraně Evropou šíří vejce, která jsou označována jako toxická. Přitom belgické úřady věděly o podezření na kontaminovaná vejce látkou fipronil už začátkem června, ale informovaly o něm poprvé až 20. července. A já se vás tedy ptám: Opravdu je toto způsob, kterým se představujeme spolupráci a ochranu spotřebitelů?

Možná má mluvčí belgického Úřadu vlády pravdu a rozhodnutí nezveřejnit informace o prvním podezření bylo v souladu s evropskými předpisy. Pokud tomu tak ovšem bylo, pak se na evropské úrovni musí předpisy změnit. Já vás vyzývám, pane komisaři, abyste byl nositelem této změny.

Co však považuji za zcela skandální a nepřijatelné a motivované pouhou snahou ochránit své podniky je to, co belgická vláda udělala. Nešlo jí o zdraví evropských občanů, to považuji za zcela skandální, šlo jí pouze o profit vlastních podniků. A tomu bychom se měli vyvarovat a i tam musíme hledat cesty, aby se toto nemohlo v žádné jiné zemi už nikdy opakovat.

  Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Es gibt einen Skandal im Skandal. Viele haben ja schon gesagt, dass es Monate dauert, bis nationale Behörden auf Verdachtsmomente reagieren. Dass es acht Wochen dauert, bis die Öffentlichkeit nach ersten Funden informiert wird, das ist ein Skandal! Aber auch die Reaktion der Kommission ist nicht angemessen gewesen. Es muss eine Verpflichtung geben, dass Mitgliedsländer sofort etwas melden, besonders, wenn es um Gesundheitsgefahren geht.

Warum hat die Kommission bei der Dimension des Themas dann nicht eine Task Force eingesetzt, um dem nachzugehen? Warum setzt man das erst Wochen später auf die Tagesordnung des Ministerrates? Das ist keine angemessene Reaktion. Da muss es von Seiten der Kommission deutlichere Reaktionen geben. Und natürlich geht es auch um ein agrarindustrielles System: Kein Bereich der Landwirtschaft ist so industriell wie die Eiererzeugung, und dass da die Betrugsanfälligkeit höher ist, ist völlig klar. Deshalb müssen diese Bereiche stärker und effizienter kontrolliert werden, und ich bin mir mit vielen Kollegen darüber einig, dass dieses Mittel Fipronil nicht mehr auf den europäischen Markt gehört.

  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Liebe Wähler, wir diskutieren heute über faule Eier in der EU – Stichwort Fipronil. Trump und Putin diskutieren derweil mit Nordkorea über den eskalierenden Atomstreit und versuchen, den abzuwenden. Friede unserem Hühnerstall – das ist die realpolitische Ambition der Europäischen Union und von Juncker und Merkel. Dieser neue grenzüberschreitende Lebensmittelskandal aus Belgien zeigt uns aber, dass die EU nicht funktioniert – vorne nicht und hinten auch nicht. Die EU will alles regulieren und harmonisieren, aber die nationalen und europäischen Lebensmittelkontrollbehörden funktionieren nicht, die Informationsmethoden funktionieren nicht, die Frühwarnsysteme auch nicht. Und nun heißt es auch noch, dass möglicherweise die Grenzwerte gar nicht richtig bemessen sind und vielleicht die Gefahr geringer ist als angenommen. „Was nun?“, fragt sich das Huhn. Und wir sagen: Vielleicht eiern wir etwas weniger rum und reformieren die EU mal von Grund auf.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. Formand! Både Kommissæren og Ministerrådet siger, at æggeskandalen viser, at vores fødevarevarslingssystem i EU virker. Jeg synes, æggeskandalen viser, at vores system ikke virker godt nok. Der er altså brug for, at vi strammer op. 24 medlemsstater har været ramt af denne skandale. Vi bliver nødt til at forpligte vores medlemsstater til at orientere hinanden med det samme, når der sker noget. Men orientering er simpelthen ikke nok. Vi har også brug for at kræve af medlemsstaterne, at de afsætter langt flere ressourcer til at kontrollere vores fødevarer. I dag er det hovedsagelig virksomhederne, der kontrollerer sig selv. Det er ikke godt nok. Medlemsstaterne bliver derfor nødt til at oppe sig, hvis dette system skal fungere bedre i fremtiden. Det synes jeg, vi skylder forbrugerne, som har krav på at vide, at deres fødevarer er sikre. Sådan er det desværre ikke i dag.

  Bas Belder (ECR). – In mijn land, Nederland, is een groot aantal pluimveehouders, tussen 200 en 250, ernstig getroffen door de fipronilcrisis. De kosten zijn enorm: vernietiging van eieren, schoonmaken van de stallen, afvoeren van mest. Bedrijven dreigen hierdoor om te vallen. Twee vragen heb ik voor u, commissaris. Allereerst een vraag over de mest: kan de Commissie duidelijkheid verschaffen over de maximale residulimiet voor mest? Lidstaten blijken daar verschillend mee om te gaan. Op dit moment moeten pluimveehouders in mijn land mest verbranden, zelfs als deze geen fipronil bevat. Hierdoor blijven bedrijven onnodig op slot, met alle gevolgen van dien. Daarnaast een vraag over de schade: lidstaten blijken verschillend om te gaan met het verlenen van schadevergoedingen aan getroffen pluimveehouders. Welke ruimte, mijnheer de commissaris, heeft een lidstaat precies om een schadevergoeding te geven binnen de staatssteunregels? Graag meer duidelijkheid hierover vanuit de Commissie.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el sistema de alerta rápida para alimentos y piensos y la trazabilidad en que se basa es una gran aportación de la Unión Europea a la seguridad alimentaria.

En el País Vasco, por ejemplo, fue la Dirección de Salud Pública del Gobierno vasco quien, el pasado 12 de agosto, en un tiempo récord, inmovilizó una partida presuntamente afectada por fipronil, acreditando la capacidad de las autoridades competentes para resolver la situación.

Pero la crisis del fipronil ha demostrado también que la resistencia de un Estado concreto —en este caso, al parecer, Holanda— a admitir que es el origen del problema, la tentación de sobreproteger lo propio pone en riesgo a los consumidores europeos y perjudica el buen nombre de toda la producción alimentaria europea. La crisis que sufrieron en 2011 los pepinos —y que resultó tener su origen en unos brotes de soja— debió servirnos para aprender una lección que no podemos volver a suspender.

Por eso necesitamos que, en la anunciada reunión de alto nivel, se exija más honradez, colaboración, transparencia y control para mejorar el sistema de alerta rápida para alimentos y piensos.

  Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, je vois trois questions.

D'abord, qui a donné l'alerte? Le commissaire a indiqué: le système européen d'alerte rapide. Je pense que c'est un très bon outil, comme vous l'avez mentionné, mais il faut que l’on responsabilise les États membres. Comme cela a été dit, il est anormal que les Belges aient mis autant de temps et les Hollandais autant de temps. Cela veut dire qu’il faut proposer des amendements au niveau de la sanction, parce qu'il faut se servir de cet exemple pour que cela ne se reproduise pas.

Après, on a un deuxième problème: qui contrôle et comment? Regardez au niveau des États membres. Soit ce sont des agences, soit ce sont des opérateurs. J'ai regardé l'exemple de la France: sur 15 milliards d’œufs, il n’y a que 600 contrôles. C'est donc vraiment une aiguille dans une botte de foin. Et, quand j'ai regardé les contrôles, il n’y avait pas le fipronil, parce que le fipronil est modérément toxique, comme dit l'OMS. Vous voyez donc qu’il y a un gros souci au niveau du contrôle des produits.

Dernière chose, je trouve qu'il y a deux poids, deux mesures. Quand vous dites: «il n’y a pas de risque sanitaire», qu'en savez-vous Monsieur le Commissaire? On sait que le fipronil est neurotoxique, qu’il peut provoquer des cancers au niveau de la thyroïde et qu’en plus il s'accumule dans les graisses. Donc, comme cette situation est telle depuis septembre 2016, on ne connaît absolument pas les risques.

  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ho portato in Aula queste due uova, che sono praticamente identiche: soltanto che una è contaminata dal fipronil e l'altra è incontaminata.

Allora, come avrebbe potuto fare un normale cittadino per distinguere queste due uova, per sapere quale scegliere? Chi doveva fare i controlli, signor Presidente? E come mai la Commissione non fa dei controlli indipendenti? Come mai i sistemi di allerta rapido olandese e belga in realtà non sono stati rapidi e hanno permesso tutto questo?

Allora noi diciamo che le frodi ci sono e ci saranno sempre: ma se i sistemi di controllo e di allerta rapida dell'Unione europea sono questi – e cioè praticamente dei colabrodo che fanno acqua da tutte le parti – allora noi dobbiamo capire qual è la soluzione: per noi la soluzione è che queste sostanze tossiche per la salute non vadano neanche autorizzate sul territorio dell'Unione europea. Non c'è altra soluzione.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, un nouveau scandale alimentaire transfrontière en Europe a éclaté ces derniers mois: les œufs bourrés d’un insecticide, le fipronil.

Dix-neuf pays européens concernés, des dizaines de millions d’œufs et de produits transformés, comme les gaufres ou les biscuits pour enfants, ont été retirés de la vente.

Nous devons combattre la fraude alimentaire par certains au sein de l’industrie alimentaire européenne. C’est donc plus d’Europe qu’il nous faut pour améliorer le système d’alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires que j’ai déjà permis de renforcer en tant que rapporteur de notre Parlement sur les menaces transfrontières graves pour la santé en 2013.

Que faut-il faire alors? Rendre obligatoire pour les États membres l’alerte auprès des instances européennes qui existent et qui ont déjà démontré, ces dernières années, leur efficacité.

Monsieur le Commissaire, il est donc temps que ces politiques de lutte contre la fraude alimentaire soient, non plus de la compétence des États membres, mais une véritable politique européenne communautarisée. Il y va de notre sécurité alimentaire, donc de notre santé.

  Beata Gosiewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Dzisiaj mamy skandal z fipronilem. Jaki skandal będzie jutro, jeżeli Komisja Europejska wreszcie na poważnie nie zajmie się kontrolą bezpieczeństwa żywności? Panie Komisarzu, stwierdził Pan, że krytyka systemu rasy jest nieuzasadniona. Ja się z Panem zgadzam. Ta krytyka należy się Komisji Europejskiej za to, że nie zapewniła bezpieczeństwa produkcji żywności i od ośmiu miesięcy obywatele Unii Europejskiej, konsumenci, byli narażeni na spożywanie jaj i mięsa drobiowego z fipronilem. Czy Komisja Europejska nie powinna ocenić ryzyka i zarządzić kontroli w Unii Europejskiej, jeżeli pojawił się problem w Belgii? To nie jest trudne do przewidzenia. Pan bagatelizuje problem ryzyka. Fipronil jest szczególnie szkodliwy przy długotrwałym stosowaniu, uszkadza system nerwowy, uszkadza nerki, wątrobę i tarczycę. Proszę tego nie bagatelizować, konsumenci Unii Europejskiej mają prawo być tym zaniepokojeni i czuć się niebezpiecznie kupując produkty, a oszuści, widząc, że instytucje Unii Europejskiej nie działają, właśnie takie oszustwa stosują.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je vous remercie d’avoir relaté les faits tels qu’ils se sont passés. Vous avez eu raison d’insister sur le fait que, effectivement, la responsabilité relève davantage, en premier lieu, des criminels qui devraient être punis, car les crises à répétition, que ce soit celle de la vache folle, de la dioxine, de la viande étiquetée «bœuf» alors que c’est du cheval, du fipronil, sont autant de crises alimentaires qui jettent l’opprobre sur toute une filière qui ne mérite pas cela, alors que ce ne sont que quelques criminels qui trichent.

Mais c’est aussi la responsabilité des États membres. Il est vrai que les autorités belges ont quelque peu traîné: sept semaines entre le moment où elles ont été au courant du problème et celui où elles ont averti la Commission… Que dire des autorités néerlandaises? Cela faisait sept mois qu’elles étaient au courant. Depuis novembre 2016.

Monsieur le Commissaire, ne faut-il pas inviter les autorités nationales à communiquer plus vite? Ne pas changer le système, mais plutôt les responsabiliser et, pourquoi pas, en leur appliquant des sanctions, de manière à les inciter à être plus proactives à l’avenir dans des cas similaires de fraude.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, jak zde již bylo řečeno, tak systém včasného varování existuje, ale jeho fungování je závislé na činnosti kontrolních národních orgánů, v tomto případě Nizozemska a Belgie. Důvěra občanů ve fungování vnitřního trhu je závislá na důslednosti v kontrole a objasnění všech pochybností.

V této souvislosti mě těší, že testy drůbežího chovu v České republice na fipronil dopadly negativně, a očekávám, že kauza fipronilu bude vyšetřena a viníci kontaminace budou potrestáni tak, aby důvěra spotřebitelů na vnitřním evropském trhu byla obnovena.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, evropští spotřebitelé mají ještě v čerstvé paměti aféry s neoznačeným koňským masem v potravinách nebo skandály s masem z Brazílie a na vnitřním trhu se objevila kontaminovaná vejce používaná navíc jako přísada v řadě dalších výrobků. Po více než měsíci od prvotních nálezů došlo teprve minulý týden v České republice k uvalení povinnosti kontrol dovážených vajec a vaječných produktů před uvedením na trh.

Je proto zcela na místě ptát se, zda dozorové orgány včas a dostatečně naplnily povinnost výměny informací v rámci systému rychlého varování a ostatní závazky, které vyplývají z dozoru nad trhem. Jsou sankce za porušení stávajících předpisů dostatečně odrazující, aby nedocházelo v potravinářství k používání zakázaných látek? Nad nekalými praktikami a opakovanými podvody v potravinovém řetězci na vnitřním trhu prostě nelze přivírat oči. Nejen, že cena za hazard s lidským zdravím jako v současné fipronilové kauze je až příliš vysoká, ale důvěra spotřebitelů ve vnitřní trh se bohužel opět otřásá v základech.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πρόκειται για ένα τεράστιο διατροφικό σκάνδαλο με εκατομμύρια ύποπτα αβγά μολυσμένα από fipronil που κυκλοφόρησαν σε όλη την Ευρώπη και αποδεικνύεται ότι και στο Βέλγιο και στην Ολλανδία οι αρμόδιες εθνικές αρχές το γνώριζαν τουλάχιστον από τα τέλη του 2016. Το σύστημα λοιπόν δεν λειτούργησε.

Σε σχέση με την Ελλάδα όμως, κύριε Andriukaitis, μετά από συνεχείς παρεμβάσεις μου, αποκαλύφθηκε ότι τα υλικά εισήχθησαν στην Ελλάδα από τη Γαλλία, τριακόσια κιλά σκόνης από ασπράδια αβγού μολυσμένα με fipronil, και ενώ εγώ ζητούσα την απόσυρση των αβγών και ολόκληρης της ύποπτης αυτής παρτίδας, τελικά οι αρμόδιες ελληνικές αρχές δεν το έπραξαν και με ανακοίνωση ενημέρωσαν ότι η ύποπτη παρτίδα των τριακοσίων κιλών από σκόνη από ασπράδια αυγών χρησιμοποιήθηκε από ελληνική επιχείρηση και δημιουργήθηκαν μίγματα σε αναλογία ένα προς εκατό, μία αναλογία στην οποία η συγκέντρωση fipronil, λέει ο ΕΦΕΤ, δεν είναι επικίνδυνη. Ακούστε πράγματα!

Ρωτάμε λοιπόν ποια είναι αυτή η ελληνική επιχείρηση που το έπραξε; Εσείς, ως Επιτροπή, συμφωνείτε με αυτή την απαράδεκτη ενέργεια; Τι μέτρα θα λάβετε; Είναι απαράδεκτο αυτό που συμβαίνει και στην Ελλάδα και σε όλη την Ευρώπη!

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiamas komisare, kolegos. Kalbėdamas apie didesnę Europos Sąjungos dalį ir net Honkongą pasiekusį fipronilo kiaušiniuose skandalą, noriu akcentuoti, kaip svarbu turėti sistemą, laiku ir operatyviai sureaguojančią į analogiškus skandalus bei užkertančią kelią rimto pavojaus kilimui. Europos Sąjungos rinka yra didžiulė, natūralu, kad joje kartkartėmis neapsieinama be panašių skandalų. Tačiau, manau, galime pasidžiaugti, kaip į šį atvejį sureagavo atitinkamos institucijos. Kita vertus, šis skandalas verčia susimąstyti ir apie kitus pavyzdžius, kaip antai glifosato likučiai maisto produktuose. Gal tai puiki galimybė atsigręžti į vartotojo lūkesčius ir atnaujinti diskusiją, kokių produktų tikimės ant savo stalo?

  Esther Herranz García (PPE). – Señor presidente, este escándalo, el del fipronil, no solo es un problema de seguridad alimentaria, sino que fundamentalmente es de confianza: si la tenemos o no en los mecanismos de alerta en vigor desde hace cuatro décadas. Y no funcionan bien y, por tanto, este es un escándalo más.

En España aún recordamos cómo, hace unos años, el mal uso por parte de un Estado miembro y sus autoridades dio lugar a la denuncia injustificada contra productores españoles de pepino, que ha dado lugar a indemnizaciones millonarias por sentencia judicial hace escasos días.

Hoy, desgraciadamente, sí hay un fraude, y por un retraso de muchos meses en una comunicación de una contaminación que deberían haber hecho de forma inmediata los Estados miembros afectados. Pero esto denota la ineficacia y la deficiencia de funcionamiento de este instrumento.

Hay que asegurarse de que la opinión pública esté tranquila. Para ello, nada mejor que la prevención. Nada más adecuado que disponer de una legislación europea en food defense, que, como ya venimos advirtiendo a la Comisión desde hace dos años, es un instrumento que puede darnos la tranquilidad que necesitamos los consumidores y las herramientas que necesitan los productores. Se llama food defense. Norteamérica la tiene; ¿por qué no la tenemos aún nosotros?

También sería necesario aclarar cuál es exactamente el papel que juega la nueva red de fraude alimentario, creada en 2013 a raíz de la carne de caballo. ¿Para qué sirve? Queríamos saber su opinión.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la contaminazione da fipronil mostra tutta la vulnerabilità della nostra produzione agroalimentare. Lo scandalo in poco tempo si è diffuso a macchia d'olio, colpendo 24 Stati su 28. La tracciabilità deve essere totale su tutti i prodotti alimentari e occorre un forte inasprimento di pene per le aziende che commettono abusi e per quegli Stati membri che non fanno controlli preventivi.

È essenziale armonizzare il sistema di allerta rapido per alimenti e mangimi e del sistema di cooperazione bilaterale sulle frodi, che il Belgio aveva utilizzato nei primi giorni di giugno per chiedere informazioni all'Olanda. Vanno precisati chiaramente i termini per la notifica delle allerte nel sistema europeo e il conseguente avvio delle procedure di ritiro e richiamo, le modalità di gestione degli animali e delle uova negli allevamenti interessati dalla contaminazione e bisogna stabilire i fattori di concentrazione da applicare per la valutazione di conformità degli ovoprodotti.

Insomma, più trasparenza e più rapidità, ma anche più Europa per tutelare i nostri consumatori.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr, a mindenki által jól ismert tojásbotrány rávilágított arra, hogy a riasztási rendszer fejlesztése mellett a baromfitenyésztés tartástechnológiája is javításra szorul, hogy összeurópai fellépés szükséges a kemikáliák élelmiszeripari várakozási idejével kapcsolatban, és arra is rávilágított, hogy a baromfinál az ún. állatjóléti támogatás hiánya kérdéseket vet fel. A megoldás csakis európai szintű lehet. Itt az ideje, hogy a közös piacot még erősebb közös élelmiszer- és takarmánybiztonsági rendszerrel támogassuk meg. A tojásbotrányhoz hasonló krízishelyzetek kialakulása esetére pedig megoldás lehet egy többéves krízisalaprendszer a meglévő egyéves krízisalapok gyakorlata helyett.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to say that I am very happy about those broad debates. Some of you made political statements. Of course, I agree that the Commission is responsible, as Ms Gosiewska said. I am responsible, I am personally responsible. It is a big test for me – and for you also, for all of us, because the situation is very delicate.

On the one hand, we know very well that we need to have facts, arguments, scientifically-based criteria and, of course, reality and fact-finding checks, not just talking generally. Because dissemination of mistrust, dissemination of fear, dissemination of misleading information also affects consumer perception. We need to understand balance and to see how to move forward together. This is not the time to name, blame and shame.

It was a big test for me on 20 July because I faced for the first time such a big challenge and we decided, on the one hand, to be very active, very precise, to communicate with governments, to discuss with ministers, and on the other hand, to manage information, to provide information for consumers.

You mentioned failures of the Rapid Alert System. No, this is not true. Only the Rapid Alert System allows us to understand where we are, how many countries are affected. The European Union produced 360 million eggs per day – please, calculate that per one week and then, can you imagine it, we withdrew 20, 40 million eggs from this big amount. It shows that our Rapid Alert System and tracking and tracing system is effective. That is true.

Another question is: how are we using information, how are we acting, especially in using two different systems with different tasks. A criminal investigation in one hand, the food safety issue in the other. How to build a coherent approach? It is our task to move forward and to enforce our situation.

Let me start with some concrete questions. Ms Dalli, Mr Agnew and Ms Rivasi raised questions on public health. As regards a possible risk to public health, eggs from only three farms exceeded the acute risk level. I would like to provide you with this real information. Only three farms exceeded the acute risk level. This means that the consumer would need to consume several eggs from these farms in a short period of time to exceed the acute reference dose.

As regards the chronic risk, long-term exposure to fipronil via eggs and egg products should not exceed the acceptable daily intake. From the analytical results available, the majority of the eggs are below that level. This is why we once again draw your attention to this. The risk to public health is really very low. This is not to minimise the incident, as it relates to the illegal use of unauthorised substances. So all in all, consumers are safe, as I mentioned.

Talking about action in the future: Mr Belet, Ms Dalli and Mr Demesmaeker raised those questions. After managing the consequences of the incident and having taken the necessary risk management measures, we now have to move on and understand what lessons can be learned from this situation.

On 30 August, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed discussed the situation at a technical level and I asked Member States – France, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium – to provide a coherent approach and to present their views and, of course, a thorough assessment and also proposals on how to deal with those issues together.

This means that I will organise a high-level ministerial meeting on 26 September because we need to address all the issues and questions which were raised today. I will collect your questions and will see how to include your questions on manure, zero tolerance, compensation issues. We need to understand the situation and we will present our conclusions to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in October, because this is a sequence of problems.

Speaking of delays by the Member States, we have to look at this from two angles: the functioning of the system itself, and the use of the system. The system as such, as it was designed, is working well from my point of view. Once it has been put into the system, information has been flowing very well, but how to react quickly is another thing.

I fully understand the situation of the competent authorities because they have difficulties in deciding. First of all they must understand the source of the problems, then the extent of the problems, and then see how to react quickly because it was detected in a completely accidental way. This is very important once again. There are a lot of questions so perhaps I can collect those questions and answer them in written form, as I know we are pressed for time.

Speaking about compensation, the priorities for these coming weeks is for producers, business operators and Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure a high level of consumer protection and for the Commission to ensure harmonised enforcement of European Union rules in Member States.

The economic impact of this situation needs to be assessed before starting talks on potential compensation because the situation is not yet at an end. We need to assess the situation considering both the impact on producers and consumption levels in the long term, as well as the ongoing criminal investigation. But we must be sure that our compensation is not going into the hands of criminals. This is clear; we will look at the real picture. We will compensate those who were not involved in criminal activities, but those who were involved in criminal activities should be punished, we should not allow them to use our compensation.

Speaking about animal welfare issues, I agree: we need to discuss animal welfare issues. It does not matter what kind of farming – organic, non-conventional, and so on – but I think we have a good opportunity to use the animal welfare platform and to debate those issues, speaking about those questions.

On manure, as I mentioned, we need to understand that zero tolerance is very important, but of course I will ask my services, my advisers, scientists, to see how we may discuss those issues in more detail because it is a very technical question.

I spoke earlier about the collective responsibility that we bear for safeguarding higher standards of food safety and public health. I am heartened therefore that this House has taken such an active interest in this issue and I have listened closely to the debate today. Let me reiterate: we are determined to improve the use of, and coordination between, the Rapid Alert System and the Administrative Assistance and Cooperation System. However, we cannot and should not place the responsibility for the situation exclusively on these systems. They simply cannot function if they are not used correctly.

I feel that our dialogue today demonstrates the value of effective and continuous communication and we will do our best and we will present to you later our outcomes after 26 September and after the Council conclusions.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, mande callar a todo el mundo, porque estamos haciendo verdaderos esfuerzos para escuchar a un comisario que está tratando de poner sobre la mesa —y ante un problema que nos preocupa mucho— soluciones. A quien no quiera escucharle, por favor, invítele a que salga, pero que mantenga el silencio en este Pleno, porque esto también forma parte de la imagen del Parlamento Europeo.

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, I have listened to the debate with great attention – a debate that was carried by deep concern about public health in Europe. The protection of public health in the EU is extremely important. This is why, over the years, the EU has built a comprehensive and solid system to ensure safe food for all and to detect unsafe or adulterated food. The events this summer call for a renewed assessment of this system. At the same time, all actors involved have to remain vigilant and act to ensure that there are no flaws in the functioning of the current system in place. If the in-depth assessment of the fipronil crisis shows the need to review and to improve the system, we should all stand ready to do whatever is required. Commissioner Andriukaitis, besides answering all the questions of substance, also laid out the next steps. 26 September will be the next chance at a high-level meeting to discuss these issues.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – Estamos ante una crisis provocada por el uso fraudulento de una sustancia prohibida en la desparasitación de animales de granja destinados al consumo. Sabemos ya que el riesgo para la salud, que pudiera derivarse, es bajo y se ha procedido, desde que se activó el sistema de alerta rápida, a la destrucción, retirada e inmovilización de los productos afectados. Ello demuestra el buen funcionamiento de nuestro sistema de trazabilidad de los productos. La contaminación se inicia en Países Bajos y Bélgica y en estos momentos hay investigaciones abiertas en varios Estados miembros. Los fiscales de estos países verificarán las muestras y ayudarán a determinar quién sabía qué. Por parte de la CE, la investigación continúa para extraer lecciones y mejorar nuestro sistema de alerta rápida que ha funcionado correctamente. No así la tardanza en notificar de algún Estado miembro. Al parecer, los primeros casos se detectaron a finales de 2016 y hasta el 20 de julio de 2017, la CE no recibió la notificación necesaria para activar el RASFF. La cuestión se analizará en una reunión ministerial de alto nivel convocada para el 26 de septiembre y cuyas conclusiones se elevarán al Consejo de Ministros de Agricultura de 10/11 de octubre.

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D), por escrito. – Estamos ante una crisis provocada por el uso fraudulento de una sustancia prohibida en la desparasitación de animales de granja destinados al consumo. Sabemos ya que el riesgo para la salud, que pudiera derivarse, es bajo y se ha procedido, desde que se activó el sistema de alerta rápida, a la destrucción, retirada e inmovilización de los productos afectados. Ello demuestra el buen funcionamiento de nuestro sistema de trazabilidad de los productos. La contaminación se inicia en Países Bajos y Bélgica y en estos momentos hay investigaciones abiertas en varios Estados miembros. Los fiscales de estos países verificarán las muestras y ayudarán a determinar quién sabía qué. Por parte de la CE, la investigación continúa para extraer lecciones y mejorar nuestro sistema de alerta rápida que ha funcionado correctamente. No así la tardanza en notificar de algún Estado miembro. Al parecer, los primeros casos se detectaron a finales de 2016 y hasta el 20 de julio de 2017, la CE no recibió la notificación necesaria para activar el RASFF. La cuestión se analizará en una reunión ministerial de alto nivel convocada para el 26 de septiembre y cuyas conclusiones se elevarán al Consejo de Ministros de Agricultura de 10/11 de octubre.

  Емил Радев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Скандалът това лято със заразените с фипронил яйца е безпардонен. Заразени яйца и продукти има в 26 държави членки и вероятно десетки други по целия свят. Моята родина България също е сред потърпевшите. Целият сектор е в шок, пазарът все още не може да се стабилизира, а загубите за фермери, производители и крайни потребители вероятно ще възлизат на стотици милиони евро. Искам да разбера от ЕК дали държавите-първоизточници на проблема са информирали надлежно съответните органи чрез системата за бързо предупреждение за храни и фуражи и, ако да – в какъв срок? В случай, че ЕК не е имала навременна информация, какви мерки смята да предприеме срещу тези държави? Можем ли скоро да очакваме процедури за нарушение на европейското законодателство или по-скоро ще се търси ревизия и промяна на процедурите за уведомление? Очаквам гражданите да получат своевременна и надеждна информация. Новините по темата на моменти са противоречиви, което обърква и плаши потребителите, като същевременно създава допълнителна несигурност на пазара. В тази връзка призовавам компетентните органи за пълна прозрачност относно случаите на наличие на заразени продукти и адекватни действия за изтеглянето им от пазара. Разчитам на бързи и решителни действия за предотвратяване на проблема и ограничаване на щетите за европейските производители и потребители.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), în scris. – Scandalul contaminării ouălor cu Fipronil și impactul său amplu ridică două categorii de probleme, în afara unei obligatorii îmbunătățiri a sistemului de alertă internă privind siguranța alimentară.

Prima prioritate este nevoia clară de a investiga modul în care sunt folosite insecticidele și produsele de protecție a plantelor, în general, în domeniul producerii alimentelor. În ce măsură putem fi siguri că astfel de substanțe nu au fost folosite ilegal, pe teritoriul UE, și în procesul de obținere a altor alimente esențiale precum carnea, laptele și produsele lactate etc? Controale ale modului de utilizare a acestor substanțe sau măsuri precum înăsprirea unor reguli de achiziționare pot preveni viitoare cazuri de contaminare a unor alimente cu substanțe chimice periculoase, contribuind major la protejarea sănătății cetățenilor.

