IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 10.05 a.m.)

  President. – The next item is the report (Α6-0131/2008) by Mr Lehideux, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Training Foundation (recast) (COM(2007)0443 – C6-0243/2007 – 2007/0163(COD)).

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I want to salute Parliament’s work on the proposal to recast the regulation establishing the European Training Foundation and, in particular, thank the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and its rapporteur, Mr Lehideux.

As you know, the European Training Foundation was created in 1990 to support implementation of the PHARE external assistance programme in the field of vocational training. Currently its scope covers the countries of the previous TACIS, CARDS and MEDA programmes. The European Union’s policies in the education & training and external relations fields have developed and the ETF regulation therefore needs to be updated to take account of those developments. The result is the Commission proposal on which you have been working.

Our proposal does not provide for any new ETF activities. Rather, its aim is to define its tasks more clearly on the basis of a broader thematic remit that includes the concept of human resources development, particularly education and training with a view to lifelong learning.

The proposal also expands the Foundation’s geographical scope in line with the EU’s new external relations instruments. In that new context, the ETF’s tasks therefore need to be adjusted, while remaining guided by the clearly established priorities.

I am grateful to the European Parliament for addressing the Commission proposal in a positive manner. Thanks to good cooperation between the three institutions, we have managed to find solutions that satisfy all three of them, including on such sensitive issues as the composition of the Governing Board and the way in which the European Parliament can contribute its specific expertise. The Commission therefore accepts without hesitation the consolidated text resulting from last week’s constructive trilogue.

Let me conclude, on behalf of my colleague Jan Figel, by stressing how important it is for our cooperation to be successful, since that will allow the European Training Foundation to benefit from its new legal basis in due time and therefore provide more effective assistance to the beneficiary countries, which is, after all, obviously the purpose of this exercise.

  Bernard Lehideux, rapporteur. − (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I was in Turin I was able to appreciate the excellent work done by the Foundation, which is a vital and highly effective instrument to promote the development of vocational training systems in EU partner countries. The Commission proposal updates the ETF’s tasks and governance to ensure that its activities are founded on a solid legal basis. In my view, the compromise reached with the Council offers progress in two essential directions.

First, the new regulation will enable the Foundation to operate in all the EU’s partner countries, including those outside the framework of the Neighbourhood Policy and the pre-accession programmes. That is a crucial point. For example, the Union takes decisions that have a direct impact on its ACP partners’ economy. I need not remind Commissioner Michel that this happened recently in the case of the reform of the COM in sugar, which forced those countries radically to diversify their industrial activities. The ETF could have made a useful contribution to that development and can do so in future in similar cases.

The second benefit of the compromise, to which I attach special importance, is that it genuinely involves MEPs in reviewing the Foundation’s activities. That question, however, goes beyond the framework of this agency. Parliament has only one opportunity, often very brief, to look at the way the agencies operate, during the budget and budget discharge votes. In my view, it is no longer possible, especially with the forthcoming entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, for Parliament not to be more seriously involved in the matters with which the agencies deal. That is why, in the specific case of this Foundation, Parliament will henceforth nominate three representatives, without the right to vote, true, but three representatives on the Governing Board, provided they are particularly skilled in the Foundation’s areas of activity. Parliament is free to appoint either external figures or MEPs. It will be up to it to take a responsible decision as to the choice of level of representation on the Governing Board. The main point at this stage is that henceforth the choice is available and that the debate on Parliament’s involvement is launched.

Given the growing number of agencies, it is imperative for all the European institutions to take a close look at the means of monitoring their activities. In that context, I am convinced that we must create a real link between Parliament and the agencies. Similarly, the new regulation aims to formalise the hearings of the Director of the Foundation before the parliamentary committees. For several years now, that Director has appeared before Parliament once a year at the invitation of the Committee on Employment, but that invitation was not formalised in the past. Lastly, the Governing Board will appoint the Director for a period of five years, on the basis of a list of at least three candidates submitted by the Commission; before being appointed the candidate selected by the Governing Board will have to make a statement before the European Parliament’s competent committees and answer questions put by members of those committees.

Let us be honest. On the subject of Parliament’s involvement the compromise we have reached is rather less than what I would have hoped. But we have to look things in the face. As the debate stands now, people are not yet ready to go any further. So it is reasonable to support the negotiated package so that the Foundation can function as soon as possible on solid bases.

I therefore ask Members to adopt Compromise Amendment No 11, which is the result of the trilogue Commissioner Michel mentioned a moment ago, to adopt it in its entirety and not give in to the temptation of an amendment that would upset the balance we have achieved.

I thank the Slovenian Presidency and the Commission for the quality of our dialogue on these matters and, of course, I thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their support.

  Gabriele Stauner, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by expressing my thanks for the constructive negotiations with the Council and the Commission, with the greatest debt of gratitude, of course, being owed to our rapporteur, Mr Lehideux.

In committee and in the trialogue we reached a compromise for the Foundation in Turin, which is to be put on an entirely new footing by virtue of the new regulation. Our main objective in refocusing the Turin-based agency is to strengthen relations between the Foundation and the European Parliament and to improve the overall operational efficiency of the Foundation. This Parliament attaches high priority to the promotion of vocational training in Europe, and we believe that we should no longer merely assess the work of the Foundation on an ex post basis, as a kind of auditing body, but that we should have a specific upstream part to play in the process of determining the content and shape of its programmes and that we should be able to contribute our opinions.

For this reason, we attach great importance to two points. The first of these is the composition of the Governing Board, and the second is the procedure for appointing the Director of the Foundation. On the latter point we arrived at a sound solution in committee on the basis of a PPE-DE proposal. As the rapporteur said, under Article 10 of the new regulation, the Director will be appointed from a shortlist of at least three candidates submitted by the Commission. Before being appointed, the candidates are to appear before the competent committee or committees of the European Parliament to make a statement and answer questions.

A more difficult issue, and one which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of my group in the present compromise, concerns the composition of the Governing Board. The arrangement set out in the proposed Article 7, whereby Parliament can appoint three non-voting representatives, is inexpedient. We want the chance to be efficient players in the Board's decision-making processes and not mere embellishments. We therefore consider it essential that Parliament should be able to send three specialised representatives to serve on the Board, and it goes without saying that they must have the same voting rights as all the other Board members.

In order to ensure that the Governing Board operates efficiently, we believe it is essential to limit the number of its members. We do not see any compelling need for every Member State of the EU to send a representative. Instead, we should make do with representatives from two thirds of the Member States, applying the rotation rules prescribed by the Treaty of Lisbon. With three representatives each from the Commission, Parliament and the partner countries, the Member States would still be preponderant. After all, a governing board is not a meeting of shareholders but is supposed to represent the body of shareholders in day-to-day decision-making and to take rapid decisions.

May I therefore appeal once again to the Council – whose representative, unfortunately, is not in attendance – to reconsider its position. For the sake of operational efficiency, I ask the House to support our Amendment 10.

  Ole Christensen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DA) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lehideux, for his cooperation and work on the report on the European Training Foundation in Torino. I have been shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and we have been through some tough negotiations with the Council, but I believe that we have arrived at a good compromise proposal. Although the work of this foundation is aimed at countries that are not members of the EU and have therefore not adopted the Lisbon objectives, it is nonetheless meaningful to talk about the objectives in this context. After all, the Lisbon objectives are in reality just a way of achieving progress and growth, and one does not need to be a member of the EU to wish for that.

Education is one of the factors underpinning growth and development within the EU. Investing in better education can help to ensure that we in the EU achieve the Lisbon objectives and together make Europe a better place in which to live. Another important tool for achieving the Lisbon objectives is flexicurity in the labour market, and education and flexicurity are very closely linked. Through education a better and more competitive workforce is created, which in turn enables stronger growth to be achieved.

It is important that we consider the future of the EU from a long-term aspect. Therefore, the European Training Foundation is an extremely important agency. The EU must not be a closed club. It is important that we help potential new Member States as much as we can. We must of course require new Member States to meet certain requirements and standards, but we must also help them to do this. I believe that the new structure that we have introduced for the Foundation in Torino is a major advantage for future challenges and I believe that the Foundation can help potential new Member States to join the EU.

I am also very pleased that the Foundation’s new structure reinforces the link between the European Parliament and the Foundation. We are gaining the opportunity to appoint three experts to the board. This shows that the Council has begun to accept that the European Parliament must also have more influence in this area.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Lehideux for his report. I fully share his opinion concerning the extended geographical mandate of the European Training Foundation (ETF).

That agency, which works as an instrument of EU external policy, has the potential to respond fully to challenges addressed by territories like Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The rich experience that the ETF has acquired over the years could now be channelled towards areas that desperately need vocational training in order to improve access to learning and social inclusion.

Most of the countries in the ACP area are currently facing remarkable economic reforms, and in order to be successful need human resources. The ETF should have the mandate and the resources to respond to such demands. I would go even further and say that when enlarging the mandate of the ETF, we should plan to have temporary liaison offices in areas where the activities of the agencies are concentrated. Such offices would allow the ETF to better organise its activities and would give more visibility to its actions in third countries. I fully agree with the proposal of the rapporteur that more transparency is needed, and I fully share his suggestion to add MEPs to the governing board of the agency.

To conclude, I consider that when it comes to human resources, the European Union should take a broader approach. We want to set up the ‘blue card’ procedure that allows skilled workers from abroad to work legally in Europe, with the EU probably contributing to the training of those skilled workers. However, as I have already said, skilled workers are also badly needed in their own countries if there is to be a genuine development of those regions. The role of the European Training Foundation will therefore be essential.

  Sepp Kusstatscher, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by commending the European Training Foundation in Turin for the valuable work it has been performing since 1994.

The work of the agencies and foundations is often regarded as nothing more than a cost factor. I firmly believe that what our Foundation in Turin is doing constitutes very useful neighbourhood aid, whether it be in the Balkans, in Eastern Europe or in North Africa. The practical assistance that the ETF gives our partner countries in the development and creation of high-quality training systems can scarcely be prized highly enough. May I therefore express my thanks and appreciation to its senior management.

I must address some frank words of criticism to the Council, whose negotiating tactics, following the achievement of consensus in the first round, involved topping up the Council representation to 27 and then initially failing to understand why we in Parliament also wished to be represented on the Board and then, finally, agreeing to three specialised representatives, but as non-voting members. The Council's attitude was simply incomprehensible.

I can only repeat that the uptight, defensive attitude of the Council Presidency is beyond me. It is further proof of the difficulties encountered by the governments of our Member States when it comes to gauging the importance they should attach to the European Parliament, the only democratically elected institution of the Union.

My thanks go the rapporteur.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, once again the Commission is getting ahead of legislation. The EU has no competence over education, at least not until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, and that depends on the Irish referendum. Is the result of that a foregone conclusion, or will a ‘no’ vote there be just swept aside like the French and Dutch referendums?

In any case, what kind of structure will this training foundation have? I see that our proposal is for it to be run variously by six representatives from Member States, plus six from the Commission and only three from Parliament, or that plus representatives from partner countries appointed by the Commission. In the latter case, responsibility will partly be in the hands of countries which are not Member States, giving the unelected Commission a major say. Hardly democratic.

Amendment 7 suggests that the Commission would submit candidates for the directorship of the ETF, and this causes concern in many quarters. It has resulted in further suggestions as to the make-up of the ETF board, right up to an unworkable one representative for each Member State.

To have so many counter-suggestions for the composition of the board of the ETF is not exactly the best of starts, but that begs the question: Why does anyone think we need such a foundation? I would argue that a training foundation is not only unnecessary, it will be counterproductive. If you care to look round the countries of Europe as opposed to the EU, you will find training programmes of all sorts scattered around. There are different standards but, between them, they develop many skills, which is why Europe has such a rich heritage. You see, each country has always produced its artists, composers, authors and so on. Even the small countries come up with, for example, composers of world renown. Each country produces its leaders and experts, its technicians, bankers, sportsmen and women and all the rest of the range of skills that are enhanced by training.

So there is a multiplicity of skills, with each country contributing in its own way. If we try to put all that together in a European Training Foundation it would drain the life out of the training schemes in many countries. A single ETF will not have the intrinsic qualities of national flavour. We need variety, not a harmonised one-track theme.

In short, we will lose more than we gain with such a scheme. Please forget it and let the countries of Europe make their contributions to the whole. That might even generate enthusiasm for the EU project, for that is sadly lacking, judging by the ‘no’ votes of two founding states and the continuous efforts being made to sell the EU to its peoples.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Thank you, Madam President. Let me begin by thanking Bernard Lehideux for his excellent work, for excellent contacts with the President and coordinators during the process and for enabling us to achieve a settlement on first reading. I also want to thank the representatives of the European Training Foundation for their input, an important contribution providing many further links. Education, vocational training and lifelong learning are increasingly important. They are important in the EU, but also in the partnership countries. There is a need for cooperation between Cedefop and the European Training Foundation.

This proposal for a new Regulation contains some elements which make for improvements. To begin with, the remit is broadened to include lifelong learning instead of focusing solely on vocational training. This is a concept which we increasingly draw upon and which is important in our policy. Secondly, the number of countries is increasing, as Mr Lehideux said. They include all the partnership countries, not just those included in the neighbourhood and pre-accession programmes, but all partnership countries. Thirdly, relations with Parliament are strengthened. We have enjoyed good cooperation which can now be developed through the new Regulation. I think that we have arrived at a good settlement, both as regards the way we appoint the Director of the Foundation but also as regards the fact that we can appoint three experts without voting rights on the Governing Board. We did not get all we wanted, but it is still a good compromise which bodes well for the future. It is a good basic position. We can develop lifelong learning as a cooperative process between Parliament and the foundations working on these matters. That is important.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, first I want to say thank you and to welcome the various statements made here, all of which are in support of Mr Lehideux’s report. Obviously I also support it because I believe it really is a big step forward. I can already see and envisage new prospects that – whatever some may say – are opening here and I am therefore delighted that we will no doubt achieve a broad consensus on this proposal. Let me reply to two objections that were put forward.

First, Amendment 10 to Article 7: I would just remind Mrs Stauner that there is a risk of conflict of interest, since Parliament is the authority that gives the budget discharge. Legally, at least, there would clearly be a conflict of interests.

Secondly, I think it is sensible to separate the powers. I was a parliamentarian for many years and I never claimed any responsibilities beyond those due to parliamentarians. The fundamental role of a parliamentarian is not to govern, I am sorry to say. The fundamental role of a parliamentarian is to scrutinise and to make laws, and of course to monitor governments or executives. I do not, therefore, understand that shift in emphasis that some people seem to find normal. I am speaking for myself, but we are holding a parliamentary debate and I believe for Parliament to confuse its monitoring task with a governing task, which is incompatible with its role, would detract from its fundamental task. That is how a parliament can be destroyed. For a parliament to want to become a kind of governing assembly would not be compatible with the high principle of democracy. I am saying that because I do believe the separation of powers is important.

I am convinced that the compromise reached is the most effective one, primarily because it ensures Parliament’s independence in carrying out its monitoring function.

I admit I am often taken aback by some of the views expressed, but then that is what we are here for. I believe it was Mr Clark who said the Commission was exceeding its competences and that the European Training Foundation could be counterproductive. That is quite contrary to reality, experience and totally independent evaluations of the remarkable work done by the Foundation.

As Commissioner responsible for development, I can already foresee – thanks to the main amendment, which will no doubt be adopted – the prospects of effectiveness, the positive prospects that will be offered, especially, as some speakers suggested, in countries within my remit where vocational training is a crucial factor. I am thinking, for example, of the centre for migration management and information in Mali, a pilot project we will soon be starting up. I can imagine what a useful role the Foundation could play there.

So I can only welcome the outcome, and I totally reject the criticism that it is counterproductive. Clearly, people cannot change their nature: those who do not like Europe say exaggerated things and that – let me say with all due respect to the Member concerned – is exaggerated; it is therefore totally meaningless.

  Bernard Lehideux, rapporteur. − (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I believe all or nearly all of us take the same view on the substance of the matter and I thank the Commissioner for what he has just said about the future prospects of the Foundation.

One point obviously remains to be settled and I want to make an observation about it: it is the EPP’s Amendment 10. Dialogue between the European institutions is absolutely vital. That dialogue took place. My colleague Mr Kusstatscher says that the Council's attitude during that dialogue was not exactly what we might have expected. He is right, but in the end we had the trilogue, we had several meetings, and at the end of those meetings we signalled our agreement. I do not believe dialogue between our institutions is possible if, after giving our agreement, we take it back a few days later by tabling an amendment. So, we debated, we were not entirely in agreement about everything, everyone took a step towards rapprochement with others and we ended up by achieving a compromise text.

I am asking the groups, all the groups, to accept the idea that we show solidarity in the decision we have taken, in the agreement we gave to the Council and the Commission at the end of the trilogue and I ask them to reflect that solidarity in their votes. When one asks for change one must also know how far one can go. I said a while ago that I would have preferred to go a bit further, but that I did not believe everybody was ready for that yet in their minds. As rapporteur for this document, having obtained a great deal and been supported in my work by my colleagues, I would ask them to continue to show solidarity regarding our compromise agreement until it is time to vote.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

  President. – The next item is the report (Α6-0171/2008) by Mr Van Hecke, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the follow-up to the Paris Declaration of 2005 on Aid Effectiveness (2008/2048(ΙΝΙ)).

  Johan Van Hecke, rapporteur. − (NL) Three years ago, over a hundred donors and partner countries entered into a commitment in Paris to make aid to developing countries more effective, amongst other things to aim for more harmonisation, democratic control, mutual accountability and greater transparency.

Unlike the earlier Monterrey Declarations, the Paris Declaration established clear objectives, translated into twelve actions and indicators, in fact a major step forward. In December this year in Accra, an initial assessment is to be made of what has become of all those fine promises.

It must be said that in recent years the European Commission has made great efforts to implement the new aid agenda. It can be proud of what it has achieved in terms of division of labour, better coordination and respect for the local contribution. In 2006, at the instigation of Commissioner Michel, it even went a little further than the undertakings in Paris and approved an ambitious plan of action and the concept of division of labour and results-based management. However, there is still work to be done. Many intentions still have to be put into practice.

For instance, aid is still not sufficiently geared to national systems and too many different payment systems are still involved. As regards the uncoupling of aid, we are hardly getting anywhere. Technical cooperation is still too donor-controlled. The Donor Atlas urgently needs to be updated and extended, and then mainly focused on the most neglected countries and sectors.

Apart from that, approval of the code of conduct for the division of labour is problematic. Firstly because the Member States do not fulfil their promises. The Member States are lagging behind, both in scope and efficiency. For the first time since 2000, the percentage spent on official aid has fallen, from 0.41% in 2006 to 0.38% in 2007. There needs to be a radical change of course in order to achieve the Millennium Goals. If the Council wants to retain its credibility, it has to confirm its promises as a matter of urgency. The Member States must commit themselves to a time path for the quantity and also the quality of the help. Quantity and quality are actually inextricably linked.