Cealaltă prioritate este nevoia de a reconstrui încrederea consumatorilor din UE în producătorii de alimente. Câteva cazuri de fraudă au afectat major un sector al industriei alimentare; vorbim de costuri economice suportate de producători nevinovați, precum și de confuzie și suspiciune la nivelul consumatorilor, care nu mai știu ce produse sunt sigure. Comisia are responsabilitatea de a ajuta producătorii de alimente și fermierii europeni să-și reconstruiască relația de încredere cu cetățenii. Aceste două priorități sunt, bineînțeles, conectate.

PRÉSIDENCE DE M. ANTONIO TAJANI
Président

6. Изявление на председателството

  Le Président. – Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, chers collègues, il est de coutume que, lors de sa prise de fonction, le Président nouvellement élu prononce un discours devant l’Assemblée.

Lors de mon élection, au mois de janvier, il m’a semblé bon d’attendre quelque peu avant de partager avec vous ma vision des choses. Ce sera un discours bref.

Cela m’a permis de mesurer davantage le poids de la responsabilité qui est la mienne, en tant que Président, mais aussi de celle qui est la nôtre, en tant qu’institution et en tant que députés.

Il nous reste moins de deux ans avant les élections et nous avons devant nous des défis de taille: terrorisme, immigration illégale, emploi, changement climatique et Brexit.

Nos concitoyens nous demandent de répondre à leurs attentes. Ils s’adressent à nous car, au niveau européen, nous sommes leurs seuls interlocuteurs directs.

En mars, j’ai eu l’honneur de signer, au nom du Parlement, la déclaration de Rome. Notre engagement consiste à veiller constamment à ce que les objectifs que les gouvernements et les institutions européennes se sont fixés ne restent pas des déclarations de principe, mais se traduisent par des réponses concrètes pour nos concitoyens.

Nous avons adopté, en un temps record, des dossiers importants et complexes tels que l’EFSI, le Fonds européen pour le développement durable (FEDD), le paquet «protection des données» ou encore le corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.

Depuis le début de l’année, nous avons déjà fait beaucoup. Nous avons stabilisé les marchés financiers, renforcé les fonds de capital-risque européens et les fonds d’entrepreneuriat social européens, approuvé avec différentes positions l’accord CETA et supprimé les frais d’itinérance.

Nous voterons dans quelques minutes des mesures visant à garantir la sécurité de l’approvisionnement en gaz. Beaucoup reste à faire. Nous voulons des résultats dans le cadre du marché unique numérique. Nous devons moderniser notre politique commerciale afin de protéger nos industries stratégiques. Nous devons renforcer la dimension sociale de l’Union européenne. Nous devons trouver un accord sur la réforme du système d’échange de quotas d’émission et assurer que la transition vers une énergie propre devienne une réalité.

La nouvelle commission sur le terrorisme se penchera prochainement sur la façon d’améliorer la lutte contre ce fléau. Nous devons travailler sur le paquet «défense» et renforcer davantage la politique industrielle.

La tâche la plus complexe qui nous attend demeure le paquet «asile». Nous savons que le retard provient du Conseil. Cependant, cela ne nous libère pas de notre devoir de faire au mieux pour conclure ce paquet avant la fin du mandat.

Demain, nous aurons l’occasion de discuter de tout cela avec le président de la Commission, lors du débat sur l’état de l’Union.

Chers collègues, nous sommes une machine législative extrêmement complexe et, pourtant, je dois dire que cela fonctionne plutôt bien. Je me réjouis que nous puissions compter pour ce faire sur une administration compétente, professionnelle et dévouée.

Je m’efforcerai de préserver l’harmonie et la bonne collaboration entre les différents organes de la Maison, car de cela dépendent finalement notre efficacité et notre capacité d’action. Notre rendement dépend également de nos conditions de travail. Voilà pourquoi j’attache à ces dernières une attention particulière.

Néanmoins, chers collègues, nous n’adoptons pas une législation simplement pour pouvoir annoncer que «nous avons fait quelque chose» dans tel ou tel domaine. Nous avons l’obligation de prendre les bonnes décisions et de faire les bons choix, car la législation que nous adoptons aura des effets sur la vie de 500 millions de citoyens pour les prochaines décennies.

Le législateur doit pouvoir discuter en profondeur de tous les aspects de la législation examinée et doit prendre le temps d’écouter nos concitoyens avant tout, mais aussi notre conscience.

Certes, nous devons aussi éviter que cela se traduise par des longueurs inutiles et des retards injustifiés. Je veillerai à ce que les «temps morts» des procédures législatives soient réduits au strict minimum.

Le Parlement doit contribuer à l’adoption d’une législation de qualité qui vise à résoudre les problèmes de nos concitoyens et non pas à en créer de nouveaux. Mais les citoyens attendent de nous également que nous défendions en Europe et dans le monde nos valeurs et nos principes: la liberté, la solidarité, la subsidiarité, les droits de l’homme et l’état de droit, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et l’économie sociale de marché.

Je suis persuadé que les forces politiques ici représentées sont animées par le désir sincère de contribuer à améliorer la situation de nos concitoyens.

Chers collègues, nous sommes également l’une des deux branches de l’autorité budgétaire. Nous devons assurer cette fonction avec responsabilité, comme nous l’avons toujours fait, mais aussi avec vision.

Nous nous apprêtons à entamer les discussions sur le cadre financier pluriannuel. Je suis convaincu que le nouveau budget doit être un budget politique, qui sort des logiques distributives et qui se base sur des objectifs clairs.

Il faut d’abord faire des choix politiques et seulement ensuite décider des moyens budgétaires pour y parvenir, et non pas l’inverse.

Ce Parlement doit s’exprimer plusieurs fois sur la nécessité d’établir de nouvelles ressources propres. Je suis personnellement convaincu de cette nécessité et j’exhorte à continuer la réflexion et à en débattre au sein de notre Maison, ainsi qu’avec les autres institutions.

Chers collèges, regardez cette Assemblée. Dans cet hémicycle siègent des collègues qui viennent de toutes les régions d’Europe, des coins les plus éloignés de notre continent et des régions ultrapériphériques. Ici, tous les peuples de l’Union européenne sont représentés.

Le Parlement est le cœur de l’Europe. Ce Parlement est le seul endroit du continent où des représentants directement élus peuvent discuter ouvertement des questions continentales. Le seul lieu où ils peuvent se confronter, se connaître et travailler ensemble pour résoudre des problèmes communs.

Dans cette Assemblée se sont exprimés les chefs d’État des pays membres et du monde entier, des personnalités éminentes, de grandes figures de notre temps. Ceci confère à notre Institution une dimension qui va bien au-delà du rôle que les traités lui confèrent. Cette dimension doit être renforcée. À cette occasion je veux rappeler à tous les chefs d’État de l’Union qu’ils bénéficient d’une invitation permanente à s’exprimer devant la plénière.

Chers collègues, nous avons dans cette Assemblée une richesse inestimable de sensibilités politiques, d’opinions, d’idées. Nous voulons tous «un Parlement où l’on parle», mais toujours sur la base des idées et du respect mutuel.

Nous sommes un Parlement vivant et je veillerai à ce que toutes les énergies et les idées présentes dans cette salle puissent s’exprimer et contribuer à la discussion et à la réflexion. Comme je le dis toujours, je veux être le Président du Parlement, non pas un premier ministre.

Le Parlement doit se remettre à la tête de la réflexion sur l´avenir de l’Europe et donner l’impulsion politique dont l’Union a un besoin constant. Il faut changer l’Europe là où cela est nécessaire mais il faut aller de l’avant.

Le Président de la Commission – que je remercie – nous a soumis un document de réflexion sur l’avenir de notre projet commun. Je sais que toutes les familles politiques ont mené cette réflexion. Le temps est venu d’échanger nos conclusions respectives, par exemple lors d’un grand débat ouvert en plénière.

Aussi faudra-t-il encore échanger avec les principaux acteurs européens que l’on doit inviter ici. Ce sera l’occasion pour le Parlement de se positionner au centre du débat et d’accomplir le rôle de forum de discussion politique qui lui est propre.

Chers collègues, lors de son discours d’investiture, mon illustre prédécesseure Simone Veil rappela que «le contrôle démocratique est la première fonction de toute assemblée élue». Nous avons donc le devoir d’être exigeants dans l’exercice de ce contrôle envers l’exécutif.

La pratique des «Spitzenkandidaten», inaugurée lors des dernières élections européennes, renforce davantage le lien de confiance politique entre le Parlement et la Commission. Il faut consolider ce développement.

Pour que l’Union fonctionne, la Commission doit pouvoir compter sur la confiance et l’appui du Parlement. Toutefois, cette confiance n’est pas automatique et doit être méritée chaque jour.

Je prône, enfin, la bonne entente entre institutions, le respect mutuel, la coopération loyale. Notre unité c’est notre force, ne l’oublions jamais.

Notre histoire montre que le renforcement de l’Union s’est toujours accompagné d'un renforcement du Parlement. Je demeure convaincu que la bataille pour obtenir un droit d’initiative est capitale en ce sens et doit continuer. Le renforcement de la dimension parlementaire de l’Union passe également par une coopération de plus en plus étroite avec les parlements nationaux.

L’Europe sera démocratique ou ne sera pas. J’insiste, le Parlement est le cœur vivant de la démocratie et confère à l’Union la légitimité démocratique. Sans ce Parlement, l’Union ne serait qu’un système de congrès, appuyé sur une bureaucratie froide et lointaine. Le Parlement assure et incarne la primauté de la politique sur la bureaucratie.

Chers collègues, le Parlement est la véritable «caisse de résonance» des attentes des citoyens européens. Nous devons les écouter, instaurer avec eux un dialogue permanent, ouvert et transparent. Nous sommes le Parlement le plus ouvert au monde. Mon effort tout au long de mon mandat sera de veiller à garder nos portes ouvertes aux citoyens.

Chaque député est appelé à jouer un rôle fondamental de lien entre les citoyens et les institutions de l’Union: il n’est pas seulement un représentant des citoyens auprès de l’Union, mais également un représentant de l’Union auprès des citoyens. C’est un travail considérable, qui nous occupe chaque moment de notre journée, y compris pendant les week-ends. C’est pourquoi il faut dire haut et fort que les députés ne sont pas seulement un doigt sur le dispositif de vote ou une main levée en plénière: ils sont les représentants des peuples européens et méritent d’être respectés et écoutés. Ils sont leur voix et ils doivent pouvoir l’exprimer.

(Applaudissements)

Telle est ma vision et je ferai tout ce qui sera en mon pouvoir pour que la dignité des députés soit préservée et leur rôle mis en valeur. Nous devons être fiers de ce que nous sommes. Moi, en tant que Président et collègue, je suis fier de votre travail, ici et en dehors de cet hémicycle.

Je vous remercie de ce que vous faites dans les coulisses, dans les commissions, dans les groupes politiques, dans les différents organes de la Maison et, surtout, dans vos collèges électoraux.

Je vous dis merci de l’énergie que vous dépensez chaque jour en réunions, discussions, négociations, conférences, contacts, rencontres avec les citoyens et la société civile. Votre travail n’est pas toujours visible mais, finalement, il assure l’exercice de la démocratie au sein de l’Union.

   I am proud of you. I am proud to be President of this Parliament.

   Sono fiero di essere Presidente di questo Parlamento.

   Je vous remercie également de la confiance que vous m’avez accordée. Je ferai de mon mieux pour en être digne.

(L’Assemblée, debout, applaudit l’orateur)

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señor presidente, quería informar a esta Cámara que ayer una joven cooperante española, Lorena Enebral, fue asesinada realizando su labor como cooperante de Cruz Roja en Afganistán. Entiendo que es importante y necesario que desde este Parlamento lancemos un mensaje de apoyo y solidaridad a su familia y a la Cruz Roja y un reconocimiento a todos los hombres y mujeres que dedican su tiempo, su conocimiento y su vida a ayudar a los demás.

  Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję Pani za ten głos, dziękuję za Państwa reakcje.

7. Време за гласуване

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest głosowanie.

(Wyniki i inne szczegóły dotyczące głosowania: patrz protokół)

7.1. Искане за снемане на имунитета на Мари-Кристин Бутоне (A8-0259/2017 - Heidi Hautala) (гласуване)

7.2. Предложение за решение в съответствие с член 120 от Правилника за дейността на ЕП, с което се предлага назначаване на Симон Бусутил за член на комитета, предвиден в член 255 от ДФЕС (B8-0503/2017) (гласуване)

7.3. Поименен състав на специалната комисия относно тероризма (гласуване)

7.4. Споразумение между Европейския съюз и Исландия относно закрилата на географските означения на селскостопански продукти и храни (A8-0254/2017 - David Borrelli) (гласуване)

7.5. Споразумение под формата на размяна на писма между Европейския съюз и Исландия за допълнителни търговски преференции за селскостопански продукти (A8-0256/2017 - David Borrelli) (гласуване)

7.6. Изпълнение на Директивата за медиацията (A8-0238/2017 - Kostas Chrysogonos) (гласуване)

7.7. Функционирането на франчайзинга в сектора на търговията на дребно (A8-0199/2017 - Dennis de Jong) (гласуване)

– Przed rozpoczęciem głosowania:

  Dennis de Jong, Rapporteur. – Ik zal het heel kort houden, maar omdat we geen plenair debat gehad hebben over mijn verslag, wil ik van deze gelegenheid gebruik maken om de Commissie op te roepen de aanbevelingen die in de Commissie interne markt vrijwel unaniem werden aanvaard, snel en concreet op te volgen. Ondernemers gaan niet snel naar de rechter, zeker niet tegen een moederbedrijf. En toch kunnen er tal van misstanden zijn bij de franchisewereld. De komende maanden verwacht ik van de Commissie dat ze actie onderneemt tegen mogelijke oneerlijke handelspraktijken en ook het concurrentiebeleid onder de loep neemt. We moeten af van de passieve houding van de Commissie tot nu toe.

7.8. Космическа стратегия за Европа (A8-0250/2017 - Constanze Krehl) (гласуване)

7.9. Академичното продължаващо и дистанционно образование като част от европейската стратегия за учене през целия живот (A8-0252/2017 - Milan Zver) (гласуване)

7.10. Отмяна на остаряло законодателство по отношение на секторите на вътрешните водни пътища и автомобилните превози на товари (A8-0228/2017 - Karima Delli) (гласуване)

7.11. Насърчаване на свързаността с интернет в местните общности (A8-0181/2017 - Carlos Zorrinho) (гласуване)

7.12. Мерки за гарантиране на сигурността на доставките на газ (A8-0310/2016 - Jerzy Buzek) (гласуване)

7.13. Китолов в Норвегия (B8-0499/2017) (гласуване)

7.14. Присъединяването на ЕС към Конвенцията на Съвета на Европа за превенция и борба с насилието над жени и домашното насилие (A8-0266/2017 - Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) (гласуване)

– Przed rozpoczęciem głosowania:

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, I rise under Rule 184 and refer to the English version of the paper, page 10 of 24, section 4, which makes the sentence that Parliament ‘strongly affirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services, including safe and legal abortion, is a form of violence against women’.

This clause could effectively make it a criminal offence for anyone who believes in the reduction of abortion or believes in abortion. The accompanying legal paper that is attached to it makes no reference to the potential crime of being an abortion denier. I would therefore ask in respect that the legal team refer to this document and review it once again, otherwise millions of people in the European Union as a result of this could be deemed a criminal immediately upon this vote.

  Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję bardzo. Odnotowujemy to wystąpienie, chociaż jest ono trochę z boku tego, nad czym będziemy głosować.

7.15. Въздействие на международната търговия и търговските политики на ЕС върху световните вериги за създаване на стойност (A8-0269/2017 - Maria Arena) (гласуване)

  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam głosowanie.

8. Обяснение на вот

8.1. Космическа стратегия за Европа (A8-0250/2017 - Constanze Krehl)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, the United Kingdom is a major component of the European Union Space Programme, and in my United Kingdom South—East regional constituency I have companies and universities at the forefront of developing responses to the challenges of space exploration and development. The United Kingdom’s role will not diminish post—Brexit. Hence I voted to ensure that this pivotal role continues as part of a vibrant and energetic response to the challenges from the likes of China, India, Russia and the United States.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem hlasoval pro tuto zprávu, protože považuji vesmírný prostor za nesmírně důležitý, ale pro mě je také podstatné, že zpráva obsahuje i inovativní momenty, jako je například právě podpora malých a středních podniků, podpora start-upů při využívání technologií, které svým zdrojem vlastně pochází z toho vesmírného prostoru.

Zároveň bylo pro mě velmi inspirativní, že paní zpravodajka nalezla i úlohu obcí a měst právě při plánování rozvoje a využití technologií, které přichází z vesmírného prostoru. To jsou, myslím, velmi inspirující podněty. Já jsem nejen z tohoto důvodu, ale například i z prostého důvodu, že kosmická agentura sídlí v Praze a jedná se o velmi inspirativní odvětví v rámci rozvoje Evropské unie, tuto zprávu podpořil.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Przede wszystkim chciałem zwrócić uwagę na to, że to jest sprawozdanie kluczowe. I wreszcie w tej materii nie jest kompromisem, lecz optymalnym dokonaniem ocen ważnej aktywności i Parlamentu Europejskiego, i Komisji. Przede wszystkim chcę zwrócić uwagę na to, że podkreślono – co jest bardzo istotne – konieczność budowania długoletnich gwarancji finansowych. Po drugie, wpisano wreszcie w sprawozdanie, że cywilny – to prawda – cywilny system kosmiczny Galileo i Copernicus musi także pełnić role związane z bezpieczeństwem Europy, bezpieczeństwem obywateli. I ostatnia rzecz, na którą sam zwracam uwagę, pojawiła się w sprawozdaniu, a obejmuje dwie kwestie: konieczność poprawy edukacji i promocji samego projektu. Od tego zależy jego efektywność.

8.2. Академичното продължаващо и дистанционно образование като част от европейската стратегия за учене през целия живот (A8-0252/2017 - Milan Zver)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, academic further and distance education as part of a life-long learning strategy are to be commended, and they do not require the European Union membership to enact. I have supported this vote to ensure that young people across Member States have a level playing field in terms of the instruments available to achieve their educational goals. The challenge, though, will be for national governments to ensure that commercial suppliers now deliver.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Mr President, I have supported this vote because life-long learning is a necessity in today’s dynamic, technologically—driven societies. Customised distance learning which offers more flexible access to education is becoming essential, especially for people with special needs and other vulnerable groups, people in employment or people living in remote areas.

Mr President, academic further and distance education are rapidly expanding sectors with significant potential in terms of economic growth and job creation as they pay and play an increasingly important role in facilitating the adaption of workers to economic and technological change throughout their professional lives. It has become clear that in order to remain competitive, and to give low- and high-skilled workers alike the best chance of success, businesses together with education and training institutions need to offer training and career—focused education throughout people’s working lives.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Kolega Milan Zver wykonał tu kawał dobrej roboty. Natomiast chcę podkreślić, że w swoich ocenach był bardzo łagodny. Z mojego punktu widzenia warto było to sprawozdanie poprzeć, ale warto też podkreślić, że nauczanie na odległość pozostawia bardzo wiele do życzenia. Krótko mówiąc, mamy tu wiele do zrobienia.

Popierając system boloński chciałbym też zwrócić uwagę na jego ograniczenia. Różnorodność modeli kształcenia, lepsze ich dostosowanie czy dopięcie do zadań i rynków biznesowych będzie Europie służyć. Pomimo konieczności wspierania tego ujednolicenia całego projektu, całego systemu, czyli stosowania określonych matryc, cały czas opowiadam się jednak za pewną różnorodnością, za pewną jednak elastycznością, za pewną jednak swobodą, zarówno na szczeblu akademickim, jak i niżej, bo będzie to służyć rynkowi pracy, krótko mówiąc, naszej pomyślności gospodarczej i ekonomicznej.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Уважаеми г-н председател, докладът на г-н Звер извежда на преден план някои основни проблеми пред академичното продължаващо и дистанционно образование.

За мнозина се оказва трудно да работят и да учат едновременно, други пък не могат да си позволят да учат в университета, в който искат, или пък да се преместят на по-далечно населено място поради липса на финансови възможности. Редовното следване се оказва предизвикателство за младите хора, които живеят в отдалечени и слабо населени местности. По-гъвкавите образователни системи, в частност дистанционното обучение, могат да бъдат решение на тези предизвикателства.

За това смятам, че е изключително важно да се гарантира достъпът до него и да се подобри неговото качество, за да могат младите хора да бъдат по-адаптивни към променящите се условия и да станат по-конкурентноспособни.

Смятам за изключително важно да се обърне внимание и на необходимостта от признаване на уменията и компетентностите придобити извън редовната форма на образование. Традиционното образование не е единственият път към професионалния успех. Днес работодателите все повече ценят и търсят умения, които се придобиват извън класната стая. Именно дистанционното обучение е възможност за повишаване на квалификацията и натрупване на умения, без това да пречи на баланса между работата и личния живот.

8.3. Насърчаване на свързаността с интернет в местните общности (A8-0181/2017 - Carlos Zorrinho)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η διαδικτυακή διασύνδεση των τοπικών κοινωνιών αποτελεί μια σημαντική πρωτοβουλία. Θα πρέπει βεβαίως να διασφαλίσει καθολική προσβασιμότητα, χωρίς αποκλεισμούς και για λόγους κοινωνικούς και οικονομικούς, αλλά και για λόγους γεωγραφικής απόστασης. Αυτό ισχύει ιδίως για τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, όπως είναι το Αγαθονήσι, ένα πολύ μικρό νησί με 154 κατοίκους το οποίο συνεχώς απειλείται από την Τουρκία. Η προσπάθεια λοιπόν αυτή ενισχύει ταυτόχρονα και την εδαφική συνοχή. Βεβαίως πρέπει να λάβουμε υπόψη ότι τα χρήματα πρέπει να φτάσουν σ’ αυτές τις μικρές κοινότητες και θα πρέπει το σύστημα να είναι τέτοιο που να διασφαλίσει την προσβασιμότητα σε όλους.

Θεωρώ ότι το γεγονός ότι υπάρχει η άποψη ότι “first come first served” - αυτός δηλαδή που έρχεται πρώτος και ζητά θα πάρει τα χρήματα - στην ουσία θα ενισχύσει τις κοινότητες οι οποίες είναι πιο έτοιμες, εις βάρος των κοινοτήτων οι οποίες δεν είναι τόσο έτοιμες. Ταυτόχρονα, το σύστημα πρέπει να ενισχύσει και τις αγροτικές περιοχές, να διασφαλίσει κονδύλια και, φυσικά, να υπάρχει δωρεάν προσβασιμότητα όπως και προβλέπεται από τη ρύθμιση.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já myslím, že je dobrou zprávou, že Evropský parlament dnes přijal návrh nařízení o podpoře internetového připojení obcí. Chtěla bych zdůraznit důležitost regionální proporcionality a tedy dostupnost obcí i v regionech. Chtěla bych také zdůraznit i to, že Evropský parlament k původnímu návrhu Evropské komise přijal pozměňovací návrhy, které zamezí zdvojení, a tedy vyloučí ohrožení hospodářské soutěže.

Myslím, že pro občany je to dobrá zpráva, zejména pro země s velkou hustotou malých obcí, kde ještě připojení k internetu není plně zabezpečeno. Týká se to samozřejmě i České republiky a je důležité, aby Evropská komise i členské státy maximálně zpřístupnily informaci o tomto projektu do obcí.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr, szavazatommal támogattam a jelentést, mert az ingyenes WiFi hozzáférés biztosítása nagy lépés a digitális szakadék csökkentésére és a digitális Európa létrehozása felé. Ugye ma már mindenkinek szüksége van internetre, a széles sávú internetelérhetőség azonban még mindig minden tagállamban alacsonyabb a vidéki területeken. Különösen pozitív számomra, hogy mindezt az „Okos Falvak” („Smart Villages”) kezdeményezés is célul tűzte ki. A teljes internetlefedettségen túl, illetve annak segítségével további fejlesztéseket lehet megvalósítani az európai falvakban. Olyan élő, aktív digitális megoldásokat kínáló környezetet fog létrehozni az „Okos Falvak” kezdeményezés, amely megállítja a falvak pusztulását, az elvándorlást és a vidéki leépülést. Az okos falvak ötletébe kiválóan illeszkedik tehát a „WiFi4EU” program, amely sok település számára az első lépést jelentheti a digitális Európa felé.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tugaim lántacaíocht do na moltaí seo agus bhí áthas orm labhairt ar an ábhar ar son mo ghrúpa ar maidin. Tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh fáil ar an idirlíon ag gach uile shaoránach san Aontas, gan eisceacht, ach ní mar sin atá go háirithe faoin tuath. I mo thír féin mar shampla, tá a lán áiteanna amuigh faoin tuath agus tá luas an idirlín atá ar fáil dóibh dhá uair níos moille ná mar atá sé, mar shampla, sa phríomhchathair - Baile Átha Cliath.

Níl sé seo sásúil; dá bharr tá easpa infheistíochta ann, easpa jabanna, agus tá an t-aos óg ag teitheath na tuaithe. Is féidir é sin a athrú agus cabhróidh an scéim nua seo chun é sin a dhéanamh. Chuige sin, molaim gach uile dhuine a bhí páirteach sa scéim seo a thabhairt dúinn agus tá súil agam go gcuirfidh údaráis in Éirinn isteach ar an scéim.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil také tuto zprávu, protože přístup k internetu je skutečně o kvalitě života každého z nás. Jde o to, abychom vytvářeli srovnatelné podmínky právě pro přístup k internetu, ke konektivitě. Když se v některých obcích nebo na některých územích v Evropě zeptáte, zdali mají připojení vůbec třeba 3G, tak je to jakoby výlet na Mars. A to už se bavíme o páté řadě připojení.

Myslím si, že tento přístup je právě velmi důležitý, aby se venkov nevylidňoval, abychom skutečně stvořili inteligentní vesnici a pomáhali ji dále udržovat. V České republice je 6 250 obcí, to je velký počet a právě tento přístup představuje velkou výzvu a velkou výhodu i pro české, moravské a slezské vesnice.

Zároveň bych chtěl kritizovat českou vládu, protože v třetím nejvyšším přídělu peněz na zajištění konektivity v tomto programovacím období nevyčerpala zatím ještě ani korunu.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, high—speed internet connectivity is an important tool towards encouraging the creation of jobs and attracting inward investment. Since 2008, DUP ministers in the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland have channelled approximately GBP 65 million into upgrades in our telecoms networks. We are also delighted that, as part of a confidence and supply deal with our Government, GBP 150 million will be invested in ultra-fast broadband across our province over the next two years. It is now important that this money reaches those in greatest need, particularly in rural areas where internet speeds are poor.

The Sinn Féin refusal to form an executive government by holding Northern Ireland to ransom because of a political wish list will not stop this vital investment from going ahead. However, it does hold the potential to prevent local Ministers from making local decisions on how it is spent. It is now time that Sinn Féin – and those who in recent weeks have chosen to prop them up – remove all the barriers towards the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland.

8.4. Мерки за гарантиране на сигурността на доставките на газ (A8-0310/2016 - Jerzy Buzek)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo argomentare il voto contrario alla relazione, a partire da una considerazione fondamentale: di fatto, si stanno impedendo e allontanando nuovi investimenti sulle energie rinnovabili e non ci fidiamo assolutamente di questa retorica di nuovi standard di trasparenza e sicurezza, che sarebbero poi affidati alla Commissione.

Mi chiedo cosa abbia fatto la Commissione, ad esempio, per ottenere sicurezza e trasparenza sulla Trans-Adriatic pipeline, che partirà dall'Azerbaigian e attraverserà il Mare Adriatico; che cosa abbia fatto in termini di trasparenza, ad esempio, sullo scandalo che ha coinvolto la famiglia del Presidente dell'Azerbaigian e, soprattutto, mi chiedo che cosa si intenda per trasparenza quando del pipeline in questione si parla ormai esplicitamente in termini di mafiodotto.

Non credo sinceramente che la nuova politica energetica dell'Unione europea si possa basare su una sostituzione della Russia con paesi come il Qatar e l'Azerbaigian: davvero, ci saremmo aspettati una svolta più significativa in termini di investimento sulle rinnovabili.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom ar dtús comhghairdeas a ghabháil le mo chara, an tUachtarán Jerzy Buzek as ucht an dea-obair a rinne sé sa tuarascáil seo; agus bhí áthas orm coimoibriú leis maidir le hé a chur chun críche. Gan dabht ar bith, tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh gás ar fáil do gach uile thír san Aontas agus go mbeadh bealaí éagsúla chun é a thabhairt isteach i ngach tír. Dá bhrí sin, na moltaí atá anseo cabhróidh siad chun é sin a dhéanamh, agus freisin an comhoibriú a bheidh ann idir na tíortha san Aontas. Beidh sin an-tábhachtach. Maidir le mo thír féin, tá amhras orm go mbeimid ag brath rómhór ar an Ríocht Aontaithe nuair a fhágfaidh siad an tAontas don ghás; an chuid is mó de ag teacht isteach ar chónascadh amháin, agus níl sé seo sláintiúil. Dá bhrí sin, tá seans againn sean-LNG a chur chun críche agus gás a thabhairt isteach sa chás seo, agus is PCI é sin don tír agus tá súil agam gur féidir linn é a thógáil go luath.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu rovněž podpořil. Důvod mého hlasování právě představuje součást dohody mezi Evropským parlamentem a Radou v prvním čtení, která zahrnuje regionální přístup v posuzování rizik a vytvoření plánu preventivních a zmírňujících opatření na bázi takzvaných koridorů pro nouzové dodávky.

Jedná se o efektivní a účelný způsob, jak dosáhnout výrazně vyšší úrovně energetické bezpečnosti. To je hlavní důvod, proč jsem podpořil tento návrh zprávy, respektive toto usnesení. Dohoda mezi Evropským parlamentem a Radou rovněž zavádí doložku o solidaritě jakožto právně závaznou zásadu a nejzazší řešení. Ta by však neměla být vnímána jako alternativa tržních preventivních opatření, ale jako postup, který je tím ultima ratio, to znamená tím nejzazším opatřením.

8.5. Китолов в Норвегия (B8-0499/2017)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei a favor desta resolução porque entendo que a União Europeia e os Estados-Membros devem, de forma assertiva, apoiar a manutenção da moratória mundial à atividade baleeira comercial e a proibição do comércio internacional de produtos de baleia.

De facto, não obstante a Comissão Baleeira Internacional ter imposto uma moratória mundial sobre a atividade baleeira comercial, a verdade é que a Noruega continua a caça à baleia. Aliás, a Noruega chegou até, em 2017, a aumentar acentuadamente as exportações de carne de baleia. Saliente-se que os produtos derivados das baleias são exportados da Noruega para o Japão atravessando pelo menos três portos da União Europeia e a União Europeia, ao permitir este trânsito, está a facilitar o comércio de espécies de baleias que são protegidas pela legislação europeia e cuja caça viola a proibição internacional da atividade baleeira comercial.

Desta forma deve a Comissão avaliar todas as possibilidades no sentido de garantir que a carne de baleia não possa ser expedida ilicitamente através de portos da União Europeia e o Conselho e a Comissão devem adotar uma abordagem comum nas futuras reuniões da Comissão Baleeira Internacional relativamente à caça à baleia e devem estabelecer contactos com os países terceiros no sentido de alcançar uma maioria a favor da criação de santuários de baleias.

Com a aprovação desta resolução, a União Europeia dá um sinal claro de repúdio desta prática bárbara e desumana.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Kύριε Πρόεδρε, η φαλαινοθηρία για εμπορικούς σκοπούς έχει απαγορευθεί παγκοσμίως μέσω μορατόριουμ που επιβλήθηκε από τη Διεθνή Επιτροπή Φαλαινοθηρίας. Και όμως, παρ’ ότι ισχύει αυτό, η Ιαπωνία και κυρίως η Νορβηγία παρανομούν συνεχώς και παραβιάζουν τις αποφάσεις της διεθνούς κοινότητας. Έτσι η Νορβηγία από το 1993 συνεχίζει τη φαλαινοθηρία, παραβιάζει το μορατόριουμ και τον κατάλογο sites. Για το 2017 έχουμε συγκεκριμένες καταγγελίες: η Νορβηγία αύξησε την ποσόστωση όσον αφορά τη φαλαινοθηρία από 880 σε 999 φάλαινες. Μάλιστα η Νορβηγία χρησιμοποιεί και λιμάνια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την εξαγωγή προϊόντων φάλαινας προς την Ιαπωνία.

Πώς γίνεται αυτή η μετακίνηση κρέατος φάλαινας μέσω λιμανιών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης; Τηρούνται οι κανονισμοί και ιδίως ο κανονισμός 338 του 1997; Υπερψήφισα την υπό συζήτηση έκθεση διότι θεωρώ ότι αντιμετωπίζεται το θέμα της παράνομης φαλαινοθηρίας από πλευράς Νορβηγίας.

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, I have supported this vote, despite real misgivings that it was not taut enough, on the basis that at least it is a step in the right direction. But if the European Union was actually serious about tackling this issue it would propose enforceable sanctions, but of course the European Union is dependent on Norwegian oil and gas, and hence that is a step too far. Norway hunts minke whales under a so-called International Whaling Commission objection, the hunt relies on state subsidies and the government is constantly searching for new markets to exploit – with young people and tourists being major targets. Norway has aggressively fought to retain its right to hunt whales, despite it being unnecessary, uneconomical and unquestionably cruel. I am calling upon Norway to stop it, and to stop it today.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, téma ochrany zvířat je pro mě osobně velmi důležité. Jsem přesvědčen, že moderní politika musí chránit zvířata. Zvířata jsou živé bytosti, které trpí, a my tyto věci musíme vnímat. Zvířata nejsou věci.

Proto jsem dnes podpořil usnesení Evropského parlamentu, které jasně vyzývá Norsko, které nedodržuje zákaz komerčního rybolovu velryb, aby tento zákaz začalo dodržovat a aby přestalo navyšovat kvóty, které každý rok upravuje a každý rok zvyšuje počet velryb, které jsou takto uloveny. Velryby jsou živé bytosti, mají mimořádně prospěšný přínos pro mořský ekosystém. Navíc ten způsob lovu je mimořádně neetický a pro zvířata bolestivý.

Takže jsem velmi rád, že jsme toto usnesení přijali a plně jsem je podpořil.

8.6. Присъединяването на ЕС към Конвенцията на Съвета на Европа за превенция и борба с насилието над жени и домашното насилие (A8-0266/2017 - Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wszyscy, zwłaszcza na pewnym poziomie rozwoju osobowego, także na poziomie państw, powinni przeciwdziałać każdej formie przemocy dotyczącej kobiet zarówno domowej, jak i psychicznej. Jednak głosowałam przeciwko sprawozdaniu z prostej przyczyny, gdyż przemoc nie powinna być zwalczana przemocą, a takie znamiona mają zapisy traktujące odmowę zabicia dziecka poczętego jako przemoc poza innymi kontrowersyjnymi określeniami. Przypominam także tym, którzy używają argumentu dyspozycji własnym ciałem, że jako ludzie mamy ograniczoną władzę i nie potrafimy sterować większością funkcji fizjologicznych czy automatycznych. Tym bardziej poczęte dziecko nie jest częścią ciała, jest odrębną istotą najbardziej narażoną na przemoc według unijnego prawa, które mówi, że aborcja jest prawem człowieka. Stosując presję ideologiczną, także używa przemocy.

  Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, he votado a favor de la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio de Estambul, porque creo que tenemos que ser firmes en la prevención y en la lucha contra todas las formas de violencia contra las mujeres.

Sin embargo, aún faltan trece Estados miembros por firmar el Convenio, y aquellos que lo han ratificado aplican políticas insuficientes todavía. Es el caso de España, donde el presupuesto se reduce desde hace años —lo que ha sido denunciado por la CEDAW— sin que se haya reducido el número de asesinatos.

En una Unión Europea donde una de cada tres mujeres mayores de 15 años ha sido víctima de algún tipo de violencia machista, tenemos que dar aún pasos de gigante, empezando por la garantía habitacional para las víctimas, pero, también, garantizando la coordinación y la cooperación entre Estados para evitar casos como el de Juana Rivas, que ha pasado de ser una víctima de malos tratos por parte de su pareja a pasar a ser considerada culpable por la ausencia de una legislación que la proteja y que le dé garantías.

Tomemos ejemplo de los movimientos sociales que en todo el mundo están reivindicando la lucha contra el machismo y contra las violencias machistas, de las marchas de Ni una menos en América Latina al Black Monday en Polonia, desde las manifestaciones en Estados Unidos contra la misoginia de Trump hasta las movilizaciones en la India y también todas las movilizaciones en Europa.

Las mujeres del mundo ya no dejan que su dolor siga siendo invisibilizado.

¡Ni una menos!

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Úr, kedves Képviselőtársaim, az Isztambuli Egyezmény aláírása kapcsán szeretném tájékoztatni Önöket, hogy büntetőjogászként és a nőjogi bizottság tagjaként egy fontos kutatásba kezdtem, amelynek következtetéseit és eredményeit szeretném majd Önökkel megosztani. A kutatás lényege a következő: jogerősen lezárt olyan büntető ügyeket szeretnék áttekinteni, amelyekben családon belüli erőszak, partnerbántalmazás, illetőleg zaklatás következményeként a sértett meghalt, és szeretném beazonosítani az ezen ügyekben közös faktorokat az előzményekben. Szeretném megállapítani azt, hogy hogyan lehetett volna hatékony korai beavatkozással megelőzni ezeket a tragikus végű haláleseteket. Úgy gondolom, hogy nagyon fontos feladatunk, hogy észleljük azt, hogy a családon belüli erőszak, partnerbántalmazás, zaklatás potenciálisan életveszélyes cselekmények, tehát felül kellene végre emelkednünk a különböző ideológiai harcokon, hogy most „gender”, nem „gender”, ilyen párt, olyan párt, itt nincs helye pártpolitikának, éppen ezért mindenkit kérek, hogy a kutatási beszámolóra párthovatartozásra tekintet nélkül jöjjön majd el. Szeretettel hívom és várom Önöket.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Na wstępie chcę podkreślić, że jestem zdecydowanym przeciwnikiem wszelkich form przemocy wobec kobiet, jednakże konwencja stambulska problemu przemocy nie rozwiązuje, bowiem jest ona narzędziem politycznej i ideologicznej propagandy, która służy promowaniu szkodliwej dla społeczeństwa genderowej koncepcji płci. Konwencja wskazuje, proszę Państwa, że źródłem przemocy są stereotypowe role kobiet i mężczyzn, a za takie uważa się role kobiety jako matki i żony, a mężczyzny jako męża i ojca. W imię niedyskryminacji dyskryminuje się na przykład tych, dla których wartością są chrześcijańskie korzenie kultury europejskiej. Dlatego głosowałam przeciwko tej konwencji.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dovolte, abych vysvětlila, proč jsem nehlasovala pro návrh zprávy. Evropská lidová strana je pro nulovou toleranci násilí na ženách, a proto také předložila pozměňovací návrhy, abychom všichni mohli pro tuto zprávu hlasovat.

Bohužel při hlasování Evropský parlament odmítl naše pozměňovací návrhy a tak ve zprávě zůstávají ustanovení, ve kterých Evropská unie chce nepřiměřeně zasahovat do kompetence členských států a požaduje přistoupení EU k úmluvě v plné šíři. Souhlasím s tím, že ratifikace je symbolické gesto, které může v některých státech výrazně upozornit na problém a donutit vlády k jeho řešení. Ale musí to být svobodné rozhodnutí vlád a parlamentů.

Násilí je zlo a je třeba se proti němu postavit. Je třeba chránit ty, kteří trpí jen proto, že jsou slabší, ať už jsou to ženy, děti, senioři nebo nenarozené děti. Já v tom nevidím rozdíl, ale bohužel odstavec čtyři nebyl vypuštěn a tak zpráva spojuje neslučitelné, boj proti násilí na ženách a právo na potrat. Proto je pro mě nepřijatelná.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Uznanie dzisiaj przez Parlament szeroką sześćdziesięcioprocentową większością, że ochrona życia najsłabszych to forma przemocy, potwierdzenie tego jeszcze szerszą większością, siedemdziesięciodwuprocentową, to nie jest, proszę Państwa, tylko atak na prawo do życia, bo z nim przestaliście się liczyć, to jest atak na prawa narodów, to jest atak na przyszłość Europy i to jest atak na naszą wspólnotę losu. Dlatego nie wiem, na co liczycie, czego tu jest więcej – pogardy czy wrogości? Wrogości przekonania, że państwa, które chcą chronić życie najsłabszych, należy wykluczyć, czy pogardy przekonania, że można nas do tego rodzaju praktyk siłą nagiąć? Jedno jest pewne. Siły polityczne, które dzisiaj dominują w kierownictwie Unii Europejskiej i które dzisiaj dominują w największych państwach Europy, wiodą Europę ku katastrofie. Widzieliśmy bardzo wiele kryzysów: brexit, kryzys imigracyjny, ale te, które nadchodzą w wyniku tej polityki, którą państwo prowadzicie, będą jeszcze większe, chyba że zdołamy to odwrócić.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr, szavazatommal erősen támogattam a jelentést, mert egyetértek a Bizottság azon javaslatával, amely szerint az EU-nak csatlakoznia kellene az Isztambuli Egyezményhez. Ez az első átfogó, jogilag kötelező erejű eszköz a nők elleni erőszak és a nemi alapú erőszak megelőzésére, illetve felszámolására. Sajnálatos módon Magyarország sem ratifikálta még ezt az egyezményt, mivel a kormánya nem tűzi napirendre a kérdést a magyar parlamentben. Úgy látszik, hogy a magyar kormány ebben a kérdésben az Európai Unió szoknyája mögé szeretne bújni, azaz mentesíteni akarják magukat a nemzeti ratifikálás alól, miközben a családon belüli erőszak több áldozatot szed, mint a terrorizmus. Legyen tehát zéró tolerancia a nők elleni erőszakkal kapcsolatban! Legyen ez az első lépés ezen úton! Sőt, személy szerint én még tovább mennék: legyen zéró tolerancia a nők, a gyermekek és az idősek elleni erőszakkal kapcsolatban is!

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, it is the duty of every civilised and cultural society to combat all forms of violence against women and domestic violence. The Istanbul Convention colleagues, however, used this serious issue to introduce for the first time the definition of gender and gender identity that is independent from a person’s sex in the international law. The fight against violence against women, assistance to its victims and education as part of the prevention of violence are among the exclusive competences of the EU Member States. By joining the Istanbul Convention, the EU would violate the Lisbon Treaty and exceed its powers.

Today, violence against women and domestic violence is a criminal offence in all the Member States of the EU, but not all of them have ratified the controversial Istanbul Convention because they have many serious doubts about its text.

If society loses its ability to distinguish between a man and woman, the fight against violence against women remains only an informal commitment. Such superficial formalism does not help women victims. That is why I voted against.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Mr President, I voted no because it goes against the policy of equal rights of sexes. I do not understand why women must be preferred to men. I must inform you that the President of the Silesian branch of our party, who was a doctor in a big hospital in a big Silesian town, says that the number of husbands hurt by their wives is greater than the number of wives hurt by men, because men almost never admit that they have been beaten by a woman. So I do not see why there is this inequality.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, in July, the Department of Justice published statistics which demonstrated that one in eight people in Northern Ireland have suffered domestic violence from a partner. The same survey finds that between 2015 and 2016 victims only reported roughly a third of the worst cases to police. Even more shocking was the fact that three quarters of those serious incidents of abuse occurred within what remained current, active relationships. These are unacceptable figures.

We must do everything in our power to tackle these awful abuses and assist victims to safely and successfully free themselves from abusive domestic environments. It is wrong that the PSNI should currently have to respond to one domestic incident every 19 minutes. I welcome the commitment by the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, to bring forward domestic legislation in the form of the domestic violence and abuse bill.

International agreements are fine. However, the greatest priority of legislators should be targeted, local interventions that benefit victims in the hardest—to—reach situations.

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io volevo innanzitutto chiedere di richiamare quest'Aula al rispetto di verità fondamentali e acclarate: la negazione, o potremmo dire forse il negazionismo, di un fenomeno accertato, acclarato e di dimensione globale, come la violenza maschile e di Stato contro le donne, non dovrebbe poter essere negata in quest'Aula, ed è per questo che, a maggior ragione, rivendico il mio voto a favore del progetto di risoluzione.

Sottolineo la gravità del fatto che ancora 13 Stati membri non abbiano ratificato la convenzione di Istanbul, a fronte del fatto che, invece, nel 2030 è previsto l'obiettivo, tra quelli di sviluppo sostenibile, della parità e l'uguaglianza tra uomini e donne. Credo che non sia un caso che quello contro la violenza maschile e di Stato contro le donne e sulle donne sia un movimento globale, che è partito l'Argentina, che si chiama "Non una di meno", proprio perché i casi di femminicidio ormai non sono casi che riguardano la cronaca – anzi non lo sono per niente – sono questioni culturali, politiche, materiali e simboliche, sono questioni di civiltà.

Vorrei soltanto dire che, come femminista e come parlamentare europea, parteciperò il 28 settembre alla Giornata mondiale per il diritto all'autodeterminazione sessuale e riproduttiva.

8.7. Въздействие на международната търговия и търговските политики на ЕС върху световните вериги за създаване на стойност (A8-0269/2017 - Maria Arena)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, I voted in favour today because, through globalisation, companies increasingly rely on long, global supply chains to produce the goods that we consume every day. This poses major challenges to ensure the enforcement of international standards, whether labour rights or environmental protection – an impossible task to undertake on our own. We urgently need common rules with our trading partners so that global value chains amount to more than just offshoring and outsourcing of jobs and pollution, hurting both our workers and the planet. Today’s report offers a key means of achieving this by advocating a shift away from the failed voluntary self—regulation to mandatory due diligence. The OECD is moving on this, the G20 is moving on this, and, whether we are inside or outside the European Union, the Commission and the UK Government must move on this too.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Уважаеми г-н председател, Европейският съюз е и остава най-големият търговски блок в света. С тази „слава“ обаче идва и отговорност, както пред трети страни, така и пред собствените ни граждани.

Подкрепям този доклад, защото смятам, че Съюзът следва да реагира още по-ефективно на социалния и икономически дъмпинг и на нелоялните търговски практики и да гарантира еднакви условия на конкуренция. Това обаче не трябва да се прилага само в третите страни. Бих искал да изразя своето неодобрение към подхода на много мултинационални компании в Европейския съюз, които злоупотребяват с икономическото състояние на другите държави членки. Натиск върху доставчици и тежки договори за обвързаност са само върхът на айсберга.

Социалният и икономически дъмпинг, за който говорят някои западни политици, има свое измерение в действията на немалко от техните компании в страните от така наречената Източна и Централна Европа, които например за еднакъв труд и отговорност, дават по-малко възнаграждение. Тази и други подобни несправедливости трябва да престанат.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η παγκοσμιοποίηση, το άνοιγμα των αγορών, ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός και η λειτουργία του Outsourcing επί της ουσίας έχουν καταφέρει, πρώτον: να διαλύσουν τις οικονομίες των αναπτυγμένων κρατών και, ταυτόχρονα, να υποδουλώσουν ουσιαστικά τους λαούς των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών εκεί όπου οι πολυεθνικές αποφάσισαν να μεταφέρουν τις διαδικασίες παραγωγής, να οδηγήσουν σε αποβιομηχανοποίηση τις χώρες που είναι αναπτυγμένες και ταυτόχρονα να επενδύσουν δήθεν στον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο, όπου εκεί εργάζονται όλοι για ένα κομμάτι ψωμί.

Και εκεί οι μεγάλες πολυεθνικές δεν εφαρμόζουν καν τα εργασιακά δικαιώματα, δεν εφαρμόζουν τους κανονισμούς και τις συμβάσεις της Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Εργασίας, δεν τηρούν τα περιβαλλοντικά πρότυπα, οδηγούν τα παιδιά στην εργασία, εκμεταλλεύονται πλέον τους πάντες, και νομίζω ότι αυτό πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί με συγκεκριμένα μέτρα από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αλλά και από την παγκόσμια κοινότητα.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, as a member of the Committee on International Trade, I fully understand that the global value chain is at the centre of the international economy, trade and investment policy, and I voted in favour of this report.

The resulting innumerable networks involved in international production bring with them opportunities for development and employment, but also exposure to violations of human rights and regulations. The ‘Trade For All’ communication prioritises effectiveness and transparency in trade policy and brings to the forefront the need to promote sustainable development, human rights and good governance in international trade.

I welcome the EU’s many country—specific initiatives, which aim to secure human rights protection and transparency in the context of international trade, and I hope we can continue in this vein.

  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania.

9. Поправки на вот и намерения за гласуване: вж. протокола

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 13.55 i wznowione o godz. 15.05)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI
Vicepresidente

10. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж. протокола

11. Представяне от Съвета на неговата позиция относно проекта на общ бюджет за финансовата 2018 година (разискване)

  Presidente. – La seduta è ripresa. Saluto Commissione e Consiglio.

L'ordine del giorno reca in discussione la presentazione da parte del Consiglio sulla sua posizione sul progetto generale di bilancio dell'Unione europea per l'esercizio 2018 (2017/2720(RSP)).

Ricordo agli onorevoli deputati che per questa discussione non è prevista la procedura "catch the eye" né saranno accettate domande "cartellino blu".

  Märt Kivine, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, it is my honour today to present to this great house of democracy the Council position on the draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, as adopted by the Member States on 4 September this year. Respecting the time allocated to discussion, I will be very concise in my remarks.

First, on behalf of the Council, I wish to emphasise, and be very clear about, the facts. The Council is bringing forward a draft budget that, both in commitments and payments, proposes increases compared to the 2017 budget. In detail, as follows: an increase of EUR 990 million – 0.6% – compared to the 2017 levels for commitment appropriations and, respectively, an increase of EUR 9.9 billion, or 7.39%, for payment appropriations.

Second, the Council attaches great relevance to the fiscal stance of the Union and has therefore moved to increase the contingency margins for next year. We need the EU budget to provide flexibility as much as we need predictability. On this basis, the Council and the Presidency will strive to reach an outcome on next year’s budget that will take the Union forward. The Council seeks to emphasise the expenditure on areas which have the highest European added value and stem from the political priorities of the Union: stimulating growth and jobs, strengthening security and tackling migration. I believe that these priorities are shared by Parliament. At the same time, and respecting the budget process as outlined in the Treaty, the Council sees room for savings and re-sizing of estimates in the initial budget proposed by the Commission without endangering the effective implementation and execution of EU programmes.

Having said this, please allow me to take a quick glimpse inside the draft budget and its guiding principles. Sustaining growth and job creation remains one of the Council’s most important priorities. For 2018 the Council wants to support smart and inclusive growth with EUR 76.5 billion in commitments and EUR 66.4 billion in payments, up by 2.1% and 17.5% respectively compared to the 2017 levels. With regard to subheading 1a – Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs – the Council acknowledges the importance of this policy area, which shows implementation rates.

I would also wish to highlight that the Council proposal suggests growth for the main programmes in subheading 1a as compared to the available benchmark, the 2017 budget. The Council decided to endorse the Commission’s proposal for programmes like COSME, Erasmus+ and nuclear decommissioning. We also retained financing to core areas of Horizon 2020, a research and innovation programme, to the initiatives protecting Union financial interests, the energy projects, to aid economic recovery, the completion of former programmes, and pilot projects and preparatory actions.

The Council also accepted the level of appropriations as proposed by the Commission for new initiatives like WiFi4EU, the European Solidarity Corps, as well as the European Fund for Strategic Investments, including an amount in the reserve for its extension. In some budget lines, however, under subheading 1a, the growth rate has been adjusted downwards, mostly due to the expected realistic absorption capacity and reviewing the scope of administrative expenses. Moving forward, as for subheading 1b – Cohesion Policy, the core instrument of the European Union for creating growth and jobs – the Council maintains the level of commitment appropriations as proposed by the Commission while targeted adjustments are being suggested in payments appropriations.

The second priority for the Council is to ensure a high level of security and grant adequate financing for migration and related external policies. With this in mind, as regards heading 3, Security and Citizenship, the Council accepts the Commission proposal and continues to provide resources for the programmes and agencies related to migration. The Council also supports the Commission’s proposal to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to cover the priority needs under this heading. Under heading 4, Global Europe, the draft budget largely based on the Commission’s proposal shows a reduction of appropriations compared to 2017 due to last year’s exceptional contribution of EUR 750 million from the EU budget to the facility for refugees in Turkey.

Now allow me to address the issues of headings 2 and 5 in a few words. Under heading 2, Sustainable Growth and Natural Resources, the Council proposes some adjustments mainly affecting the first pillar of the common agricultural policy. The adjustments anticipate the upward revision of agricultural assigned revenues in the forthcoming autumn forecast. Some additional savings were identified under the annual actions of the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements based on past under—implementation.

As regards heading 5, Administration, the Council, after a very attentive scrutiny, set the budget of the relevant institutions at what we deem to be an appropriate level, taking into account the specificities of institutions. The Council carried out targeted savings and increased the standard flat-rate abatement on salaries for most institutions and offices. Moreover, the Council adopted a statement about the efforts made to reach the 5% staff reduction target over the period of 2013 to 2017 by Union institutions and EU bodies. There is still some improvement possible in order to fully achieve the target by all institutions. The Council considers that the level of staff needs to be kept under continuous monitoring to ensure that the savings achieved are consolidated.

I would like to draw to a conclusion by iterating the following points. The moderation of expenditure growth in the 2018 budget, as compared to the 2017 in certain areas that the Council is suggesting, have been put for your consideration after serious scrutiny by the Council. The guiding underlying principles of the prioritisation were: first, limiting budget growth of some programmes in order to increase flexibility through bigger margins under the MFF ceiling, and secondly, seeking savings in the administrative expenditures whilst reflecting the progress of the programmes and their past execution rate. Further, no reductions were applied to the completion lines of the 2007—2013 programming period in order to maintain a successful path for phasing out the backlog of unpaid bills. No reductions were applied to the core activities of humanitarian aid.

Having said this, I am very conscious of the next steps in the budget process. I intend to weigh the forthcoming position that Parliament will adopt with earnest and serious deliberations in exactly the same vein as the Council was serious and deliberative while formulating its position. On those premises and thanking you for hearing out the rationale of the Council position, I hope we can move towards a reasonable and sustained budget for 2018 that will bring maximum benefits for our European citizens.

  Günther Oettinger, Mitglied der Kommission. – Verehrter Herr Präsident, Herr Minister und Damen und Herren Vertreter des Ratsvorsitzes, Damen und Herren Abgeordnete, meine Damen und Herren! 2018 wird in Kenntnis des absehbaren „Brexit“ ein normales Haushaltsjahr bleiben mit 28 Mitgliedern. Nachdem die Kommission vor einigen Monaten ihren Haushaltsentwurf vorgelegt hat, liegen nun – und wir danken dafür – konstruktive Positionen von Parlament und Rat vor, und ich glaube, dass die bestehenden Unterschiede in den Ansätzen zu einem sehr baldigen gemeinsamen Ergebnis gebracht werden können.

In der Struktur des Haushalts haben wir keine Unterschiede. In den Zielen, die wir verfolgen wollen, sind wir ebenfalls gleichermaßen überzeugt: Wachstum und Beschäftigung, für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas möglichst viel zu tun, die Migration auch finanziell zu stemmen und äußere und innere Sicherheit im Interesse unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger auf hohem Niveau zu organisieren.

Der Kommissionsvorschlag hat bei den Verwaltungsausgaben für Personal und Sachmittel und Investitionen alles getan, um hier Sparsamkeit darzutun. Wir werden und wollen unser 5 %-Einsparziel im Zeitrahmen erbracht haben. Wenn nun die Position des Rates ist, weitere 1,5 % an Kürzungen bei den Ausgaben vorzuschlagen, haben wir gewisse Sorgen, auf die wir eingehen müssen, weil weitere Personalabbaumaßnahmen unsere Dienste und die Leistungsfähigkeit bei der Aufgabenerbringung gefährden würden.

Ich will zu den Kohäsionsprogrammen sagen, dass wir im nächsten Jahr unverändert davon ausgehen, dass die Kohäsionsprogramme und die Beantragung von Mitteln volle Fahrgeschwindigkeit erreicht haben werden. Wir haben Verspätung, wir haben 2014, 2015 längst nicht so viel kofinanziert und damit Investitionen in Infrastruktur ausgelöst, wie es eigentlich möglich und wünschenswert gewesen wäre. Wir wollen aber im nächsten Jahr, wenn die volle Fahrgeschwindigkeit erreicht sein wird, vermeiden, dass wir offene Rechnungen in Brüssel haben und dass wir einen Zahlungsstau bekommen. Deswegen, auch in enger Abstimmung mit den Mitgliedstaaten, sind wir von diesem Mitteleinsatz als Bedarf im nächsten Jahr überzeugt.

Wir freuen uns als Kommission, dass kleinere, aber wichtige Projekte wie WiFi4EU oder die Gründung des Europäischen Solidaritätskorps in dieser Start- und Umsetzungsphase ausreichend finanziert werden und dies vom Rat auch entsprechend mitgetragen wird.

Ich will für heute nur ankündigen, dass wir die Beratungen im Trilog in den nächsten Wochen dazu nutzen wollen, um Sie von unseren Projekten gerade im Bereich Zukunft, im Bereich Forschung, im Bereich Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, im Bereich Innovation zu überzeugen. Mir macht die Kürzung der Mittel für Verpflichtungen bei Horizont 2020 um eine halbe Milliarde Euro Sorge. Rat, Parlament und Kommission haben vor einigen Jahren entschieden: Wir wollen drei Prozent unseres Bruttosozialprodukts in Forschung und Innovation investieren. Wir liegen bei zwei Prozent. Je mehr wir darüber reden, desto weniger erreichen wir das Ziel.

Forschung ist die Grundlage für künftige Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Wir Europäer müssten eigentlich 150 Milliarden jährlich mehr investieren. Jetzt eine halbe Milliarde zu kürzen, scheint mir in die falsche Richtung zu gehen, zumal wir damit nur Großforschungsvorhaben finanzieren wollen, bei denen ein europäischer Mehrwert nachgewiesen werden kann. Zum Beispiel müssen wir nach den Kürzungen drei von vier Anträgen im Bereich der digitalen Technologie eine Absage erteilen. Damit holen wir gegenüber dem Silicon Valley und dem Pentagon und China nicht auf. Oder Gesundheitsforschungsvorhaben – Krebs, Alzheimer, seltene Krankheiten, personalisierte Medizin. Im Gesundheitsetat zu kürzen, heißt: Wir kommen in der Forschung bei Gesundheit etwas langsamer voran.

In der von mir in meinem früheren Ressort verfolgten Quantentechnologie haben wir eine Flaggschiff-Initiative ergriffen mit wichtigen Instituten, der Industrie und den Mitgliedstaaten. Wenn wir hier den Mittelansatz von 130 Millionen um 32 Millionen kürzen und gleichzeitig sehen, wie Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon und Microsoft Milliarden investieren, senden wir auch hier ein falsches Signal.

Wir kämpfen deswegen nicht um theoretische Mittelansätze, nicht um die generelle Haushaltsdimension. Einsparungen sind notwendig und möglich, aber ich will Sie überzeugen von den Projekten. Und Kürzungen können zur Streichung von Projekten oder zur Verzögerung von Projekten führen. Nehmen wir die Kürzungen bei Connecting Europe, bei Galileo, bei ITER, bei Copernicus: Da kann man die Mittel kürzen, aber dann werden wir eben später fertig. Was wir 2018 nicht investieren, müssen wir 2020, 2021 oder 2022 investieren. Ich glaube, da sollten wir eher die finanziellen Mittel halten oder gar erhöhen, um nicht Ausgaben in die Zukunft zu verlagern und mit diesen Projekten später als die Amerikaner oder Asiaten in die Umsetzung zu gehen. Und dann werden wir uns noch genau die geopolitischen Herausforderungen anschauen müssen – Sicherheit, Migration –, und mit Ihnen – denn Sie sind vor Ort – sachkundig besprechen, ob und wo Kürzungen vertretbar sind und welcher Ansatz realistisch ist.