The great challenge of qualitative reform is and remains reinforcing own contributions and mutual accountability. However, that requires a regular dialogue with the social midfield, local governments and above all with parliaments. Greater transparency is absolutely vital. More budgetary support requires efficient parliamentary scrutiny of all funds promised and paid. That is why this report argues in favour of adding a thirteenth indicator to the Paris Agenda. If the role of European and African parliaments in ensuring greater efficiency is so important, why not translate that into an extra indicator?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the biggest donor the Union must assume its responsibilities in Accra. It must, first and foremost, set its own house in order. Only then can it credibly take the lead in Accra and put forward an ambitious plan. The Union has not only the expertise but also the ability to become the most efficient donor. What is needed now is for promises to be turned into action on the ground. That is the essence of this report, for which I venture to ask for your support.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Van Hecke, and the Committee on Development for this excellent report. I am also delighted to find that we have exactly the same approach and are fighting to achieve the same results.

I believe the next six months will be vitally important in terms of testing the European Union’s real resolve to make concrete progress on the three main pillars of development policy: firstly, achieving the Millennium Goals; secondly, increasing aid volumes; thirdly, improving aid effectiveness. The Accra meeting in September will test the credibility of the entire process and all the players involved. Either the process will really take off, or it will be bogged down forever.

Today’s debate is, therefore, very important in that it can pass on a strong message to the General Affairs and External Relations Council next week. That Council will discuss the Commission’s proposals in relation to the objectives. I hope that in its turn that Council will send out a message that is just as ambitious as the one contained in Mr Van Hecke’s report. By acting together, we Europeans made a difference in Paris in 2005. We must be equally ambitious today and ensure that in Accra we move on from rhetoric to action on all our commitments.

I have heard too many voices in our Member States that want to turn Accra and this debate into a technical debate about feasibility, effectiveness, and so forth. It is not a technical debate. Accra is not a technical meeting. It is a political meeting, at which we will find out whether the Member States have the political will to meet their commitments.

The battle is far from won. The Commission cannot act alone. That is why I am calling on you to mobilise all your resources and contacts to ensure that this summit proves a real success. The burden of proof now lies in the camp of the Member States and of non-European backers. An alliance between Parliament and the Commission is, therefore, vital.

I will not repeat what is written in the report. I agree almost 100% with it. We need concrete progress in important areas, of which I will cite just a few. The first is aid predictability. I am most grateful for Parliament’s support for MDG contracting. That is one of the proposals I will be putting on the table in Accra. Of course the partner countries will have to play their part in this contract and, obviously, we will have to set up monitoring mechanisms.

Secondly, there is the question of making greater use of partner countries’ procedures. That is why I have said that in countries where that is possible budgetary aid should be the main instrument for channelling aid. It is interesting to note – and I believe it is important for you to remember the figures I am going to quote – that to date Tanzania has had to produce some 2 400 reports for the various donors and, listen carefully, more than 8 000 audit reports for the multilateral development banks. You must admit that is flabbergasting and poses a real problem.

The report rightly emphasises the need for increased transparency and responsibility in development aid, although obviously that is impossible with such a jungle of reports. It can be done only if we strengthen parliamentary oversight in relation to development financing and its inclusion in the national budget, as the rapporteur said. We must encourage ‘democratic ownership’ and we will support partner countries in their endeavours to strengthen that ownership and oversight. Obviously, parliaments and civil society play a key role here.

My third point concerns the division of labour. The code of conduct must become reality. Another example: in Mali, 26 donors are involved in rural development, while in Burkina, five donors are involved in half of all the country’s sectors and half of all donors are involved in one third of all the sectors. So that is where the margins for improvement lie in the various countries, in terms of effectiveness, and I would really like to have Parliament’s support in trying to convince the Member States of the need for a better division of labour. That would bring a quite colossal improvement in aid effectiveness.

My fourth point concerns situations of fragility. An example is that in 2006, 65% of the aid granted to Ivory Coast, Liberia and the Central African Republic came from only three bilateral donors. There again we have already proposed pilot countries involving the largest number of Member States. In procedural terms, I have called for the Commission to be as flexible as it can under current rules so as to improve our ability to react. Having said that, we must not forget that the aid effectiveness issue is not the exclusive preserve of the donors; on the contrary, it must also be the cornerstone of the partner countries’ action and be central to our dialogue with them. Only the partner countries are in a position to force us to provide more effective aid by actively defining not only their development objectives but also the means of achieving them. That is the only way our dialogue can progress on a basis of partnership founded on equal rights and obligations.

I want to make a last point before concluding. Parliament is asking the Commission to give the delegations adequate room for action. You are quite right! We are trying to do so by means of our decentralisation process. We ask a lot of our delegations. As you know, resources are limited and, in the end, the capacity to use our delegations also depends on the budgetary authority.

Once again, I would ask you to help us convince our Member States – something Mr Van Hecke also brought up – that they have a moral duty, an imperative obligation, to respect the commitments they made in 2005 regarding the amount of aid they allocate. You know that 2007 is a year to be forgotten as quickly as possible because certain countries did not honour their commitments, which eclipsed the good behaviour of others who, for their part, showed they were able to do so.

That is why we will propose, firstly, that they reiterate their 2005 commitment and, secondly, present an agenda, a road map, a phased plan showing how they will achieve the objectives to which they subscribed. As I said at the beginning, we have not won the day yet, because according to my information preliminary meetings indicate that some Member States might even be prepared to refuse to reiterate their 2005 undertakings, which is of course unacceptable, while others would clearly not be prepared to plan in phases either. I therefore need your strength of conviction and, if I may call it that, your capacity for cheek, to make everyone face up to their responsibilities.

  Anna Záborská, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) The report on aid effectiveness is important for three reasons. Firstly, it deals with the European Commission’s responsibility to manage properly the funds of the EU’s citizens. Secondly, it draws our attention to the need for better structuring of development programmes. Finally, it calls for the political courage to monitor the budget and fight against its misuse.

I congratulate my fellow Member Mr Van Hecke on the report, which underlines the Union’s dual responsibility: both external and internal. If we want to be a credible player in our external relations, we have to provide the developing countries with as much finance as we have promised, and to distribute it as we said we would. We all know how difficult it is to judge whether or not financial aid has been used in an effective manner. Often the political and cultural circumstances in developing countries force the donors to adopt a creative and flexible budgetary approach. In spite of that, creativity and flexibility must not interfere with the need for transparency and honesty.

We will be honest if we admit that European public funds often do not bear the expected fruit, and if we stop their potential misuse. In order to be able to prove that development aid has been effective, we should obtain the recipient’s signature confirming that the project has really been operational in the long run. I must say that the most important responsibility of the European Commission and of the European Parliament is the internal responsibility to be honest to the citizens of Europe. The European Union finances development assistance from our taxes, and we know very little about its effectiveness. I congratulate my fellow Member Mr Bösch who recently criticised the way in which the European Union distributes development aid provided by the taxpayers’ money. Aid effectiveness is not only a necessary budgetary exercise; it is also a test of the political courage to point out that the taxpayers’ money must be used in an effective manner.

  Pierre Schapira, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the past few weeks our debates about aid effectiveness have been marked by the dramatic news of the world food crisis. That crisis is a brutal reminder that if we cannot ensure the most elementary right, the right to life and to enough food, our efforts in the area of development aid will be in vain.

In his report, Mr Van Hecke, whose work I applaud, points out that a long-term strategy is the only way to give real support to the development of our partner countries. In regard to food as to public health and education, we need lasting solutions if we are to respond to the deep-rooted causes of the current crisis.

The many amendments tabled by the PSE give support to the rapporteur’s position and strengthen it in some respects. We pointed out that our priority objective must be to achieve the Millennium Goals, the first of which is to eradicate poverty and hunger. To that end, and to render the aid more effective, it must be more locally owned, as close to home as possible and to the needs of the local population. That is why I pointed to the need for greater consultation with national parliaments, civil society and local authorities in regard to formulating, implementing and evaluating development policies.

Similarly, it is essential that we effectively combat corruption and make the aid more transparent. In concrete terms, we are asking the Commission to produce a matrix of all the funds allocated to local governance in order to check the coherence of the policies and the sound management of those funds.

Finally, because a debate on improving aid effectiveness cannot be dissociated from the question of the amount of the aid, let me again – as was done a moment ago – point to and condemn the unjustifiable reduction in public development aid between 2006 and 2007, when it fell from 0.41% to 0.38% in Europe.

The Accra summit will indeed be political, as the Commissioner said. It will offer the donor countries a unique opportunity to reiterate their commitment. It is up to us to be at that meeting and not to disappoint our partners.

  Toomas Savi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague, Johan Van Hecke, for an excellent report. I endorse fully paragraph 1 of the report. However, the Member States and the Commission can only make their actions more harmonised, transparent, predictable and collectively effective if they pool resources under a single institution responsible for development aid. That is my first point.

Aid effectiveness is in our own hands, as quite often we spend far too much on the administration in charge of responsible use of development aid in target countries. We should save, for example, on staff training, administration and expenses so that more development aid actually reaches the recipients.

At the moment there is no proper coordination between the Member States concerning the allocation of their funds. According to the principle of subsidiarity the executive power ought to reside at the lowest feasible level unless designation of power to a higher level presents considerable advantages.

There is no universal solution to the problem of low aid effectiveness but one step should be serious and swift changes to the administration framework through further centralisation, as we are continuously losing time and human lives.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Michel, and also Mr Van Hecke for a good report. It is excellent that agreement has been reached regarding the content, and that EU aid will be both increased and improved. Aid must be aid. We must not dilute it by using it for other purposes, such as debt cancellation, where money is simply moved from one post to another in the donor countries. This money must be used for those who need it, and we must be able to see that it is being used for that purpose. It is, of course, the only way to get Europeans to increase the growth in aid – they must be able to see that it is effective, as Jeffrey Sachs said so clearly recently. It is therefore important that Amendment 1 is adopted.

Aid must also continue to increase up to 2015, as we have promised on an incredible number of occasions. It is petty-minded and embarrassing that the EU aid decreased between 2006 and 2007. Without more money, aid cannot possibly be effective enough. We will not achieve the goals unless we live up to our many promises.

It would also be nice if the European Parliament could grasp the EU’s agricultural policy. There are many analyses from the World Bank, the IMF, the UN and others that document the fact that the common agricultural policy is undermining the opportunities open to developing countries to grow, and here I am not talking about export subsidies, which are grotesque enough but only account for a small fraction of the destruction being caused by this policy. As the situation now stands, we are giving with one hand and taking away with the other – sometimes taking away a little more than we have given. We cannot then wait for the United States to withdraw its agricultural support. US agricultural support is worse than ours, and the EU should lead by example.

  Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Madam President, first of all, I too would like to thank Mr Van Hecke and the Commissioner for this report.

Sub-Saharan Africa receives more international aid than any other region in the world yet poverty levels remain stubbornly high. Studies have shown that aid can and has been successful in reducing poverty in countries with sound economic management and government institutions. If allocated properly, aid has the potential to help millions of people escape a hand-to-mouth existence.

However, the reality is that corruption does exist in many developing countries and, while we must continue to promote good governance in these countries, we have a more pressing responsibility to help the many millions of people dying of starvation and disease in the world.

We must deliver on the commitments we have made to the Millennium Development Goals. How can we turn a blind eye to the three billion people living on the equivalent of three dollars a day or the five million children in Africa who died last year before they reached the age of five?

And yes, we do have a responsibility to the European taxpayers to ensure that their money reaches the most needy and is spent effectively. In this regard I believe that Europe should look at more targeted programmes, such as the Global Fund, which combats AIDS, TB and malaria, the world’s most devastating diseases, which kill over six million people per year. The Global Fund has been a highly effective organisation with minimum bureaucracy and maximum impact. It represents an innovative approach to international health financing.

Global poverty is predominantly a rural problem. Three quarters of the extremely poor people in developing countries live in rural areas. If we are to weather the storm of climate change and increasing food prices, we must improve agricultural production by targeting agriculture-specific programmes as they can have a powerful impact on poverty reduction. The presentation that Professor Jeffrey Sachs made to the committee recently was a great example of how that money can be targeted.

According to the World Development Report last year, GDP growth generated by agriculture is four times more effective in reducing poverty than growth in other sectors. Instead of shipping food aid to Third World countries, Europe needs to lead the way to help African farmers grow more food by providing small farmers with proper seeds, fertilisers and water management technologies. But of course there are many other ways and, as the Commissioner said, many of these need to be country-specific.

Time is running out for Africa. We need to learn the lessons from the past so we can save future generations from disease and starvation. I believe Accra is a political opportunity and I support what other speakers have said on that. It is not just a technical meeting to look at technical areas, it is a political opportunity. We have to see if we can get real take-off on fighting poverty.

We have made many many commitments; some of those commitments are not forthcoming. We are halfway through the Millennium Development Goals time-frame and it is time that we really pushed to try and deliver on all of these. We have to get aid back on track. We must work with African governments; we must fight corruption; we must improve governance and we have to deliver to the world’s poor.

  Luisa Morgantini, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware that there is still much to be done in order to make European development policies more effective. The recommendations contained in Mr Van Hecke’s excellent report, which I fully endorse, certainly go in the right direction.

As we are debating this report, Brussels is witnessing the presentation of the new annual report of CONCORD, the European confederation of development NGOs, on the aid commitments given by EU governments. The report examines the progress made by each Member State, and the picture which emerges is one of gaps and contradictions in our policies to combat poverty and increase aid effectiveness. For example, as Commissioner Michel was telling me, the report notes that in 2007 the amount of aid given by the 27 did not increase as it should have done, but actually fell. At the same time the report shows that many of the problems associated with development policies still persist, such as the lack of transparency of linked aid.

We should respect commitments given at international level. We cannot dash the expectations of people in the southern countries of the world, nor those of people in the so-called northern countries who are working with such commitment to ensure that injustice, poverty and the food crisis, to which Mr Schapira just referred, are handled decisively.

I agree with the Commissioner: we need to stop the rhetoric and take action. I would also like to thank Mr Michel for his passion, his commitment and his fortitude. With the two conferences in Accra and Doha, 2008 can and should be a real turning point and offers an outstanding opportunity for the European Union to show that it can shoulder its responsibilities as leading world donor. It seems almost superfluous to say that we need to increase the quantity and quality of aid. These are not two conflicting concepts. We must not use the need to make aid more effective as an excuse for giving less of it.

At the same time, everyone is now aware that simply increasing the quantity of aid is not enough. It is vital, as we have all been saying, to have an objective for the fight against poverty, instead of geopolitical and strategic objectives. As we are always saying, commercial, migration and security policies must be consistent with development goals.

European cooperation needs to be based not only on our own interests, but also on the genuine priorities of southern countries as identified by local governments, and also by parliaments and civil society, and it is also essential to increase the transparency and accountability of EU aid programmes. In this context, Parliament should be put in a position to exercise genuine democratic control and I welcome the Commissioner’s call to work hard to ensure that EU countries stand by their commitments.

I have a few questions regarding calls for proposals. Those NGOs which want to participate in the Commission tendering procedures find that they are too long and cumbersome, which makes their activities really difficult and in fact excludes many small local associations. So why not ask these organisations directly how to streamline procedures? I have submitted an amendment to be voted today with this in mind.

Then there is the matter of the untying of aid which is dealt with in the Van Hecke report. Progress has been made, but all aid needs to be untied completely in order to prevent money returning to donor countries instead of relieving poverty in beneficiary countries.

Lastly, I would like to pinpoint those States which are still overstating their public development aid figures. In 2007, EU countries spent around EUR 8 billion, in other words about 17% of total European aid, in important sectors but not in the development sector. Cancellation of debt, expenditure on refugees, grants for foreign students constitute expenditure which should be excluded from development aid figures; and so I invite you to support the relevant amendments.

I too have high hopes for 2008 and for the commitments to reverse the trend; I agree wholeheartedly with the Commissioner when he talks of shared responsibility between donors and countries where everyone has to play a part: rights and obligations. That is our strength!

  Maria Martens (PPE-DE). – (NL) Development money can and should be better spent. That, Madam President, is what we can conclude from the extremely balanced report by the rapporteur. I congratulate him. The report has come at the right time. Europe seems to be getting tired of development expenditure. That trend is very worrying and we should not underestimate it. Even in countries such as the Netherlands, which have always been known for their international solidarity, voices are heard in favour of cutting development expenditure. The only answer is for the work to be transparent, efficient and results-based.

The European Union can achieve a great deal on that point, especially through the three Cs: coherence, complementarity and coordination. The Commissioner has often pointed that out and is working towards it. We can also do more about the proliferation of projects and programmes. If something is not going well, another programme is not always the best solution. It is better for us to do a couple of things well than to half-do everything.

Madam President, the European Union is the biggest donor. So we have a big responsibility. Besides that, with the new Treaty our possibilities for more cohesion, additional policy and better coordination are growing. The effectiveness of our aid is crucial, not just to justify the developing countries at home, but above all actually to be able to combat poverty in the developing countries. In the end it is the result that counts more than the intention. In the 2009 development cooperation budget, I shall be putting forward proposals for evaluation to be more results-based as well. We must focus more on results than on vague indicators.

Finally, I should like to ask Commissioner Michel the following question. Commissioner Fischer Boel said that the Commission wanted to use some of the unspent money from the 2008 European Budget to help countries affected by the sharp rise in food prices, in other words for the food crisis. I should like to know the reaction of the Commissioner. Can the Commissioner also say how these extra funds will be used?

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in history, in our history – as the Commissioner said – the total amount of public European development aid has fallen. If we continue along that road, between 2005 and 2010 the European Union will have granted billions of aid less than it had pledged. That is a significant step backwards in the pursuit of the goal of devoting 0.7% to development but also – and that is very important – in the pursuit of the Millennium Goals and, more generally, in the battle we say we want to wage against poverty in the world.

The process we initiated in 2006 to improve the effectiveness of our development aid, and which we are continuing with the report by Mr Van Hecke, whom I thank for the work he has done, cannot be used by Member States as a pretext for not respecting their commitment to increase that aid. In fact the reverse is true, since everybody agrees today that additional resources will be needed on top of the pledged amounts if we are to meet the many commitments we have entered into and those we will, no doubt, still have to take on. Aid effectiveness is, therefore, essential, because more effective aid also means more aid. Everyone must realise that.

In this context, let me point out that, as ever, it is time we made very concrete progress in applying innovatory financing instruments to development aid, something that was mentioned expressly in the Paris Declaration.

We wanted our report also to refer to the role of the diaspora in development cooperation. The European Union is still far too nervous about this, although it would benefit so much from greater and closer cooperation with our fellow citizens from partner countries who are resident in the EU. That would be another means of integrating rather than excluding a great many people and it is a message close to my heart at a time when some Europeans are adopting positions that are astonishing, measures that are shocking.

Lastly, I want to point out that, as the Commissioner has often said, aid will never be really effective until there is real coherence between the various EU policies and until aid is no longer guided by policies that have nothing to do with development. Current events show that we do not yet have that coherence everywhere. This situation will continue so long as the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, which is the relevant authority, continues to apply an extremely broad definition of development cooperation. That is another condition for improving our aid effectiveness.

Two years ago I presented a first report on aid effectiveness in this very Chamber. Where are we now, after all those endlessly repeated words? At any rate, the Commissioner can count on the socialists to carry on with our common struggle to improve aid effectiveness for the sake of the poorest people of the world.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to thank Johan Van Hecke for a good and important report. Once upon a time I went into politics to see to it that my country, Sweden, would achieve the ‘one per cent target’. The Liberal Party of Sweden – my party in the national context – is and has always been a driving force in this action, and Sweden actually achieves the target.