Alles in allem: Wenn ich mir den nächsten Finanzrahmen anschaue, dann ist es ein Kinderspiel, 2018 zu einem Kompromiss zu kommen. Deswegen könnten wir sogar überlegen, ob wir nicht auf einen Teil der Sitzungen für Oktober und November verzichten. Je schneller, je straffer wir beraten, desto mehr haben wir Zeit, um die nächste Finanzperiode gründlich vorzubereiten, wo es Milliardenlücken gibt. Die sehe ich in diesem Fall für 2018 nicht vorher.

Besten Dank für die hervorragende Arbeit durch den Ratsvorsitz und durch die Berichterstatter des Parlaments.

  Siegfried Mureşan, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner Oettinger, Märt Kivine and Estonian Presidency colleagues, welcome here today to the European Parliament. We are now entering a decisive phase in the procedure to agree on an EU budget for 2018. We have spent the first half of the year agreeing on political priorities, and we have done important work together in agreeing that growth, jobs and the safety and the security of citizens have to be the political priorities of the budget of the Union for next year. These are the right priorities because this is what the citizens of Europe expect the Union to deliver and these are exactly the areas where the Union adds value.

Now, we need to deliver on the promises which we made together in the first half of the year. We are simply not credible in saying that we want a more innovative European Union and at the same time cutting EUR 491 million from innovation and research programmes. We are not credible in saying that we want infrastructure in Europe to be better: energy, digital, highways, railways and at the same time we cut EUR 111 million from the Connecting Europe Facility and EUR 99 million from large infrastructure projects. The total cuts proposed by the Council are EUR 1.7 billion. Let me be very clear: what the Council is proposing here is a budget for a weaker European Union because less investments today means a weaker European economy in the future. The Commissioner has outlined this with examples from the digital area in a very convincing manner.

The European Commission has understood in the very first half of the year that growth, jobs, safety and security have to be our priorities, and they have put together a very meaningful budget. This is why I also support allocating most of the resources that we have for research, for SMEs, for infrastructure projects, standing by the side of farmers, particularly young farmers, and fulfiling our commitments when it comes to the Cohesion and Structural Funds. The low absorption rates in the first year of this financial programing period for the Cohesion and Structural Funds does not mean that the absorption rate will stay low in the years to come. On the contrary, it means that now projects will be at full speed and the money is needed over the next years. There is no worse signal that the Union can give to SMEs, to citizens and to NGOs than not being able to pay its bills.

This is why I am calling on all sides to come together in the upcoming weeks to put forward a meaningful budget for the Union in 2018 – a budget based on investments, supporting research, innovation, SMEs and important projects – to put money in the good projects that apply for EU funds, to stand by the side of our immediate neighbourhood, be it south, be it east, be it the Western Balkans, improve safety and security, and make use of the agencies of the Union which we have and which are there to improve the safety and security of the citizens of Europe.

  Richard Ashworth, rapporteur. – Mr President, in April this year this House agreed to an increase in the Parliament’s annual budget of 2.3%. Bearing in mind the level of inflation, I thought that was a realistic proposition and I recommend it be taken as a benchmark for the other institutions. So, I am happy to report that the majority of the other institutions accept that point, and I am happy to say that they have made similar proposals.

There are three exceptions that I would mention to the House. First, the European Data Protection Supervisor has been tasked with expanding his activities, and of course this would involve an abnormal expenditure on his part in 2018. Secondly, the European Court of Auditors are faced with a large increase in workload, and this too I accept as a legitimate and a reasonable demand. Finally, the European Court of Justice makes a very strong case for increased funding, both because of raised activity levels and increased translation costs, and for addressing some significant security issues. Faced with these extra costs, therefore, it is my judgement that the Council has cut some of the funding levels too far, and I recommend to this House that we reinstate some of those levels. Nevertheless, to keep the overall level of budget expenditure under control, we need to achieve further savings. In part, I propose to meet those additional costs through efficiency gains, and here I am happy to report that the Court of Auditors have gone some way to meeting us in that respect. But in part two we have to exercise budgetary discipline, and in so doing we will have to redistribute some of the funding.

To that end, I propose to freeze the budgets of the Committee of Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee for the year 2018. I am also conscious that the European External Action Service faces significant rising costs – in part due to increased staffing levels, but also partly due to the cost of the strategic communications programme.

Most of this cost should be absorbed by the EEAS from their current budget, but I do accept there may be need for a small upward adjustment when we have the precise figures.

Mr President, I ask this House to bear in mind that, if you agree with me that the figure agreed for this Parliament of 2.3% is a reasonable and responsible increase, and if we are to apply that to the other sections, then there will be tough, difficult decisions to be made. I look forward to discussing my proposals with the shadows in the coming weeks, and I hope for their support.

  Märt Kivine, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, many thanks for your thorough, passionate and deliberative remarks. Let me just comment with a very few words. Commissioner, your case made especially for research is compelling, and I can assure you that the Council has a sympathetic spot in its heart about that. We will take that back to our Council colleagues and we will certainly discuss that going forward in the budget process. It is an excellent point and it is a point to be considered, as you said, thinking about the long-term competitiveness of the continent.

Thank you very much, Mr Rapporteur, dear Siegfried. Your passionate points about the infrastructure, the SMEs, the farmers: we take good note of that. This much I can and will promise, and I will discuss them with our Council colleagues and with you, undoubtedly, soon enough, when we start in-depth discussions about the budget. Mr Ashworth, thanks for your remarks. These are excellent points and as such we will take them fully on board in our considerations going forward and treating the administrative costs of the Council.

Having said that and recognising that we are about to embark on very close and tight trilogues and other negotiation means, let me make a few more remarks just to conclude today’s discussion. Firstly, I wish to thank you on behalf of the Council and myself and my colleagues for your views, and thank you for presenting them so straightforwardly and frankly. Today’s debate, to my mind, highlighted the fact that we do wish to strive for the common goal, to achieve the best budget we can for the European Union and its citizens. As I have said, I fully respect that the European Parliament may have – and probably will have – a different take on the proposed budget for the year 2018. I can assure you that we will work hard with you after you have formally adopted your position. We know that we can count on the Commission and on you, Mr Oettinger, in helping to converge our positions and suggest skilful and balanced compromise solutions.

I wish also to thank Mr Arthuis (even if he is absent), as well as Mr Mureşan and Mr Ashworth, the rapporteurs, for our interaction to date and going forward. Europe as a whole needs a budget which is responsive to citizens’ requests, even if that is a constantly moving target. I am confident that, with the dedication of the European Parliament and the Commission, as well as our own, we will be able to reach an agreement, and a good agreement, in due time.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR), γραπτώς. –Ξανά στο ίδιο έργο θεατές, με έναν προϋπολογισμό ο οποίος είναι προϋπολογισμός λιτότητας και βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής. Με αυτό τον τρόπο όμως δεν μπορεί να αντιμετωπιστεί ούτε η οικονομική κρίση ούτε η προσφυγική κρίση. Διατίθενται ελάχιστα ποσά για την απασχόληση και την ανάπτυξη τη στιγμή μάλιστα που η Ευρώπη μαστίζεται από στρατιές ανέργων, κυρίως ανέργων που ανήκουν στη νέα γενιά. Βεβαίως πρέπει να επισημάνουμε ότι και τα ποσά που διατίθενται στον τομέα της μετανάστευσης, είναι ψίχουλα, εάν λάβει κανείς υπόψη τα εκατομμύρια προσφύγων και παράνομων μεταναστών που κατακλύζουν την Ευρώπη. Η Ελλάδα έχει δαπανήσει πάνω από 2,5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για την αντιμετώπιση της προσφυγικής κρίσης. Χρειάζονται λοιπόν πολύ περισσότερα ποσά για να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα μεγάλα προβλήματα που έχει σήμερα η Ευρώπη.

  Андрей Новаков (PPE), в писмена форма. – За мен като евродепутат, европейски гражданин и най-вече като българин, бюджетът на ЕС отразява приоритетите на хората. Вече шест десетилетия той е совалката за политическите приоритети на държавите-членки и институциите. 161 млрд. евро не са просто пари, а инвестиция на Европа в собственото й бъдеще. Като представител на Европейския парламент, моята най-голяма отговорност е да защитавам интересите на европейските граждани и българи. Допълнителното финансиране за пътна инфраструктура и научни иновации трябва да са приоритет в бюджета на ЕС за следващата година. Целта е в България да могат да се финансират повече от добрите проекти в тези две направления. Данните сочат, че в страната ни има повече качествени проекти, отколкото Комисията може да финансира. Същевременно в бюджет 2018 ще защитавам сигурността и осведомеността на потребителите, както и европейската култура. Програма „Хоризонт 2020“, Инструментът за свързаност, програма „Креативна Европа“ и програмата за защита на потребителите са най-краткият път до просперитета на гражданите на Съюза. За последните 25 години ЕС се очерта като амбициозен проект и в предстоящите бюджетни преговори трябва да сме също толкова амбициозни. Успех е когато съумеем да излетим, дори и в бурно време. Това важи както в авиацията, така и в изготвянето и изпълнението на бюджета.

12. Износ на оръжия: прилагане на Обща позиция 2008/944/ОВППС (разискване)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Bodil Valero, a nome della commissione per gli affari esteri, sul tema "Esportazione di armi: attuazione della posizione comune 2008/944/PESC" (2008/944/PESC) (A8-0264/2017).

  Bodil Valero, föredragande. – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att rikta ett stort tack till alla skuggföredragandena för ett gott samarbete. Även om vi inte är överens i alla detaljer så uppfattar jag att vi har en stor samsyn kring att kontrollen av vapenexporten måste förstärkas. Vi har olika politiska inriktningar, men när det gäller frågan om att förhindra att vapen hamnar i fel händer så är vi eniga.

Vapenexportkontroll är en viktig del i vår utrikespolitik men börjar alltmer bli också en inrikespolitisk fråga i takt med att vi bevittnat allt fler terroristattacker runt om Europa som utförs av anhängare till Daesh, som vi vet har tillgång till europeiska vapen.

Efter terrordåden i Katalonien var fokus i diskussionen tydligt på vapenexport. Vi hade då läst i spansk media att kungen skulle åka till Saudiarabien för att främja vapenexport – spansk vapenexport. Efter dådet kom debatten att handla om just det. ”Vi vill ha fred – inte sälja vapen”, var budskapet på Barcelonas gator. Kopplingen var vapenförsäljning till Saudiarabien. Saudiarabien betalar moskéer i Europa. Välintegrerade ungdomar radikaliseras i moskéerna och begår terrordåd i Europa.

Men Saudiarabien stöder inte bara finansiering av radikala moskéer i Europa utan har också på ett systematiskt sätt vidareexporterat europeiska vapen till kriget i Syrien, där även terroristgrupper såsom Al Qaida, Nusrafronten och Daesh fått tag i vapnen. Att europeiska vapen hamnar i terroristers händer kan vi aldrig acceptera.

Vi har ett omfattande och tydligt gemensamt regelverk i den gemensamma ståndpunkten med sina åtta kriterier. Det är ett starkt regelverk som skulle kunna omöjliggöra så gott som all vapenexport till konfliktregioner eller länder som grovt kränker mänskliga rättigheter om det tillämpades strikt. Med facit i hand kan vi nu konstatera att medlemsstaternas riskbedömningar inte varit tillfredställande och att flera av den gemensamma ståndpunktens kriterier borde ha satt stopp för exporten till exempelvis Saudiarabien. Men eftersom det är upp till varje land att kontrollera att man följer regelverket, kan länderna i princip obehindrat bryta mot det.

Men även om den gemensamma ståndpunkten följts, så är vi nu i situationen att länder som i fredstid köpt vapen och annan militär utrustning från oss för sitt eget försvar i dag aktivt deltar i anfallskrig i andra länder eller förser stridande grupper i andra länder med vapen.

Då infinner sig ett antal frågor. Varför fortsätter vissa EU-länder att bevilja nya licenser till länder i krig? Kan vi stoppa följdleveranserna? Kan vi stoppa att vapen hamnar hos andra slutanvändare? De två sista frågorna hjälper inte reglerna oss med i dagsläget. Det vi föreslagit från parlamentets sida tidigare är ett embargo mot Saudiarabien. I dag föreslår vi att embargo ska användas i fler lägen. Embargo är det enda verkningsbara system vi har för att stoppa export som inte längre är förenligt med regelverket.

Utvecklingen visar också att våra långsiktiga riskbedömningar måste bli så mycket bättre. Vi skulle behöva se inte bara till vad materielen ska användas till utan till situationen i mottagarlandet som helhet när tillstånd beviljas.

Vi måste också fråga oss hur det kan komma sig att 40 procent av vår sammanlagda krigsmaterielexport går till krutdurken Mellanöstern och bara 15 procent till andra europeiska länder, som är vår andra stora marknad. Och är det rimligt att vi i Europa har en sådan överkapacitet på vapensystem så att vi tvingas exportera för att inte verksamheterna ska gå omkull?

Vapenindustrin kom till för att täcka det egna försvarets behov, men många gånger hävdas arbetstillfällen som grund för fortsatta stöd. Jag vill dock påminna om att enligt artikel 10 i den gemensamma ståndpunkten är arbetsmarknadsskäl inte en grund för exporttillstånd.

I årets betänkande stakar vi ut en riktning och kommer med ett tydligt budskap: Regelverket ska följas. EU ska inte blunda när europeiska vapen används i strid med våra egna regler.

Vi kommer också med några rekommendationer till förändringar, bland annat en skärpning av rapporteringskraven för att möjliggöra en bättre granskning, möjlighet att införa sanktioner mot länder som bryter mot regelverket, och inte minst så hoppas vi att Federica Mogherini ska ta initiativ att faktiskt använda sig av embargo i de fall då länder kränker internationell humanitär rätt.

Det är inte bara internationell fred eller bilden av Europa som står på spel, utan det handlar också om säkerheten för våra egna medborgare.

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, speaking on behalf of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mrs Mogherini, I welcome both this opportunity to join you today and the preparation and discussion of the report prepared by Ms Valero.

This is a testimony to parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports, which is a sound follow-up to transparency applied at EU level on arms export issues. Interaction channels on arms export issues with Parliament and civil society, including NGOs, the academic world and the industry have developed considerably over the years. This is an invaluable achievement and it illustrates that transparency and dialogue can fruitfully take place without prejudice to the respective responsibilities of national and EU stakeholders. At a time when we advocate further transparency worldwide, notably via the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), we believe it is important to ensure that transparency does not run counter to national and regional security.

The EU framework governing arms exports mainly revolves around the EU common position on arms exports adopted in 2008. This framework is unique. It is based on the national responsibility of EU Member States on arms export licensing decisions, together with well-developed information-sharing between the export control authorities of Member States. The risk assessment criteria laid down by the EU common position are comprehensive and far-reaching, notably in terms of respect for human rights and international humanitarian law, the risk of diversion and the impact on internal and regional stability. Their daily application by national licensing offices is supported by the so—called user’s guide that was revised in 2015, notably in order to align it with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Against this background of national responsibility exercised with common risk assessment criteria, the overarching objectives of the EU common position are to promote responsible arms export policies and the convergence of national arms export policies. In support of these objectives, the Council and the European External Action Service provide an information-sharing platform which is the dedicated Council working party on arms exports, and an IT platform enabling the exchange of information relevant for risk assessment, including details on license denials.

Like the EU guidelines, these information-sharing components have been recently overhauled and updated as a result of the review of the EU common position achieved in 2015. This has contributed – and continues to further contribute – to the convergence of arms export policies as they are being put into practice.

Briefly widening the picture outside the EU, in our close neighbourhood a number of third countries have aligned with the criteria of the EU common position. To assist them in their daily operational implementation, the EU has had in place since 2009 an outreach programme funding technical cooperation. The latest phase, covering the years 2016-2017, will come to a close in December, but steps are already being taken to continue the work with a new Council decision for the years 2018 and 2019.

Secondly, and moving to an even larger picture, I would like to refer to the Arms Trade Treaty. This Treaty sets unique and widely-accepted standards to achieve greater responsibility and transparency in the arms trade. The ATT entered into force in December 2014 and so far, 130 states have signed it and 92 countries are state parties, including all 28 EU Member States. Of note, however, is that some of the largest arms exporters and importers, such as Russia, China, India and Pakistan, have not signed or ratified it. All diplomatic opportunities are used to encourage countries that have taken no steps towards the Treaty to join it by providing the EU assistance programme where needed and requested.

The arms trade is becoming more and more globalised. It is our duty to lead by example when it comes to arms exports from the EU. It is equally our duty to encourage and support other arms manufacturers and traders to apply the ATT standards.

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank colleague Valero for her commitment, openness and readiness to understand different points of view, some of which are still there. At the start, I am satisfied that the report clearly confirms the right of every sovereign state to self-defence. Consequently, states also have a legitimate right to acquire military technologies for the support purposes of self-defence.

The common position of eight criteria is a strong commitment by the Member States to systematically control and verify exports of the products of national defence industries. Issuing export licences is based on clear principles. There are several problems with the implementation of the common position, and therefore we support a more demanding and coherent approach. However, the PPE sees no need for extra new criteria or new specific structures or sanctions to enforce control. The first task for us is to secure full and strict implementation with existing commitments. What we need most is more timely and systematic exchange of information on export licences and actual exports. Member States have different ways of acquiring information. Sharing relevant information quickly and regularly is important when other governments have to decide whether to grant an arms export licence or to refuse it, and I welcome the Council’s approach to these problems – especially providing, for example, info-sharing platforms, etc.

Diversion of arms remains a major concern. We fully agree with it. We need to address this problem efficiently through joint strategy and action, both by Member States and the Commission. We have asked for separate votes on paragraph 29 and paragraph 34. Together with the ECR, we hope that colleagues will be able to support them.

  Inés Ayala Sender, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, yo también me uno al agradecimiento y a la satisfacción por la cooperación con la señora Valero, que siempre es muy positiva, y le doy las gracias además por haber incorporado algunos puntos innovadores, como son la posibilidad de establecer una lista de entidades y de individuos a los que se conozca o de los que se sospeche que están envueltos en el comercio ilegal de armas y que, sin embargo, aparezcan también como posibles socios o partenaires.

También por la posibilidad de incorporar la necesidad de incrementar la seguridad contra los ataques cibernéticos, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que el acceso a las redes de licencia y a los datos sobre las licencias nacionales puede ser también uno de los elementos de riesgo mayor y, por lo tanto, hay una necesidad de entrenar mejor y formar mejor a las personas que tienen esa obligación.

También nos ha dado la oportunidad de incluir un aspecto relacionado con el futuro del brexit —es decir, cuando el Reino Unido ya no esté en la Unión Europea—, para que no se reduzca la capacidad del Reino Unido de mantener el mismo nivel de seguridad en cuanto al comercio internacional de armas y al control, sobre todo, de modo que no se cree una especie de agujero.

También le agradezco mucho el haber integrado los aspectos relacionados con la necesidad de identificar y de dar una cobertura a los whistleblowers, precisamente para que puedan denunciar, cuando la hayan identificado en sus compañías o incluso en las administraciones, alguna situación en la que no se aplican las obligaciones de control de la Posición Común.

Le agradezco también la posibilidad —igual que hemos identificado las malas prácticas con una especie de lista negra— de identificar en los terceros países a aquellos que sí lo están haciendo bien y que están aplicando el control de esa exportación en el comercio bilateral con la Unión Europea.

Finalmente, le agradezco la necesidad de poder integrar cada vez más las normativas europeas y de las Naciones Unidas para llegar a un planteamiento mucho más fuerte en cuanto a los mecanismos de control de la exportación de armas.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, we should remember that our defence industries are vital elements of our national security, as well as our national economic well-being. We should not underestimate their importance. Five European countries are among the world’s top ten arms exporters. Like our armed forces, the arms industries of European countries are well regulated and responsibly controlled. We have export control regimes, primarily to ensure that, as far as possible, weapons and key components do not get into the wrong hands, and by that I mean our potential enemies, rogue states and terrorists.

We don’t want to impose more regulation on our own national industries merely to advance the cause of EU political integration, and I should mention that my own country, the United Kingdom, already has a robust and comprehensive arms export control system irrespective, by the way, of EU activity.

While there is much in the Valero report we can agree with, we also take issue on a number of points. Most of these concern the constant effort to enhance the role of the EU over its Member States. I very much hope the Parliament will reject any suggestion of sanctions against a Member State not complying with a common position, and similarly, we don’t see the necessity, in these times of budgetary pressure, for the establishment of EU funds to be used for capacity-building among licensing and enforcement officials in Member States.

I am pleased that, following the acceptance of our amendment, there is at least mention of the UN’s International Arms Trade Treaty, but this is under-played – and thank you, by the way, Mr Maasikas, for your emphasis on this. We have to ask why there is a necessity for increased EU activity in this area when it is the wider international community that needs to be taking action. In fact, very little mention is made of the countries that have been the worst abusers in the International Arms Trade System, feeding violent insurgency and terrorism in all continents of the world. I think of Russia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China: this is where we should focus our attention. None of these countries are signatories to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, while all EU Member States are.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – This debate on the arms trade coincides with blockades and demonstrations against the world’s biggest so-called ‘arms fair’ taking place in London, and shortly after Prime Minister May’s trade visit to Saudi Arabia. Can I ask Mr Van Orden whether he will vote in favour of the Valero report, which calls for an end to arms sales to Saudi, which are being used to kill Yemeni children?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), blue-card answer. – I notice you had prepared your question before I had even started to speak, and also I don’t like the formulation you have used in your question to me. Of course I condemn totally the killing of children and other civilians in situations of armed conflict. But a ban on arms exports to Saudi Arabia? No, I don’t support that. By the way, there was an action taken by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade – and of course, this is where it all comes from – against the United Kingdom Government. It was heard in the High Court of the United Kingdom in July of this year, and the High Court came out in favour of the British Government. We don’t have time for me to read the whole judgment, but I am very happy to circulate it to you. Basically it found that the decision of the Secretary of State of the United Kingdom not to suspend export licences to the Kingdom of Arabia was not irrational or unlawful indeed, and it was fully backed.

  Javier Nart, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, por favor, no mezclemos conceptos legítimos: qué es legítima defensa, qué significa una industria de defensa activa; no la prostituyamos con el negocio.

Por lo tanto, lo fundamental es que los ocho criterios que se acordaron en 2008 sean efectivos, y no simplemente una referencia retórica. Y la realidad —no la retórica— se llama, por ejemplo, Yemen, donde cientos, miles de personas están siendo bombardeadas con productos made in Europe, y esto es una vergüenza.

Y, en consecuencia, lo que no se puede decir es que lo que está ocurriendo ahora en la Unión Europea tiene que seguir pasando porque el negocio de la sangre tiene que seguir fluyendo para que exista la realidad de nuestra defensa. No se prostituya mi legítima defensa con el negocio obsceno de la sangre de otros.

En consecuencia, si hemos aprobado los ocho criterios, es para mantenerlos. Si existen sanciones por cuestiones de sobreproducción de leche, por ejemplo, es una obscenidad que no existan sanciones cuando se venden armas fuera de los ocho criterios. Y es una realidad que países punteros en la exportación están violando los ocho criterios.

En consecuencia, o cumplimos con lo que aprobamos o seamos sinceros: eliminemos los ocho criterios y, en ese sentido, digamos, cínicamente, pero por lo menos con honradez y honestidad, que nos dedicamos a vender a quien nos compre porque lo que importa es el negocio y no la ética. Eso es lo fundamental.

  Sabine Lösing, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wenn ich Herrn van Orden so höre, ist alles wunderbar geregelt. Aber die Rüstungsexporte der EU—Staaten explodieren nun mal seit Jahren. Herr Nart hat zurecht auf den Jemen hingewiesen. Deshalb bin ich froh, dass im Bericht Schritte vorgeschlagen werden, diesen Wahnsinn zu begrenzen. An manchen Stellen hätte ich mir noch mehr Substanz gewünscht, damit wir wirklich Fortschritte in diesem Bereich erlangen. Das Problem ist doch offensichtlich: Wie der Bericht betont, stecken die acht Kriterien eigentlich dem rechtlich bindenden Rahmen für europäische Waffenexporte – und es geht hier um europäische Waffenexporte – ab.

Zu Herrn Kelam: Es geht gar nicht um neue Kriterien. Wir müssen aber feststellen, dass nahezu alle Staaten zum Teil erheblich gegen diese Vorschriften verstoßen – darum geht es hier. Etwa in Deutschland – und wir sprechen heute nicht über Russland – verstießen Studien zufolge allein im Jahr 2015 über 4 000 Exportlizenzen in 76 Länder gegen diese Kriterien oder waren als problematisch einzustufen. In vielen anderen EU—Ländern dürfte es kaum besser aussehen.

Was wir also dringend benötigen, sind drei Dinge – leider macht der Bericht nur zum ersten Aspekt detaillierte Vorschläge und bleibt zu den beiden anderen etwas vage: Es braucht eine einheitliche und endlich vollständige und rasche Berichtspflicht der Mitgliedstaaten. Es ist nötig, dass die Einhaltung der 8 Kriterien von unabhängiger Seite überprüft wird, und es sind Sanktionsmechanismen für Länder erforderlich, die notorisch gegen die Vorschriften verstoßen. Ohne diese Maßnahmen werden die EU-Exportvorschriften weiter löchrig wie ein Fischernetz bleiben und europäische Waffen Kriege und Konflikte in aller Welt anheizen.

  Ulrike Lunacek, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister, meine Damen und Herren! In der Debatte um die Fluchtbewegungen der letzten Jahre haben wir immer mehr gesehen, dass hier auch die Frage nach den Fluchtursachen und deren Bewältigung in den Vordergrund gerückt wird. Da geht es zum einen um gerechte Handelsbeziehungen, damit nicht die Lebensgrundlagen von Menschen zerstört und sie vertrieben werden und dann in die Flucht gehen müssen.

Aber es geht auch um die Waffenexporte. Und da möchte ich meiner grünen Kollegin Bodil Valero wirklich für diesen ausgezeichneten Bericht herzlich danken, der klarstellt, dass die gemeinsame EU-Position zu Waffenexporten aus dem Jahr 2008 rechtlich verbindlich ist, und dass sie Waffenexporte in kriegführende Länder und in Länder, die gegen humanitäres Recht verstoßen, verbietet. Deswegen unterstütze ich auch die Forderung, dass alle Waffenexporte nach Saudi-Arabien verboten werden, denn Saudi-Arabien führt Krieg im Jemen – das wurde schon erwähnt. Es muss klar sein, dass das nicht mehr sein darf. Auch mein Heimatland Österreich hat letztes Jahr 30 000 Kleinwaffen an Saudi-Arabien geliefert. Dieses Blutvergießen im Jemen muss endlich ein Ende nehmen. Ich unterstütze die Forderung und fordere die Außenministerin der EU, Frau Mogherini, auf, tatsächlich ein Waffenembargo gegen Saudi-Arabien in die Wege zu leiten.

  James Carver, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the export of arms and munitions should depend on the assessment of an individual and truly sovereign government. Whilst critical and sceptical of many areas of my own government’s policy in this area, I believe that such policy must always remain in their hands alone and thereby be directly accountable to the British electorate. It is well known that such a contentious issue will always factor into a general election campaign.

The aims of this report precisely restrict that democratic accountability by suggesting that following Brexit, the UK should remain tied to the common EU position. I firmly reject this notion, and whilst Her Majesty’s Government has remained light on detailing our future defence arrangements and foreign policy ties through their future partnership paper, released only this morning, it is, quite frankly, vague and lacking in detail.

Such a lack of clarity is unhelpful to all sides and will probably only serve to further frustrate matters. It is not good enough. To truly regain our independence in this area, the UK must withdraw from the EU military command structure and work on a truly bilateral basis and where necessary, use NATO as a conduit on areas of operational crossover. That is what the British electorate voted for when deciding to leave the European Union in last year’s referendum.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, ce rapport va encore aggraver les règles sur  les exportations d’armements des États membres, alors que ces règles et leur utilisation entravent déjà la liberté de nos États.

Nous l’avons vu lors de l’affaire des Mistral, où la France, en manquant à sa parole, a détruit la confiance que d’éventuels acheteurs pouvaient avoir en elle. Et nous avons suivi les recommandations. Pourtant, quand les armes occidentales doivent arriver dans les mains de groupes néonazis, comme en Ukraine, ou de groupes djihadistes, comme en Syrie, ou au Moyen-Orient, qui a une vision très spéciale de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme, alors cela reste possible, avec le soutien de la Commission et même avec le soutien de ce Parlement, pour certains pays.

Nous ne pouvons soumettre la crédibilité et l’indépendance de la France à l’extérieur. Il y va de notre souveraineté. Il est temps que la France sorte de cette Europe.

VORSITZ: ULRIKE LUNACEK
Vizepräsidentin

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, lugupeetud härra Maasikas. Vielen Dank für Ihre Ausführungen. Ich bin froh, dass wir jährlich diese Debatte haben, denn das Thema ist ein wichtiges für unsere Außenpolitik. Man sollte durchaus zunächst mal anerkennen, dass wir als Europäische Union die einzige Region in dieser Welt sind, die so einen anspruchsvollen Katalog an Kriterien hat, wann man eben nicht etwas liefern sollte. Dieser Katalog ist eigentlich auch eine Empfehlung an andere Teile der Welt, sich daran zu orientieren.

Gleichzeitig gehört zum Realismus, dass wir diesen gemeinsamen Standpunkt des Rates wahrscheinlich nicht hätten, wenn es nicht Sache der Mitgliedstaaten wäre, diese Kriterien für ihre eigenen Exporte anzulegen und dann auch zu entscheiden, ob sie denen entsprechen oder nicht. Das gehört auch mit zur Wahrheit.

Gleichwohl ist es durchaus angezeigt, dass wir im Rahmen der zuständigen Arbeitsgruppen des Rates regelmäßig über die Lage in bestimmten Konfliktzonen sprechen. Es wäre gut, wenn dann das Ergebnis solcher Debatten wäre, dass man zu gemeinsamen Standpunkten in Bezug auf eine konkrete Konfliktregion käme. Das würde der Sicherheit der Welt insgesamt und der jeweiligen Konfliktregion auch dienen. Da muss die Debatte auch weiter im Rat geführt werden. Und wenn überhaupt, dann sollten die nationalen Parlamente die Debatte darüber führen, ob ihre jeweilige Regierung diese Kriterien einhält, aber nicht andere, die nicht dazu berufen sind.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospođo predsjednice, izvješće ispravno naglašava da države imaju legitimno pravo na nabavu vojne tehnologije u obrambene svrhe. No, ne smijemo zanemariti činjenicu da u izvozu oružja mnogo toga nije transparentno, nema standardiziranog sustava provjere i izvještavanja. Manjak transparentnosti šteti tvrtkama koje poštujući sve propise razvijaju i proizvode obrambenu tehnologiju, ali ne možemo zanemariti podatke da krajnji korisnici izvezenog oružja ne ispunjavaju često kriterije zajedničkih stajališta. Gotovo sto milijardi eura izdanih dozvola za izvoz oružja godišnje iz Europske unije ogroman je novac. Nemojmo oklijevati zatražiti veću razinu transparentnosti o tome otkud novac i oružje dolaze i gdje završavaju.

Međunarodna zajednica često kasni u političkim reakcijama nakon izbijanja oružanih sukoba. Zato trebamo jasne kriterije koji će regulirati izvoz oružja. Pogoršanje sigurnosnih prilika na globalnoj razini, ali nedostatak zajedničke europske obrambene politike, fragmentacija i dupliciranje resursa uzroci su ekspanzivnog izvoza vojne tehnologije. To su ujedno i najbolji argumenti za jačanje sigurnosne i obrambene integracije prema europskoj obrambenoj uniji.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI
Vicepresidente

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, oružje koje europski proizvođači izvoze u treće zemlje često završi u krivim rukama i služi za počinjenje teških ratnih zločina i kršenja humanitarnog prava. Koliko god to bilo uznemirujuće, teško ćemo to promijeniti jer rat je sam po sebi jedna velika nesreća koja iz ljudi može izvući, u pravilu, ono najgore.

Karakter vojne industrije takav je da ona ovisi o sukobima, a čak i da uspijemo kontrolirati prodaju trećim zemljama, svejedno ne možemo zaustaviti daljnju preprodaju. Oružje će naći put do onoga komu treba jer, na kraju krajeva, čovjek je taj koji ubija, a ne oružje.

Ova inicijativa da se vojnu industriju država članica stavi pod kontrolu Visoke predstavnice za vanjsku politiku i sigurnosne poslove neće dati rezultata, a predstavlja još jedan pokušaj Unije da prisvoji nove nadležnosti. Na kraju, na takvo što ne mogu pristati, pogotovo zato što mislim da bi to išlo u prilog samo velikim proizvođačima dok kvalitetni proizvođači koji se drže pravila iz malih država članica ne bi imali šansu.

  Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, un informe publicado ayer mismo por Amnistía Internacional afirmaba que, cada año, las armas de fuego matan a alrededor de medio millón de personas. Y varios millones más están atrapadas en brutales conflictos avivados por ventas de armas irresponsables.

Irresponsabilidades como colmar de armas a Arabia Saudí, que bombardea escuelas, hospitales y otras infraestructuras civiles en Yemen. O formar a pilotos saudíes en España para intervenir posteriormente en operaciones militares en Yemen, violando el Derecho internacional humanitario.

Desde aquí instamos no solo a las instituciones europeas, sino especialmente al Gobierno español y a la casa real a revisar las relaciones empresariales y militares con países como Arabia Saudí y Qatar. Los intereses empresariales nunca pueden condicionar la política exterior ni estar por encima de los derechos humanos.

Este informe contiene elementos muy positivos en relación con el cumplimiento de los tratados internacionales, de los derechos humanos y de la transparencia. Entendemos que lo principal no es solo votar a favor de este informe, sino comprometernos a que no se quede en papel mojado.

  Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Das Europäische Parlament hat sich heute klar gegen Waffenexporte in Krisengebiete ausgesprochen. Beschämend ist aber doch, dass meine Heimat Deutschland weltweit noch einer der Hauptexporteure von Waffen in Krisengebiete ist. Egal, wer am 24. September Bundeskanzler wird – ob Merkel oder Schulz –, es wird weitergehen mit den unzähligen Waffenexporten. Merkel, Gabriel und Schulz stellen sich in der Öffentlichkeit gerne als Retter der Flüchtlinge dar, aber die schwar-zrote Regierung hat durch ihre Waffenexporte viele Fluchtursachen erst befeuert.

Sie hat in Länder wie Katar, Ägypten und Saudi-Arabien geliefert, die deutsche Exporte zur Unterdrückung der eigenen Bevölkerung verwenden. Die Türkei bekämpft die Kurden ebenfalls mit deutschen Waffen. Saudi-Arabien führt selbst Krieg im Jemen mit deutschen Waffen. Ägypten bombardiert die eigene Bevölkerung – angeblich, um Terroristen zu bekämpfen. Für mich ist es unglaublich scheinheilig, wenn wir einerseits Fluchtursachen schaffen und uns dann als Menschenfreunde feiern lassen, weil wir diese Flüchtlinge bei uns aufnehmen.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è passato più di un anno e mezzo da quando abbiamo discusso il precedente dossier sull'attuazione della posizione comune sull'export di armi. Da allora, ben poco è cambiato: il business degli armamenti procede a gonfie vele per gli Stati membri, con esportazioni in aumento verso paesi con standard democratici a dir poco dubbi: Egitto, Arabia Saudita e Turchia sono infatti tra i principali acquirenti.

Sì, proprio l'Arabia Saudita, nei confronti della quale in questo Parlamento avevamo chiesto di imporre un embargo degli armamenti nel febbraio 2016, ritenendo le esportazioni verso Riyadh in violazione della posizione comune europea. Il mio paese, l'Italia, ha addirittura visto un vero e proprio boom di esportazioni verso l'Arabia Saudita, passate da 257 milioni a 427 milioni di EUR nel 2016.

Noi parliamo e votiamo ma gli Stati membri sono sordi alle nostre parole: le bombe continuano a cadere sullo Yemen, e non solo; civili e bambini continuano a morire: abbiamo le mani sporche di sangue. Un vincolo di otto criteri senza controllo e senza sanzioni è solo una forma ipocrita per simulare una parvenza di rispettabilità.

Questo è quello che da anni dice il mio emendamento e ringrazio la relatrice Bodil Valero per averlo accolto anche quest'anno nella sua relazione. Nel 2012 l'Unione europea ha vinto il premio Nobel per la pace: è ora che cominci a esserne degna.

  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la défense nationale est une compétence nationale et elle doit le rester. Chaque État a le droit de se doter d’une technologie militaire pour se défendre et il a le droit d’exporter librement ses armes. Des précautions doivent toutefois être prises pour éviter de vendre des armes à des États qui les retourneraient contre nous, soit directement, soit par le biais d’organisations terroristes.

J’approuve donc le rapport Valero quand il souligne l’utilité d’une concertation entre États européens, y compris avec le Royaume-Uni. Je l’approuve encore plus quand il leur conseille de décider un embargo sur la vente d’armes à l’Arabie saoudite.

Je suis, en revanche, scandalisé par le rapport Valero quand il cherche à confier à l’Union le pouvoir d’autoriser ou non les États à exporter leurs armes. Une telle préconisation est contraire à la souveraineté nationale. C’est pourquoi je voterai contre.

  Michèle Alliot-Marie (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, quand on parle de défense nationale ou d’exportation d’armements, on ne peut pas dire n’importe quoi.

Il faut notamment rappeler aujourd’hui que les grands pays exportateurs d’armes – et notamment les pays européens – respectent des normes extrêmement précises, normes internationales et normes européennes. Et que même certains pays – dont la France – ont des normes nationales qui sont encore plus strictes que les normes européennes.

Il faut ensuite rappeler, quand on parle de ces sujets, la convergence des intérêts, finalement, des pays face notamment au terrorisme, face à la lutte contre les trafics, qui est nécessaire, face à la déstabilisation d’un certain nombre de pays.

Dans un monde où les conflits sont au départ locaux mais de plus en plus internationalisés, il est évident qu’il y a une certaine solidarité et que l’on ne peut pas refuser à des pays de pouvoir se défendre, et notamment quand ils partagent les mêmes valeurs que les nôtres.

Refuser a priori les exportations d’armements, comme le prônent certains, c’est une position purement idéologique. C’est refuser à des pays le droit de se défendre, c’est refuser, au nom d’une naïveté aveugle ou d’un angélisme non moins aveugle, à nos concitoyens le droit d’être protégés.

Contrôler strictement les exportations d’armement, oui c’est une exigence juridique morale et éthique évidente, mais refuser des exportations au nom d’une utopie pacifiste, c’est ouvrir la voie à d’autres qui n’auront pas les mêmes scrupules que nous.

(L’oratrice accepte de répondre à une question «carton bleu» (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Alliot-Marie! Sie sprechen davon, dass dieser Bericht ein pazifistischer Bericht ist und dass man Mitgliedsländern nicht verbieten kann, Waffen zu exportieren. Die gemeinsame EU-Position zu Waffenexporten wurde von den Mitgliedstaaten beschlossen, von den Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten, auch von Frankreich, und dort stehen acht Kriterien, in welche Länder keine Waffen exportiert werden dürfen, zum Beispiel, wenn dieses Land im Krieg ist. Und Saudi-Arabien ist im Krieg mit dem Jemen. Dort werden zivile Ziele bombardiert, dort werden Märkte und Wohnbereiche bombardiert, es gibt Tausende von Toten und Verletzten in diesem Land wegen Waffenexporten auch aus Frankreich, aus Deutschland und möglicherweise auch aus Österreich und aus Großbritannien und anderen. Sehen Sie das wirklich für legitim an, hier zu sagen, das ist irgendwie pazifistischer Nonsens? Hier geht es um Menschenleben und um Kriege, die gefördert werden!

  Michèle Alliot-Marie (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame Lunacek, la guerre, je sais ce que c’est. Comme ministre de la défense, je suis allée dans des pays en guerre et j’ai vu effectivement ce que cela représentait. Donc de ce point de vue, je le sais.

Dans votre question, il y a en fait deux éléments. Le premier concerne les critères. Oui, les pays ont fixé des critères, je vous l’ai dit, notamment les pays européens, et je vous ai dit que la France était le pays qui avait les critères les plus stricts du monde entier sur les exportations d’armement. C’est donc la première des choses.

En ce qui concerne l’Arabie Saoudite – je vous entends beaucoup parler de l’Arabie Saoudite –, je vous rappelle que je préside la délégation pour les relations entre l’Union européenne et les pays du Golfe arabique. Alors si vous parlez de l’Arabie Saoudite, parlez aussi peut-être de l’Iran et de ceux qui, effectivement, causent autant de dégâts à la population. Regardez les rapports relatifs à d'autres pays et souvenez-vous également d’une chose, c’est que la coalition de l’ensemble des pays arabes du Golfe est intervenue à la demande du gouvernement légitime yéménite. Alors est-ce que vous êtes en train de dire que vous soutenez des rebelles contre des gouvernements légitimes? C’est ça aussi la question que vous posez.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je soutiens absolument ce que Mme Lunacek vient de dire à Mme Alliot-Marie et je lui rappelle que c’était sous la Présidence française que cette position commune est devenue une position commune.

Eu agradeço à colega Bodil Valero, nesta linha, o relatório que identifica o problema do controlo da exportação de armas da União Europeia e que vários Estados-Membros, incluindo a França, não cumprem a posição comum, violando sistematicamente os seus oito critérios. Exemplo flagrante é justamente a exportação de armas para a Arábia Saudita. Este Parlamento pediu, já em fevereiro de 2016, o embargo de armas à União Europeia devido à guerra criminosa de agressão ao Iémen e podia falar de muitos mais aspetos e o caso da Arábia Saudita não pode negar os outros casos, mas é um caso.

A transferência de armas, independentemente da natureza do regime importador, alimenta conflitos e repressão, com efeitos desproporcionais para civis, ameaça à segurança global e a nossa segurança, a europeia, porque as armas exportadas para países terceiros reentram na União Europeia através do tráfico de armas e podem acabar nas mãos de grupos terroristas, como se viu em França, de resto.

É fundamental criarmos uma autoridade de controlo independente e um mecanismo padronizado de verificação e notificação para os Estados-Membros com sanções. É urgente que se façam controlos pós-exportação para garantir que as armas não são reexportadas para destinos e utilizadores finais que não atendem aos critérios da posição comum e é também crucial garantir que o Reino Unido, pós-Brexit, continue legalmente vinculado à posição comum.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Herr talman! I denna fråga är det enkelt att bli populär eller kanske ska jag säga populist. Det lyder ungefär som följer: ”Vapen är hemskt, de dödar människor och därför bör vi förbjuda vapenexport.”

Export av krigsmateriel är dock till syvende och sist en fråga om försvars- och säkerhetspolitik. Inom försvars- och säkerhetspolitiken finns det sällan några enkla sanningar. Vilka försvarsindustriföretag som ska få sälja vad, till vem och när, måste bedömas individuellt, och det ändras väldigt ofta över tid. Men vad denna fråga egentligen handlar om är någonting annat. Den handlar om vem som ska besluta om detta. I Sverige skulle nog få politiker säga att man vill någonting annat än att ”i Sverige bestämmer vi om svensk vapenexport, om svensk försvars- och säkerhetspolitik”.

I den här omröstningen tror jag emellertid att väldigt många, särskilt de rödgröna, lär följa Bodil Valeros ståndpunkt som innebär att vi ska ha den gemensamma ståndpunkten som ska efterföljas av sanktioner. Det är att göra den överstatlig, att ge upp delar av vårt självbestämmande när det gäller försvars- och säkerhetspolitik. Det är som om subsidiaritet är en ytterrock som man kan ta av när den är obekväm och sätta på igen när man ska visa sig för väljarna, men det kommer ingen att acceptera.

Jag är övertygad om att vi måste göra väldigt mycket mer när det gäller samarbete i försvarsindustri. Att ha gemensamt beslutsfattande i mer omfattning när det gäller försvarsexport tror jag däremot bara leder fel.

(Talaren godtog att besvara en fråga (”blått kort”) (artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen.))

  Bodil Valero (Verts/ALE), fråga (”blått kort”). – Jag måste då ställa frågan var du har hittat uppgiften att inte Sverige eller medlemsstaterna skulle ta beslut om sin egen vapenexport. Den gemensamma ståndpunkten är minimiregler. Det är det som vi gemensamt har förbundit oss att följa – det är miniminivån.

Du, Christofer Fjellner, vet precis som jag att i Sverige håller vi på att göra vårt regelverk ännu striktare. Vi kommer att fortsätta på den vägen. Ditt parti är med på det, mitt parti är med på det. Ingenstans i detta betänkande står det att vi försöker stoppa vapenexporten, utan det handlar om kontroll av den vapenexport som vi har och efterlevnad av regelverket – det gemensamma regelverket.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE), svar (”blått kort”). – Du nämner inte den lilla avgörande skillnaden mellan det som i dag är den gemensamma ståndpunkten och vad du kräver, nämligen att man ska införa sanktioner mot den som gör en annan bedömning för att dessa frågor ändras över tid. Om det är så att EU har möjlighet att införa sanktioner och bestraffa de länder som gör en annan bedömning, då är det per definition överstatlighet.

Jag är övertygad om att ditt betänkande kommer att gå genom med ganska stor majoritet. Det får jag i någon mån väl gratulera dig till. Glädjande nog tror jag dock inte att det finns en chans att detta med sanktioner blir verklighet. Jag är övertygad om att medlemsstaterna, liksom jag, värdesätter att ha nationell kompetens och värnar den nationella kompetensen och stoppar idén om sanktioner.

  Soraya Post (S&D). – Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja börja med att tacka föredraganden Bodil Valero för hennes arbete. Som representant för Feministiskt initiativ och som en glasklart övertygad pacifist, så är det för mig alltid bekymmersamt att rösta om vapen i alla dess former.

Jag ställer mig dock bakom att vi måste öka kontrollen av vapenexporten från EU. Det behövs. Senast i dag skrev The Economist att världens globala vapenhandel boomar. Ett ännu bättre sätt är att förbjuda vapenproduktion helt och hållet.

Den 17 juli tog FN ett historiskt beslut om att förbjuda alla kärnvapen. Då var det framför allt kvinno- och fredsrörelsen som under många år hade kämpat för detta. Många trodde inte att det var möjligt att få till ett sådant förbud. ”Det går aldrig”, fick de kämpande aktivisterna höra. Men pessimisterna fick fel. Det går att avskaffa vapen, och det är precis så vi förändrar världen – med en feministisk vision om att vi kan skapa en fredlig värld utan vapen, med dialog.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, en ce monde en désordre, instable, trop dangereux, c’est une évidence, nous devons construire l’Europe de la défense. C’était hier une réalité sans cesse plus forte, c’est aujourd’hui une nécessité qui doit se mettre en œuvre, en accord avec nos valeurs, en alliant responsabilité et confiance.

Responsabilité en construisant cette Europe de la défense. Des pas de géants ont été réalisés depuis un an. Notre Parlement doit les soutenir.

Confiance, car dans un État de droit comme le nôtre, nous devons rendre des comptes, c’est l’enjeu de ce rapport Valero qui demande avec justesse un contrôle des exportations d’armes pour une meilleure transparence dans ce secteur.

Responsabilité, dans une Europe de la défense qui nous protège, confiance de nos concitoyens dans notre action pour notre sécurité collective, voilà notre message européen d’aujourd’hui.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io sono sinceramente convinto che l'Europa abbia bisogno di nuove regole più stringenti e più efficaci per quanto riguarda il controllo dell'esportazione di armi. Il quadro che abbiamo davanti è inquietante.

Si sono verificate due cose nel corso degli ultimi anni: la prima, commentata più volte, è l'aumento dell'esportazione delle armi da parte dei 28 paesi dell'Unione europea. La seconda meriterebbe un po' più di attenzione e invece viene trascurata: siamo davanti a una sistematica e crescente violazione degli otto criteri che dovrebbero gestire e stare alla base di questo processo di scambio tra la produzione e l'acquisto da parte dei paesi che lo chiedono.

Ora, senza regole nuove, senza un sistema sanzionatorio degno di questo nome, noi continueremo a predicare la pace e contemporaneamente, a volte anche inconsapevolmente – ma questo non cambia le responsabilità – ad alimentare la guerra.

Dunque è indispensabile cambiare strada ed è indispensabile fare quanto raccomandato dall'ottima proposta della relatrice Valero.

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, it is highly important to have a consistent and coherent implementation of the EU common position, which is essential for the EU’s credibility as a values-based global actor. Given the impact of arms exports on human security, arms control should be strict, transparent, effective and accepted by all parties. Therefore, the Member States should respect the legally-binding nature of the common position and comply with the minimum requirements arising therein.

I believe that the implementation of the common position requires more strict application of the common criteria and improved transparency of the EU arms export control system, especially in light of the most recent figures, according to which exports from the EU28 amounted to 26-27% of the global total in 2012-2016. Last but not least, in order to strengthen compliance with reporting obligations, I support the development of a tough sanctioning mechanism for Member States which fail to comply with the common position.

Interventions à la demande

  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Wie der Bericht des Europäischen Parlaments deutlich macht, gibt es in der Umsetzung, der seit 2008 bestehenden acht EU-Kriterien für Waffenexporte bisher leider wirklich keinen Fortschritt. An de gemeinsamen rechtlich verbindlichen Kriterienkatalog halten sich leider nicht alle Mitgliedstaaten. Deswegen unterstütze ich die Forderung des Berichts nach einer Sanktionierung von EU—Ländern, die dagegen verstoßen. Ich unterstütze zudem ausdrücklich die in dem Bericht wiederholte Forderung des Europäischen Parlaments nach einem EU-Waffenembargo gegenüber Saudi-Arabien.

Wir brauchen endlich eine kohärente europäische Außenpolitik, in deren Rahmen sich alle Mitgliedstaaten beim Export von Rüstungsgütern und -technologien einigen. Unser Kanzlerkandidat Martin Schulz sagt berechtigterweise, dass es nicht sein kann, dass einige Mitgliedstaaten der EU keine Waffen mehr an problematische Länder exportieren, während andere Mitgliedstaaten dieselben Länder weiter munter beliefern. Meinem deutschen Kollegen, Herrn Buchner, möchte ich entgegnen, dass im Gegensatz zur CDU, die da gar nichts fordert, die Sozialdemokratie in Deutschland im Bundestagswahlprogramm sowohl den Export von Klein- und Leichtwaffen an Drittländer verbieten möchte oder die Exporte reduzieren möchte. Unser Ziel muss endlich eine einheitliche restriktive Rüstungsexportpolitik für ganz Europa sein.

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, předkládaná zpráva ukazuje, v jak nebezpečné situaci se nacházíme. V současné době vidíme největší objem transferu zbraní od skončení studené války. Evropská unie je druhým největším vývozcem zbraní a z nich 86 % končí na Blízkém východě, regionu rozervaném dlouholetými konflikty.

Zpráva správně konstatuje, že některé členské státy uzavírají strategická partnerství se zeměmi, kde jsou porušována lidská práva. Co však ve zprávě zásadně chybí, je výzva ke snížení objemu peněz na zbrojení. Doufám, že si zde nikdo nemyslí, že platí výrok bývalého amerického prezidenta Bushe, že čím více vojáků, tím více míru.

Evropská unie je nositelkou Nobelovy ceny míru a je zároveň druhým největším vývozcem zbraní a to je pokrytecké. Je to pokrytecké a stojí to lidské životy. Zamysleme se nad tím!

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ως γνωστόν οι αμυντικές βιομηχανίες συμβάλλουν σημαντικά στη θωράκιση των εθνικών ενόπλων δυνάμεων αλλά και στο ποσοστό ΑΕΠ κάθε κράτους μέλους. Όμως υπάρχει αθέμιτος ανταγωνισμός και ατιμωρησία εταιρειών μεγάλων κρατών εξαγωγέων οπλισμού, οι οποίες εμπλέκονται σε σκάνδαλα και παράνομες χρηματοδοτήσεις με σκοπό την εξασφάλιση αντίστοιχων συμβολαίων.

Η εφαρμογή ενωσιακού πεδίου εξαγωγής όπλων δεν θα δώσει λύσεις προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, αλλά θα δημιουργήσει εμπόδια στις διασυνοριακές πωλήσεις αμυντικού οπλισμού και στις πωλήσεις προς τρίτες χώρες. Η ευρωπαϊκή αμυντική βιομηχανία, ως ζωτικός παράγοντας για την αξιοπιστία της εκκολαπτόμενης κοινής πολιτικής ασφάλειας και άμυνας, είναι καταδικασμένη σε αποτυχία λόγω της ύπαρξης διαφορετικών αμυντικών αντικειμενικών σκοπών μεταξύ των κρατών μελών αλλά και της ταυτόχρονης ανυπαρξίας κοινών αμυντικών προσανατολισμών. Απόδειξη είναι η παντελής απουσία της Ένωσης στην έμπρακτη αντιμετώπιση της επιθετικότητας της Τουρκίας έναντι της Ελλάδας και της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας.

  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, nous sommes ici très nombreux à être profondément pacifistes, mais nous ne devons pas être naïfs. C’est la raison pour laquelle je salue le rapport équilibré de Mme Valero. Il insiste sur plusieurs nécessités. Évidemment, celles de la défense mais aussi celles de l’industrie et de l’armement. Il faut, là non plus, ne pas être naïfs parce que nous savons très bien que la Russie, la Chine et les États-Unis, pour ne citer qu’eux, ont une industrie de l’armement très concurrentielle.

Mais ce qui m’intéresse le plus dans ce rapport, ce sont les critères que l’on veut mettre en avant: d’abord, effectivement, le respect des droits de l’homme dans les pays importateurs, le comportement des États, tant en interne qu’à l’international, et puis le respect des principes de précaution. Je crois que, de ce point de vue, nous devons être très vigilants parce que nous avons vu qu’un certain nombre d’armes et de technologies avaient abouti entre des mains qui n’avaient pas que des intentions pacifistes.

Ensuite, il faut lutter contre la contrebande et contre le commerce illicite et assurer la transparence des transactions – cela me paraît très important – devant les parlements nationaux, mais aussi de plus en plus devant le Parlement européen, pour une Europe de la défense que, comme Gilles Pargneaux, j’appelle de mes vœux.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Asszony, az én hazám, Magyarország már régóta azt mondja, hogy a migránsáradat, illetőleg menekültválság ügyében a gyökérokokra kellene összpontosítani. Ilyen gyökérokok a fegyveres konfliktusok, és ideje lenne végre most már felvetni a felelősség kérdését is. Ugyanis ezekért a dolgokért nem az én hazám, Magyarország a felelős. Például kinek a kiváló ötlete volt az, hogy az Aszad-rezsimet meg kell dönteni Szíriában és ehhez fel kell fegyverezni különböző olyan csoportokat, akiknek ugye nagy része terrorista? Talán akiknek ebből profitjuk származott, őnekik kellene most befogadni a szír menekülteket. Hasonlóképpen: ki az, aki kitalálta, hogy Irakban tömegpusztító fegyverek vannak és ezért egy véres háborút indított Irak ellen? Ki az, aki profitált ebből a háborúból? Talán őnekik kellene a felelősséget viselni. Ki az, aki úgy gondolta, hogy a Kadhafi-rezsimet meg kell dönteni Líbiában, hogy nehogy meg tudják fogni ugye a fekete Afrikából, szubszaharai Afrikából érkezőket. Jó lenne most már ezeket a felelősségi kérdéseket tisztázni és abbahagyni Magyarországnak a ...

(Az elnök megvonta a képviselőtől a szót.)

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, as we are speaking, the Defence and Security Equipment International Fair is happening right now in London’s Docklands where it happens every two years. It features 1 500 or more exhibitors from all around the world, displaying arms ranging from sniper rifles, to tanks, to combat aircraft, to warships.

They are joined by trade visitors and military delegations, including those from human rights abusing regimes and countries involved in conflict. This fair is organised by Clarion Events and the British Government department’s Defence and Security Organisation, whose support is crucial to its success. But it takes place in secret, behind heavily protected security fences and police lines designed to allow arms dealers to trade their wares unhindered by transparency or public protest, and it is subsidised by the UK taxpayer. So I really welcome this report and all the people who have spoken in support of more transparency.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, tra il 2012 e il 2016 il volume di armi commercializzate ha raggiunto cifre preoccupanti, più elevate rispetto a ogni altro quinquennio dalla fine della Guerra fredda. Si è registrato un aumento di quasi il 10% rispetto al quinquennio di riferimento precedente, accompagnato da un maggior numero di esportazioni verso paesi classificati come "problematici" alla luce della posizione comune europea, in particolare verso il Medio Oriente. È chiaro che questi dati rispecchiano un contesto internazionale profondamente mutato, instabile e in continua evoluzione.

È giunto il momento, però, di introdurre un nuovo criterio nella posizione comune, un criterio che tenga debitamente conto del rischio di corruzione e di sviamento nell'esportazione di armi, scongiurando che le tecnologie europee finiscano ad alimentare conflitti che noi stessi abbiamo interesse a risolvere.

In questo senso è auspicabile una maggiore interazione tra il COARM e il SIAE, in modo da comprendere meglio la situazione nei paesi di destinazione e individuare i potenziali utilizzatori finali delle tecnologie europee.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, I would like to thank Members very much for this debate.

It has again become clear that arms exports is a field paved with extremely complex sets of issues: humane, moral, economic, geopolitical, political and so on. I will not go into these issues here, but I want to support what Michael Gahler said earlier in this debate, namely that, of all arms exporters, the EU has the most robust system in place for oversight and reporting, with criteria in place, probably in the whole world. That is perhaps not something that can be appreciated by everybody, but it is at least a fact that must be acknowledged by everybody, including in this House.

There were two more specific sets of questions, the first concerning arms exports to the countries in the Middle East region, more particularly to countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. I was referring to the criteria, and criteria No 2, the human rights criteria, was used as a reason for denial of an export licence 72 times in the year 2015 and 89 times in the year 2016. You may say it is not enough, but it is also a trend to be observed. As for the calls to issue an EU arms export embargo for any particular country in the world, it must be known for that that the unanimous support of all EU Member States is needed.

Now let me thank you for this very useful exchange. One of the main achievements of the EU common position relates to increased transparency across the EU on arms export issues. Our discussion today demonstrates that detailed information is regularly made available at EU level and open for parliamentary and public scrutiny. The fact that national decisions on arms exports are reported, and therefore questioned, in turn supports the responsibility of the competent authorities and fosters their accountability. This nexus between transparency and responsibility is the essence of the EU common position and, at the larger global level, of the Arms Trade Treaty.

The EU common position specifies very clearly that licensing decisions remain at the national discretion of EU Member States. Against this background of national responsibility, the EU common position supports greater convergence through a number of common elements and information sharing. As such, convergence remains, by definition, always a work in progress. The improvements decided as a result of the review of the EU common position have supported further convergence. Undoubtedly, greater parliamentary scrutiny at the national and the EU level, as called for by the present report, can further incentivise convergence.

Let me close on this note of truly shared interests and by signalling once again my appreciation of Parliament’s role in keeping this important issue on the agenda.

  Bodil Valero, föredragande. – Debatten visar verkligen hur skilda uppfattningar vi kan ha i detta hus men också hur viktig den är. Jag skulle vilja ha svarat Geoffrey van Orden som klagade över att vi inte talar om resten av världen i det här läget, men det är faktiskt så att vi talar om den europeiska exportkontrollen. Därför talar vi om Europas export, inte övriga länders export.

Som jag sade tidigare talar vi ju inte om att stoppa all vapenexport. Vi talar inte heller om att länder inte har rätt att försvara sig. Det verkar dock som om det finns en uppfattning från några här i huset att det är det vi säger. Då skulle jag vilja uppmana dem att läsa betänkandet en gång till innan de röstar i morgon.

Jag tog ju upp att vi har den gemensamma ståndpunkten, och det är ett mycket bra regelverk. Jag håller fullständigt med om att det är ett bra regelverk om vi verkligen använder det. Nu visar det sig att vi menar att man bryter mot dessa kriterier i många olika fall. Enligt en studie som har gjorts så bryter man mot dem – enligt COARM:s studie.