Now nearly 40 years on, however, I have to recognise that there have been many disappointments. Maladministration, corruption and failed projects have unfortunately been common. But development has often also proceeded in the right direction. Millions of people the world over have been given better lives and many democracies have been established. There is indeed room for optimism. But if legitimacy and support among the EU population are to continue to be strong, we must improve our ability to act fast and effectively. Aid must be deployed in a way which guarantees quality and long-range benefit so that we can attain the millennium goals.

Besides, aid policy must be formulated more from the bottom up. Those countries which receive aid must be entrusted with greater responsibility for what we might call the problem-stating prerogative in aid work. There are plenty of indications, according to the Commission, to show that poor countries are forced to create more expensive bureaucracy in order to facilitate the administration which is a condition for the aid money to be disbursed. That was not the intention! It is also very important to talk more about how we should coordinate aid efforts. Another perspective which can and must not be forgotten is the important role of women in combating poverty.

To criticise how the requirements are formulated today does not mean that we need not oppose the imposition of conditions for the aid. Listening to what people on the ground have to say also implies that we should venture to consider classifying certain military contributions as aid, since peacekeeping operations can be vital. Take the situation in Chad, for example, where refugees need protection just as much as shipments of aid.

Finally I want to address the sensitive question of our agricultural policy, which Mrs Auken mentioned. In the report, the Commission and the Member States are urged to support any measures which can contribute to stabilising raw material prices for the developing countries. Here I have a suggestion in line with what Margrete Auken was saying: an effective, but perhaps also bitter medicine – scrap the EU’s agricultural policy! Indeed the Commission has already made a start on that, which is to be welcomed.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, now that we are reviewing the Paris Declaration, we can see that the word ‘intentions’ has remained just that, just a word.

Although the Commission is working hard and taking measures to ensure aid arrives at its destination, we cannot make progress if Member States do not contribute what they have promised.

We know that both donors and partner countries are responsible for aid being more effective, but our greatest responsibility is to ensure that aid really contributes to helping developing countries meet the major challenges they face.

We must ensure that we fulfil our part of the bargain and that we do not have to feel ashamed because we are not doing what we promised to do.

Ideally, aid has a positive effect on development and good governance, but aid can also do a lot of harm if it is not distributed properly. Developing countries must therefore take responsibility for implementing their own policies and we donors must respect that, give them our support and provide the space necessary for that to happen, rather than fund our own priorities as some donors do.

Finally, I would like to stress the need to ensure the coherence of our own policies.

All development efforts are a waste of time if the objectives of trade, monetary and other policies undermine or contradict them.

At the moment, we are not practising what we preach.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur. The report is comprehensive, wide-ranging and exhaustive. I must admit that, reading the report, I lost sight of even the most important objective. However, the rapporteur clearly stated this objective and the main purpose of the report in his presentation at the start of our debate.

I decided to speak because some new issues have come up in the last few years. Climate change has had a dramatic impact on some developing countries. What is important is that, when we provide aid, we should emphasise the fact that we are doing this now because the European Union recognises that the threat posed by climate change is a challenge to our civilisation as well as being civilisation’s responsibility. We should, therefore, in the light of the risks of global warming, significantly increase funding, and strengthen the actions of donors. Such a standpoint and such activities will demonstrate the nature of our strategy as regards the EU priority of ‘combating climate change’. We should also direct our assistance to renewable sources of energy in developing countries (of course fighting hunger is the most important, but I am talking here about additional funds), as well as for overcoming the direct effects of global warming, for adaptation measures associated for example with coastal flooding, soil salinisation and a level of floods and droughts that was previously unknown.

Let us remember that our objective, and the political priority for the European Union, are to achieve a global agreement on combating global warming. Negotiations will take place in Poznan in 2008 and Copenhagen in 2009. If we need to convince other countries, we must reduce emissions and develop new technologies within the EU and provide special assistance to developing countries.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, if we are talking about effectiveness so much, there can be no doubt we are convinced we have a serious problem of effectiveness.

Probably the first condition for ensuring increased effectiveness is to plan a fixed and binding schedule for aid flows. It is very difficult to make something effective if there is not a minimum of certainty about what resources are going to be available.

Quality also depends on quantity and, like my colleages, I deplore the fall in resouces allocated by European countries to development aid. I hope you do not mind me saying so but there is one notable exception, and that is my country, Spain, which now comes top after increasing development aid by 33% last year.

Commissioner, we have an opportunity in Accra and we must do all we can to make sure that 20% of aid is used for education, health, access to water and basic sanitation.

I also want to assure you of the Committee on Development’s support for your attempts to coordinate the different actors. There are only a few resources and, as you have often said yourself, they have to be divided between many actors, and this process of dilution reduces effectiveness.

I would also like to point out, as does the report, the need to simplify the procedures for granting aid. We find the same problem wherever we go: there is no doubt that the time taken between when we say we are going to do something and the time when it gets done undermines any attempt to promote the effective management of resources.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate and thank my colleague, Johan Van Hecke, for his remarkable work. His report notes that the approach to development aid needs to be reformed. I can only agree, and stress that this reform should start with a re-think from the roots – namely development policy – upwards. I strongly believe that aid should no longer be limited to help, support or assistance. We should change our mindset and see our contribution to developing countries as investment in the broadest sense of the word. It should be an investment that we undertake on a long-term basis, not just for ensuring the survival of those countries, but also for their real development as functional economies and democracies.

While investing, we also need to touch on core issues that could bring a real end to poverty. A couple of weeks ago, during his visit to Parliament, Professor Geoffrey Sachs underlined how much influence, in positive terms, the use of unexploited land in Africa would have on food prices. Instead of providing food supplies to Africa, we should transfer agricultural know-how so that the continent can feed its own population and, in a positive scenario, even provide food at global level.

I am deeply concerned by another issue underlined in this report: the programming of money flow towards recipient countries. From my experience, projects cannot achieve their goals if resources do not come in time and if they are less than the amount initially planned. That is where the European Union can fail badly. In 2007 the level of EU aid decreased. Many projects were affected and their goals could not be achieved.

Last but not least, development education and raising the awareness of our own citizens on this subject should be considered a priority. We, as Members of this Parliament, have an essential role to play in that respect.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, some of the experts, economists, politicians and activists in non-governmental organisations involved in development have a tendency to say that all that is needed for cooperation in the area of development to achieve its ambitious goals is to provide more money. However, life is not that simple. There are many social and economic problems that cannot be resolved immediately just by giving more money. Of course money helps the process of solving problems, but funds are not the only issue for success in development policy.

A second very important issue is aid effectiveness. Poorly organised assistance can lead to dependence or, as some people say, the modernisation of dependence. Effectiveness of aid is just as important for recipients as it is for those granting the aid. For recipients of aid, because, after all, money is not an aim in itself, its purpose is to change reality and to hasten the achievement of the Millennium Goals. It is easy to spend money, the trick is to spend it sensibly.

For donors, on the other hand, effectiveness is important, because they have to show taxpayers that development expenditure is being spent wisely. Thus these two processes, an increase in development expenditure and an increase in the quality of this expenditure, are not contradictory and can be achieved simultaneously.

Mr Van Hecke has prepared an excellent report for which he deserves our thanks. I hope that, with this report, the representatives of the European Union at the High Level Forum in Accra will have a clear and unequivocal standpoint.

It seems that a particularly important responsibility for the European Union in this regard should be continued harmonisation of assistance for Member States and the EU. This is important because this issue is exclusively up to us. Coordination inside the EU does not depend on our international partners, nor on those to whom we provide aid and the costs of uncoordinated aid are very high.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) I congratulate Mr Van Hecke on this important report.

To improve the effectiveness of European aid it is essential to invest in human and financial capacity and to overcome the inconsistencies between policies and the institutional architecture. The Lisbon Treaty opens up an opportunity by creating the European External Action Service. Besides supporting the future High Representative, this service must be equipped to carry EU development policy forward in parallel to CFSP and ESDP.

It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel to guarantee aid effectiveness. It is dependent on fulfilling promises already made. As Commissioner Michel has stressed, the Member States must increase public development aid to the levels promised in 2005 without inflating them by writing off debts, and must effectively direct it towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals, particularly in an era in which rising oil and food prices make combating poverty in the world an even more urgent matter.

Mr President, what is at stake is the credibility of the European Union and its effectiveness as a global player, rather than the effectiveness of aid.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Van Hecke on this report. A few weeks ago I visited the IMF and the World Bank on behalf of the Committee on Development and at that meeting I asked what the world would be like between 2030 and 2050. The response I got was that China will be the most powerful country in the world; many of the developing countries will have changed; America will still be powerful, but not as powerful as it is today; India and Brazil will be very powerful.

Never before have our selfish interests and our selfless interests coincided as they do now with the need to assist the developing world. In the past I used to be told that I spent too much time with my individual constituents who had poor housing conditions. My response to that was that you cannot tell somebody who is on fire that we are going to build a fire station. You have to plan for the fire station, but you have to help the individual at the same time. This has to be our approach to the developing world. If we do not do it, China and others are going to do it. It is our selfish interest as well as our selfless interest to do this.

I come from a country which in recent history suffered famine, where the population today should be over 20 million. It has gone over six million for the first time since the mid-19th century. We have a post-colonial past. If you look at Ireland’s history, what we have been able to do with investment in infrastructure, largely from the European Union – to which we are now about to become, thank God, a net contributor – is an indication of what can be done when you give people the tools with which to do the job.

I urge the Commissioner, when he goes to this meeting in Accra, to make sure that the European Union is singing off the same hymn sheet. Lisbon will give us the instruments with which to play a more effective role in the world. Make sure we do it in the area of development aid. It is in our interests as well as in the interests of the people in the developing world.

(Applause)

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Van Hecke, for a good report. I also thank the Commissioner for a particularly sound staff working paper for Accra.

Three points. Firstly, more effective aid indeed requires the donor countries to coordinate their aid better on the basis of a country strategy in which the partner countries in the south take the lead. However, that means that the priorities also have to be decided democratically in those countries, that is to say in cooperation with national parliaments and NGOs, which does not happen at the moment. It seems to me absolutely essential to involve women in the dialogue.

Secondly, donor countries absolutely have to stop imposing innumerable conditions on aid and staking a lot on measurable results. The economic conditions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in particular have to go, because they often conflict with the Millennium Goals. I therefore say to the rapporteur that paragraph 28 in the report should go.

Thirdly, better aid is no excuse for less aid. At the moment not only is development aid falling, the figures are also confused by what is supposedly aid but is not really much help to the partner countries, such as money paid to students or refugees in Europe or cancellation of debts. It is therefore crucial for the donor countries to stick to their promises of the 0.7% and decide on concrete timetables. I hope, Commissioner, that the Council on Monday listens to this message.

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such an intention was that of the authorities in the countries beneficiary of development assistance, namely to bring the decision-making process closer to them, motivating that they know best what their needs are. Correct in itself, the decision has generated a vicious circle with negative effects for women. Since they are little present in the decision-making documents, their needs are considered minor, and the gender sensitivity of those in power is low, even lower than ours and the attention given to programmes designed for these needs, especially sexual and reproductive rights, has decreased. Thus, we are witnessing a dramatic situation.

The only development objective for which no progress has been recorded is maternal mortality generated by the absence of elementary conditions, such as the possibility of a caesarean section, basic antibiotics, contraceptive pills or qualified personnel. In some cases, the situation has become worse. Maternal death is the main cause of women’s mortality in many countries with a fragile situation.

We request monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the investment in infrastructure includes health infrastructure and the responsibilization of authorities for implementing measures in this field.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the subject we are discussing today is particularly important, because it concerns a special responsibility of the European Union.

We in Europe are in no doubt that our small and medium-sized enterprises represent a highly successful structural model, and we must ensure that per capita GDP can grow on the basis of that model in the least developed countries. Great importance attaches in this context to the concept of helping people to help themselves.

We must also see to it that our energy-efficiency and food-security strategies are at the heart of these efforts. Those countries need income from employment, and small enterprises and family businesses can help to provide that, and they need purchasing power for consumers. I believe this chicken-and-egg principle simply has to be pursued to a successful conclusion.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Colleagues, I congratulate the rapporteur on a good piece of work. Unsatisfactory coordination of aid and a plethora of programmes have led to a drop in aid effectiveness. At the same time aid has been focused on so-called ‘attractive countries’ and many regions have thereby been completely forgotten. Fragmentation has led to a multiplicity of aid measures, which in several cases are wholly inconsistent with each other.

It is, however, of great importance for the European Union and the development cooperation policy of the Member States to complement and strengthen each other. The Member States must coordinate their activities. Consideration should be given to the fact that several Member States are only starting out as aid donors, yet even they are aware of aid effectiveness. For example Estonia, which has not yet adhered to the Paris Declaration, has been prominent in tripartite cooperation projects. To prevent fragmentation of development aid and excessive focus by donors the silent partner option is used.

More than half the world’s formal development aid originates in the European Union. It is important to ensure the European Union’s presence in weak countries and especially in ‘forgotten’ countries. When granting aid we, the European Union, should be generous so that the aid can be accepted with dignity.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, helping the poor and the needy is of great value. The European Union is the leader in providing help to countries affected by natural disasters such as droughts, floods, hunger or ever-newer forms of catastrophes resulting from climate change.

However, there is always a dilemma in sending funds and resources to developing countries, to poor countries to help them develop. How much of these resources should be allocated to reducing today’s poverty and how much money should be allocated for development purposes such as education, the creation of various institutions, the introduction of a legal system or the construction of infrastructure such as roads or the internet, which would help entrepreneurship to develop in these areas, particularly as regards the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises, including farms?

The aid granted should be linked with the creation of social awareness, democratic institutions and education systems, so that local society can be prepared to take control of lasting development for these regions and countries.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – (FR) Commissioner, my first question has already been asked by Marianne Mikko: is there a problem of competition or lack of coordination among the various NGOs, and is the Commission playing its part in trying to coordinate the excellent job each of them is doing?

Second question: when I was at school there was an organisation in England called Voluntary Service Overseas. Does the Commission have a programme to encourage young people who want to be of assistance to train, perhaps, but also to participate in these development aid programmes? Does the Commissioner have a programme of assistance for young people who would like to do that?

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, thank you for your support for the approach and main thrust of our policies. I would like to come back to a few points and reply briefly.

First of all, regarding food aid, in particular the rising price of cereals and the question of agricultural programmes, let me tell you that we have just finalised a communication on a European development strategy to respond to the food crisis. You will soon be receiving information about that document.

Secondly, I would like to correct some of the things that have been said, and I do not understand why they are constantly being asserted. Unilateral attacks on the common agricultural policy, based on very few real arguments, harm the European Union, convey false information and suggest to our partners that the common agricultural policy is the cause of all their woes. I say and I repeat: that is not true! We have been dismantling the system of agricultural subsidies since 1996 and the effects of our common agricultural policy cannot now be regarded as the cause of the developing countries’ troubles. I am prepared to discuss this question in detail at another meeting, because the accusation is being repeated like a sort of refrain, as though it were true. People are saying things that are not accurate. Europe has to a large extent sorted this issue, though there are still some questions that remain; I admit that there is some doubt about the coherence of our development policies. In regard to agriculture, however, if there is one sector where we have made real progress, it is that one. I do find it rather unfair of people to tarnish our image without good cause.

I have listened to the proposal concerning, I believe, a global fund. I know that Professor Geoffrey Sachs, who is incidentally a remarkable man, is fighting and campaigning for a global food fund. For my part, I am not in favour. I have strong hesitations about that; after all, it took a long time for the Global Fund to which Mr Ryan referred and which he seemed to think was a panacea, to work transparently and effectively. Why set up another fund when we have instruments such as the WFP, the FAO and others? Inventing new tools and instruments to tackle global policy weaknesses is certainly not the right answer. The tools exist. They simply need to be funded adequately.

We need to reform the WFP, but how? The WFP must have a predictable annual budget and its financial operation must change. I spoke of that recently. It is a major problem. So we must not invent bad replies to good questions either. I am not in favour of creating a new fund because it would simply lead to a lot of red tape, a lot of procedures. On the subject of procedures, let me say a few words.

In regard to agriculture, let me simply tell you that we will be moving from EUR 650 million in the ninth EDF to EUR 1 250 000 billion in the tenth EDF. I agree that is a lot in quantitative, percentage terms, but it is not a real increase in terms of the percentage of EDF funding. The positive aspect is that we have moved from four countries choosing to focus on the agricultural sector to 24 countries, i.e. more or less one third. That shows things have progressed, there is a greater awareness. Let me remind you, however, because this is important, that the choice of focal sectors is based in principle on ownership: it is our partners who decide on which sector they want us to focus our funding. It is important to remember that.

Next I was asked an interesting question: what will you do with the unused money intended for agriculture? In fact we will recover a large part of that money and allocate it to resolving the problem of rising prices and the food crisis. I prefer to speak of a food crisis, rather than of rising prices. At the Commission’s last meeting a week ago I proposed – a proposal that was very well received – that we should try to channel those resources in such a way as to give small farmers in poor countries access to seeds and fertilisers, because that is one of the biggest problem facing them today. If we want them to become self-sufficient, they obviously need better access to seeds and fertilisers, which would help them gradually to become self-sufficient in food. I am very much in favour of reducing the period during which aid is distributed as much as possible. I believe it is far more important to provide the farmers with the means of production. We all agree, as I said in my opening statement and need not repeat: Accra is a political rendezvous and I ask you – knowing that you are all aware that we have to do this – to mobilise our Member States so that they deliver on their commitments and agree to observe a calendar that demonstrates, as I believe Mr Borrell said, that they have a real political resolve and will keep their promises.

People keep talking about cumbersome procedures and asking me to streamline them. I must admit that I really have no powers in that respect. The procedures exist and I have to observe them; I can do no other. I can propose flexibility measures, but you know full well that it would take years for them to take effect. It is not widely known, but at the end of my term of office I intend to present all the lessons I have learned as regards procedures. I hear Mrs Martens say: ‘We need greater transparency’ – and I am ready for all the transparency you want – ‘but we also need greater effectiveness’. Let me tell you, however impertinent and shocking it may sound, that if you want even more transparency, which means even more controls, even more audits, even more consultations and so on, you will have less effectiveness. That is what I want to say to you. You may dismiss it, but I am convinced that is the case. So much transparency is now demanded that the Commission has become a chained giant, another Gulliver. Personally, I am prepared to talk and there are ways of achieving an effective level of transparency, but I beg you, do not keep talking about ‘transparency’, ‘control’, about how things should be … That is all very well and good, but you must face the facts … I would like to have the chance to trace the journey of a dossier. I can tell you it is no joke. Sometimes even I am at a complete loss to trace its journey, and then you have to remember the inter-services and all the others involved. It is an extremely complicated business. I do not want to caricature it, but I must say it is a real problem.