Ändå menar medlemsstaterna att de har ett striktare regelverk än vad den gemensamma ståndpunkten faktiskt är. Då måste jag ställa mig frågan om det verkligen är så. Jag hörde nyss att Frankrike har det striktaste regelverket. Tidigare har jag hört att britterna har det striktaste regelverket. I mitt land så säger vi att vi har det striktaste regelverket. Det handlar dock inte om vem som har det striktaste regelverket, utan det handlar om att vi ska följa de gemensamma regler som vi faktiskt har. Detta har vi kommit överens om – detta ska vi följa. Sedan kan vi ha striktare regler än den gemensamma ståndpunkten, men vi kan inte ha mindre stränga regler och hänvisa enbart till den nationella lagstiftningen.

Vi har också Arms Trade Treaty, där det finns en artikel som vi inte har vare sig i den gemensamma ståndpunkten eller i den svenska lagstiftningen, och det handlar om det könsbaserade våldet. Det är också något som vi läser in i mänskliga rättigheter, men det är ett kriterium som vi inte ha med. Det ska vi också ha med någon gång i framtiden, hoppas jag.

När vi då diskuterar var nivån ska ligga, menar jag att vi hela tiden måste rikta in oss på att vi ska ha bästa möjliga praxis och inte sämsta möjliga praxis. Vi ska nå högt, inte sikta lågt.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu mercredi, le 13 septembre 2017.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Janusz Zemke (S&D), na piśmie. – Państwa Unii Europejskiej są dużym dostawcą broni na świecie, a wartość wywozu z UE stanowi 26% ogólnego eksportu broni. Oznacza to, że UE jest po Stanach Zjednoczonych (33%) drugim co do wielkości eksporterem broni, przed Rosją (23%). W ostatnich kilku latach podwoił się w praktyce wywóz broni na Bliski Wschód. Problem polega jednak na tym, że część tej broni trafia do niestabilnych państw i bywa używana nie tylko w konfliktach zbrojnych, ale także do stosowania represji wewnętrznych. Zdarzają się także przypadki, że broń pochodząca z państw UE trafia do grup terrorystycznych, np. w Syrii i Iraku. Wszystko to oznacza, że Unia powinna radykalnie zwiększyć kontrolę eksportu broni. Zezwolenia wydawane na eksport muszą także zawierać oceny ryzyka, że broń trafi do innego odbiorcy, niż podany w zamówieniu.

13. Положението в Северна Корея (разискване)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la vice—présidente de la Commission et haute représentante de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité sur la situation en Corée du Nord (2017/2826(RSP)).

  Federica Mogherini, VPC/HR. – Madame la Présidente, permettez-moi de remercier la Présidence estonienne pour avoir pris le débat précédent à ma place.

I would like to thank the Hemicycle for the opportunity to debate an issue that has not often been on the agenda of our work here in the European Parliament but has been very much at the centre of our European Union work in diplomatic terms in the last years. I would also like to start by thanking the UN Security Council and all its Members for the new resolution on North Korea that was adopted just hours ago. I believe that in tough moments like this – the level of threat posed by North Korea to the region and the world is quite clear and unprecedented – only a united international community can help build effective solutions. This is needed because we are still far from the goal of a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

Yet the international community did the right thing a few hours ago – strengthening the pressure on North Korea while calling at the same time for a peaceful solution to the crisis through a meaningful, credible, political dialogue; strengthening economic pressure – sanctions – and keeping the door of dialogue open, encouraging a meaningful, political diplomatic solution – a peaceful solution to this crisis. This is the way that the European Union has advocated in a very consistent manner over the months that are behind us, with all our means, through the European Members of the UN Security Council, in what has been a perfectly coordinated approach. We always highlight where Member States differ or where the European Union is not united. Let me tell you that this has been an excellent exercise of unity of our Member States and an excellent exercise of coordination of the European Union Member States that are Members of the Security Council, but also through our contacts with all our global partners and all our regional interlocutors. I spent part of August in Asia discussing with the Foreign Ministers of the United States, China, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, Japan, exactly how to do this, trying to prevent a further escalation of the tensions, trying to open a political track, increasing the economic pressure but also keeping the political door open.

First and foremost, our points of reference are the regional players. Our partners, our strategic partners in the region – the Republic of Korea and Japan, but also as I mentioned, China, the United States, the Russian Federation – and sometimes we are among the few to mention them, but they are key players in what is for us the fundamental global non-proliferation regime: the relevant international organisations, the ones that constitute the backbone of the non-proliferation regime globally. I met just last week with the director general-of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Amano, and the Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, Dr Zerbo. We will meet again next week in New York.

The European Union is also strongly united and active in this field: support to the organisations on a daily basis for the technical work, allowing the international community to work on non-proliferation. To all of them I have expressed the European Union’s willingness and readiness to seek international unity and stronger economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea, also to avoid the risk of a military escalation. Through all these contacts, and the work also of our European Union delegations on the ground that I would like to thank for the tireless work they have been doing over the summer, we could count on the unity of all our Member States on our request for maximum pressure and critical political engagement.

Last Thursday, just a few days ago in Tallinn, I met joined the meeting of the 28 EU Member States’ Foreign Ministers and we agreed to support together calls for the United Nations Security Council to take further measures in terms of economic restrictions on North Korea, including on the import and export of crude oil. I also invited ministers to consider new additional autonomous European Union sanctions.

So, three elements to this work of pressure. We will now implement the new UN sanctions, as we have always done before. Second, we will work to make sure that all our international partners do the same, to ensure the maximum level of efficiency for the economic measures. And third, we will continue the discussion we launched last week on additional European sanctions to complement the action decided by the Security Council and put maximum pressure on North Korea.

Of course, sanctions are not a goal in themselves, but an instrument to open the way for a political process to start: a way that today, unfortunately, is not working. Our objective is not the pressure alone: our objective is to open the political path for a solution to the crisis. For us – for the Europeans – economic and diplomatic pressure are always aimed at opening channels for credible, meaningful and fruitful dialogue.

Our goal of a denuclearised Korean Peninsula can only be achieved through diplomatic and political means. There is no military way out of this crisis. We have said it loud in the European Union from the very beginning, and I was glad to see that the UN Security Council reaffirmed this in its discussions and deliberations a few hours ago. A military attack would be useless and harmful, as it could easily spiral into a large-scale conflict. The consequences would be totally unpredictable and certainly dramatic for the people of the Korean Peninsula, for the region, and most likely for the entire world.

We will continue to work to open a credible political path towards the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. It will be one of the core issues also on my agenda in New York next week at the UN General Assembly’s ministerial week, and to all my interlocutors I will express the EU’s unity, determination and readiness first of all to assist our partners, to ensure North Korea engages in a credible and meaningful process, in a credible and meaningful dialogue aimed at the peaceful, verifiable denuclearisation of the Peninsula.

On top of that, we will also continue our work for non-proliferation worldwide. We believe this has to be part of the credible united response the international community can put in place in these difficult months: the support we give to the IAEA, the support we give to the CTBTO, and clearly, the support we give and continue to give to the full implementation of the Iran nuclear deal that has shown to the world that, with patience, perseverance, diplomacy and political will, nuclear non-proliferation is indeed achievable.

  David McAllister, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, as we have just heard, the recent developments in North Korea are very alarming. The latest nuclear threat – I guess we all agree – was another major provocation, and this is a huge threat not only to regional security, but to our international security. Moreover, it is also a direct and unacceptable violation of the country’s international obligations. We should therefore welcome that the United Nations Security Council on Monday unanimously adopted a US-drafted resolution to impose new sanctions on the regime in Pyongyang. It is a strong message that the international community is not willing to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea.

In my capacity as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I participated in last week’s EU foreign affairs meeting in Tallinn, chaired by Federica Mogherini. What I observed is that there was a broad consensus among the 28 foreign ministers and our High Representative that we have to strengthen our diplomatic efforts to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and also irreversible manner. In this respect, I believe the European Union could develop a more proactive policy, undertaken hand-in-hand with our strategic partners: South Korea, Japan and the United States – and, as the High Representative just pointed out, of course the roles of Russia and China are key.

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal might be a blueprint for a process in which the EU and some Member States could play an active part. Therefore, I also welcome that Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped forward to suggest a European – and especially German – participation in any future negotiations with North Korea. There is so much at stake; we have to show our responsibility.

  Victor Boştinaru, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I wish to say to the Vice—President/High Representative Ms Mogherini that we are witnessing persistent provocations by North Korea and also an increase in the tone and the statements of the various world actors. What the DPRK is doing is playing with fire or, I should say, with nuclear fire, and we need to do everything we can to stop an escalation that could bring devastating consequences not only to the Korean Peninsula, but also to the wider region and to the entire world.

The latest tests launched by North Korea, against provocations, against South Korea, against Japan, against the United States, are a clear and blatant violation of all UN Security Council resolutions. It is time for all forces both within and outside the UN Security Council to come together. The S&D Group welcomes your efforts, Ms Mogherini, to have a concentrated approach but regrets the reluctance of the UN Security Council to adopt yesterday heavier sanctions, including a ban on oil imports.

The EU must make use of its diplomacy, as you rightly mention, to add additional economic pressure and autonomous sanctions against the regime in North Korea. At the same time, it is necessary to have a firm and convincing stance by regional actors like China and Russia, which are aware of the consequences they would face in the event of nuclear escalation, which obviously knows no borders. We have the positive example of the cooperation on the Iranian nuclear deal, which was reached in different circumstances but which shows that by acting seriously and all together, denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula can become a reality.

Finally, let me add that today the priority is to solve the crisis but immediately after that it will be to analyse how they managed in two years to advance technologically in that way.

  Nirj Deva, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we sit today in a post—conflict Parliament. Decades ago we sat down, talked and found a way to peace and reconciliation in Europe. This is what the EU is about.

In Asia, astonishingly, the Korean War is not over. For the last 64 years we have failed to get out of a state of war and sign a peace regime. Because security and prosperity in the EU is closely linked to peace in Asia, together we urgently need to bring the Korean Peninsula from an armistice into a post—conflict phase through a peace regime. Nuclear weapons are now a part of the Korean regime’s self-identity. It considers them as essential to its survival, not only as deterrent weapons – it has learned a lesson from Gaddafi and Hussein – but also as legitimacy weapons. This must be made a transitional position, and denuclearisation must remain our medium-term objective.

Violations of the UN Security Council resolutions inevitably lead to sanctions: that is a given. Yet sanctions alone will not lead to denuclearisation nor to peace. Sanctions must come with optimistic diplomacy. Optimistic diplomacy believes that we all want – including the North Koreans – to live in peaceful coexistence. I am now happy that President Moon, Chancellor Merkel and many European leaders recognise the importance of diplomacy, a course of action I have been urging for the past three years, having had 42 meetings with North Koreans, South Koreans, Chinese, Americans and Japanese. I congratulate Mrs Mogherini on what she has been doing recently in Asia.

My intention now is to go to North Korea in my private capacity to listen in the pursuit of a peace regime to help the EU. Colleagues, I need your support and your blessings. It is our public duty as public servants to ensure global peace. United we must act.

  Hilde Vautmans, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – We weten allemaal reeds jaar en dag dat Noord-Korea onze internationale gemeenschap provoceert. We weten dat ze atoomwapens voor alles zetten en dat ze nu nog enorme sprongen voorwaarts hebben gemaakt met hun recente testen van een atoombom, die zelfs aan de overkant kan geraken, die zelfs de Amerikanen kan raken. Hierdoor loopt het conflict tussen Noord-Korea en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika alleen maar hoger op. Natuurlijk, als je dan de karakters van die twee leiders ziet, met de ene dit op Twitter en de andere dat op sociale media, ja, dan krijg je een spierballengerol dat ons helemaal niet geruststelt. Elke week krijg ik vragen van gewone burgers, mevrouw Mogherini, die echt ongerust zijn, die vragen of er opnieuw een atoomoorlog komt en of we een Derde Wereldoorlog krijgen, die vragen wat wij daar in Europa gaan doen om het conflict tussen die twee heren die we vaak horen, maar ook andere landen spelen natuurlijk een rol, op te lossen. En het is zoals u zegt: we zijn blij met de resolutie van de VN-Veiligheidsraad. Nu hangt natuurlijk alles ervan af in hoeverre het zal geïmplementeerd worden, hoe snel het zal geïmplementeerd worden. Daar staat of valt natuurlijk heel dit akkoord mee. Maar we hebben u bezig gezien en ik heb u dat al gezegd met Iran: politieke wil, geduld, vastberadenheid. Met Iran is het gelukt. Ik hoop dat Europa nu ook de moed heeft, de vastberadenheid, het geduld om ook dit conflict zo nauw aan te pakken. Mevrouw Mogherini, als we terugkijken in de tijd, dan herinnert iedereen zich nog het beeld van het naakte meisje vluchtend voor een atoombom. Ik heb de tentoonstellingen daar bezocht. We hebben gezien wat dat kan teweegbrengen. Laten we nu alles op alles zetten om toch te vermijden dat er opnieuw ergens zo'n wapen zou afgaan.

  Javier Couso Permuy, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, nuestra condena más absoluta ante la escalada nuclear en la península de Corea. Siempre ha sido así; independientemente del actor, condenamos y deploramos cualquier prueba que contribuya a aumentar el armamento nuclear en el mundo.

En nuestro ADN está la lucha por la paz y el desarme. De hecho, trabajamos permanentemente no solo por el desarme convencional, sino por la no proliferación y el desarme nuclear global, ya que estos ingenios amenazan el existir de la humanidad en su conjunto.

Lo que tenemos claro es que no puede haber una solución militar para esta grave crisis. La sombra de un conflicto nuclear en Asia no es una opción. Tampoco creemos en las sanciones como instrumento en política internacional: no solucionan nada y afectan a los menos culpables.

La Unión Europea debe contribuir a bajar la tensión, deplorar las salidas de tono y amenazas de las dos partes. Hay demasiada bravuconería sobre una bomba a la que solo le falta la mecha. Esa rebaja de la tensión debe preparar las condiciones para un diálogo sincero y sosegado en el marco del sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Cualquier otra respuesta es una gran irresponsabilidad.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento interno))

  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Pośle! Pan mówił o rzeczach, których pan nie chce. No nikt nie chce wojny w Korei. Mówił Pan, że nie chce sankcji, ale właściwie, jakimi środkami chciałby Pan nakłonić komunistyczny reżim Korei do pozbycia się broni nuklearnej, o której Pan mówi. No przecież jakąś presję trzeba wywierać. Jakimi instrumentami Pan dysponuje? Czy to mają być argumenty, rozmowy? Bo to nie wydają się środki właściwie dla presji na ten reżim.

  Javier Couso Permuy (GUE/NGL), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Muchas gracias por la pregunta. Nosotros hemos comprobado —y la historia está ahí— que las sanciones no han servido en ningún caso en ningún conflicto para solucionar. Solo le pongo un ejemplo: las sanciones contra Irak, que provocaron la muerte de medio millón de niños.

Lo que sí hay que hacer es no romper la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, como por ejemplo hizo Estados Unidos en Irak. Por eso hablábamos de ese sosiego, de esa falta de amenaza también contra la República de Corea. Solo así podemos ir a un cambio en la actitud de este país, porque quien tiene mucho que ver es quien ha contribuido a romper la soberanía y la no injerencia de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas.

  Barbara Lochbihler, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Hohe Vertreterin Mogherini, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der jüngste einstimmige Beschluss im UN-Sicherheitsrat über weitere Sanktionen gegen Nordkorea ist eine gute Nachricht, denn er zeigt Nordkorea, dass die drei relevanten Akteure – USA, Russland und China – sich einigen können. Zudem signalisiert der Beschluss den USA, dass sie sich mit Russland und vor allem mit China verständigen müssen. Allerdings lösen die Sanktionen allein den brandgefährlichen Konflikt nicht. Um eine militärische Eskalation zu vermeiden, ist es zwingend notwendig, dass die Regierungen Nordkoreas und der USA wieder miteinander ins Gespräch kommen, und dass unter Führung der Vereinten Nationen nach einer tragfähigen politischen Lösung gesucht wird.

Des Weiteren sollte man versuchen, die Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche zwischen Nordkorea, Südkorea, China, Russland sowie Japan und den USA wieder zu beleben. Denn langfristig kann es nur Stabilität auf der koreanischen Halbinsel geben, wenn beide Staaten Verhandlungen aufnehmen, um friedlich in Nachbarschaft miteinander zu leben.

Die EU sollte alle ihr zur Verfügung stehenden Kanäle nutzen, um diese diplomatischen Bemühungen auf den Weg zu bringen. Es ist gut, dass Sie, Frau Mogherini, eine Verantwortung der EU sehen, den gefährlichen Konflikt zu entschärfen, und sich dann aber auch letztendlich für eine dauerhafte politische Lösung einsetzen.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. –Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, gentile Alto rappresentante, l'ultimo test nucleare condotto dalla Corea del Nord ha dimostrato l'inefficacia delle misure fino ad ora adottate contro il regime di Kim Jong-un. Il leader nordcoreano continua imperterrito a sviluppare il suo programma missilistico e nucleare, perseguendo una logica politica e militare da inquadrare in una più ampia e complessa strategia di regime, la cui principale preoccupazione è da sempre la sua stessa sopravvivenza.

Attraverso il suo programma nucleare, Pyongyang cerca di bilanciare la superiorità tecnologica dei suoi principali avversari, evitando possibili tentativi di regime change e, allo stesso tempo, tentando di imporre alla comunità internazionale il suo status di potenza nucleare.

Difficilmente un inasprimento delle sanzioni basterà a piegare tale strategia. Riconoscere che l'atteggiamento provocatorio di Kim Jong-un sia folle ma non sia sciocco non fa che confermare la portata della minaccia a livello regionale e internazionale. Ma cedere alla tentazione di un'opzione militare, vorrebbe dire trascinare l'intera regione in un vortice di violenza, le cui conseguenze sarebbero a dir poco tragiche.

Mai come oggi è fondamentale creare un tavolo negoziale simile a quello con l'Iran, con l'Unione nelle vesti di mediatore. Mai come ora è necessario coinvolgere costruttivamente la Russia e soprattutto la Cina, l'unica in grado di influenzare Pyongyang, utilizzando al contempo la nostra influenza per evitare che Pechino manipoli la crisi a proprio vantaggio.

Possiamo e dobbiamo trovare un accordo prima che siano gli eventi a decidere per noi.

  Marie-Christine Arnautu, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, tout régime marxiste est, par définition, criminel, liberticide et pervers. Kim Jong-un est donc certes dangereux mais est-il pour autant complètement fou?

Depuis trente ans, la plupart des régimes opposés au nouvel ordre mondial ont été renversés, soit par des interventions militaires extérieures, comme en Iraq ou en Libye, soit par des manœuvres de subversion intérieure, comme lors des révolutions de couleur.

La déjà très paranoïaque Corée du Nord, qui bâillonne son peuple, l’endoctrine et le prive de toute liberté de pensée ou d’expression, en a conclu que seule l’arme nucléaire pouvait être dissuasive face aux États-Unis, qui disposent, eux, de forces militaires colossales. L’attitude belliciste des pays de l’OTAN est la principale cause du développement du programme militaire coréen nucléaire.

Pour assurer la sécurité du monde, commençons donc par dénoncer tout impérialisme, notamment celui qui s’exerce sous prétexte de démocratie. Rappelons enfin que ce n’est pas sous le coup de la force armée que l’Union soviétique s’est effondrée, mais bien sous le poids de son impéritie économique.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Madame la Présidente, la situation actuelle en Corée me fait irrésistiblement penser à celle de juillet 1914, quand l’Allemagne entra en guerre par crainte d’être attaquée en premier par la Russie et par la France.

Il est fort possible que, comme l’a dit récemment le président Poutine et comme l’a dit l’oratrice précédente, le régime nord-coréen soit beaucoup plus rationnel qu’on ne le croit en général.

M. Kim Jong-un a dû certainement méditer les exemples de l’Iraq et de la Libye qui, après avoir été désarmés à la demande des occidentaux, ont été agressés par eux. Peut-être pense-t-il que l’arme nucléaire est en conséquence son assurance-vie.

Dans ce contexte de méfiance réciproque, nous devrions soutenir la proposition du ministre chinois des affaires étrangères, M. Wang Yi, qui suggérait en mars dernier que la Corée du Nord suspende son programme nucléaire en échange de l’arrêt des manœuvres militaires américaines en Corée du Sud, dont je ne vois pas très bien l’intérêt stratégique.

Il est regrettable que cette suggestion ait été refusée par Mme Nikki Haley, représentante permanente des États-Unis auprès de l’ONU, et par le porte-parole du département d’État. Elle devrait être reprise avec le concours de l’Union européenne, de la Chine et de la Russie.

Voilà, Madame la Commissaire une proposition de…

(La Présidente retire la parole à l’orateur)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, je souhaite tout d’abord saluer l’adoption de nouvelles sanctions par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, car je trouve qu’il est primordial d’envoyer un message fort au régime nord-coréen.

Une des mesures importantes est l’interdiction de l’embauche de travailleurs détachés nord-coréens. Je regrette toutefois l’opposition de la Chine et de la Russie à des sanctions plus sévères, telles qu’une interdiction totale des exportations de pétrole vers le pays et le gel des avoirs du leader nord-coréen et de ses proches.

Après six essais nucléaires et des dizaines de tirs de missiles, il est frappant de voir que Kim Jong-un a beaucoup d’assurance et ne craint pas les conséquences de ses actes. Cette assurance lui vient de son puissant allié chinois, qui fait tout pour maintenir l’économie nord-coréenne à flot et donc assurer la survie du régime. On voit à cet égard le double jeu de la Chine, qui, en paroles, condamne ce que fait Kim Jong-un, alors que c’est elle qui en quelque sorte le stimule.

Le conflit dans la péninsule coréenne se résoudra – je crois – grâce à un mélange de sanctions et de négociations. Les sanctions ne permettront pas d’amener la Corée du Nord à la table des négociations tant qu’un accord entre la Chine et les autres membres du Conseil de sécurité n’aura pas été trouvé. Seul un front uni face à Kim Jong-un fera la différence.

  Eugen Freund (S&D). –Madam President, let me just say that I am very pleased with the resolution by the Security Council. It is a compromise, admittedly, but none of us would have liked the alternative and that is ratcheting up the warmongering from both sides. We remember that Donald Trump threatened fire and fury.

What is in it for us, then? I think we must grab the opportunity swiftly and offer a mediating role which the European Union can so uniquely play. We would be able to talk to all sides, to deflate the tension, pointing to our expertise as a valuable negotiator in the Iran nuclear crisis. So I appreciate the High Representative taking up the issue. I know you have a lot on your plate, Madam, but this is about as urgent as it gets.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, North Korea is an island of its own making: self-isolated by internal atrocities and threats posed to the international community. I welcome further sanctions, although I regret that they are at a lower level than initially proposed by the US. Accepting non-invasive means of coercion, we have to ensure their effectiveness and make it effective quickly to avoid darker scenarios.

  Urmas Paet (ALDE). – ÜRO poolt uute sanktsioonide kehtestamine Põhja-Koreale on äärmiselt vajalik, samas ma nõustun nendega, kes ütlevad, et tegelikult oleksid need sanktsioonid pidanud olema veelgi tugevamad, ja seetõttu ma toetan ka, et Euroopa Liit lisab omalt poolt nendesse sanktsioonidesse veel midagi, sest me peame saama Korea poolsaare tuumavabaks. Samas, selles tuumarelva arutelus ei tohi me jätta tähelepanuta neid inimesi, kes Põhja-Koreas selle juhtkonna tegevuse tagajärjel kannatavad.

Inimsusevastased kuriteod, sunnitöölaagrid, inimeste hukkamised, piinamised, kadumised, toidupuudus, kehvad tervishoiuteenused ja üleüldine liikumis- ja väljendusvabaduse piiramine on meie teadvuses olnud juba aastaid. Liiga kaua, et seda lihtsalt pealt vaadata.

Samuti on murettekitav Hiina käitumine, kes saadab Hiinast tagasi Põhja-Korea pagulasi, kes suure tõenäosusega seal tapetakse või vangistatakse. Seega rahvusvaheline üldsus peab võtma meetmeid ka selles osas, nii et Põhja-Korea juhtide ilmselt õige paik oleks Rahvusvahelise Kriminaalkohtu ees.

  James Carver (EFDD). – Madam President, the pace of the development of the situation on the Korean Peninsula precisely underlines how quickly serious security threats can form, underlining the importance of a well-funded and properly manned and equipped defence capability. As my country moves towards full independence from the European Union, we must ensure that we have a robust, flexible and well-funded defence capability that can fulfil our defence obligations, whilst being in a good enough position to respond to the full spectrum of likely potential future threats.

I welcome yesterday’s unanimous vote by the UN Security Council to impose further sanctions on North Korea, and must say that I fear that it will be impossible to seriously negotiate with a regime that is headed by someone who is reputed to have overseen the deaths of his own brother and uncle.

With respect to the earlier speaker, does this Parliament really believe that the European Union has a diplomatic role to play here, beyond supporting the United States? There are reports of Germany acting as an intermediary, and if that is so, it is clearly a matter for Germany and it would be immoral of the European Union to try to take some of their credit were a mutually acceptable result to be achieved.

  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Madam President, sanctions against North Korea are just a public relations exercise to show that you are actually doing something. Sanctions hurt the ordinary people. Kim Jong-un will let his people eat grass, but they will not turn away from him because they know that he provides security for them. Sanctions imposed on North Korea just make Pyongyang’s tin—pot tyrant more angry and isolated.

As you know, North Korea will continue to export via front companies in China and Malaysia, so what can you do? It is China that holds the key to North Korea. North Korea is a client state, so penalising China, imposing sanctions and restricting access to Western markets is really the key to the denuclearisation of North Korea. At the same time, the West can protect itself against unfair trade, competition and dumping. As you know, that is the view in the White House and I think it is shared by Russia as well, so you should be listening to what those two states have to say on this.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora alta representante, Señorías, dotarse de un arsenal, de misiles de largo alcance con cabezas nucleares diez veces más potentes que la bomba de Hiroshima, no es una broma. Es una amenaza muy seria a la paz y a la seguridad internacional.

Yo creo que esta no es ocasión de preguntarnos cómo hemos llegado a esta situación, sino cómo desactivar esta amenaza. El señor McAllister ha hecho una propuesta muy interesante sobre la base de la experiencia negociadora del conflicto con Irán. Creo que Corea del Norte es un régimen impermeable a las sanciones económicas, habida cuenta de la insensibilidad que tiene la nomenklatura con el sufrimiento del pueblo, como quedó demostrado en la hambruna de los años 90, donde murieron tres millones de personas. Además, el régimen norcoreano, paradójicamente, hace de la proliferación la garantía de su supervivencia.

El problema es que en esta ocasión ha llegado demasiado lejos y está poniendo en entredicho la credibilidad de su principal interlocutor, China, y la relación de China con los Estados Unidos. Coincido con el diagnóstico de la alta representante: hay que evitar a cualquier precio una escalada nuclear y convencional en la península de Corea. Creo también que es importante contribuir a estabilizar la situación en la región, que las sanciones económicas sean eficaces y, al mismo tiempo, buscar una solución permanente sobre la base de un diálogo que pueda permitir que se produzcan resultados.

Invito a la alta representante, que ya tiene experiencia en estas negociaciones, a explorar esta vía de Irán.

  Andi Cristea (S&D). – Madam President, as many colleagues have underlined, with its latest decision, the UN Security Council has voted with unanimity for the strongest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea. I will focus on three elements, which I believe are of even higher relevance than the sanctions themselves.

Firstly, the decision and unanimity reached in New York is even more important than the content of the decision. It is in itself a win for diplomatic multilateral efforts and international unity in the face of the North Korean threat. Secondly, the latest efforts showed that the military option is not and should not be on the table and that there is international commitment to find a peaceful collective solution. Thirdly, we are facing not a regional but a global threat – an immediate threat not only for Asia, but also for Europe – and this is why I am happy that the EU and the High Representative is fully engaged in this process.

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, doar în 2017, anul acesta, Coreea de Nord a făcut mai multe teste nucleare decât în ultimii douăzeci de ani. Ultimul test nuclear este un mesaj pentru toți oamenii, pentru lumea occidentală, pentru Europa, pentru America, dar, mai ales, pentru China. China să nu își mai țină mâinile legate la spate, atunci când vine vorba de implementat sancțiunile împotriva Coreei de Nord, împotriva Rusiei și împotriva altor dictaturi. Dacă Phenianul va dispune de arme nucleare, căci pe acest drum arată că se îndreaptă, la fel vor face și alte dictaturi din lume și toată lumea va fi distrusă.

  Mario Borghezio (ENF). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il ruolo della Cina, richiamato in alcuni interventi, è stato totalmente ignorato nella relazione dell'Alto rappresentante e questo ci induce a pensare che il ruolo debole, normalmente, dell'attività estera dell'Unione europea si sia rivelato in questa occasione ancora più debole, nel momento in cui tutti gli osservatori ritengono, fin dall'inizio, centrale il ruolo, anche solo di convitato di pietra, della Cina in questa crisi, che poteva avere e potrebbe avere in futuro delle conseguenze irreparabili.

E tra l'altro, i fatti hanno dimostrato che la Cina si rivela persino come una possibile vittima delle iniziative nucleari e delle minacce di Kim, nel momento in cui, proprio quando si stava per tenersi in Cina un'importante riunione dei BRICS per lanciare al mondo questa grande offensiva, non solo diplomatica, ma commerciale ed economica, la grande prospettiva della "via della seta", interviene la provocazione di Kim, che tra l'altro ha come conseguenza anche di indebolire tutte quelle che sono le aspettative della Cina nei confronti del contenimento della presenza americana nel Pacifico.

Grave il silenzio dell'Europa su questi aspetti.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, I address my comments to Madam Mogherini. The fact we have to face is that the North Korean regime has now a nuclear bomb in a stage to be carried by a ballistic missile. Consequently, the reaction could not be any more business as usual – that is, sanctions with loopholes and hesitations.

I fully support the approach that we need additional sanctions, and as has been mentioned today, a total ban on oil exports to North Korea and freezing the assets of the North Korean leadership. They would have some effect. But I think we need to pay attention to the loopholes. The first problem is China, which takes in more than 90% of North Korea’s exports and which has interest in keeping the regime going, seeing it as a useful tool to push America out of China’s sphere of influence.

The second problem is Iran. North Korea is not alone. In fact, we face two extreme fanatic dictatorships that are complementary. They collaborate, supporting each other. Iran is boosting its missile programme and supplying Kim Jong-un with military know-how.

Some years ago it was the opposite. So we have to address both challenges.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria Mogherini, desde la crisis de los misiles cubanos en 1962, el mundo no se había asomado nunca a una perspectiva tan verosímil de que pueda desencadenarse el escenario apocalíptico de una tercera guerra mundial como consecuencia del programa nuclear de un solo país.

Hubo una guerra en la península de Corea en los años cincuenta, de 1950 a 1953, con cuatro millones de muertos. Pero en aquel momento y en aquel escenario la guerra pudo ser contenida regionalmente. Ahora sería sin duda ninguna un escenario global y requiere de actores globales.

El Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas resuelve sanciones con las dificultades impuestas por tres actores globalmente relevantes: Estados Unidos y su entendimiento o desentendimiento con China y Rusia. Pero la Unión Europea no puede confiarse a los dos Estados europeos que tienen asiento permanente en el Consejo de Seguridad, ni a quienes lo tengan electivo. Tiene que contar como un actor global, porque de otro modo esta discusión en el Parlamento Europeo no tendría ningún sentido.

Solo si la Unión Europea quiere imponer sanciones eficaces y ordenarlas eficazmente, y teniendo en cuenta además que hay una asimetría entre la Unión Europea, los Estados Unidos y Corea del Norte —y es que nos encontramos ante un actor que no se sujeta a las reglas del Derecho y que por tanto constituye una amenaza a la estabilidad—...

(La presidenta retira la palabra al orador)

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con l'escalation delle dichiarazioni tra Pyongyang e Washington cresce il pericolo per la sicurezza mondiale. Abbiamo sottovalutato la minaccia quando il paese si ritirò dal trattato di non proliferazione nel 2003.

Ora il tema torna attuale ma poco si parla del fatto che, proprio quest'estate, è stato approvato presso le Nazioni Unite un trattato che proibisce le armi nucleari, votato da 122 paesi. Nella risoluzione dello scorso ottobre questo Parlamento si è espresso in suo favore, per un ruolo attivo dell'Unione, per un mondo libero da armi nucleari pericolose, in primis per chi le detiene: gli strumenti ci sono ma manca ancora la volontà politica per realizzarlo.

Ci auguriamo che, anche con il contributo dell'UE, si apra un tavolo di negoziato per una soluzione diplomatica, riprendendo il modello dell'Iran. Ma forse è venuto il momento di andare oltre con coraggio e proporre un percorso per la denuclearizzazione regionale e globale, unica prospettiva a lungo termine per garantire davvero la sicurezza del genere umano.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – Madam President, the EU plays no meaningful role in the North Korean crisis at the moment but escalation of the crisis would damage European economies and our maritime trade. Europe needs to raise its diplomatic game in the region. We have a successful template, the EU’s role in the multilateral format that produced the Iran nuclear deal. As in Iran, the EU could be the missing piece that keeps the process alive. None of the other players – China, the US or Russia – have that combination of distance and credibility, and what is more, there is a new momentum in EU-Chinese relations to create a new international architecture, but it could spill over into security affairs in East Asia too.

Trump’s belligerence and domestic weakness limit American engagement in the diplomatic track on North Korea and this creates a vacuum. We should aspire to fill it.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, the whole world is quivering as we find ourselves caught between North Korean President Kim Jong-un playing boys’ games with nuclear weapons and a US President more eager to have a macho standoff than diffuse tensions. This is a lethal combination.

Yesterday the UN Security Council adopted the toughest sanctions on North Korea so far, and EU Foreign Affairs Ministers consider adopting additional restrictive measures. What we have to recognise is that, when you have a president with nuclear weapons who would rather let his people wither than commit to peace, sanctions alone will not cut it. The US, China and Russia are now leading the dance, but the EU could do so too. We have proved under the Vienna deal on Iran’s nuclear programme how our involvement and leadership can be crucial in turning around a situation of potentially devastating conflict and achieving peace and security for our citizens.

High Representative, I call upon you to listen to the citizens. They do not want fury and fire like the world has never seen, which was promised by the US President. That is why I call on you to go further than imposing sanctions and adopt a clear plan of action to be backed by the EU.

(The President cut off the speaker)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani Poseł! Krytykowała pani rząd Stanów Zjednoczonych, ale chciałbym wiedzieć czy naprawdę jest pani przekonana, że jeżeli Amerykanie zrezygnują, z góry wykluczą możliwość reakcji militarnej, czy to zwiększy bezpieczeństwo regionalnych sąsiadów komunistycznej Korei? Czy to zwiększy bezpieczeństwo Republiki Korei? Czy to zwiększy bezpieczeństwo Japonii? Nikt nie chce tam wojny, ale propozycja rezygnacji z możliwości reakcji militarnej, to jest naprawdę nawiązywanie do (...).

(Przewodnicząca odebrała posłowi głos)

  Neena Gill (S&D), blue-card answer. – I think what we have to recognise is the we have a US President who does not appear to have the wit or the diplomatic skills to be able to defuse the situation, and that’s why I am calling on Federica Mogherini to try and step in. We have done this before. I did not say who has nuclear weapons or not; all I am saying is that there is very dangerous rhetoric out there, and we cannot just stand off and say that none of this matters. I think the European Union could be the leading [...]

(The President cut off the speaker)

Interventions à la demande

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, současné rozhodnutí Rady bezpečnosti Organizace spojených národů přichází ve správnou chvíli, protože pouze jednotný a tvrdý tlak může přivést Severní Koreu k jednání. Když jsem před dvanácti lety navštívila Severní Koreu, tak jsem viděla zemi chudých a nesvobodných lidí. Kim Čong-il, otec dnešního prezidenta, byl již tehdy bez ochoty k jednání o zastavení vývoje jaderných zbraní.

Korejská lidově demokratická republika je dnes modernější a ekonomicky silnější a mladý vůdce umí využívat moderní technologie ve svůj prospěch. V Evropě máme zkušenosti z boje s diktaturou a propagandou z dob studené války a my bychom tedy měli využít maximum našich zkušeností a diplomatických a historických potenciálů a přimět severokorejský režim k okamžitému ukončení provokací a zkoušek a pokusit se o diplomatické vyjednávání. Dnes existuje globální vůle k zastavení této jaderné krize a tu musíme využít.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ορθώς στήριξε τις κυρώσεις που επέβαλε ο ΟΗΕ στη Βόρειο Κορέα. Αποτελεί όμως ουτοπία το να πιστεύουμε πως αυτές οι κυρώσεις θα οδηγήσουν τη Βόρειο Κορέα να εγκαταλείψει το πυρηνικό της πρόγραμμα. Εδώ και αρκετά χρόνια η Βόρειος Κορέα με αργά, σταθερά, αποφασιστικά και αποτελεσματικά βήματα έχει δημιουργήσει πυρηνικές δυνατότητες. Ο πρόεδρός της, ο Κιμ Γιονγκ Ουν, δεν είναι ανόητος για να πιστεύει ότι μπορεί να κηρύξει πυρηνικό πόλεμο κατά των ΗΠΑ αλλά και κατά της διεθνούς κοινότητας.

Η τύχη όμως του Σαντάμ αλλά και του Καντάφι τον έχει πείσει ότι για να διασωθεί ο ίδιος ως άτομο, ως καθεστώς, και ως χώρα πρέπει να στηριχθεί στην πυρηνική του δύναμη και να εκβιάσει, να απειλήσει, και να επιδιώξει να έρθει σε συνομιλίες με την διεθνή κοινότητα. Στο σημείο αυτό η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να συμβάλει αποφασιστικά στη δρομολόγηση αυτού του διαλόγου και στην εκτόνωση της κρίσεως.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, Észak-Korea kapcsán oly sokszor elhangzott már, hogy meg kell fékezni a diktátort és nem szabad megengedni a fékevesztett provokatív lépéseket. A gond csak azzal van, hogy láthatóan nem csupán az Unió tehetetlen, hanem az Egyesült Államok is. Egy közvetlen konfliktusnak beláthatatlan következményei lennének elsősorban a térségben élő lakosságra nézve, egy hagyományos háború a világon évtizedek óta nem látott pusztítással járna. Eközben nincsenek arra utaló jelek, hogy a rendszernek belülről lenne cselekvőképes ellenzéke, a már így is sokat szenvedett és megfélemlített észak-koreai néptől nem várható ellenállás. Gazdasági szankciók szigorítása persze csak fokozná az emberek szenvedéseit, ám érdemes lenne eldönteni: asszisztál-e a világ a tényleg embertelen rendszer fennmaradásához vagy megpróbálja a szankciók és tárgyalások kombinációjával elérni a változást. Az észak-koreai vezetésben a jelek ellenére van racionalitás és minden hatalom elsősorban a saját túlélését tartja szem előtt, ezért ha azt veszélyben látja, hajlandó lehet a változtatásra. A kérdés az, hogy milyen árat kell ezért fizetnie a lakosságnak.

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).

  Nirj Deva (ECR), blue-card question. – I wanted to ask Mr Sógor a very simple question which has not been asked during this debate. Why is Kim Jong-un making nuclear weapons? For what end? To have himself destroyed? So what is the purpose of all this? I know the answer. He wants to sit at a negotiating table and discuss a peace treaty. But I wanted Mr Sógor to answer the question.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), blue-card answer. – He has got the answer. He wants to speak. But I think it is more that: he has some other problems, but I do not want to enter into the details.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, I am happy to see that there is broad support in this Hemicycle for the approach the European Union has taken and again here I have to say, the European Union approach that brings together our diplomatic service, the work we have been doing with the Member States in the relevant countries, in New York and we will continue to do that.

First of all, increasing the economic pressure. I have seen that all of you are very much aware of the fact that when you do not have a situation where political will is expressed in a credible manner, or in any way at all, there is the need for more pressure to be put on the economic and political side, and here the key is the unity of the international community.

This is why the vote in the UN Security Council yesterday night was so important because it sent a message to North Korea that the unity of the international community – from China that, yes indeed, plays a crucial role, to the Russian Federation, to the United States, to the European Union, to all the other members of the UN Security Council, so the entire international community – is strongly invested in this path.

More pressure to open diplomatic channels: North Korea has to feel the diplomatic pressure of a united international community.

The European Union will now do two things. On the economic path we will implement the UN Security Council resolutions, as we have always done, in the most strict and complete manner. We will also do a second thing that is very important because, as you know very well, the economic relations between the European Union and its Member States on one side, and the DPRK on the other, are not so relevant that they will have an economic impact that is, let us say, particularly impacting on the regime.

So we will work to make sure that others implement the UN Security Council resolutions, because some of you asked the crucial question that would probably come for later but it is also useful to put it on the table now: how come we are today in the situation where we are, in terms of developments in the DPRK’s nuclear programme, under what is quite a severe regime of sanctions from the UN system?

Here we have, together with our partners in the international community, a responsibility to work towards all third parties to make sure that the UN-based decisions, the UN Security Council sanctions, are implemented by all on the international scene.

And third, as many of you supported, work will go on in defining together in the European Union additional sanctions or additional autonomous measures that could complement the ones adopted by the Security Council.

But I think that the message the UN Security Council sent powerfully yesterday night was also the choice of diplomacy and of the political way rather than that of military escalation. And on this too the international community was united. And on this too, the European Union brought its weight, its proposal, to bear; this was our line from the beginning: economic pressure also as a way to prevent the risk of a military spiral.

On the diplomatic side then, what are we going to do as the European Union from today onwards?

First of all, work to keep international unity. This is essential. Many of you referred to the risk of having to face a third world war. Well, the unity of the international community, the unity of the P5, the unity of the UN Security Council is somehow the best guarantee we can have that that tension, that crisis, will not develop in that direction. The UN system is our point of reference; we have to prove that we trust the UN system to prevent too major wars from happening.

So first, we will continue to work with all – with all – to keep the unity of the international community. And again, when I say all, I mention the United States, I mention Russia, I mention China – with whom we have been working very well in the past and with whom we have constantly in these months worked at my level with their foreign ministers in New York, and locally – to think together about how to open diplomatic channels.

Not diplomatic channels – because diplomatic channels, including with the DPRK, are open; we have seven Member States that have embassies in Pyongyang. We have humanitarian programmes run by some Member States in Pyongyang and in the DPRK. When I say diplomatic channels, I mean a system of mediation of diplomatic talks that can guarantee a credible engagement, because talks for talks are not necessarily a good idea.

What we need is to create the conditions in the international community with all our partners, including with the European Union, for credible and meaningful diplomatic negotiations.

This is the second thing we will do. Coordinate with our partners, starting with China, Russia, the United States and our regional partners – the Republic of Korea needs to feel ownership and to lead the way somehow; the President has shown wisdom and determination, and I think we have somehow a privileged access and channel of exchange, we have regular contact with the foreign minister and again we will continue this very frequently – and with Japan, to make sure that there is a concerted, united understanding of how best to open this credible diplomatic path.

Many of you referred to the experience, the knowledge that the European Union has in this kind of a situation. We have obviously quite a deep knowledge and know-how and experience when it comes to nuclear negotiations, nuclear negotiations linked to sanction regimes. We have been running the Iran negotiations for quite some years with a successful result.

There the unity of the international community was key. But there was another element there that was essential and that we do not have at the moment in the situation of the DPRK, which is the political will. You cannot mediate or offer the goodwill of an honest broker unless you see real determination, a real political will to engage in negotiations. That door, that little space still needs to be opened and this is where we need the unity of the international community to push for that little space to be opened, then we can definitely work for a diplomatic negotiation that might take a lot of time, but is always possible.

Again I do not particularly like the parallels between the situation in Iran and in the DPRK. The political systems are very different, their histories are very different. The two countries are completely different and I do not think it is a good service to the reality of history and of the current situation to make a parallel between the two, but yes, the confidence, the know-how, the skills, the experience of the European Union in this field are ready to be used to accompany such a process, provided we start to see an opening in the political will to engage seriously to find a peaceful solution to this tension.

(Applause)

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Jonás Fernández (S&D), por escrito. – Los últimos ensayos balísticos de Corea del Norte, incluyendo el lanzamiento de misiles intercontinentales sobre Japón y una bomba de hidrógeno varias veces más potente que las lanzadas en Hiroshima y Nagasaki, son hechos inaceptables que ponen en riesgo la seguridad de toda la región, y suponen una manifiesta violación del derecho internacional y de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. Es por tanto urgente redoblar todos los esfuerzos concertados de la comunidad internacional con el fin de conseguir la desnuclearización de la península coreana por medios pacíficos. Desde el grupo socialista nos oponemos firmemente a una solución militar de esta crisis. Por ello, reclamamos mayor presión diplomática y económica sobre el régimen de Pyongyang, con la adopción de sanciones más duras si fuera necesario, incluyendo medidas autónomas por parte de la Unión que vayan más allá de lo acordado en el Consejo de Seguridad. Necesitamos que Europa ejerza, de forma unida y coordinada, todo su peso diplomático y por ello apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Alta Representante Mogherini para conseguir que actores clave para una resolución pacífica de la crisis como China y Rusia se impliquen también al máximo en la presión sobre Corea del Norte.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D), por escrito. – Los últimos ensayos balísticos de Corea del Norte, incluyendo el lanzamiento de misiles intercontinentales sobre Japón y una bomba de hidrógeno varias veces más potente que las lanzadas en Hiroshima y Nagasaki, son hechos inaceptables que ponen en riesgo la seguridad de toda la región, y suponen una manifiesta violación del derecho internacional y de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. Es por tanto urgente redoblar todos los esfuerzos concertados de la comunidad internacional con el fin de conseguir la desnuclearización de la península coreana por medios pacíficos. Desde el grupo socialista nos oponemos firmemente a una solución militar de esta crisis. Por ello, reclamamos mayor presión diplomática y económica sobre el régimen de Pyongyang, con la adopción de sanciones más duras si fuera necesario, incluyendo medidas autónomas por parte de la Unión que vayan más allá de lo acordado en el Consejo de Seguridad. Necesitamos que Europa ejerza, de forma unida y coordinada, todo su peso diplomático y por ello apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Alta Representante Mogherini para conseguir que actores clave para una resolución pacífica de la crisis como China y Rusia se impliquen también al máximo en la presión sobre Corea del Norte.

  Kati Piri (S&D), schriftelijk. – Mogelijk staan we aan de vooravond van een nucleaire oorlog met honderdduizenden doden tot gevolg. President Trump en de Noord-Koreaanse leider Kim Jong-un proberen elkaar vanuit retorisch oogpunt te overtreffen en herhaaldelijke pogingen van de internationale gemeenschap om de landen aan de onderhandelingstafel te krijgen hebben vooralsnog niets opgeleverd, terwijl diplomatie de enige optie is. Elke vorm van militaire inmenging zal catastrofale gevolgen hebben. Allereerst voor de Koreanen, maar ook voor de regio en mogelijk de hele wereld. Het is goed dat de VN-Veiligheidsraad deze week strengere sancties heeft aangenomen. De uitvoering ervan zal essentieel zijn om Pyongyang aan de onderhandelingstafel te dwingen. De Europese Unie heeft een instrument achter de hand om de dreiging af te wenden: soft power. Met een indrukwekkende staat van dienst op het vlak van diplomatie kan en moet zij optreden als neutrale bemiddelaar om hiermee een nieuwe kernoorlog af te wenden. Want niemand, daadwerkelijk niemand is gebaat bij een escalatie.

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D), por escrito. – Los últimos ensayos balísticos de Corea del Norte, incluyendo el lanzamiento de misiles intercontinentales sobre Japón y una bomba de hidrógeno varias veces más potente que las lanzadas en Hiroshima y Nagasaki, son hechos inaceptables que ponen en riesgo la seguridad de toda la región, y suponen una manifiesta violación del derecho internacional y de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. Es por tanto urgente redoblar todos los esfuerzos concertados de la comunidad internacional con el fin de conseguir la desnuclearización de la península coreana por medios pacíficos. Desde el grupo socialista nos oponemos firmemente a una solución militar de esta crisis. Por ello, reclamamos mayor presión diplomática y económica sobre el régimen de Pyongyang, con la adopción de sanciones más duras si fuera necesario, incluyendo medidas autónomas por parte de la Unión que vayan más allá de lo acordado en el Consejo de Seguridad. Necesitamos que Europa ejerza, de forma unida y coordinada, todo su peso diplomático y por ello apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Alta Representante Mogherini para conseguir que actores clave para una resolución pacífica de la crisis como China y Rusia se impliquen también al máximo en la presión sobre Corea del Norte.

  Elena Valenciano (S&D), por escrito. – Los últimos ensayos balísticos de Corea del Norte, incluyendo el lanzamiento de misiles intercontinentales sobre Japón y una bomba de hidrógeno varias veces más potente que las lanzadas en Hiroshima y Nagasaki, son hechos inaceptables que ponen en riesgo la seguridad de toda la región, y suponen una manifiesta violación del derecho internacional y de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. Es por tanto urgente redoblar todos los esfuerzos concertados de la comunidad internacional con el fin de conseguir la desnuclearización de la península coreana por medios pacíficos. Desde el grupo socialista nos oponemos firmemente a una solución militar de esta crisis. Por ello, reclamamos mayor presión diplomática y económica sobre el régimen de Pyongyang, con la adopción de sanciones más duras si fuera necesario, incluyendo medidas autónomas por parte de la Unión que vayan más allá de lo acordado en el Consejo de Seguridad. Necesitamos que Europa ejerza, de forma unida y coordinada, todo su peso diplomático y por ello apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Alta Representante Mogherini para conseguir que actores clave para una resolución pacífica de la crisis como China y Rusia se impliquen también al máximo en la presión sobre Corea del Norte.

14. Развитие на събитията в областта на миграцията (разискване)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la vice-présidente de la Commission et haute représentante de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité sur les évolutions récentes dans le domaine de la migration (2017/2827(RSP)).

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, I am glad we are discussing the issue of migration again. I believe we have a serious responsibility as Europeans to look at the facts. Many times, in particular when electoral debates get heated or when political confrontations turn even more heated than electoral debates, we have the tendency to say a lot, without necessarily looking at the facts, and I would start with two facts.

First, that there are no shortcuts when we deal with the issue of migration. It is a global massive phenomenon that does not relate only to the European Union. It is a global phenomenon, with more movement of people within continents like Africa or Asia than towards the European Union. There are no shortcuts; there is a complexity that needs to be faced as it is. The second fact is that the measures we have – finally – started to put in place are starting to show the first results.

I believe that we must never forget the starting points, the fundamentals, and we should go back to basics, which is the human dimension of the phenomenon. Behind every number that you hear on TV there are people: men, women, and children. People with names, stories, hopes, fears, expectations, and sometimes terrible stories to tell when they manage to tell them. The starting point for us is their continuing suffering and death. Men, women and children who have left their homes in search of a better life.

I have heard myself — and I believe many of you have done the same — stories from detention camps in Libya; when we speak to migrants or aid workers in Lampedusa you hear things no one should hear, and no one should live through. I have seen for myself the images of men and women marked like animals by the human smugglers. We have to realise that this is a new form of slavery and we are facing with this a tragedy that not one of us can underplay or ignore.

At the same time, the work we have been doing over the last two years – and I say ‘finally’ because we have come too late to act as Europeans on this issue – finally the things we have put in place in the last two years are starting to bear fruit. Hundreds of thousands of people have been saved from death. Let me be clear, even one that is not saved – even one – is too much, but the fact that we are starting to see the results of some policies that we have finally started to put in place, and that are starting to save lives and protect rights, is positive.

Thousands have received food and medicines, thanks to our cooperation with the UN agencies and first of all, I would like to thank the IOM, UNHCR and UNICEF for the work they have started to do with us. They have always been doing this work, but we have developed a new partnership with them, reinforcing their work, providing political support, financial resources, access in some places to which they did not have access before.

This partnership is for us the guiding line of our action. Thousands were given the opportunity to go back home in a dignified, voluntary way and to begin a new life, thanks to the European Union. We have, I believe, a responsibility to also look at these stories and continue with more determination on this path that we have finally started to walk.

There has been a considerable reduction in the number of people crossing the Mediterranean and the desert. The number of migrants risking their lives in the central Mediterranean has gone down by 17% compared to last year. The number of people crossing through Niger has dropped from over 330 000 in 2016 to less than 40 000 so far in 2017. These trends reflect the work we have done over the last year and more recently, together with Member States, international organisations and in line with immigration compacts and the Action Plan on measures to support Italy.

Dialogue with our partners in Africa and beyond is progressing fast and well. This year alone, some 4 000 people returned voluntarily from Niger. The number of people returning from Libya has almost tripled, from 2 500 last year to over 7 000 this year up until now.

Reducing the number of crossings goes hand in hand for us with a renewed effort to fight effectively against smuggling and trafficking; fighting the business model, fighting the forms of organised crime that arranges this slavery in new forms.

Operation Sophia continues its anti-smuggling operations at sea and the training and capacity building of the Libyan coastguards. Before the summer, the Council amended the mandate of Operation Sophia. It also set up a monitoring mechanism for trainees so that we can ensure the long-term efficiency of training the Libyan coastguards, monitoring the way in which they operate after we have trained them.

This is essential, not only in terms of efficiency and the control of the seas. In terms of anti-smuggling activities, this is also a fundamental element for us to control the standards of human rights respect that are part of the training of the Libyan coastguard and which we want to see fully implemented. As for Libya’s borders, our border assistance mission is planning for a possible training and advisory mission inside the country.

Our engagement with the Libyan authorities is increasing already, particularly on border management, law enforcement and in support of the criminal justice system. Most recently we have launched a EUR 46 million programme to help manage the southern border of Libya, run together with the Italian Ministry of the Interior.

To the south of Libya, we are present, as you might know, with three European Union military missions in the Sahel and with our support for the creation of a G5 Sahel joint force. We signed a contract with EUR 50 million just two months after our partners in the G5 countries had asked for support, establishing for the first time ever a joint force among them to better control the territory – which is very difficult territory to control: desert, long borders – with the precise aim of fighting and preventing terrorism and radicalisation but also smuggling and trafficking of all kinds, including the links between human smuggling and trafficking, arms trafficking and drug trafficking.

We know very well there are many connections there that need to be broken, and they can be better broken by the local actors who know the territory, know the people, know the economies, know the communities. Our work is to support them doing this difficult work for their own sake and also for the sake of those that put their lives in the hands of criminal organisations.

In parallel, European Union agencies such as Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency have greatly strengthened their capacity and improved their cooperation with our military missions and operations. In Asia alone, 101 alleged smugglers have been brought before the court. Another 79 have been arrested and 74 vehicles and motorcycles have been confiscated. This is the result of the work of our joint investigation teams together with our EUCAP mission and the authorities of Niger.

This is the partnership approach: defining the needs, working with the local authorities, setting the highest possible standards when it comes to human rights’ protection and putting the right resources at the disposal of those that know the local situation better. An initial success story that we now want to replicate at regional level, linking up countries of origin, transit and destination with the support of these UN-EU agencies.

And yet our commitment goes well beyond border management. I believe that the time when we had the illusion of managing migration flows only through border management has gone. We have now finally understood not only that we need to act as Europeans all together but also that we need to act on what we usually define as the root causes: poverty, climate change, lack of democratic spaces, violations of human rights, opportunities for life.

With our migration compacts we are discussing directly with our partners in Africa – governments but also local authorities, civil society organisations, international agencies and NGOs that are present on the ground – how to best invest in the sustainable development of these countries, of these communities, because in one single country, you can have areas where support in this respect is not particularly needed but maybe a few tens of kilometres away from there, you have a community that is completely exposed to the trafficking and the smuggling.

So you need to diversify the approach, developing a partnership that is oriented to deliver results on the ground. The EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa has with this approach already mobilised almost EUR 2 billion and our investments are meant first and foremost to create jobs, create skills, and create better security conditions for growth.

I can share with you an anecdote that maybe I told you before, about the first time I visited Agadez. Agadez is on the main route into Libya, north of Niger, in the middle of the desert, a beautiful place. I landed at an airport that is now basically closed, and the first thing I heard from the local community is ‘Here, we have always welcomed tourists’.

Then the security situation deteriorated, the terrorist threat increased, tourists are not coming any more, the economy reconverted on smuggling and trafficking. So if you want to develop alternative economies, to offer alternatives to the youth of these communities, to stop the criminal organisations and to invest in sustainable, good economies you need also to work on the security side of the territory, otherwise a normal, strong, healthy economy would have more difficulties to take root.

This is also a way of addressing the root causes of the migratory flows as well as is – and I have mentioned this here many times, and I think I have the full support of this Hemicycle on this – our constant and determined work on climate change. So many people leave their communities because of the consequences of climate change, especially in the areas of the desert.

The External Investment Plan, on which this Parliament has worked so well – and I would like to thank here the three committees that have worked in a really remarkable way jointly and I know that many were sceptical about three committees working together on such a complicated measure – the External Investment Plan is now ready. It will mobilise unprecedented levels of private resources in the most fragile areas of Africa and our region, with the objective of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, but at the end of the day the two agendas coincide, because if we had the Sustainable Development Goals fully implemented, there would also be a clear impact on the migratory flows.

No one invests as much as we do in Africa. I know that some argue about the need for a Marshall Plan for Africa. I often mention the amount of euro the European Union and its Member States invest in different forms, from development to humanitarian security, in Africa. That is EUR 20 billion every year. The External Investment Plan is going to mobilise even more, aiming at raising EUR 44 billion in private investments.

We definitely need to use this money in a sense of partnership with our African friends and I believe that the next EU-African Union Summit in Abidjan at the end of November will be exactly this: moving from the concept of aid to the concept of partnership. Working together and facing together common challenges and taking advantage together of common opportunities, and also working together on common issues we have close to our hearts: multilateralism, a certain way of understanding security and peace, climate change and the multilateral agenda.

While we have initial steps forward that we need to recognise on migration, I think we have to keep very firmly in mind that we still have a very long and a very difficult way to go. I said at the beginning that there is no shortcut. We have internal contradictions in the European Union and I am sure you will hear more from President Junker about this tomorrow – it is not my fight – but it is important that we never close our eyes to the unacceptable conditions that so many human beings are still facing on the route.

Let me start with the detention centres in Libya. As you know I do not hide the difficult topics, on the contrary, and let me tell you it is exactly because I heard the stories of those who were escaping from those detention centres and arrived in Lampedusa that I keep a constant eye on how we can better protect and save lives. If you hear those stories once, believe me you do not forget them.

Our line here is clear: detention conditions at the moment fail to meet any basic condition of decency. Detention centres in their current form should be closed. This is something we keep discussing in all our meetings with the Libyan authorities. As long as these centres do exist inside Libya, we are working with our international partners on the ground to guarantee they have access to these detention centres – a very difficult discussion to have and a very difficult thing to do given the security conditions inside Libya – with the aim of improving the living conditions of the people that are currently in the centres, and I would like here to thank the courage and the determination of the IOM, the UNHCR, UNICEF, and their staff for the incredible work they have started to do.

They have now developed a work inside Libya, and that is the result of the common work we have started. We are supporting financially, politically and logistically, whenever we can, their work inside Libya exactly for that purpose, because we see that things are unacceptable in these centres. But still, too few international staff are currently present in Libya and we do want to see an increased international presence in the very short term. I will personally stress this point once again during my meetings in New York next week.

While the humanitarian conditions of detention are our top concern, second comes the need to provide durable solutions for the people stuck inside Libya because we have to realise that if detention centres were to be closed tomorrow – and as I said, we believe that under the current conditions we see in the detention centres that they should be closed or the conditions should be radically changed – but if they were to be closed tomorrow, thousands would be trapped and lost in a country that is in difficult security conditions and where they do not want to stay.

So when I say there is a complexity of the phenomenon that needs to be tackled seriously, with no shortcuts, that is what I am talking about. And this is why we have chosen to invest in our partnership with the international organisations that have the knowledge and the highest international standards for human rights to help us in tackling this issue, for us and our partners, the authorities of, in this case, Libya but it is also true for other countries.

So we need to be ready to offer two clear paths here: for those in need of protection we need safe and legal avenues, including to Europe and this is a debate that inside our own Member States, in our national parliaments and probably also in this Parliament – you know very well it is a difficult debate. But let me stress this. Those in need of protection need to have safe legal avenues, including to Europe.