I believe Mr Hutchinson spoke of coordination, coherence and complementarity. He was quite right. I believe we could hugely increase the effectiveness of our aid if we had a better division of labour, if we were more coherent, more coordinated, and if we could indeed cut back on some of the intermediate, and often entirely useless, controls. I gave you a few figures earlier on: Tanzania has to produce 8 000 audit reports! I am not sure what sort of burden that represents for a country like Tanzania, which actually has a capacity for governance. There comes a time when surrealism verges on madness. There are limits. I have nothing against procedure, but enough is enough. I want no more procedure. Mr Hutchinson, in regard to the division of labour, you were right to emphasise the importance of the diaspora. We are trying to work with them, but it is precisely because of the procedures that we cannot do so. That is another example! You asked whether there are any projects to encourage young people to go and work in developing countries. No Sir, I cannot do so, the procedures do not authorise me to do so. I am told, for example, that there are certain NGOs with whom you cannot work. Indeed, I cannot work with certain NGOs because the procedures do not allow me to do so. Our new Member States may feel frustrated, and rightly so, because in most cases their NGOs, even though they are as good as the others, cannot work because they do not comply with the standards invented by Commission’s procedures. In a sense, they are, therefore excluded from our cooperation and our contribution, which is not fair. We are working on this, but it will take a long time to resolve.

I also agree that we need more. Mr Buzek spoke of combating climate change. Clearly, if we adjust the funding for development in order to work on climate change, we will be mortgaging all that we have done or intended to do in traditional development policy. That means we need new, additional resources to tackle climate change. Let me refer you to the idea we and Mr Borrell put forward, of setting up an international loan that would be tied to CO2 emission quotas. That project is making good progress. Technically, it has been finalised. We worked with the World Bank. I shall be returning to this subject later, because it might also partly resolve the question of increased funding, in that it would help the Member States to meet their objectives and commitments in a way that would be less painful for their budgets in the long run.

Obviously I at one with Mr Borrell in congratulating, first of all, Spain, because it is true that in a sense it is unfair. Some countries have made real efforts and allocated increased budget funds: in terms of its GDP, Spain has indeed made a huge effort. At the same time, some other countries really were in free fall, which in a sense eclipsed the actions of certain others. I must say that this is an important issue that arises again and again: 20% for education, health, water, etc. You know the reply.

Firstly, I have already replied. Even if I agree as to the objective, I did say one must try to establish where budgetary aid expenditure – since the word budgetary was used – actually goes, because those are often the sectors that are funded. It is very difficult to give definite figures, however.

Secondly, it is our partner countries that choose the sector on which they focus, not us. So I cannot impose and tell them they have to spend on, say, education. I can suggest but I cannot impose. Of course I agree with Mr Mitchell that – to put it very baldly – we should increase our aid for selfish reasons. That is more or less true. I often point it out at meetings. Let those who do not want to give more aid for selfless reasons at least do so for their selfish interests. In this context, and looking in particular at Africa, we find that certain emerging countries have an extremely large presence there. I do not dispute the legitimacy or validity of their presence there, I am simply saying that it would be in Europe’s interest to have a somewhat stronger presence in a continent that is our neighbour and to which it can offer much added value while also drawing added value from it.

I think I have covered everything now. I have replied to the two questions put by the last speaker, which were, if I may say so, very pertinent. I am really happy to be in the European Parliament. It is certainly the place with the most dynamism and the greatest determination to drive forward all these policies in which we believe with such conviction.

  Johan Van Hecke, rapporteur. − (NL) This high-level constructive debate today has revealed a wide consensus, both in Parliament and between Parliament and the Commission, on the action we have to take to improve the quality of our aid. More account must be taken of the priorities of the countries themselves. The aid needs to be more predictable. Technical assistance must be cut further. More budgetary support is needed, but also greater transparency and involvement by parliaments, the social midfield and local authorities. The code of conduct needs to be more effective and the Donor Atlas has to be extended, and so on.

However, in my view the crux of the matter is that we, Parliament and the Commission – and why should we not involve the national parliaments as well? – need to put pressure on the Member States so that, first and foremost, they stick to their promises and, secondly, approve a plan in which they indicate very clearly what can and will be done within what period of time. Thirdly, they also have to involve themselves clearly in the division of labour proposed by the Commission. I think, ladies and gentlemen, that, with our friends and colleagues in the national parliaments, disregarding party boundaries, we should take the initiative in stepping up the pressure on the governments, which indeed concerns not just the joint but also the individual responsibility of a number of Member States.

This report contains a whole series of concrete recommendations. I sincerely hope that the Commission and the Council will take these with them to Accra. Parliament is speaking with one voice here today, something that does not always happen, and is expressing the wish that the European Union in Accra will also speak with one voice, a clear voice, a loud voice, and above all a credible voice.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Article 142)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL) , in writing. – (PT) Since it is not possible to comment on the variety of important issues this report raises – both positive and negative – it should be noted that it nevertheless exposes, albeit in qualified form, the negative performance of EU ‘development aid’.

Although it does not criticise how often development aid is used merely as a palliative, a (false) counterpart and condition for deregulating markets or as an instrument of interference – with well-known negative aims and effects, such as the EU’s ‘European Consensus’ on development, the Economic Partnership Agreements the EU intends to impose or financial speculation surrounding foodstuffs, which call into question the aims declared for development – the report not surprisingly highlights the inadequate results of ‘development aid’ and its significant reduction in the EU: 0.38% in 2007 compared to 0.41% in 2006, well below the 0.7% of GDP indicated by the UNO.

The report also sounds a note of caution against the growing use of ‘development aid’ for purposes that have nothing to do with development (such as military spending), and against the fact that it is ‘often disbursed according to donors’ own priorities and timetables’.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE) , in writing. – (FR) In 2005, the Paris Declaration established specific commitments to promote enhanced development aid effectiveness, on the basis of dialogue and mutual accountability. That international framework is essential for the EU, which provides more than 55% of total world development aid.

With a view to further improving the quality and effectiveness of that aid, the EP is also calling for the simplification of procedures, measures to combat corruption and disbursement of the aid in line with the partners’ own priorities. Those measures are all the more necessary at a time when Member States’ development aid has fallen somewhat, from 0.41% to 0.38% of the EU’s GNP between 2006 and 2007.

At a time when the food crisis is affecting the most fragile developing countries and access to water and education remains restricted, it is understandable that the EU must redouble its efforts to achieve the MDG objective of allocating 0.7% of its GNP to development aid by the year 2015. Similarly, to ensure that the aid takes the form of long-term and predictable financing, it is vital to release additional resources by means of innovative financing mechanisms and to mobilise sovereign wealth funds for productive investment.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

  President. − In response to a proposal from the Working Group on the Middle East, the Conference of Presidents has asked me to make a statement on Lebanon.

The European Parliament has been following with deep concern the latest political developments in Lebanon, where progress seemed to have stalled and violence and bloodshed had become increasingly rife.

It is therefore with a great sense of relief and optimism that we welcome the comprehensive and fundamental agreement which has been concluded in Doha by the Lebanese political leaders at a time when the European Parliament is in the process of adopting a resolution on Lebanon. There is a compromise text, which will shortly be put to the vote, with Mr Onesta presiding.

This significant political breakthrough, which was achieved through the skilful and effective mediation of the Arab League, and especially of the Government of Qatar, paves the way for the election of General Michel Suleiman as President of the Republic of Lebanon in the coming days, the creation of a government of national unity and the adoption of an improved electoral law.

In view of the favourable reaction of neighbouring states and other interested countries, the European Parliament calls on all parties to implement the agreement in full. We re-emphasise our unfailing support for the legitimate constitutionally established political institutions in Lebanon and the Lebanese armed forces and for their efforts to guarantee the stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon.

We look forward to resuming normal interparliamentary relations with our Lebanese counterparts, with a Lebanese Parliament that meets regularly, exercises its democratic rights and discharges its democratic obligations.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is Voting Time.

(Results of votes and voting details: see Minutes)

- Before the vote on the Commission proposal

  Bernard Lehideux, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, we have had a great many conversations with the Commission and the Council with a view to reaching an agreement at first reading. The vote on this amendment calls that agreement into question. We will be forced to go to a second reading as it is evident, and the Council has so informed us, that it will not accept this position.

I regret this situation and in face of this problem, which is not to disown a considerable part of the text we adopted with the first amendment but to keep our word to the Council, I recommend abstention.

  President. – We duly note what you have said but will nonetheless continue with the vote.

- Before the vote

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I ask for linguistic correction because the resolution was negotiated in the French language. In French where it reads 'notamment du Hezbollah' in the first sentence of paragraph 5, it should read in English 'especially Hizbollah' and in Czech 'a zejména Hizballáhu'. I cannot be responsible for other language versions.

- After the vote on paragraph 1:

  Pasqualina Napoletano, on behalf of the PSE Group – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment replaces paragraph 1 of the original text, as follows:

‘Welcomes the Doha Agreement reached by the parties on the election of General Suleiman as President of the Republic in the coming days, the creation of a new national unity government and the adoption of the election law; calls on the parties to fully implement this agreement; stresses the importance of the positive reaction given by the international community; congratulates the Lebanese parties on the agreement and Qatar and the Arab League on their successful mediation.’

(The oral amendment was adopted)

- After the vote on paragraph 6:

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I will read verbatim the oral amendment proposed by my group, the PSE Group:

‘Recalls that the primary goal of the CAP is to guarantee market stabilisation, supply security and reasonable prices for consumers and underlines the need for a CAP post-2013, in order to ensure the sustainable food policy of the EU, while respecting the sustainability, the security and the quality of agricultural products;

I would like to say that we withdraw the final part of the amendment, as requested by the PPE Group, in exchange for their support for this amendment.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

- Before the vote on Amendment 31:

  Mairead McGuinness , on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to delete the words ‘free and’ from this amendment. The rest stands.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

- Before the vote on paragraph 1:

  Stavros Lambrinidis , on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to propose a change to paragraph 1, adding the word ‘including’, to read as follows: ‘Considers that any form of direct or indirect discrimination between European citizens including on the grounds of their nationality should be prohibited’.

- Before the vote on Amendment 8:

  Urszula Gacek , on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, the full oral amendment is given in the voting list. It basically corrects a factual error that was pointed out by Greek colleagues. It refers to the threshold of visa rejections, which forms the basis for continuing to keep countries outside visa waiver. In the case of Greece the rejection rate is, in fact, only 1%, so we are correcting a factual error and I would ask you to support this amendment.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

- Before the vote:

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – Mr President, I am not responsible for this report but I would like the colleagues who have been dealing with this issue to note that we are voting today on two reports, one on China and one on Burma, dealing with a disaster and the different reactions to it. The report on China starts with a sentence that says that Parliament ‘expresses its sincere condolences and solidarity to the people of China and to the numerous victims; expresses sorrow to all those who are suffering the consequences of the earthquake’, but, in the report on Burma, there are only political considerations.

(The President cut the speaker off.)

  President. – Mr Guardans Cambó, you know how much I like and respect you, but I have to follow the procedure here. I am sorry but I cannot reopen the debate on a comparative analysis of two resolutions. You will understand that.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (FR) I am tabling an oral amendment, which should be accepted or not by the Assembly, expressing sympathy for the people in the same terms, in exactly the same wording, as for China. That is the oral amendment: sympathy for the people.

(Applause)

  President. – Here is what I propose, since you spoke before we had reached the item concerned: if I understand you rightly, you wish to insert that remark before paragraph 4. Can you specify the exact point?

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (FR) The oral amendment would be a first point, worded as follows:

‘Expresses its sincere condolences and solidarity to the people of Burma and to the numerous victims; expresses sorrow to all those who are suffering the consequences of the catastrophe;’.

(Applause)

(The oral amendment was adopted)

- Before the vote on paragraph 10:

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, in our voting lists there are no amendments at all to the resolution on Burma. The only vote is on the resolution in its entirety.

  President. – This is not on an amendment but on a split vote, requested by the ALDE Group.

- Before the vote:

  Stefano Zappalà, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group of the European People’s Party, I would like to add my personal endorsement of the proposal for a resolution presented today by the other groups, thus the PPE approves the wording in its entirety.

  President. – That is good news. It means the joint motion for a resolution tabled by six political groups, including the EPP, replaces all the motions for resolution on this subject, except for B6-0223/2008.

- Before the vote on Amendment 12:

  Lutz Goepel , on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, allow me to read out the wording: 'points to the potentially heightened risks involved in long-distance transport of live animals and, in this context, takes the view that more frequent thorough inspections should be conducted in order to ensure that only completely healthy animals are transported and believes that consideration should be given to the question whether the transport of animals for slaughter or fattening' – and this is the difference – 'can be limited to a maximum journey time of nine hours'.

(The oral amendment was not adopted)

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, you cannot take sides; you cannot encourage people to rise; they know themselves whether or not to do so.

(Applause from the EPP Group)

  President. – I simply pointed out – and you have noted my group’s position, so I have in no way taken sides here – that Members must rise and remain standing because if they stand for a split second and then sit down again it is impossible for us to do a count. So I was not proposing that they should rise but only that they should remain standing once they had risen.

I proceeded in exactly the same way with the other count a moment ago, for the other side of the Chamber.

- Before the vote:

President. – I believe Mr Ouzký wished to speak, because yesterday’s debate was very brief. Perhaps you could explain to us why.

  Miroslav Ouzký (PPE-DE). – (CS) I just want to make use of having the floor to stress the importance of this resolution. Yesterday there was no debate on it, or rather on the oral question. My committee has already received the Commissioner’s response and I therefore welcome the fact that this issue has remained on the agenda and will be put to the vote.

  President. – I simply pointed out that this debate was on yesterday’s agenda but since nobody asked to speak, there was no debate. That it why it is important to give the floor to the chairman of the committee concerned.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I wanted to say that yes, there were speakers, and that we were present in the Plenary. It was Mr Ouzký who was not present, and the Table and the President decided to annul it. The speakers were ready and a Comission representative was also present.

  President. – You are quite right to point that out. Speakers were present but the committee concerned had withdrawn this item.

  President. – Before proceeding to the explanations of vote, let me inform you that the Conference of Presidents has decided, pursuant to Rule 127(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to amend this year’s calendar of part-sessions. It is convening an extraordinary plenary sitting on Tuesday, 24 June 2008, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., for a joint debate on the outcome of the European Council of 19 and 20 June 2008 and the report on the Slovenian Presidency’s six-month term.

Oral explanations of vote

- Motion for a resolution B6-0217/2008

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the cost of food is increasing and will continue to increase and there will be increasing problems with food supply. There are a number of reasons for the fact that there will be food shortages and that there will be more people needing food, and even starving. The first reason is, primarily, the increased population growth in third countries. The second is insufficient production of food and poor distribution. The third is that various interest groups are playing the markets. The fourth is the Common Agricultural Policy, which has resulted in significant reductions in food production in new Member States. Until this policy is changed, until we free food production and our reserves, then this, too, will contribute to food shortages and higher prices. The fifth reason relates to the various natural disasters over which we have no control, but which, unfortunately, result in great losses and complications.

There is a single conclusion: the problem of food is the most important problem, as, after all, it affects biological survival. It requires full solidarity, not just in the European Union, but also in the entire world. For this reason it has my support.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I supported the new paragraph to be added after paragraph 12, which calls on the Commission and Member States ‘to acknowledge the EU’s dependence on imports of vegetable proteins from third countries’, with the very important result of establishing, first, ‘workable import rules based on GM thresholds’ and, secondly, of reducing ‘unnecessary delays in the EU GM approval system’.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Recently we have seen a worrying increase in food prices in world markets. When food prices rise and, in addition, there is a significant increase in energy prices, this causes increased inflation. Politicians and economists are trying to analyse this situation and identify the causes. The following seem to be the main factors: changes in the global economy, including higher energy prices, reduced harvests and the production of biofuels.

Increased demand for food and increased affluence of the inhabitants in fast-growing countries such as India or China have also had an impact on rising food prices. Higher food prices affect both producers and consumers.

Changes in global food markets force us to think seriously about our food security strategy, or perhaps even rethink it entirely. What is most important, however, is to undertake steps aimed at improving the situation on food markets, not just by ad hoc activities, but actions that will lead to long-term stability.

Too little attention has been given to stability in production levels and to maintaining appropriate quantities of reserves, which would limit the effects of fluctuations in production levels caused by climate change or other factors.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, as regards the report on the increase in food prices in the European Union, I voted in favour of amendment 21 and against amendment 28. Unfortunately, the voting machine did not react at that point.

I would, however, like to draw attention to the fact that, in a Europe where children are going hungry, it is unacceptable to have production limits and quotas on food production and I would ask the European Commission to consider this issue again. During the parliamentary work there is a report prepared by Mrs Zimmer on poverty in Europe, particularly as regards child poverty, including malnutrition among European children. We should not allow this to happen.

Motion for a resolution B6-0233/2008

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) In 2001 the Council exempted US citizens from the visa requirement. Unfortunately, a comparable exemption does not apply to all EU citizens. The US still maintains the visa requirement for nationals of some Member States (currently Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia). More than 10% of visa applications are rejected. According to the applicants, the process is often based on non-transparent criteria.

On the one hand, there is the rule that since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 the Council has been responsible for establishing the rules on EU visa policy. On the other hand, there is the rule that the US conducts only bilateral negotiations for including countries in the visa waiver programme, since this is in accordance with its national legislation and only individual countries – not international communities – may enter this programme.

I welcome the European Parliament’s resolution on negotiations between the European Union and the United States, which is the result of intense debates in the European Parliament. I trust that the resolution will banish all doubts about the legitimate efforts of the new Member States to eliminate the differences between the old and new Member States of the European Union.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the principles of solidarity, cooperation and non-discrimination as regards nationality are fundamental to the European Union. The visa policy of the USA and the accompanying requirements have, however, somewhat shaken these principles. Member States are forced into separate negotiations concerning issues that, in large part, fall within the competence of the Community.

The issue of visa restrictions particularly affects the new Member States which, although they themselves do not apply restrictions or other requirements as regards the United States, cannot, as can be seen, count on reciprocity from that country.

This issue is not one that can be resolved individually by each country acting for itself. What is needed here are detailed regulations covering all EU countries. I should point out that if the visa policy of the United States does not change, this will certainly affect transatlantic relations.

- Report: Janusz Wojciechowski (A6-0147/2008)

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the problem of animal disease is growing and there are several reasons for this. The first of these is the increase in the size of farms and the associated concentrations of animals. The second is a lack of measures to combat animal diseases effectively.

We could resolve the first problem by restricting breeding in large farms and herds using legal and administrative means and by introducing a support system for smaller farms, especially family-run farms.

The second undoubtedly depends on the necessary funds being made available from the European Union budget for combating animal diseases. Obviously there are also other very important causes that should not be underestimated, such as: animal transport, unsatisfactory early warning systems, insufficient preventative measures being taken, which includes inoculation.

Mr Wojciechowski’s report speaks of these problems and, for this reason, I voted in favour.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Wojciechowski both on his report and on the outcome of today’s vote. The Commission’s initiative regarding a change in the approach to animal health and the previous strategy have shown unequivocally that it is vital to work on improving regulations in this area, to improve coherence with other policies and to increase legislative effectiveness.

The new approach proposed in the strategy will make it possible to minimise the risk of infectious diseases breaking out in animals. I know this problem very well, also in my capacity as a veterinarian. It will also promote growth in the economy, make European farmers and companies more competitive and provide new access to export markets.

What is more, appropriate standards of animal health and safety are a guarantee of proper trade policy within the Community. This policy, which has changed under the influence of a series of severe crises and disease outbreaks that took place over the last few years, has shown that a careful analysis needs to be made of the measures taken to date. I believe that, thanks to this proposal, the European Union will promote science, innovation and research to ensure the provision of better measures for combating animal diseases.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I am sorry to note that, as regards the report of Mr Wojciechowski, the amendment concerning conditions for animal transport did not get through by just ten votes. This shows a lack of sensitivity on our part. I hope that, in the future, this type of document will be corrected.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Kyösti Virrankoski (A6-0188/2008)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Due to the delay in implementing the new structural programmes and subsequently the operational programmes presented by Member States, appropriations totalling EUR 3 525 million from the 2007 EU budget for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) have not been used.

Part of this amount has already been carried forward to the 2008 budget, but EUR 2 034 million have yet to be used.

This draft amending budget proposes inter alia to carry part of that unused amount forward to the budget currently in force (EUR 772 million), and to carry the remainder forward to subsequent years.

Such delays have serious repercussions in implementing programmes, and it is obviously micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and small-scale and family farms, among other examples, that suffer the consequences most, taking into account furthermore the deterioration in the financial and socioeconomic crisis resulting from neoliberal policies.

What is more, in view of rising food and fuel prices and the downward revision of economic growth in various EU countries, these sums should be used to promote public investment in order to stimulate the economy and bring about an urgent improvement in workers’ incomes.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) The second amendment that was introduced into the budget for 2008 contains, as usual, several elements that have no logical connection with each other. This is often a characteristic of amending budgets and it makes it more difficult to assess the proposal. The basic issue, however, is the quality of the justification provided as well as the proposal’s procedural compliance with the Financial Regulations. It is completely justifiable to include in the 2008 budget unused ERDF, EAFRD and EFF structural funds (totalling EUR 771.6 million), which corresponds with both the wording and the spirit of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2006, when we anticipated delays in the implementation of the new Financial Perspective. When voting for this budget amendment we can note with some satisfaction that over 500 out of 580 operational programmes for 2007-2013 have already been approved, which means we are passing into the realisation phase in this current seven-year period. The Parliament rapporteur also agrees with the modifications to the framework plans of two agencies, namely the European Medicines Agency and the European Maritime Safety Agency, in accordance with the submission from the European Commission, which constitutes a supplementary part of the initial budget amendment proposal no 2/2008. This kind of supplement is accepted more readily than the tendency to multiply the EU’s executive and regulatory agencies.

– Report: Romana Jordan Cizelj (A6-0167/2008)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) The strategic attempt to revive European competitiveness, proposed in the Lisbon strategy and reiterated recently at the Competitiveness Council of November 2007, has led the EU to intensify its efforts to enhance European potential for innovation and growth in the face of world competition.

SMEs are the key to a genuine revival of research and development activity because by their very nature they are spurred on towards innovation in their struggle to survive in the marketplace. However, access to R&D activities can sometimes be particularly burdensome in economic and bureaucratic terms.

I therefore endorse this report, which emphasises the need for the EU to apply the ‘think small first’ principle and to boost the potential for innovation and originality of SMEs, which are still one of the main drivers of the European economy.

I think that a policy to promote small enterprise should incorporate subsidies and essential aid for research: examples of this are the ‘Best’ programme, which has facilitated an exchange of best practices between SMEs, the CIP and the 7-initiative policy framework. However, I also think it is essential to adopt a series of measures aimed at promoting entrepreneurship, such as reduction of barriers to the internal market, elimination of bureaucratic obstacles and facilitation of bank loans to SMEs.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE), in writing. − The Fine Gael Delegation in the EPP-ED welcomes Ms Jordan-Cizeli's report on a mid-term review of industrial policy. With regard to paragraph 7 of the report, we acknowledge the right of those Member States who wish to consolidate the European market in defence equipment and improve the global competitiveness of the EU defence industry, on the strict understanding that Ireland's military neutrality (as outlined explicitly in a declaration to the Treaties) is fully respected.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The European Parliament report, following the communication from the European Commission, moreover, overlooks the enormous social impact of existing industries and perpetuates a neoliberal approach that may guarantee high profits for large enterprises but does not ensure employment with rights and improvements in people’s quality of life.

While it is true that industry in the EU is responsible for over 80% of private sector R&D expenditure and that its innovative products represent some 73% of EU exports, the report in fact advocates the creation of an open and competitive internal market in services and industry. This is in the interests only of the large economic groups, since it may jeopardise micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and a high percentage of jobs. This in turn may affect the income of workers and many small-scale business people, and therefore their activity as consumers.

Finally, we also disagree with the strengthening of the role of the EU defence sector, even if this may have an impact on expanding the arms industry. Our proposal for progress and social development is consistent with peace rather than war.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because of the importance it attaches to issues that I consider to be fundamental, i.e. the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union.

Since they represent over 90% of European business, SMEs not only have an economic role within the Union but also a social role because of their significant contribution to jobs and growth.

Initiatives such as the European Commission's effort to cut the unnecessary bureaucracy faced by these companies by 25% and the promotion of investment in the quality of human resources and in research are therefore to be welcomed.

The industrial sector in the EU still has great potential for improvement, both in the delivery of research and innovation in business opportunities and in anticipating such opportunities to ensure more rapid adaptation to changes in the market.

Improving the regulatory framework, particularly as regards patents, so as to facilitate access to the internal market and to foster European entrepreneurship are key factors for increasing our industrial competitiveness. In this context it seems to me that the promotion of regional clusters is also very positive.

A prosperous European industry is obviously crucial for achieving the Lisbon goals.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Industrial policy is of considerable importance for the realisation of the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. It should create the framework for the growth of companies, industrial investment, innovation and the creation of new jobs.

I am happy that, in this context, special attention has been paid to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, which, after all, constitute 99.8% of the companies in Europe. It is just these companies that most feel the effects of excessive bureaucracy. Calculated on a per capita basis, small companies incur, on average, costs that are ten times higher than those of large companies as regards the responsibilities imposed by legal regulations.

In addition, SMEs can experience greater difficulties than large companies in accessing markets. Let us not forget that it is SMEs, through their innovation and flexibility, that provide a significant boost to economic growth and improvements in the competitiveness of European business. For this reason it is extremely important to develop solutions that will help to reduce administrative burdens, increase SME access to the internal market and public tenders and help them respond to new challenges. The Small Business Charter that has been announced by the Commission is to include these kinds of proposals.

I agree with the rapporteur’s view that an improvement in regulatory conditions at European level must be combined with commitment from Member States. Without national steps to reduce the administrative burden it will not be possible to achieve measurable economic benefits.

– Report: Bernard Lehideux (A6-0131/2008)

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI), in writing. − (PL) I have decided to vote against report A6-131/2008. This is yet another document that has signed up to the tendency to create institutions that have no sense to them and which take money from the Community's budget. Despite the existence of four structural funds, seven coherence funds, a framework programme and dozens of EU agencies whose only job is to milk the EU's funds, here is another organisation that would most certainly cost the European taxpayer money but, as regards real measures against unemployment or making the lives of employers easier (or at least not making them more difficult), nothing like that is mentioned here.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) What happened today in the vote in plenary session was regrettable. The PPE-DE proposed an amendment that questioned and sought to improve the operation of the agreement already reached with the Council and promote knowledge and analysis of national and local labour markets. In terms of the Council’s interaction with the European Parliament, the amendment sought to ensure that Parliament would be more closely involved in the operation and control of the agreement.

The approval of the PPE-DE proposal, albeit by a narrow margin, undermined the whole basis of the consensus obtained. Contrary to expectations, therefore, a second reading will be required, which means that the report will be discussed again in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, since this is a legislative area subject to the codecision procedure.

Hence our final vote to abstain.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The European Training Foundation plays a valuable role in the development of vocational training systems in third countries. I believe that this Parliament should play a full part in the ETF’s functioning and have accordingly been able to support the rapporteur’s position.

– Motion for a resolution: Lebanon (B6-0271/2008)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Junilistan sympathises with many parts of the report. We welcome the development of a peaceful and democratic Lebanon and are keen to see the EU Member States contributing actively to the peace process. However, we think that this action should take place within the framework of the independent foreign policies of each Member State, particularly as the political situation in the Lebanon concerns sensitive matters on which the Member State governments extensively disagree. The EU should leave it to the United Nations to deal with matters such as these, instead of trying to compete and develop its own foreign policy. The United Nations is the international organisation which is best equipped to bring about a lasting settlement of the conflict in the Middle East and to deal with the political situation.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Recent developments in the situation in Lebanon cannot be analysed in isolation from the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, where interference, intervention and military occupation by the United States and its allies are escalating with the aim of establishing control over this strategic region.

Besides whitewashing the Lebanese Government’s role in the recent deterioration in the situation in Lebanon, this resolution – whose original proposal was superseded by events – also whitewashes the interference, attempted blockade and pressure exerted by Israel and the USA in this country’s internal affairs, examples of which include Israeli military manoeuvres, the stationing of the US Sixth Fleet in the region and the proposed boycott of the Damascus Summit. It should also be noted that at the same time as it glosses over the role of the USA and its allies in the region, the EP majority once again points its finger at Syria and Iran.

The resolution also focuses on political positions whose objective is to meddle in Lebanon’s internal affairs, disregarding the fact that the deterioration in the situation in the Middle East is due primarily to Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and even Lebanese territory.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − The situation in Lebanon is preoccupying. The agreement in Doha between the government and opposition leaders has provided the country with an opportunity to hopefully move towards relative peace and stability.

While the vote is yet to be made on the nomination of General Michel Sleiman as president, signs that all sides are prepared to negotiate are encouraging. I believe that the EU should continue to support measures to ensure that we no longer witness the violence and political upheaval suffered by the Lebanese people. I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

– Motion for a resolution: Rising food prices in the European Union and developing countries (B6-0217/2008)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote for the resolution, since rising food prices are a problem for the supply of food around the world.

However, we regret that Parliament turns a blind eye to the fact that the EU’s protectionist agricultural policy is contributing to a situation in which large parts of the world do not have a viable food production system.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The world food crisis (83% price rise), which is currently reflected in hunger riots in the developing countries, and the fall in the most modest European consumers’ purchasing power are, in my view, connected with the following:

- the unprecedented stock market speculation on basic food prices, which is exploiting the tensions and the highly volatile agricultural markets in an unacceptable fashion;

- the growth in the cultivation of crops for energy purposes, at the expense of essential food crops;

- the weaknesses of European development policy;

- the fact that export crops have been supported in the developing countries at the expense of food crops and food self-sufficiency, and

- the current world trade rules that generate conditions that are particularly unfair to small and medium farmers, especially in the developing countries.

Over and above emergency measures, when we report on the health of the CAP we must redefine the way we intervene on the world markets (infrastructure, intervention stocks, risk management, prospects and economic modelling of price changes, etc.), reconsider the decoupling of aid and globally rethink our agricultural production models to ensure that they are productive and enduring.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) I must point out a contradiction between this European Parliament resolution and the proposed revision of the common agricultural policy that the Commissioner responsible for agriculture presented here this week.

It was particularly shocking that the Commissioner should totally disregard the social drama and strong impact of the soaring food prices recorded in recent months – exacerbated by abandonment of the land and the disappearance of many thousands of farms – and push for a cut in the meagre support received by around 70 000 Portuguese smallholders by proposing a minimum threshold while forgetting to indicate a maximum one.

The negative effect of the last CAP reform is well known, particularly the untying of aid from production. It is therefore particularly serious that in the prevailing circumstances the total withdrawal of payments associated with production that still exists has been announced (with the sole exception of suckler cows, goats and sheep). These payments have been transferred to the single payment scheme, at the same time as progress is being made in the gradual dismantling of significant common market organisations and in dismantling the milk quota system, and in withdrawing intervention in areas such as durum wheat, rice and pigmeat, further promoting the abandonment of the land and farming.

  Neena Gill (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this resolution to support particularly paragraphs 16 and 35 that call for the developed world to clamp down on agricultural subsidies.

The call by French agriculture minister, Michel Barnier, for Europe to establish a food security plan and resist further cuts in Europe’s agriculture budget is ill-thought out. After serving on the Parliament’s Budget Committee for eight years, where I became well-versed in the anomalies of the CAP, I believe such a move would be counterproductive. It would raise world food prices at a time of crisis and do nothing for the long-term health of European agriculture.

France will soon take over the EU Presidency, and a review of the EU budget is overdue. President Sarkozy must grasp the opportunity to begin real reform of the agricultural subsidies within the CAP and allow the EU to fulfil its responsibilities to the developing world.

The UK Government, on the other hand, was right to call for a trade deal to allow poorer countries greater access to developed world markets. This could help the world’s 100 million people in poor countries who would otherwise be pushed deeper into poverty. However, more must still be done at EU level.

  Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) World economic growth and biofuels policy have created a paradox. Given the level of affluence attained worldwide, it is obscene that many families struggle to get enough to eat. The market is conditioned by unprecedented concentrations of people in urban areas, abandonment of agriculture for the tertiary sector and the use of basic food products in other complex elements of the food chain, such as livestock.

Biofuels have introduced a thief into the countryside and an unexpected guest at the table. Competition between sources of energy and food is orchestrating their prices.

We are facing scarcity, sustainability, safety and ecological problems. Self-sufficiency policies are adopted in response to the disappearance of strategic reserves and wars are feared. Given the restrictions announced on the sale of grain, the size of harvests this year will be crucial. Speculation is such that central banks are drawing attention to the underlying risk of inflation, while in India the negotiation of futures contracts on foodstuffs has been banned.

It is urgent to reverse the situation in favour of farmers, who still do not know what they will harvest, especially the smallest, who are victims of perverse and inconsistent agricultural policies. The technology and the science that previously diverged thus have a new opportunity that we will all benefit from.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Due to pressure from the intensifying worldwide capitalist crisis, the resolution adopted, albeit with limitations, nevertheless represents a condemnation of the consequences of EU agricultural policies, revealing the real and unacceptable objectives of the CAP and of WTO agreements.

The resolution, however, does not attribute responsibility for the extremely serious current situation, and does not draw the proper conclusions from its diagnosis since it does not call into question the policies underlying it, the following being some examples:

It does not make food sovereignty a central issue for ensuring the right to food;

It does not see raising small-scale and family farming incomes as an essential prerequisite for the preservation of agriculture, the rural world and food safety;

It does not seek to ensure that agriculture is withdrawn from the WTO and that agricultural food products cease to be treated as a simple commodity, and does not seek to have the Blair House agreement reviewed;

It does not demand termination of the CAP, no further untying of aid from production, the application of a true ceiling and differentiation in favour of small-scale and family farming, and a fair redistribution between countries and products, promoting the full development of each country’s arable and livestock farming.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. − We have entered into a period characterised by food insecurity. Prices have risen dramatically and the demand for food is rising faster than supply. A combination of climatic factors (such as prolonged droughts) and the use of grain in the production of biofuels has further aggravated the situation.

This current state of affairs is particularly worrying in the context of the developing world. In poorer countries such as Haiti, food shortages have already led to incidents of riots and civil unrest. As this resolution points out, the priority of the international community should be to ensure food autonomy and self sufficiency for developing countries.

However, rising food prices do not only affect poorer nations. The EU must now take action in order to stabilise this situation. First and foremost, we should be encouraging our farmers to produce more. Moreover, a more sensible balance regarding the use of grain for food supply and energy production needs to be achieved. A review of the CAP Health Check would be an ideal forum in which to address these issues.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the resolution on rising food prices in the European Union and in developing countries. This is a problem that affects the whole world. There are many causes for this situation. They include increased demand for food, rising fuel prices, natural disasters (especially droughts), reduced acreage devoted to plants for human or animal consumption (the price of increasing the area of land designated for so-called energy agriculture) and so on. For this reason I would support the UN’s proposal for a moratorium on biofuels.

What can also be seen is financial speculation on food markets. Another contributing factor is the issue of the erroneous and unnecessary quotas that restrict agricultural production, for example the milk quotas that place limits on the production of milk and milk products in Poland. Tragic consequences in the poorest countries result in food from our surpluses being given away for free or sold at token prices. This kind of aid is only helpful in times of catastrophes and disasters. Otherwise it completely destroys their farmers, since it is not worth their while either to grow crops or to keep animals. Fast-rising food prices combined with unemployment could also lead to social instability in these countries.

We recently heard of a dramatic event in Afghanistan, where someone sold their daughter in order to be able to keep the rest of their family with the money. We should remember the inflationary effects of rising food prices. Let us hope that they do not set in motion a spiralling and sudden increase in all prices.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − 850 million people across the world go hungry everyday. This crisis requires swift and effective action from the EU and its Member States. I join the calls for an impact assessment of the role of retailers in the food chain and the Commission and Member States to analyse discrepancies in prices charged by farmers for their produce and those charged by major retailers.

Indeed, this crisis is of a global scale and much needs to be done in developing countries. We should therefore be focusing on helping developing countries in areas such as agriculture, rural development and agribusiness. I voted in favour of the resolution.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) At a time of extremely worrying food price surges it is more necessary than ever for the European Parliament to adopt a resolution.

Firstly, the food shortage that is rife in many countries in the world is quite rightly unacceptable. We need to propose emergency measures to bring an end to the famine that is at this very moment afflicting the most vulnerable people in the developing countries. In addition to those emergency measures, which cannot resolve the problem in the long term, the EU must formulate a strategy, in agreement with international organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF, the FAO and the WTO. It must be a basic strategy that tackles all the causes of the crisis: changing food habits in Asia, the rapid rise in the cultivation of biofuels, etc.

Secondly, the worrying rise in the price of the consumer’s shopping basket suggests that we should think deeply about reforming the common agricultural policy. At a time when we are taking stock of the health of the CAP, we must put forward concrete proposals on means of halting the inflation we are seeing even within the internal market, as also of ensuring that the EU is self-sufficient in food.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE), in writing. − When I participated in the election observation mission in Nigeria last April, I came across the shocking fact that Nigeria, once an exporter of agricultural products, had become an importer of food. The demographic situation in the developing countries has increased the demand for food drastically, but ongoing military conflicts, the fight against deadly diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis as well as ineffective administration have distracted the governments of developing countries from responding to this need.

I supported the European Parliament resolution on rising food prices in the European Union and developing countries and hope that the European Union will continue improving its development policies and engage further in fair international trade.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) The resolution on rising food prices in the world could have been a valuable contribution to the current debate on the EU’s agricultural policy and its consequences.

Yet the result was a disappointment. In the first part it is noted that the trend is towards increased regulation and renewed stockpiling – despite the fact that the high food prices have for the first time in years made agriculture a truly lucrative sector.

The second part talks about ‘the right to food’ in the Third World and the importance of prioritising food over fuel production. At the same time, the final result of the voting was scattered on all sides as regards the advantages and disadvantages of biofuels!

Politics consists of conflicts over objectives and the main task of a politician is to strike a balance and rank them in order of priority. This resolution did not achieve that. I therefore abstained.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) The rise in food prices absolutely must be halted, otherwise we are heading for serious difficulties. We need multilayered strategies which reinvigorate food production on the one hand by means of measures such as the temporary suspension of set-aside premiums and permit better coordination and distribution of food supplies on the other. The poor countries that are hardest hit by rising prices must be given help to overcome the crisis as quickly as possible in a well-organised and, above all, sustainable manner. Major exporters of agricultural products, such as Argentina and the United States, must act globally in this respect and must not focus solely on their own well-being.