Second, for those that are not in need of protection, we need to offer them a dignified safe way to go back home and restart a life in a community that has probably invested everything they had to send them away to look for a better future and send back remittances. Going back means being accompanied back and this is where we come in also. We follow all along the way to offer ways to restart a life, a small business, a different kind of future once people are going back. Last December, we started a programme with the IOM that is showing first positive results. We intend to offer a safe way out to over 10 000 people by the end of the year, from Libya.

Last but not least, we need to provide an alternative to local communities that rely on smuggling for their daily subsistence. I can think here of the many communities – I mentioned one just a few minutes ago – of northern Niger or south of Libya. In this field, we have launched massive investments to create jobs and provide training, but as I said, this is a work that we need to do together with the local communities, together with the local authorities and guaranteeing at the same time support for a better security environment in the region.

Ultimately, I think we can summarise this approach in one sentence. We need to replace the illegal economy of human trafficking and smuggling, the new slavery, with the regular system of opportunities and channels to safely reach Europe and elsewhere for those in need. Remembering one important thing which is, I know, very unpopular in our political domestic debates but which is the reality of our economy. If regular migrants in Europe were to disappear tomorrow morning, entire sectors of our economies would collapse. It is something to keep in the back of our minds.

It is clear that the European Union cannot do this all alone. First of all we need to have the entire European Union backing this approach. We need consistency and coherence, we need Member States to invest in this approach consistently and with coherence – I was glad to see that many of them are now realising how important it is to invest in these partnerships – and we have to build global alliances to manage this phenomenon.

One year ago, two years ago, it was all about the European migration crisis. I think that today we have managed – again, finally, and we are just starting to see the results – but we have managed to put in place some elements of an intelligent policy based on partnership that our African partners recognise as useful, that our international partners, starting with IOM, UNHCR and the UN system recognise as right.

We need to increase the work on the global compacts for migration and for refugees. Next year we will have an important process leading to this. In the UN system the EU, I believe, has the responsibility to build this partnership approach based especially on our EU-African partnership that we have developed over the last year, and we will relaunch even more strongly at the Summit in Abidjan.

VORSITZ: ULRIKE LUNACEK
Vizepräsidentin

  Roberta Metsola, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, migration remains truly one of the greatest challenges of our generation. It is an issue that must be addressed – indeed that can only be addressed – by sincere cooperation between the European Union, countries of origin and countries of transit. Papering over the cracks without taking the tough decisions necessary to deal with the issue in the long term must no longer be an option.

The joint statement touches on a number of important points, and I welcome the renewed focus that it gives to the issue. This means that we have to work hand in hand with countries, particularly in Africa, not only to help build up their law enforcement, the judicial systems and border management, but also to help with their education systems and entrepreneurship and ensure a future for people closer to their homes – something this Parliament has long called for.

But we need more. We need to move the debate away from emergency solutions and emergency funds and start talking about long—term proposals and proper investment and economic cooperation strategies. We have to keep putting our money where our mouth is. It is not only about aid, but it is now also becoming about encouraging our companies to invest in Africa. Significantly, I welcome the focus on improving the conditions for migrants in Libya. The horror stories we keep hearing make it impossible to ignore, as we have just said. At the same time, within Europe we must ensure that those who are not entitled to international protection are returned to their countries of origin. This is essential if we are to direct our resources to give protection to those who need it.

In conclusion, the reality on the ground is that, where there is no hope, the people will continue to look for any avenue to flee, irrespective of the risk to their lives. We must think long term and we must ensure that traffickers are not allowed to fill the void and exploit the most vulnerable. The European Union has a crucial role to play on the world stage and in giving the issue more traction. We need to continue to move from statements to tangible concrete results.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  President. – Ms Vautmans, just to explain, blue cards are only between Members and not to the institutions. Now you can have the floor for 30 seconds to address Ms Metsola.

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE), blue-card question. – Thank you; I really wanted to put a question to Ms Mogherini, but she will hear the question and can answer later. It is the same question: I really agree with everything that has been said here – I think a lot of good things have been said – but there is one question I really want to put to Ms Mogherini and to you. We always talk about those who are vulnerable in migration, but a recent UNICEF report says that the most vulnerable are the children. We know that Europol has stated that 10 000 migrant children have gone missing in Europe. What will we do about that? Will you support me to have a real action plan on this?

  President. – The question is to Ms Metsola.

  Roberta Metsola (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for giving the opportunity to address another issue which I missed in my speech, and it’s precisely on this that I think this Parliament can find consensus on this matter. You will find members from each political group that come together and say that we need to do more to help the situation we have with missing children and the trafficking of minors, and exposing the big problem we have with the exploitation of the most vulnerable – and yes, children are on top of that list.

  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'è una frase bellissima pronunciata ieri da Papa Francesco: "Abbiate sempre il cuore aperto". Ed io aggiungo: aperto, palpitante, sofferente, con gli occhi rivolti ad Aylan. Ricordate, due anni fa, quel bimbo, un punto nero in un'immensa distesa di spiaggia... Quante migliaia di corpi senza vita in questi anni! Il mio monito, dunque, è: non solo meno sbarchi, ma meno morti.

E ora ringrazio la Vicepresidente Mogherini, perché nel suo lavoro e nel suo discorso non ha mai smarrito la dimensione umana. L'Italia e i paesi del Sud Europa sono rimasti da soli ad affrontare questa immensa emergenza. Ora qualcosa si è mosso: il governo italiano ha assunto una forte iniziativa politica; ci sono risultati evidenti. La Commissione ha fatto tanto; il Parlamento, credo, sia stato sempre pronto; il Consiglio ha bloccato.

Io ho detto ieri al Presidente Tusk: occorre che il Consiglio metta in agenda la revisione della regola assurda, aberrante, che mette tutto sulle spalle dei paesi di primo sbarco. Occorre, come Lei ha detto, aprire canali legali, perché non basta asciugare l'acqua con uno straccio se il rubinetto resta aperto. Occorre sconfiggere le mafie che lucrano sul bisogno umano; occorre rispettare le decisioni europee e anche quella della Corte di giustizia europea e i paesi che non lo fanno devono essere sanzionati. E occorre costruire un'alleanza della dignità con l'Africa.

Lo strumento che Lei ha ricordato, su cui Lei ha lavorato, è uno strumento utilissimo: il piano di investimento nella sua dimensione esterna per valorizzare le energie migliori che ci sono in Africa. Dobbiamo farlo insieme a quelle organizzazioni non governative che salvano vite umane, mettendo da parte demonizzazioni ingiuste, come quella che si sta intentando in queste ore in altri campi, contro l'agenzia dell'ONU per la Palestina.

Se il cuore rimane aperto, la paura viene sopraffatta dalla ragione, dai sentimenti e dai valori che fanno dell'Unione europea il campione della solidarietà, il faro nel mondo per coloro che credono e vogliono difendere la dignità e i diritti umani.

  Die Präsidentin. – Sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe jetzt eine Anfrage „blaue Karte“ von Herrn Zdechovský an Herrn Pittella. Aber eigentlich gibt es die Regel, dass ich Ihnen, Herr Zdechovský, wenn Sie später auf der Rednerliste stehen, vorher nicht die blaue Karte gebe. Ich würde gerne dabei bleiben, weil wir – wissend, dass ich alle etwas länger reden lasse – sonst mit der Zeit nicht nachkommen. Sie können Ihre Frage dann, wenn Sie dann das Wort haben, an Herrn Pittella richten. Ist das in Ordnung? Danke.

  Marek Jurek, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! To bardzo dobry postulat, ten o którym mówiła pani wysoki przedstawiciel, że wszystkie nasze państwa w Unii Europejskiej powinny wspólnie mówić jednym głosem. Tylko najpierw musimy się wspólnie słuchać i potrzebujemy władz Unii Europejskiej, które poszczególnych państw będą słuchać. Lepiej poradzilibyśmy sobie z kryzysem imigracyjnym, gdyby od początku władze Unii Europejskiej zrezygnowały z próby zarządzania nim kosztem państw. Dzisiaj padły ważne słowa o tym koszmarnym „przemysłowymˮ przemycie ludzi, o tej przestępczej mafii, czy mafiach, nielegalnej imigracji. Tylko niestety bądźmy świadomi tego, że to rządy kierujące się imigracjonistyczną ideologią, że to organizacje międzynarodowe idące w tym kierunku, że to organizacje pozarządowe tworzyły popyt dla tej mafii. My naprawdę musimy przemyśleć to, co do tej pory robiliśmy.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the High Representative for her personal commitment, her frankness and for having this debate with us. However, I would like to underline that external policies can only complement, contribute to, migration management, and it cannot replace proper asylum and migration policies. The Member States should stop propagating this myth of fortress Europe and closing the borders: migration will not stop. It is as old as the world, it is there and it will be there – but we can manage it. We can handle it if we do it together, and indeed I agree with Gianni Pittella. Of course we cannot leave it to Italy alone; we need to revise the Dublin Regulation.

A solution for migration flows is certainly not dirty deals with shady regimes, because we are talking about making a deal with Libya. I even heard the President, or I read about the statement of the President of this House, Mr Tajani, suggesting that we should give EUR 6 billion to Libya in order to solve our migration issues. I was really wondering on whose behalf he was speaking. It is certainly not the position of this House, as far as I am aware. Yes, we should be investing in Africa, because there is an economic case, but we should not be giving money to shady regimes in order to prevent people from leaving the country. Why are we giving money to dictators? Why are we giving billions to shady outfits in Libya, Brigade 48 or whatever it is called? And yes, it is all very fine to train the Libyan coast guard in human rights, but forgive me for being a little bit cynical – I really do not think that is going to make a massive change.

I think this money – which is taxpayers’ money – ends up in the pockets of militias, corrupt regimes, terrorists, rather than using that money for services for our own citizens and regulating – managing – migration. Because we can do it. We are the richest continent in the world, we are the best organised, the most civilised continent in the world. If we cannot do it, then who can?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Nagyon szépen köszönöm, Képviselő Asszony! Sok mindenben egyetértek, azzal amit Ön mondott, viszont a kérdésem arra irányul, hogy Ön egyetért-e azzal – ez egy ENSZ-megállapítás volt nemrégiben –, hogy a migrációknak a legmélyebb okai között kettő dolog van: az egyik a klíma, ezt mindannyian tudjuk, a másik a rossz kormányzás. Én azt gondolom egyébként, hogy ezen kéne változtatni, és nem csak a következményt, azaz a migrációt kezelni. Mit gondol Ön erről?

  Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I am not a sociologist or anything, but there are many, many different causes – and there always have been, throughout history –that have pushed people to move: it may be war, persecution, violence or poverty, but interestingly experts now also say that as African countries are developing, people actually have more means to become mobile. So it may actually be that it’s not just poverty pushing them out; there may also be other reasons. I’m pretty convinced that climate change, too – I mean just look at the images of the extreme conditions – is going to push people to move. So we should stop clinging to this myth of ‘Fortress Europe’ and start managing migration.

  Barbara Spinelli, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, immagino che il Vicepresidente conosca i moniti dell'Alto commissariato dell'ONU e di Medici senza frontiere a proposito degli accordi di Parigi su Libia, Ciad e Niger. Nei moniti si parla di campi di detenzione, dove i migranti subiscono violenze e morte. L'allarme delle ONG concerne anche controllo, da parte del Ciad e del Niger, delle rotte di fuga a sud della Libia. Saranno loro, assistiti da europei, a controllare le oasi dove le carovane si fermano per dissetarsi. Le nuove rotte saranno minate o prive di pozzi d'acqua.

La verità è che l'Africa diverrà una nostra prigione, dalle inaudite proporzioni, che cofinanziamo. E la cosa più impressionante è che l'Unione è al corrente di questo: non ignora che l'80% degli sfollati già è in Africa, che in Europa arriva una parte minima, che la Libia non ha firmato la convenzione di Ginevra.

Ciò nonostante, l'Unione si rallegra della diminuzione dei flussi, degli smuggler beffati. Questo rallegrarsi è il capitolo più nero della sua storia presente. Definire inaccettabili i centri di detenzione è insensato, visto che l'Unione li ha accettati! La cosa sicura è che non potrà dire, quando sarà chiamata a render conto – perché prima o poi lo sarà – "non sapevamo".

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. –Er komen de laatste weken minder bootjes aan in Italië. Minder mensen die kunnen verdrinken, is natuurlijk goed nieuws. Maar hoe komt het eigenlijk dat er minder bootjes vertrekken vanuit Libië en weten we wat er gebeurt met die mensen die niet vertrekken, waar die mensen nu zijn? Wij kunnen mensen in Libië niet beschermen. U bent niet in Libië en eigenlijk zijn de internationale organisaties zoals de IOM en de UNHCR ook niet in Libië. Er zijn geen internationale kampen in Libië onder bescherming. Die zijn er niet. Er is geen opvang van internationale organisaties. We weten dus niet precies wat er gebeurt, maar we horen wel over mishandeling, over verkrachting, over slavenhandel en zelfs over moord in detentiecentra. Kunt u, mevrouw Mogherini, garanderen dat u volgend jaar hier niet weer voor ons staat om te vertellen dat er iets verschrikkelijks is gebeurd met die mensen in Libië die wij niet laten gaan of die wij laten terugkeren? Er stappen dus minder mensen op bootjes, maar vertrekken er ook minder mensen uit bijvoorbeeld een dorp ergens in West-Gambia? Blijven er eigenlijk meer jonge vrouwen en mannen in bijvoorbeeld het dorp Dankunku? Dit ligt in Gambia en daar zijn we geweest met de Commissie mensenrechten, een dorp waar geen werk is. Vertrekken daar nu eigenlijk minder jonge mensen? Waar blijven uw voorstellen om dat voor elkaar te krijgen, de échte armoedebestrijding? Want dat is toch wat we zouden willen: dat jongens en meisjes niet weg hoeven uit Dankunku of al die andere dorpen in Afrika, waar mensen dromen van een beter bestaan.

  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ho ascoltato l'intervento della Vicepresidente Mogherini. Concordo su una cosa: ci ha parlato di contraddizioni interne nell'Unione europea. E, io aggiungo, anche una grande ipocrisia interna all'Unione europea.

Abbiamo parlato delle questioni umanitarie, abbiamo parlato delle violenze, delle torture, abbiamo parlato di persone che sono estremamente vulnerabili e hanno bisogno di protezione. Però notiamo una forte contraddizione interna nell'Unione europea tra un modello ideale, di un'Unione fatta di solidarietà, di cooperazione, di tutela dei diritti fondamentali, e un modello reale, che è sotto gli occhi di tutti, dell'Unione europea: un modello cinico, un modello spietato, un modello che è pronto a continuare a seguire il filone già intrapreso con gli accordi con la Turchia e, dunque, dare soldi, costi quel che costi, purché cessino gli arrivi di migranti in Europa.

Allora, se dobbiamo guardare i fatti – colgo il suo invito – guardiamo ai fatti: vediamo che l'Unione europea ha stanziato 46 milioni di EUR per la Libia. Abbiamo però un'inchiesta di un'agenzia giornalistica, la Associated Press, che è stata ripresa dalle principali testate giornalistiche di tutta Europa e di tutto il mondo, che ci parla di un accordo tra il governo di Tripoli e i miliziani. Un accordo che pare sia stato addirittura sostenuto dal governo italiano: pare fossero presenti dei funzionari italiani.

Allora, questo per noi inaccettabile. Io le chiedo, Vicepresidente Mogherini, come Vicepresidente della Commissione e come italiana, di appurare se quanto emerso da questa inchiesta sia vero. Perché sarebbe del tutto inaccettabile che un'Unione europea che si fa paladina dei diritti fondamentali stanzi 46 milioni di EUR per pagare fondamentalmente dei miliziani, per pagare fondamentalmente dei trafficanti, che prima erano pagati dai richiedenti asilo disperati, pronti a fare di tutto pur di fuggire da situazioni di guerra e di persecuzioni; oggi invece abbiamo dei trafficanti che probabilmente sono pagati con fondi dell'Unione europea per bloccare quegli stessi sbarchi.

Allora dobbiamo fare luce su quanto sta accadendo, perché altrimenti è inutile continuare a parlare di compassione, di solidarietà, di cooperazione. Dobbiamo guardare in faccia ai fatti: questa non è l'Unione europea che bada alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Noi vogliamo un'Unione europea dove ci sia una reale cooperazione, dove ci sia un reale controllo su dove finiscono questi fondi che vengono stanziati. Dobbiamo fare in modo di capire se questi soldi vanno in mano ai trafficanti.

Abbiamo la recente sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, che ha rigettato i ricorsi dell'Ungheria per il mancato ricollocamento dei migranti. Ecco, allora vogliamo un'Unione europea in cui le regole e i principi, i valori contenuti nei trattati, vengano rispettati. Vogliamo solidarietà, vogliamo cooperazione, vogliamo rispetto dei diritti fondamentali, vogliamo che la gestione dei flussi migratori non venga affidata ai trafficanti ma vi siano delle vie legali e sicure di accesso per chi ha diritto alla protezione internazionale.

  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'accusa di ipocrisia è parziale, perché ce n'è un'altra: è quella di doppiezza, perché lei in quest'Aula ha ringraziato le ONG, ma si è dimenticata di dire anche solo una parola sulle ombre che si addensano sull'operato di alcune di esse e, soprattutto, nel rivendicare per l'Unione europea il blocco degli sbarchi, non ha speso neppure una parola per difendere il ministro Minniti, di cui io in Italia sono oppositore, ma che è stato un galantuomo per la sua onestà, dichiarando pubblicamente in qualità di ministro di aver deciso un'azione dura per bloccare gli sbarchi, perché era minacciata la tenuta democratica dell'Italia! Perché gli italiani non ne potevano più degli sbarchi!

Di queste cose bisogna parlare: anche quando si ricordano le condizioni dei migranti in Libia, bisogna ricordare in quali condizioni questa Unione europea fa tenere, da quel galantuomo di Erdogan, i migranti che sono stati bloccati sulla via dei Balcani! Siete una banda di ipocriti!

  Udo Voigt (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Mogherini, ich schätze viele Ihrer diplomatischen Aktivitäten, gerade im Nahen Osten. Aber heute muss ich Sie fragen: Wen vertreten Sie? Vertreten Sie die Völker Afrikas oder vertreten Sie die Völker Europas? Sie haben gesagt, hinter all den Zahlen stehen Menschen, die einen Namen haben, die schlimme Erlebnisse haben. Frau Mogherini, hinter den vielen tausend Opfern von Terror und islamistischer Gewalt in Europa stehen auch Menschen, die einen Namen haben, die Verwandte haben, die Freunde haben, die liebe Menschen verloren haben, die mitten aus dem Leben herausgerissen worden sind.

Warum gibt es denn diese Vorfälle nicht in Polen, nicht in Ungarn, nicht in der Slowakei, nicht in Tschechien? Ja, weil die einen Grenzschutz betreiben und solche Leute nicht in ihr Land lassen. Ich schlage vor, dass wir die Sicherung der Außengrenzen Europas den Ungarn und Polen übertragen, damit unsere Bevölkerung künftig wieder sicher ist.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, dopředu vás chci upozornit, že na konci budu mít technickou poznámku k tomu, co jste provedla během řízení této schůze.

V úvodu bych Vám, paní vysoká představitelko, chtěl poděkovat za dnešní projev a rád bych vyzdvihl několik pozitivních věcí, které si zaslouží pozornost. Zaprvé, dobrou zprávou je, že se mnoho aspektů krize postupně zlepšuje, ať už se jedná o efektivní identifikační procedury, zavedení nových bezpečnostních prvků, fungování agentury Frontex nebo také bilaterální dohody s Tureckem a Libyí. Všechny tyto věci postupně zmírňují dopady krize a vidíme, že Evropská unie dělá kroky správným směrem a musí v nich i nadále pokračovat.

Jedná se ale o pomyslnou špičku ledovce celé migrační krize, neboť je zde i mnoho negativních jevů, které musí celá Evropská unie řešit a musí například pomoci řešit především státům nejvíce zasaženým ekonomickou krizí, a to je Itálie. Je to například spolupráce některých neziskových organizací s pašeráky, na kterou upozornily italské úřady. Největším šokem ale je, že na seznamu těchto odhalených neziskových organizací je i řada renomovaných organizací, což dokládá hloubku tohoto problému. Dochází k vykořisťování uprchlíků a migrantů, nejde pouze o finanční profit, který z toho tyto organizace mají. Zmínil jsem to už včera večer a rád to znovu zopakuji, je nutné mobilizovat síly k potírání tohoto byznysu a je nutné, aby Evropská unie pomohla italské vládě přinutit tyto organizace, aby zastavily tento byznys s migranty.

A teď k technické poznámce: můžete mi, paní předsedající, sdělit, podle jakého pravidla není udělena možnost modré karty někomu, kdo má řečnický čas v debatě? A druhá otázka je, proč selektivně mně opakovaně odepíráte modré karty, když chci na někoho reagovat v plénu?

  Die Präsidentin. – Herr Zdechovský! Das ist eine der Möglichkeiten, die wir hier vom Präsidium haben, wenn wir in der Zeit schon sehr fortgeschritten sind, dass wir erklären, dass jene, die entweder dann in derselben Debatte noch reden, oder die, die in der Debatte schon gesprochen haben, nicht mehr das Wort bekommen über eine blaue Karte.

Ich kam nicht zu Beginn der Debatte, ich kam etwas später. Sie haben dann um das Wort ersucht. Nachdem ich mir den Zeitablauf angesehen habe, habe ich beschlossen und sage das jetzt noch einmal, dass niemand, der noch auf der Liste steht, aber auch niemand, der schon gesprochen hat, wie Frau in 't Veld, die jetzt Ihnen nämlich eine blaue Karte stellen wollte, von mir das Wort erteilt bekommt. Ich hoffe, Sie können das akzeptieren.

  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la verdad es que yo creo que sin acción exterior no hay política de migración posible, y en mi Grupo siempre hemos defendido que la gestión de la migración requiere de una perspectiva global, que es la que defiende la alta representante. Yo le quiero agradecer, señora Mogherini, no solo todo el trabajo que hace, sino su compromiso, su dedicación y su responsabilidad con este Parlamento, al que siempre viene a rendir cuentas.

Mis colegas han dicho muchísimas cosas que yo también repetiría, pero es una pena, porque el tiempo aquí es oro. A mí me da la impresión de que lo que está sucediendo es que el corto plazo —que es el que el Consejo practica— está perjudicando la solución a largo plazo. La acción exterior se despliega para ir a la raíz de los problemas, sobre todo. Porque si no vamos a la raíz de los problemas, simplemente no estamos resolviendo la crisis, que no es una crisis, porque es un problema estructural.

Pero como los Estados miembros quieren soluciones inmediatas, como el mensaje que se vende es que hay que intentar que no lleguen los migrantes y los refugiados a nuestras fronteras, todo el trabajo que se hace a largo plazo se ve perjudicado porque la Unión Europea aparece, también, como aquella que no respeta la ley internacional —estamos hablando de los niños, podríamos hablar de las mujeres—, como aquella unidad que, en realidad, está fracturada y que no respeta sus propios compromisos.

Así que, en realidad, una institución está perjudicando el trabajo de las otras dos.

  Bernd Kölmel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte sehr gerne die Worte der Kommissarin aufgreifen, die gesagt hat, wir dürfen die Realitäten nicht aus den Augen verlieren. Zu den Realitäten gehört natürlich insbesondere auch: Zu was sind eigentlich die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union bereit, wenn wir über Hilfe reden? Ich habe das Gefühl, das kommt hier permanent zu kurz. Hier ist doch für jedes Land ein Repräsentant da, es sind viele Repräsentanten da. Da müssen wir aber auch mal den Mut haben festzulegen und zu sagen: Bis zu welchem Grad können wir denn helfen? Denn Realität heißt, wir können nichts ins Blaue hinein planen, was wir dann gar nicht realisieren können.

Gerade dieses Thema erfordert doch auch, dass wir einerseits sehr sensibel vorgehen, aber andererseits auch mit klaren Worten sagen, was eben machbar ist und was nicht. Ich habe überhaupt kein Verständnis dafür, dass wir uns jetzt nur auf den humanitären Aspekt beziehen. Da sind wir uns doch alle einig: Wir wollen selbstverständlich helfen, aber wir können doch nicht unbegrenzt helfen! Deshalb müssen wir auch mal den Rahmen dessen festlegen, was für uns machbar ist.

  Angelika Mlinar (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Hohe Repräsentantin! Ich möchte mit einem Statement beginnen, welches, wenn man es falsch interpretiert, durchaus provokant klingen mag. Ich bin der Meinung: Afrika braucht mehr Kapitalismus. Allerdings nicht im Sinne der oft unterstellten ausbeuterischen Ausprägung des Wortes, sondern im Sinne der Möglichkeiten, Anreize für Einzelne zu bieten, innovativ zu sein, zu investieren und Mehrwert zu schaffen. Solange nämlich Afrikas Bevölkerung deutlich schneller wächst als seine Wirtschaft und die Regierungen ihre eigenen Machtinteressen vor das Wohlergehen der Bevölkerung stellen, werden Menschen immer auswandern und flüchten, und jeder Einzelne von uns würde das auch tun. Deshalb muss Entwicklungshilfe immer Hand in Hand gehen mit dem Aufbau nachhaltiger politischer und wirtschaftlicher Strukturen.

Ich glaube daher, dass wir uns auf konkrete Projekte auf lokaler Ebene konzentrieren müssen. Die Nicosia-Initiative des Ausschusses der Regionen ist hier ein gutes Beispiel. Sie ist leider unterfinanziert und zu wenig bekannt. Wenn wir aber 1 000 europäische Städte finden, die mit 1 000 Städten in Afrika eine Partnerschaft eingehen und dort vom Bau und Betrieb eines Krankenhauses bis zur Müllentsorgung oder der Landwirtschaft kooperieren, werden wir spürbare Verbesserungen für den einzelnen Menschen erzielen. Parallel dazu sollten wir eine Art europäisches Fulbright-System schaffen. Afrikanische Studentinnen und Studenten sollen für ein oder zwei Jahre in die Europäische Union kommen und dann wieder in ihr Heimatland zurückkehren. Das bei uns gesammelte Know-how kann vor Ort wesentlich mehr erreichen als die übliche Hilfe, die in fehlenden Strukturen verschwindet.

  Malin Björk (GUE/NGL). – Fru talman! Kritiken mot den förda politiken och externaliseringen av EU:s gränser är faktiskt bred. Den kommer från NGO:s, från Läkare utan gränser, från Amnesty, från Human Rights Watch, från FN:s Commissioner for Human Rights, från UN Commissioner for the Rights of Migrants, från Unicef. Ändå tycker inte jag att ni, Federica Mogherini, svarar på den kritiken. Ni låtsas om som den knappt fanns.

EU i dag förknippas med utvisningar till krig och konflikt, till dirty deals med Erdoğan och nu med Libyen, till en kontinent som tvingar människor att stanna kvar i helt omänskliga förhållanden i Libyen. Man till och med anklagar dem som räddar liv i Medelhavet för att samarbeta med smugglare och stoppar deras verksamhet. Hur lågt ska vi sjunka?

Kritiken mot denna politik växer. I Sverige har vi nu en folkrörelse som kräver att man stoppar ”Fort Europa” och att man stoppar utvisningarna exempelvis till Afghanistan. Befolkningen – om man arbetar tillsammans – vill inte se ett ”Fort Europa”. De vill se ett EU som skapar säkra och lagliga vägar – vilket du också nämnde – och som tar ett gemensamt ansvar för att ge skydd till människor.

  Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Zielsetzung europäischer Flüchtlingspolitik ist klar: Mit der Verlagerung der europäischen Außengrenzen weit in den afrikanischen Kontinent hinein sollen möglichst viele Flüchtlinge daran gehindert werden, bis an die EU-Außengrenzen zu kommen.

Die Idee, europäische Asylverfahren in afrikanischen Ländern einzuführen, ist nicht neu. Bereits 2004 hat ein deutscher Innenminister sich dafür stark gemacht. Damals schlug der Widerspruch zwischen Abschottungsinteresse und menschenrechtlichem Anspruch zugunsten der Menschenrechte von Flüchtlingen aus. Heute wird die Auslagerung des europäischen Asylverfahrens nach Afrika schlichtweg angekündigt. Brüche internationalen Rechts und Verstöße gegen internationale Konventionen werden immer selbstverständlicher, angefangen bei der EU-Türkei-Vereinbarung bis zu Zurückschiebungen in Kriegsgebiete.

Rechtsbrüche, Wortbrüche und die gebetsmühlenartige Wiederholung falscher Behauptungen und politischer Fehler prägen die europäische Flüchtlingspolitik und die vieler Mitgliedstaaten. Statt Migration geregelt zu ermöglichen, macht man sich abhängig von Diktatoren, fördert die Militarisierung von instabilen Regionen wie aktuell im Sahel-Gürtel und begünstigt mafiöse Milizen. Diese Politik schadet nicht nur den unmittelbar Betroffenen, sie greift das Fundament der EU selbst an, nämlich die Rechtsstaatlichkeit als politische Grundlage und die Menschenrechtsbindung als ethische Grundlage, und wird deshalb Europa negativ verändern.

  Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Fru talman! Europeiska unionen och dess förespråkare har bestämt sig för att de vet bättre och har högre kompetens än medlemsstaterna själva. Bryssel ska numera centralstyra bland annat hur många migranter ett land klarar av.

Nu har man tvingat Visegrádländerna att bli mångkulturella eller i varje fall ta emot tusentals migranter. Vill de det? Nej! Har de röstat för det? Nej, det har de inte.

Den styrande eliten samt de olika ledarna i Europas länder hittar ständigt på nya lösningar. I september 2015 var det tvingande kvoter. I maj 2016 var det en permanent omfördelningsmekanism. Fördelningsnycklar pratade ni mycket om förra året. Nu är det hotspots som gäller.

Macron och Merkel har redan gått förbi EU och vill sluta avtal om detta själva, men vad händer om de sätter upp ett system med hotspots samtidigt som vi har en fördelningsmekanism? Ska Sverige bli tvingat att ta emot migranter genom denna mekanism också?

Ständigt framläggs nya idéer kring hur man ska tvinga på Europas folk denna migration, och det visar att man inte försöker lösa roten till problemet utan endast gör en massmigration till Europa till ett permanent till