In the debate on biofuels, it must not be forgotten that their production in Europe, where fuel crops are grown on two per cent of all arable land, has an extremely minimal effect on food prices. Biofuels must not be produced at the expense of food, which is why we must make strenuous efforts to promote the production of a second generation of biofuels, based on biomass, which is essentially organic waste that is virtually unusable for any other purpose.

– Motion for a resolution: Negotiations between the EU and the United States with regard to visa exemptions (B6-0233/2008)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) Following the implementation of the US legislative reform that reinforced security requirements under the visa waiver programme, the USA decided to propose separate memoranda of understanding to each Member State in an attempt to divide and rule.

These agreements are unacceptable, not only because they do not respect Community competence in this area, but also because they undermine the principle of fair competition and give rise to unequal treatment between nationals of various Member States where visas are concerned.

I applaud the granting of a mandate to the Commission (under Community competence) to negotiate an agreement between the EU and the USA ensuring uniform treatment and applying the same conditions regarding visa exemption to all EU nationals who wish to enter US territory (as the Union in fact already applies in relation to all US citizens who wish to enter the EU).

These negotiations must be conducted rapidly and in a spirit of European unity, so that in 2009 all Member States will be able to participate in the USA’s reformed Visa Waiver Programme.

I believe that the conditions for this to happen, however, will only exist if the bilateral agreements meanwhile entered into are annulled. I therefore await the opinion of the EP legal department, which I hope will confirm this position.

  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE), in writing. − The adoption of the 'Motion for a resolution on negotiations between the European Union and the United States with regard to visa exemptions' is welcomed by the EPP-ED.

It marks an important step in coordinating activities of Member States and the European Commission in their negotiations with the United States. It recognises that discrimination of a large group of EU citizens is unacceptable and shows solidarity on the part of those Member States already in the programme with those who still face inconvenient and sometimes demeaning visa application procedures. It draws attention to the fact that reasons for visa refusal are non-transparent. A rapid fall in the rate of refusal in some countries and not others creates suspicions that countries outside visa waiver are not treated on the same terms by the United States.

Representing Poland, a country outside the visa waiver regime, I trust that the resolution will lead to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion of an agreement allowing all EU citizens to travel to the US on the same terms. The EU and Member States have made a concerted effort to resolve the problem. We are hopeful that the United States will meet this initiative with an open and positive response.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We understand from this resolution:

That although the EU has signed reciprocity agreements with several third countries but not with the US – which is why in 2006 the Commission proposed the temporary restoration of the visa requirement for holders of diplomatic and duty/official passports in order to expedite progress towards reciprocity with that country – the Council did not follow up that proposal, which the resolution describes as symbolic.

That the situation became legally complicated when the US reformed its visa waiver regime, based on the so-called war on terror, adding security enhancements (including access to data and information on citizens from third countries) to require other countries wishing to be part of the visa waiver programme to sign a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding and its binding implementing rules.

And that, in the light of the USA’s demands, the various EU Member States were divided, ultimately bearing witness to their priorities.

The resolution is part of a damage limitation effort, though in our opinion it does not safeguard principles that we consider to be fundamental, such as State sovereignty and citizens’ rights, freedoms and guarantees.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN), in writing. − (PL) I support the European Parliament resolution concerning visa negotiations with the USA. These should be on behalf of all EU Members. The US government and the governments of those countries that have already embarked on bilateral negotiations should take into account the position of the EU and its competence to sign treaties.

What is needed are clear guidelines for bilateral discussions about travel to the United States without visas, but there are issues that are in the EU’s power. What is required here is mutuality. Unfortunately, as regards Poland, which unilaterally removed visa requirements for US citizens as long ago as 15 April 1991, the asymmetry is glaring. I am not convinced by the argument that this is due to the rather high level of refusals to grant visas.

In my opinion these refusals are often the result of arbitrary decisions taken by officials in the American consular service who assume – often it is not clear on what basis – that someone would illegally extend their visit to the USA. Such assumptions are hardly objective and sometimes simply insulting. Also, the exchange rate of the dollar against the zloty no longer supports the argument about illegal work. Today what is important to people are tourist visits, business trips and visits to friends and family. I believe that the United States also lose out with this policy, closing their frontiers to their allies but letting in potential terrorists. How can you develop transatlantic cooperation if there is no trust in your allies? This is not just a rhetorical question. Many of my constituents have mentioned this issue.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − Europe's citizens have come together to enjoy the benefits of a European Union which can express itself not only in Europe but without. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the treatment of its citizens when travelling abroad. Visas are already not asked for by the USA for many EU countries. Whilst I understand the legitimate right of the USA to make up its own mind on the issue, I feel there is a rational argument in favour of extending this right to all of the EU's citizens. I feel that a properly negotiated agreement with the USA should reflect the non-discrimination approach required by the Parliament.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on negotiations between the European Union and the United States with regard to the Visa Waiver Program.

I voted for the oral amendment proposed by the socialist Member of Parliament Lambrinidis, because he requests the exclusion of any form of direct or indirect discrimination among European citizens, including based on nationality. Thus, attention is called on the consequences of the lack of coordination between the Community institutions and Member States, in international negotiations.

I also voted for amendment 8, orally amended by our colleague Gacek. The new text expresses the European Parliament’s dissatisfaction with the existent situation in which only the citizens of 12 Member States, such as Romania, are not exempted from visa for the United States of America.

I voted for amendment 1 submitted by the Group of European Socialists, which requests the Commission to guarantee, under the principle of loyal cooperation, equal treatment for all Member States citizens as regards the visa waiver. I voted for amendment 2 submitted by the Group of European Socialists because it states that, at the meeting of 13 March 2008 of the Ministerial Troika on Justice and Home Affairs, the US admitted the Community’s competence to negotiate an international agreement on visa policy.

– Motion for a resolution: Tragic situation in Burma (B6-0244/2008)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the joint motion for a resolution on Burma because the dramatic situation in the country makes it essential to restore democracy and ensure respect for human rights as a matter of urgency.

I regret the Burmese authorities’ conduct in response to the cyclone that devastated the country, causing thousands of deaths and displacements, and I strongly condemn the response to this tragedy by the Burmese regime, which has prevented humanitarian aid teams from getting in and has refused assistance for victims.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Burma is an enormous tragedy, and Junilistan agrees that the handling of the situation by the Burmese Government has been beneath all criticism. Aid must reach the hundreds of thousands of stricken people. That is priority number one. We therefore strongly sympathise with the resolution in its criticism of the Burmese Government, which has put its own power above the survival of the country’s people. On the other hand, it is not the job of the EU to condemn and exhort other countries to put pressure on Burma to open its borders. It is also not up to the EU to call on the International Criminal Court to prosecute the Government of Burma. It is the international community which should deal with these crucial questions of international law through the United Nations. Unfortunately there is a tendency in the EU to exploit disasters in order to advance its own position in the foreign policy area.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of the cyclone on 2 and 3 May that affected various regions of Myanmar (Burma).

We firmly believe that every diplomatic effort must be made, particularly within the framework of the UN Agencies, to provide urgent help and support to the victims, to try to minimise the number of deaths, to respond to the problems faced by the people and to begin reconstruction work on the enormous amount of infrastructure that has been destroyed, in cooperation with the Burmese authorities, as the resolution in fact stresses.

However, we disagree with initiatives which, based on so-called humanitarian intervention, will continue to obstruct and call into question the effort currently being made by the UN Agencies, by ASEAN and by various countries in the region to find solutions to help to overcome the current obstacles and to minimise the suffering of the people affected.

These initiatives, which unacceptably exploit the dramatic situation of thousands and thousands of human beings, seek primarily to use the humanitarian catastrophe for political purposes and as an opportunity to achieve geostrategic objectives, ultimately compromising the pressing humanitarian aid which they claim is so urgent and necessary. In essence, this fosters situations that may add the tragedy of war to the natural tragedy.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I fully support the resolution dealing with the tragic situation in Burma. The original natural disaster of the cyclone has now been overtaken by the man-made disaster created by the Burmese Government’s response. The Burmese Government has a moral and legal duty towards its citizens and must allow international aid in to prevent the situation becoming even more serious.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − The tragic situation in Burma demands urgent attention. In so far rejecting international aid, the Burmese regime has proven their disregard for the seriousness of the situation at hand. For the victims of Cyclone Nargis, this is not an issue of politics, but of survival. I join my colleagues in urging the military regime to accept offers of assistance from the international community.

Indeed, our Asian partners also have a role to play in putting pressure on the regime in Rangoon. I reiterate my view that, in encouraging other ASEAN countries to reconsider Burma’s membership, Rangoon would encounter strong pressure to finally acknowledge the rights and freedoms that its population have been, and are still, crying out for. I join my colleagues in voting in favour of this motion.

– Motion for a resolution: Natural disaster in China (B6-0242/2008)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, I would like to acknowledge the Commission’s swift response to the emergency following the earthquake on 12 May. According to the newspapers, factories, schools and houses collapsed, in certain areas the earthquake destroyed 80% of buildings, in some towns school buildings collapsed, burying the students inside, and, unfortunately, chemical factories have dispersed tonnes of pollutants into the ground.

This time we are managing to follow this devastation, in all its harsh reality, in the press and through the statements of the Chinese authorities – who appear to be holding nothing back. It is noteworthy that on this occasion, in marked contrast to the madness of the nearby Burmese regime, China is showing an openness to assistance and international aid. As the Commissioner has stated on several occasions, Europe must pursue its humanitarian action in the devastated province of Sichuan.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Aid and money for the people in China who have been hit by this natural disaster are a must in dealing with this tragic situation. But the Member States themselves can offer such aid directly to the stricken region. Aid does not have to go via the EU. Other international organisations are better equipped to coordinate humanitarian aid. The United Nations, with its long experience and global reach, is an obvious example of such organisations. We consider that this resolution is yet another attempt by the EU to pursue foreign policy and to make use of a disaster in order to take a further step towards a federal state which engages in foreign policy.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We express our sincere condolences to the victims of the earthquake that struck various provinces and autonomous regions of the People’s Republic of China on 12 May, and our solidarity with the people of China, who have shown such courage and mutual support in this time of suffering.

As has been pointed out, the Chinese authorities have very quickly and efficiently begun the urgent task of providing relief and support to the victims, seeking to minimise the number of deaths, respond to the problems faced by the people and begin rebuilding the huge amount of infrastructure that has been destroyed.

Hence the need for the various Member States and the EU rapidly to provide resources and emergency aid that will contribute towards the Chinese authorities’ huge effort to help the people affected by the earthquake.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I join my colleagues in saluting China's efforts in helping its people following the earthquake in Sichuan province. What we are seeing with China is an example to other states in the region faced with the massive destruction caused by such natural disasters.

I also agree that the EU should be actively helping China with reconstruction efforts. I voted in support of the resolution.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s resolution on the natural disaster in China. Earthquakes are catastrophic events that claim very many lives and cause huge damage to property.

The Chinese earthquake, which had a magnitude of 7.8, has shocked people all over the world. This devastating quake has claimed a large number of victims and has created extremely difficult conditions for those who have been affected by it, especially in Sichuan Province. I would like to express my deepest sympathy and solidarity with the Chinese people and with the great many victims of this tragedy.

We welcome the fact that the Chinese authorities reacted swiftly to the disaster by providing emergency relief measures. It should be noted that China was also willing to accept offers of aid from external sources. Moreover, it is gratifying to see that the Chinese and foreign media were allowed to transmit detailed and accurate information on the disaster.

According to my estimates, the EU has already provided more than EUR 10 million in aid. However, China needs the practical experience of Europeans in this field even more than it needs financial aid. The emergency relief measures provided for the civilian population must therefore include tried and tested practices for reducing the impact of events of this kind. The EU has to make available the knowledge it has acquired from seismology research so as to help identify the reasons for the inadequate structural stability of buildings. The earthquake region of Sichuan must be converted into an open-air laboratory where potential solutions can be tested out and the findings used for the reconstruction of that province.

– Motion for a resolution: Global treaty to ban uranium weapons (B6-0219/2008)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) A ban on this type of weapon must be implemented on a global basis, through the United Nations, and at the instigation of nation states, not by the European Parliament. We are opposed to a common European security policy which will lead to a United States of Europe. We have therefore voted against the resolution.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Being fully aware of the retrospective nature of the resolution, we voted in favour, mainly because of the content of paragraphs 7 and 8, which:

Reiterate the call for all EU Member States and NATO countries to impose a ban on the use of depleted uranium, to redouble efforts to achieve a complete ban and systematically to halt production and procurement of this type of weaponry;

Call on the Member States and the Council to take the lead in working towards an international treaty to establish a ban on the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, testing and use of uranium weapons as well as the destruction or recycling of existing stocks (even though the EP has unacceptably set conditions on that requirement).

However, we must stress that the majority in the EP has avoided attributing responsibility for the use of depleted uranium for military purposes. In other words, it seeks to whitewash the crimes committed by NATO and the USA and its allies in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq (where furthermore, besides depleted uranium weapons, fragmentation or white phosphorus bombs have also been used).

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I fully support calls for the establishment of an international treaty to ban depleted uranium weapons. The use of these weapons causes fatal diseases amongst both military personnel and the civilian population. The EU has a moral duty to take a lead on this issue and work towards the total elimination of these weapons.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − EU Member States and the Council must take the lead in negotiating an international treaty aimed at introducing a ban on the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, testing and use of uranium weapons.

Indeed, I feel that the treaty must not stop there. States must not be given the opportunity to continue using old stocks of these weapons whose impact on health and the environment remains, in my view, uncertain. Existing stocks must be destroyed or recycled. I voted in favour of this resolution.

- Motion for a resolution - REACH (B6-0237/2008)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This resolution gives continuity to the REACH process, which we abstained from because we felt that it did not meet the legitimate rights and concerns of consumers and of small and medium-sized enterprises, and did not protect workers or the environment. We believe that the necessary balance between protecting workers’ health, protecting the environment and developing industry was not completely struck because consumer rights were not properly guaranteed, since workers’ rights to information and health were restricted. Neither did it take proper account of micro and SMEs – since it inevitably increased the cost of registering substances without providing appropriate support – or even of the large enterprises that have now expressed their wish to replace hazardous chemicals.

Reference is now made to the measures to streamline and speed up the Commission's internal procedures for the validation and regulatory acceptance of new alternative test methods, in which the Commission will provide for a more transparent process involving consultation of all stakeholders in the run-up to any proposal for an Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Test Methods Regulation. We maintained the same position, in the expectation that there would in effect be more transparency.

- Report: Janusz Wojciechowski (A6-0147/2008)

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Wojciechowski report on a new animal health strategy. As an elected Member from the Massif central-Centre district, I am especially worried about the current spread of the epizootic disease of ovine catarrhal fever, which is very serious in terms of duration, propagation, the spread of the various serotypes of the disease in areas that had until then been disease-free and the serious socio-economic effects of restricting animal movements and trade. I think the Commission should formulate an animal health action plan to improve its ability to react to such serious animal epizootic diseases by financing research, compensating for losses, giving advances on payments, etc.

I voted against Amendment 12, concerning the fact that transporting live animals over long distances is likely to increase the risks and that animals intended for slaughter should not be transported for more than nine hours. Conversely, I voted for Amendment 3, to the effect that the quality of transport is more important to animal well-being than its duration. There is a stringent, specific regulation on this matter and we would be well advised to monitor its implementation.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We believe the report presents a range of positive measures that must be built upon and which the Commission should take forward, in particular:

- the need for a substantial Community contribution in respect of major diseases in order to ensure equal treatment and opportunities where these are beyond the resources of the countries and producers concerned;

- acknowledgement that EU producers face higher costs due to the higher EU standards in place and that they must be protected from imported animal products produced subject to lower standards;

- the need for the Commission to help farmers cope with the high costs incurred through the procurement of the equipment required to register animals.

We still have some criticisms, particularly in the area of public funding, which must be stepped up to avoid the establishment of private insurance to remedy losses due to disease eradication. We cannot agree with the possibility of farmers being given total responsibility for eradicating diseases by paying for private insurance.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) I support the animal health strategy for 2007-2013, proposed by the European Commission, since I believe the debate among European institutions must be initiated rapidly with a view to drafting future legislative proposals.

Action at European level must be prioritised, a modern animal health framework must be created, and prevention, monitoring and scientific research must be enhanced.

I therefore approve the Wojciechowski report, though I must stress as regards restrictions on the transport of animals for slaughter that I am against any type of additional imposition, since existing legislation already contains sufficient provisions to minimise animal suffering.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) This report deals with a very important issue. But, as usual, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development proposes increased appropriations from the EU for agriculture in various contexts. We are therefore obliged to vote against the report as a whole, although in principle we are in favour of measures to promote better animal health in the Union.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted against paragraph 52 of the Wojciechowski report which gives support for the principle of electronic tagging. Proposals in this area have not been proportionate and the Commission must rethink its strategy. Sheep farming plays a vital role in many parts of rural Scotland and the EU must act in such a way as to protect these rural economies, not impose additional burdens on sheep farmers.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on a new Animal Health Strategy for the EU because I am strongly in favour of sustainable agriculture and I can only endorse any policy measure or practice that seeks to promote it.

The health and wellbeing of farm animals are essential in order to ensure public health through the production of healthy food. Animal health is closely linked to human health, owing to the possibility of direct or indirect transmission of certain diseases.

Extremely high stocking densities in intensive farming systems may increase the risk of disease spread and hamper disease control. Although I agree that we must promote measures to ensure biological security on farms, we must also ensure that we do not gold-plate the eco-conditionality criteria.

Nevertheless, I deplore the fact that the Commission Communication does not place greater value on veterinary experts, who, in my view, are the best placed to implement an effective strategy for the protection of animal health.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Janus Wojciechowski's report. The report incorporates measures aimed at improving food safety as well as animal health. There have been some calls from our SNP and Conservative colleagues to vote against the mandatory introduction of electronic and DNA-based genetic identification and registration of animals at EU-Level.

In a time when the threat of outbreaks of new and existing animal diseases is acute and expected to be more so due to climate change, it appears sensible to have a secure and robust animal movement system with such identification and registration methods. These views are reflected in the way I voted.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) After heated debate and a large number of amendments tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Wojciechowski report, as adopted, proposes substantial changes to the Commission’s proposals. These changes imbue the report with a strong sense of balance and provide an opportunity effectively to amend and improve the legal framework for animal health in the European Union.

Concerning the issue of high stocking densities in intensive farming systems, the Agriculture Committee’s vote has moderated the rapporteur’s initial position by recognising that these may prove problematic where inadequate disease control measures are practised.

In addition, the amendment tabled in plenary on behalf of the PPE-DE concerning long-distance animal transport should enable the EU to limit the unnecessary suffering of animals intended for slaughter, whilst maintaining excellent sanitary conditions.

The remaining measures proposed in the report, particularly to promote the use of emergency vaccination, to give farmers a greater sense of responsibility and to shed light on the role of all the players in the funding of the future strategy, are a step in the right direction and are an appropriate means of strengthening EU legislation on animal health.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. − I welcome this report, which highlights the needs for high animal health status in the EU, which can only be achieved by an EU action plan. In relation to animal transport, we must only make legislation in this area based on scientific findings. Attempts to specify journey times are narrow and ill-focused. Attention must be paid to ensuring compliance with existing transport regulations. Quality of transportation, not duration is critical. This is why I welcome the exclusion from this report of a specific journey time. Lastly, the EU must insist that our animal health and welfare standards are accepted internationally and that these concerns are taken into account at the WTO.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − This issue is of vital concern for many millions of Europe's citizens, particularly in the south-east of England. The most controversial issue has been the transportation of animals which is a function of this report.

I welcome any impetus which can be given to improving animal welfare during the process of transportation. Of course, an element of this is that veterinary surgeons are properly resourced in carrying out checks and can be certain of an enhanced Veterinary Fund to rely on for this activity.

Similarly, those farmers who deal with livestock transportation should benefit from insurance instruments which protect them for indirect losses.

- Motion for a resolution – Strategy for the third meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (B6-0238/2008)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The implementation of the Aarhus Convention has been discussed since its entry into force on 30 October 2001. Since most of the 35 parties to the Convention are European Union Member States, they have special responsibilities in establishing the mechanisms necessary to implement it.

It is just as important to guarantee specific provisions – like rights already provided for in the Convention – that improve regional and global public participation in other conventions and treaties that address environment-related issues.

Parliament and the Council have now adopted three legislative instruments to implement the Aarhus Convention, but difficulties remain. Thus although some aspects of the EP resolution are not very clear, in general we support it because we believe it is important to contribute to the creation of universal conditions for access to justice and to processes involving environmental issues.

We therefore hope that some positive steps will be made in the process in this third session of the Meeting of the Parties, to be held in Riga, Latvia, from 11 to 13 June 2008.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Junilistan supports the Aarhus Convention, but we think that the national parliaments should determine their various positions on their own account during the conference on the Aarhus Convention in Riga.

The Member States which have not ratified the Aarhus Convention must of course decide for themselves whether they want to ratify or not. In our view it is not for the European Parliament to make recommendations on the matter.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), in writing. − (FI) I have been actively involved in the Aarhus Convention since 2000, when we discussed its first pillar, the right of citizens to information on the environment, and soon after that the second pillar, opportunities for public participation in decision-making. When I met local environment activists in Kazakhstan, what seemed obvious in the West took on a new dimension from my standpoint.

The Aarhus Convention is a major achievement in the aim to improve public participation and access to information rights and is a component in any successful system of democracy, and that is why I well understand Parliament’s position in which also the missing element, the right of the public to appeal, should be restored. I can sympathise, however, with the Council when it says it fears that citizens’ rights could be abused when it comes to lodging an appeal in order to slow down projects or establish a level playing field for fund-raising campaigns staged by organisations. The Council is right to be worried about this exploitation of democracy. It is important, however, that the issue should be raised once again: the world and our society are changing all the time, and political decisions must stand up to present-day scrutiny.

It is for this very reason that I like the paragraph in our resolution in preparation for the meeting which states that there is a desire to extend the Aarhus Convention to apply to all the principles of sustainable development. This way the criteria for sustainable development are met thanks to the Convention’s principles regarding openness, the chance for participation, and accountability. This is actually the idea behind the Aarhus Convention: it will generate a wide-ranging and proactive way of thinking about the environment, especially amongst the public, so creating new opportunities for improving existing practices. The Riga meeting will be a splendid opportunity for an interim evaluation of the Convention, and I am convinced that this is the way to go.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, the Aarhus Convention recognises that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and wellbeing and has a duty to protect the environment, also that in pursuance of that right and in order to fulfil that duty citizens must have access to information, be able to participate in decision-making, and have access to justice in environmental matters.

Article l of the Convention states that each Party to the Convention shall guarantee the rights of access to information and public participation in decision-making. Greater involvement in this process on the part of national and European institutions which represent citizens is of vital importance, both in order to obtain full access to information on environmental matters and, in particular, so as to be able to ensure that the information provided is above all correct. Contradictory theories abound, with greater or lesser scientific foundation. It is necessary to lay down rules to prevent alarmist and sometimes exaggerated pronouncements and to make environmental protection a duty for everyone, both citizens and institutions.

On behalf of the UEN Group, which will vote in favour of the resolution, I would like to underline the need for the European Union delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention, scheduled for 11 to 13 June 2008, to have as broad a representation as possible from this Parliament.

– Report: Johan Van Hecke (A6-0171/2008)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Some aspects of the resolution are more important than others.

Due to their structural importance, some policies condition all the others. The following is an example.

By not calling the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) into question, merely referring to the need not to make development aid available only to countries that accept greater liberalisation of their markets, every positive aspect that might arise out of such aid has been abandoned.

EPAs set conditions on the sovereignty of countries, impose a model that favours EU multinationals, and make the production of countries conditional not on the many particular needs of their people but, on the contrary, on the requirements of an increasingly liberalised market.

Therefore, considering it positive that military expenditure should be excluded from the scope of development aid, that effective resources should be devoted to developing and improving public services, that the diversion of aid towards objectives that have nothing at all to do with development should be ceased once and for all, these measures will only be effective if at the same time we reject the liberalisation of trade and the instruments of domination and interference set out in the EPAs.

Only by overcoming this contradiction will it be possible to establish aid that expresses true solidarity and that respects national sovereignty.

  Jens Holm and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I believe that much can still be done in order to enhance the effectiveness of aid from the EU and its member states, and the report by Johan van Hecke encompasses important insights. However, I would like to underline that I do not support the phrasing in paragraph 1 stating that the EU should speak with one voice and more harmonisation is necessary.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report on effectiveness although I do not agree with all of it. First, because Member States do not keep their word, which means that all the work carried out by European institutions ends up being worthless. Moreover, the report does not show clearly how Member States commit themselves to one role (supporters of partner countries in the implementation of aid) but really perform another (funding only those initiatives that are priorities for their own economies), without paying attention to the social and economic development of the partner countries (orphans).

Second, because more effectiveness and transparency is requested when discussing the funding of projects. Of course we want effectiveness. However, transparency means more audits, more consultations, more controls – in brief, more waste of time and money on bureaucracy, and this slows down rather than facilitates the work of MANY people. Transparency therefore reduces effectiveness. I would like to see transparency being used as a tool to achieve effectiveness and that the latter always prevails.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Mr Van Hecke's follow-up to the Paris Declaration of 2005 on Aid Effectiveness. The aid system must remain true to its primary goal of reducing poverty. Indeed, for aid to be effective it must make use of local systems and fully engage with the recipient.

I also support the call for the Commission and EU Member States to make significant efforts in meeting the objective outlined in the Millennium Development Goals to devote 0.7% of Europe's GNP to public development aid by 2015. I believe that the report reflects these views and I voted in favour.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) The Paris Declaration of 2005 established an international aid effectiveness programme based, primarily, on eliminating poverty. The document contains specific obligations that are aimed at increasing aid effectiveness on the basis of international cooperation. It would appear that this will be effective aid in the full meaning of these words and that those who require this aid will receive it and will not have to pay for it.

Unfortunately it does happen that persons receiving ‘aid’ have to pay for it. In many cases this is an instrument to make the weak economically dependent on the strong, and the poor dependent on the rich. At the beginning of the sixties an Indian who saw the ‘aid’ being provided by developed countries to his own country said at a meeting of the World Food Organisation ‘for the love of God, stop helping us’. I believe that this time things will be different.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would do almost anything to serve this Parliament, but even I have limits. I almost reached my limit yesterday evening when I put the Aarhus Convention debate ahead of asparagus consumption on the famous asparagus evening. I ‘deserted before dessert’, only to find the debate had been cancelled. My question is, are we allowed to attach our unused speeches to the minutes of the session, since the answer from the Commissioner is there anyway?

(The sitting was suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Sudan and the International Criminal Court⁽¹⁾.

  Jean Lambert, author. − Madam President, once again we are returning to the topic of Sudan and what can be done to call the Government there to account for the suffering of the people of that country, and indeed for the effects on neighbouring states.

This afternoon’s resolution particularly concerns the International Criminal Court, and the fact that, over a year ago now, two arrest warrants were issued by that Court for Ahmad Haroun, the Minister of the Interior at the time, who is now the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs – which I think many of us find deeply shocking – and also for one of the former Janjaweed militia leaders, Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman.

We have seen absolutely no cooperation from the Sudanese Government in handing these people over to the International Criminal Court, although that Government is well aware that membership of the United Nations carries with it obligations. We are seeing an ongoing culture of impunity, where nobody is ever brought to account, it seems, for the most appalling crimes.

We consider that all governments should be taking a strong stance on this, and the resolution says that we should be calling on the General Affairs and External Relations Council in June to adopt targeted EU punitive measures against a clearly identified group of Sudanese officials who bear responsibility for this non-cooperation, with that action including clear financial sanctions – it appears that when the cries of people do not work, maybe stopping the flow of money will.

My group commends this resolution to the House. We look forward to firm action and hopefully seeing these men, and others, brought to justice.

  Erik Meijer, author. − (NL) Madam President, a year ago we also had an urgent debate about Sudan. Since then the situation has become worse, not better. The agreement between the Islamic north and the non-Islamic south, reached after a long internal war, is under pressure. The temporary cooperation in a transitional government and preparation of the referendum on independence for the south in 2011 are under pressure because the borders of those areas have not been finally demarcated. Control of the oil-rich middle area is now the cause of further violence.

Also, the peace settlement does not apply to west Darfur, since Arab nomads and solders have driven out most of the black population to neighbouring Chad. This is a conflict not between supporters of Islam and Christianity, but between nomads and the settled agricultural population for control of arid land that produces very little. Because of population growth and desertification, the people are losing their traditional sources of livelihood and turning against each other. The government is also responsible for driving out the originally non-Arab population. There is now fighting from Darfur back as far as the capital, Khartoum.

Even when what is now Sudan was known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, it was debatable whether this huge area with widely differing populations should become independent as a single state. A unified state would mainly be the state of the Arab populations in the north, east and centre. It would be difficult for the black Islamic population in the west and the black Christians and animists in the south to gain an equal position. The regions that were at the time much less developed were far from the sea and were given very little international attention. Ultimately no one took any notice of them and we are now seeing the results of colonial shortsightedness.

The state is responsible for many crimes, but at the same time it is largely an instrument for one of the warring parties. That makes it difficult for it to cooperate with punitive measures. Obviously we are trying to keep the prospect of that open in the resolution, but in the current situation there is little cause for optimism.

  Filip Kaczmarek, author. − (PL) It is really shocking that the Sudanese government has appointed Mr Haroun (the former interior minister responsible for Darfur during 2003-2004) as the minister for humanitarian affairs. It is a sick joke that he has been given responsibility for the lives and security of the inhabitants of Darfur, when it was the same person who had persecuted them earlier, and that decisions concerning the largest humanitarian operation run by the UNAMID international peace mission are in his hands. Let us not forget that the purpose of this mission is to protect civilians from crimes, that is, just the kind of actions that Mr Haroun was involved in.

The international community, the European Union, the African Union, the UN, the Arab League, all these organisations should put maximum pressure on the Sudanese government so that these people should finally answer to the International Criminal Court.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, author. − (PL) Madam President, Sudan is an enormous country covering an area of 2.5 million square kilometres, with a population of about 42 million people, that has been destroyed by two civil wars that claimed millions of victims and resulted in disability, degradation, and the destruction of property for many more millions of its inhabitants. One issue that was at the basis of the fratricidal conflicts was ethnic differences – 52% of the population are African, 39% Arab – and religious differences – 70% are Sunni, 30% are animist.

During these wars the population experienced all possible atrocities at the hands of those with armaments and power, including murder, torture, rape, robbery and eviction, crimes that are prosecuted and punished by the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately the ICC does not have the means to bring the perpetrators to justice. The resolution presents the European view as regards the current situation and I support it. I do think, however, that in these circumstances it would be worth considering the use of a more radical approach, for example, using UN special forces to take the accused to the ICC, and then imprisoning those found guilty and interning them for life, with no right of return, on some distant island with some telling name such as Evildoers’ Island. I think that this would help.

  Marios Matsakis, author. − Madam President, the UN estimates that the conflict in Sudan has resulted in about 300 000 deaths and has left approximately 2.5 million refugees.

Reports of untold acts of barbarism taking place in the region have abounded in recent years. The suffering of the innocent civilian population has been extreme. Those that allegedly were responsible for instigating or carrying out war crimes or crimes against humanity should face the law and, if found guilty, must be punished accordingly.

This is not just necessary as a matter of natural justice but also in order to make sure that such individuals are prevented from repeating their crimes and that adequate example is given to other potential criminals to prevent them from carrying out similar crimes.

The International Criminal Court was formed in order to make sure that those that commit war crimes and crimes against humanity do not go unpunished. Sudan has signed the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court but has not yet ratified it.

This is no excuse for not offering this court its full cooperation in according with UN Security Council Resolution 1593. The International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants against Sudan’s former Minister of the Interior, Mr Ahmad Haroun, and against the militia leader Ali Mohammed Ali Abd-al-Rahman. The warrants relate to 51 counts of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. For more than a year now the Sudanese authorities have refused to hand over these individuals and are thus obstructing the work of the International Court.

This is absolutely and utterly unacceptable. Such behaviour makes the Sudanese Government an accomplice of these alleged criminals. We call on Sudan to think again, and think fast, about the grave position they have placed themselves in by protecting these alleged mass killers from the arm of international law. We hope they will come to their senses and abide by the request of the International Court immediately.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) It is pretty scandalous when a country that is a member of the United Nations fails to respect calls addressed to it by the Security Council of that organisation for assistance to be provided to the International Criminal Court. What can the international community do when the foreign minister in Sudan refuses to provide such help and also declares that the Court has no right to judge any Sudanese citizen and that the Sudanese government will not allow any Sudanese citizen to be tried and sentenced outside of its national courts?

We are in quite a difficult situation, since, to a certain degree, Sudan is not dependent on aid either from the European Union or the United States or the other western democracies, but has based its development on assistance from China. China, a country that, unfortunately, does not concern itself with human rights, even within its own borders. The only reaction that is possible from our side is to ask for the assets of the Sudanese leaders to be frozen.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Since 2003 the conflict in Sudan has claimed 300 000 victims. Two and a half million people have left their homes to escape from the violence. Despite the partial stabilisation in the country, there are constant clashes between government forces and the rebels, which makes it difficult to use UN peacekeeping forces and to provide humanitarian aid. No lasting resolution of the Sudanese conflict will be possible without the involvement of the UN and without the UN increasing the number of soldiers in the region. The recruitment of children into the army and acts of violence against the civilian population, particularly against women, are clear breaches of international standards and human rights.

What is particularly worrying is the failure of the government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court as well as maintaining war criminals in power, who – and this sounds like some sick joke – are now in charge, among other things, of distributing humanitarian aid as well as contacts with the peacekeepers. A call should be made to Sudan to start cooperating immediately with the Court in order to deal with the war crimes, since this is a necessary condition for the creation of democracy and the rule of law. All attempts to disrupt the peace agreement and the military assistance coming from third countries, for both sides of the conflict, should be condemned.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, since 2003 Sudan has been a battleground due to religious and ethnic differences. The conflict in Darfur resulted in the exodus of over two and half million people. Civilian victims of this conflict have been murdered, beaten and raped. There is widespread hunger and there is a lack of basic hygiene. Children, orphaned, lost, have no possibility of education or a decent future. Ever more restrictions are placed on humanitarian missions. The Sudanese conflict has resulted in a breakdown of civilisation in Darfur and Chad.

The Sudanese government has refused to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, derides the ICC, which issued arrest warrants for war criminals and is unable, or just does not want to, remedy the situation. Following the attack on Omdurman on 10 and 11 May, another 200 people lost their lives.

We call on the authorities in Sudan to start cooperating immediately with the International Criminal Court. We expect the Council of Europe to take decisive steps to block access to European Union banks to those identified as financing conflict in Darfur and to freeze their assets.

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – (CS) Having been a participant in the European Parliament’s fact-finding mission to Darfur and Chad in 2004, I am a responsible political traveller. I was present when a twelve-year old raped mother, when asked her child’s name, answered: ‘I do not know; the child has no name’. Therefore, we call on Sudan to ratify the Rome Statute, to cooperate without delay in accordance with Resolution 1593 and to immediately hand over Ali Kushayb and Ahmad Harun. Most of all, though, we are asking Europeans to demand in their negotiations with the League of Arab States, and in particular with China, that China and the League of Arab States apply strict policies in relations with Sudan. These are the partners who can help us. We would call on the Council and the Commission to keep us informed of their negotiations.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Colleagues, Sudan is a country which has exercised its right to be different. A country where violence, terror and rape on a large scale are everyday, non-punishable events. A country based on values other than human rights. The situation is critical: over the five years since the start of the Darfur conflict more than 200 000 people have lost their lives. Individuals who have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes live in freedom; some of them have respectable posts in Sudan.

The judicial system in Sudan is unable and unwilling to tackle the situation in Darfur. Reform is needed; the system must be based on internationally recognised human rights norms. Impunity must be brought to an end. Cooperation on the part of the Sudanese government with the International Criminal Court is desperately needed. It must ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and bring war criminals to justice. The situation must not change now, it must change right now.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Today, as on many such occasions when we have discussed killing and breaches of human rights in the world, we talk about who is responsible over there, on the spot. However, it would seem to me that the situation requires deeper analysis since, behind these conflicts, there is always the trade in arms and oil. This trade in arms and oil is not organised exclusively by people in those locations, whom we often treat as being worse people, but it is organised by people in the group of nations that have a more developed sense of responsibility and should have a more developed sense of responsibility for others. If it were not for the interests of these people then it is very likely that the crimes that we usually discuss on Thursday afternoons, just as today we are discussing Sudan, would not exist.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, repeatedly on Thursday afternoons we discuss Sudan because the atrocities against human rights continue: murder, rape, abduction, child abduction and confiscation of property. Poor security continues to be a problem for the men, women and children of Sudan, but also for people working in the humanitarian field.

This disregard of the jurisdiction of the ICC has led to criminals being allowed to walk free, particularly high-profile people like the former Minister for the Interior and a former Janjaweed military leader. We must urge Sudan, with all the powers we can, to ratify the Rome Statute.

I once again adamantly call on the EU and the rest of the international community to exercise moral and social responsibility by taking decisive steps – which include confronting China with the part that it plays in Sudan and the arms trade that keeps this situation going – to protect the people of Sudan and the refugees in neighbouring Chad, and to end this conflict.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, in 2004, the European Union called on the United Nations to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the atrocities and crimes committed in Darfur. On the basis of the recommendations made by this Committee, the European Union asked the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, which the Council did by adopting Resolution 1593 in 2005.

Over the past few months, the European Union has repeatedly called on the Sudanese Government to cooperate unconditionally with the ICC.

On 31 March 2008, the anniversary of the Security Council’s referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC, the EU Presidency adopted a Declaration on behalf of the European Union expressing its outrage at the Sudanese Government’s failure to cooperate with the Court. The European Union also expressed its willingness to support the adoption of new appropriate measures against those persons who bear responsibility for Sudan’s non-cooperation with the ICC, should the Sudanese Government still fail to comply with the UN Resolution.

On 6 May 2008, I attended a meeting between donors and the Sudanese Government – the Sudan Consortium – which was held in Oslo. At this meeting, I reminded my Sudanese interlocutors, while addressing the conference, that our development aid is intended to support development in Sudan subject to a genuine democratic transformation taking place in the country, as provided for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. I emphasised that the principles underlying the CPA must likewise apply to Darfur and that there was an urgent need to restore security, deploy the United Nations Mission and facilitate humanitarian access. The recent outbreak of violence in Abyei, a region fraught with complex problems that represent one of the major challenges in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, emphasises the importance of implementing in full the CPA. I have just published a press release calling on both parties to comply with all CPA provisions, including the establishment of an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of other armed factions from the town of Abyei.

The Sudanese Government must know that the international community as a whole will remain faithful to the vision set out in the CPA of a peaceful, stable and democratic Sudan that demonstrates respect for the rule of law and for human rights. This message is not directed solely at the Sudanese Government – it must also be understood by the various armed rebel movements whose political cause, whatever it may be, does not justify committing crimes. The Court has issued a number of arrest warrants, including one against Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed militia leader.

The meeting of the UN Security Council, which will take place on 5 June in the presence of the ICC Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, may be an important opportunity for the international community to present a united front and to send a strong signal in support of the Court’s work. The External Relations Council scheduled for late June will most probably address the issue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. – I want to join in condemning Sudan's persistent failure to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to hand over to the ICC Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb.

To date the conflict in Sudan has claimed 300 000 victims and created two and a half million internally displaced persons. Yet we continue to deliver aid via Ahmad Harun's Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs. I ask the Commission and Member States to cease such deliveries via this ministry, to press the Government of Sudan to remove him from office and to immediately arrest and hand him over to the ICC.

It is all very well to lecture China on its failure to act over Darfur, but in this case the EU is as weak-willed as the rest.

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the arrest of political prisoners in Belarus⁽¹⁾.

  Marcin Libicki, author. − (PL) Today we are once again discussing breaches of fundamental human rights in Belarus. As usual in such cases, we note what it is that dictators do. Obviously dictators always battle with organised religion, because, very often, this is the biggest voice that the population has. They also always battle with the trade unions. As it happens the trade unions in Belarus are rather weak, so, from this point of view, Lukashenko could seem quite a positive figure, as he does not have anyone to fight against, since they have not yet managed to create trades unions there. In addition, dictators always fight against the opposition that wants to have democracy.

However, there is one thing we should also bear in mind: we should remember that Belarus is an important neighbour for the European Union in the East and should be treated as such. We have a certain tendency to treat Russia as the only neighbour to the East and forget about the fact that Belarus should also be a partner for the EU in the East, as it is a large country with great promise.

  Věra Flasarová, author. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus deserves to be criticised for using repressive methods, arresting political opponents, using authoritarian governing methods, censorship and isolation of the country. In addition to that, the refusal to grant entry visas prevents Members of the European Parliament and of national parliaments from seeing the situation for themselves. All this is highlighted in my Group’s motion. However, I think that our criticism of breaches of human rights must be measured by absolute criteria, rather than following a political scale of who in the world plays first fiddle at the moment. That is not right. We keep running around in circles; we have not been able to take a step towards objectivity for millennia. The Romans were always right and their chroniclers painted it as a wrongdoing when an attacked opponent was bold enough to defend himself.

Let me get back to Belarus, however. Lukashenko’s regime is first and foremost an attempt to disrespect the direction in which the Euro-Atlantic initiatives are going. Mr Lukashenko plays in his own narrow field, ignoring the fact that moderate-sized countries cannot behave like that since supranational capital will not allow it. If you do not obey, you will be isolated and the international community will support the opposition within the country. That is how it works and we all know it. Sooner or later Mr Lukashenko and his party machine will pay dearly for acting in this manner. Belarus is located in an area that is strategically important for the Unites States and for NATO. The present US Administration and the governments of some other countries would very much like Belarus to join NATO, together with Ukraine and Georgia, thereby causing damage to Russia.

Our worries about human rights in Belarus would not be so intense if, in fact, the real issue was not Russia. The question is, however, whether attempts to weaken Russia help the issue of world security. I am rather afraid that such attempts may unleash powers that no one will be able to control. Russia has been suppressing them for several millennia.

  Jacek Protasiewicz, author. − (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the Members of the European Parliament who are concerned with the issue of Belarus and who are monitoring the situation in Belarus are faced with contradictory information. On the one hand there is the desire that has been publicly and officially declared to normalise relations with the European Union. The opening of the representative office of the European Commission in Minsk is a symbol of this desire.

On the other hand, in the same month, the police brutally attacked demonstrators who wanted to celebrate the nineteenth anniversary of the country’s independence. The following day the authorities sent KGB special forces to independent journalists. A month later the activists were handed down long sentences and this is not even the opposition, just people who dared to demonstrate in defence of citizens’ rights and the rights of small businesses, such as Andrei Kim or Sergei Parsukiewicz. We have also recently heard that Alexander Milinkiewicz was arrested and fined just for meeting Belarus citizens and for discussing public issues with them. Alexander Kazulin, the most important political prisoner, a prisoner of conscience in contemporary Europe, is still in prison.

Speaking as the chairman of the Belarus delegation I would like to see the day when we can put forward a Resolution to the European Parliament that notes with satisfaction that changes have taken place in Belarus to make that country part of the civilised European Community.

Unfortunately this will not happen today. Without any guarantees for the fundamental rights of free and democratic elections, to express one’s political opinions, freedom of the press and freedom to practise one’s religion, there is no possibility that the European Union should ever recognise the regime in Belarus as a country with which it is worth cooperating, or as a country that it is worth helping. We shall never support the policies that are practised by Alexander Lukashenko. We shall, however, support independent citizens’ groups and individual citizens from Belarus in their contacts with the European Union in the hope that one day the country will return to normality.

  Marios Matsakis, author. − Madam President, Belarus is a beautiful and important country with much potential for progress which can lead to enviable prosperity for its citizens. Unfortunately, vital democratic norms are presently much compromised in this country. This is mainly due to the inability of the governing authorities to come to terms with the need to respect the necessities of freedom of expression and other democratic principles. Such respect is an indispensable requirement of any non-dictatorial government.

Reports coming out of Belarus of arbitrary arrests of members of civil society and opposition activists, of the use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators and of repression of independent media journalists are evidence of practices which should, and must, be terminated immediately. We call on the Belarusian Government to see reason, to change its tactics and to choose the road of freedom and democracy rather than the road of suppression and totalitarianism, which can only lead to worsening of the conflict with its own people and with the international community.

  Milan Horáček, author. − (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the use of force against non-governmental organisations, opposition activists and independent journalists in Minsk and other Belarusian cities at the end of March represents a drastic deterioration of the political situation in a country that is already in the grip of an authoritarian and dictatorial regime.

The only German political foundation that had been allowed to function in Minsk has had to close. Newspaper offices are raided to intimidate critical voices in the press. Free elections and freedom of assembly and expression are being severely restricted. Opposition politicians are being systematically prosecuted and given lengthy prison sentences. The authorities are taking repressive measures against movements within civil society, either by invoking obscure laws on NGOs or anti-extremist legislation or by using force to break up peaceful gatherings.

We, too, must move to promote the culture of political pluralism in Belarus. Encounters with democratic structures, especially for young people, are particularly important for the future of the country. The reopening of the European Humanities University in Vilnius, a Belarusian university-in-exile that offers a place of refuge for students who are victims of political persecution, was a wise move.

The next step must be visa facilitation, for which this House has called on several occasions. It is not right that the EU should further restrict people's freedom of movement by charging a fee of EUR 60 to issue a visa. That is almost a third of a monthly income in Belarus and is therefore unaffordable for many people. What we have managed with Ukraine, Moldova and Russia we should also be able to do with Belarus.

(Applause)

  Eija-Riitta Korhola, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Madam President, Belarus is the only European country which still has a totalitarian administration and where the death penalty is still in existence. President Lukashenko continues to keep a watchful eye on civil society and is unwilling to release his tight grip on the country.

Despite everything, the country’s government has said it wants to establish closer relations with the European Union. Once again it is time for us clearly to explain to Belarus the terms of cooperation.

As the resolution states, the basic preconditions for close cooperation in terms of the European Neighbourhood Policy are the abolition of capital punishment, a free media, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, a respect for democratic values, and the immediate release of political prisoners. This resolution calling for the immediate release of the members of the opposition who have been arrested is at the same time a show of support and solidarity for all those who are suffering under the current Belarusian regime.

Next week members of Belarus’s political opposition will come here to Parliament to ask the EU to support a petition rejected by Lukashenko to amend the law restricting freedom of religion which took effect in 2002. I hope that this important resolution and next week’s joint debate will persuade the Belarusian Government that it is in its own interests and that of the country’s citizens.

  Marianne Mikko, on behalf of the PSE. – (ET) Colleagues, on Human Rights Day, 10 December, the television broadcasting station Belsat began operating in Poland with the aim of broadcasting independent information on what is happening in Belarus, Europe and elsewhere in the world to Belarusians. The channel, which broadcasts mainly in Belarusian, now reaches some 10% of Belarusians via satellite.

The station is working under constant pressure. At the end of March KGB and police in Belarus carried out a raid to apprehend Belsat’s local reporters. Their basic tools, i.e. laptop computers and broadcasting technology, were seized. Independent reporters live in constant fear of interrogation and arrest. The situation in Belarus, an immediate neighbour of the European Union, is as harsh as it was behind the iron curtain. As the Chair of the Moldova delegation and an Estonian, I state here that the citizens of Belarus, which was also part of the Soviet Union, today need independent information as much as they need oxygen. Belsat is an excellent start, but good television does not come cheap.

The journalists working for Belsat Belarus are fighting for democracy; they visited us in the European Parliament in March and they need our comprehensive support. I call upon the European Commission and all our Member States to support Belsat financially and morally. Let us not forget that a free press is the cornerstone of democracy.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) A few months ago Mr Lukashenko freed all political prisoners with the exception of Mr Kazulin, who was offered the possibility of leaving the country. This is reminiscent of the methods used by the Communist authorities against the opposition in Poland. It seemed that, as a result, the situation could be changing for the better, but, as the hero of Ilia Ehrenburg’s well-known story said: ‘If they are releasing, it means that they will be putting new ones in’. Today the prisons are once again full of prisoners that are in prison because of their political convictions, which they expressed in various demonstrations.

I believe that there is only one correct response to this, which is to extend the list of persons that are banned from entering European Union countries. This list already exists, but the fact that Mr Lukashenko himself cannot come to the European Union is not very convincing. We should make the list considerably longer.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, once again we are talking about the situation in Belarus. Mr Kazulin, Mr Lukashenko’s competitor for the post of President of Belarus, is still in prison, despite being ill. The demonstrators who wanted to celebrate the nineteenth anniversary of Belarus’s brief independence and were arrested on 25 March 2008, are still under arrest. Repression is used against the opposition, and journalists have their property confiscated, they get beaten and exiled.

Recently Mr Lukashenko expressed the desire to stand again for the Presidency. In addition, for the first time, he tried to blackmail the European Union by reminding us that 50% of the oil, 50% of the oil products and 30% of the gas coming to the European Union passes through Belarus. This is a reference to the Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline and the ‘Friendship’ oil pipeline. Despite this, and in fact specifically because of this, the European Union cannot stop acting to defend human rights. We should provide support to the developing civilian society in Belarus and this includes material support and access to independent information.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Madam President, in the seventeen years since the changes that took place during the break-up of the Soviet Union and the separation of free independent states, Belarus remains a relic as the last dictatorship in Central and Eastern Europe. In this country respect for human rights seems to be very far off. Falsification of election results, elimination of political opposition, arrests, beatings, restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, restrictions on meetings, and, above all, mass surveillance of the population by a highly developed security apparatus – this is the everyday reality faced by the citizens of Belarus.

I would also like to draw attention to a deterioration in the situation of many people living near the borders, including the representatives of Polish minorities living there, who, after Poland joined the Schengen Area, have found it very difficult to contact their families living in Poland, especially with the high visa costs. This situation, which is continuing to be a problem, requires decisive measures to be taken by European countries. Consideration should also be given as regards the best methods to be used to provide real assistance to those most in need.

  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE). – Madam President, the Belarus regime shows its continued disregard for all the institutional guarantees that are central to a democracy. It curtails the freedom to form and join political parties, the freedom of expression, the right to alternative sources of information and the right to free and fair elections.

The arrest of political opponents in Belarus violates all these basic freedoms. The 19th century British politician Benjamin Disraeli once said: ‘No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition’. As Lukashenko stifles all opposition, let us hope that Disraeli’s words prove to be a prophesy for the Belarus regime and that the suppression of the opposition will be the cause of its ultimate downfall.

(Applause)

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, here in the European Parliament we keep coming back to the problem of Belarus, a country that, in fact, lies in the centre of Europe, looked at geographically, bordering the European Union. It is an exceptional country by European standards in that it does not have a liberal democracy or rule of law and it has censorship. Today’s debate takes place on the anniversary of the Prague Spring in 1968, an anniversary of the moment when, in Europe, people finally said ‘enough’ to censorship and press controls.

Today I wanted to devote my speech to just this issue in Belarus. We had a very strange hacker attack on independent internet media: on Charter 97, Radio Liberty and the Belarus Partisan. What was strange was the hacker attack began the day before the opposition demonstration that was to take place on the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

The internet media in Belarus are really the only independent media as the majority of the media are completely under the control of the Belarus regime. Charter 97 are visited by about 9 000 surfers daily and, in Belarus, over 3 000 000 families are connected to the internet, over 30% of the total population. This shows the dynamism and vitality of society in Belarus.

Commissioner, the European Union must seriously consider what measures to take in order to help the ordinary people in Belarus.

  Eugenijus Gentvilas (ALDE). – (LT) When Alexander Lukashenko started to feel the pressure from Vladimir Putin over gas, he declared his desire for closer ties with the EU. However, today we can see that this was just empty rhetoric, which was not followed up with respect for human rights, freedom of the press and other European values. There was no reaction to the non-paper ‘What the EU could bring to Belarus’. Political arrests and repressions are continuing.

The EU should send its experts without delay to observe the preparations for the autumn parliamentary elections, to see how election laws are amended and whether the opposition is given a chance to act. We cannot limit it to election observation only. That would be a huge mistake. Of course, first of all we need to ensure that EU diplomats and parliamentarians are freely allowed to enter Belarus. The European Commission and the EU Member States should do everything in their power to achieve this.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Belarus, being a neighbour of ours, is particularly close to us, especially as many Poles live there. It is important for us Poles, as well as for the inhabitants of other neighbouring countries, that there be a stable political and economic situation in the region as this provides the basis for development and improvements in quality of life for our inhabitants. We must also remember that, like Poland, Belarus was forgotten about and handed over to Soviet domination after World War II and could not count on any outside assistance. However, this country managed to become independent and now can boast of a GDP growth of over 8%, and even 9.9% in the years 2003-2006.

We do not deny to President Lukashenko the right to choose the political direction that his country takes. However, what does concern us is that one hears ever more frequently about breaches of human rights in Belarus, which means infringements of democracy. This affects not just Belarus nationals, but also others, which includes Poles. For this reason this resolution is a sensible one and has the backing of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, we in Europe have come closer to some of the former Soviet States on our eastern border. However, Belarus has resisted any attempts at dialogue.

Because Belarus is a dictatorship, the views of citizens who would like a more open and even westward-looking dialogue have no legal way of being heard. When people call for democracy or highlight abuses by the regime, they are faced with imprisonment.

We must continue to urge the Belarus regime to release the iron grip it has on its citizens. One way to do this is to keep the cause of political, social and religious prisoners in the public eye. When history looks back, it is those prisoners who will be the heroes of Belarus’s freedom when it is finally achieved.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I believe this is already the ninth time we have dealt with Belarus, and we shall have to keep doing so until Members representing Belarus are sitting with us here in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

We urgently need three crucial advances. Firstly, we strongly urge the Government of Belarus to release its political prisoners at long last – not only the political prisoners who have already being detained for some time, like Mr Kazulin, but also the many new ones who have recently been jailed for exercising elementary fundamental rights such as freedom to practise their profession as journalists, freedom of expression or the right to demonstrate.

Secondly, we call for amendment of the Religion Act and for absolute freedom of religion. There are European Christians who are being repressed here in the heart of Europe, and we in the European Parliament cannot tolerate that. We must therefore resist this with all our might.

Thirdly, there is an urgent need for us to ensure that Belarus finally opens up to us as Members of the European Parliament and European citizens, that the wall of isolation is breached with which the Belarusian regime has systematically enclosed its people, that we can be present there and discuss matters and that we can help to foster something like a Belarusian Spring, 40 years after the Prague Spring.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, our message to Mr Lukashenko but also to the international community is that the European Parliament is and will be persistently concerned about the situation in Belarus, the last dictatorship of Europe.

This applies especially to the arrests of peaceful citizens on political grounds. The regime in Minsk has indicated recently that it would like to improve relations with the European Union. However, engaging in any meaningful dialogue has a very normal precondition: releasing all political prisoners, abstaining from arbitrary arrests, ensuring the freedom of expression and independence of the judiciary and allowing normal participation by the opposition in political life.

Finally, I would like to join the appeal of Ms Mikko in appealing to the EU to expand its political and especially material support for the operations of the independent television station, Belsat. This is the real channel to changing the situation in Belarus, not necessarily our resolutions.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Dear colleagues, it saddens me very much that the situation concerning democracy, human rights and the rule of law has not been improving in Belarus. Alexander Lukashenko’s arrogance of power knows no limits. The declaration by the Government of Belarus of its intention to improve relations with the European Union is the like totally scorning the democratic world.

I believe that the symbolic date 25 March 2008, when Mr Lukashenko sent police to fight peaceful citizens of Belarus, will mark the beginning of the end of the totalitarian regime in Belarus, very much like the historic candle manifestation on 25 March 1988 in Slovakia. I would like to express my solidarity with the united democratic opposition in Belarus and with all the citizens of Belarus.

I call on the Council and on the Commission to review the possibilities of lowering Schengen visa fees for citizens of Belarus. This is the only way to prevent the citizens of Belarus from becoming increasingly isolated.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, to bring about democratisation and economic transformation, the authorities in Belarus have to enter into dialogue with all political forces including the opposition, and organise free elections. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe, among them Poland, can serve as an example.

In order to transform the awareness of people in Belarus and to show them the principles of democracy and the free market, it is vital to simplify and increase contact between Belarusian society and EU countries. This requires considerable simplification and liberalisation in the visa procedure, with reductions in visa payments for the citizens of Belarus.

European Union countries should open their universities and other institutions of higher learning to students from Belarus and provide them with grants from EU, national, local and private funds. The EU should open itself to Belarus, even if the present authorities do not want this.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to add one point to these political and economic concerns. As Commissioner Michel understands the importance of education both within Europe and beyond its borders, and I personally deal with students from Belarus, as we educate many of them at the Catholic University in Lublin, I would like to say the following: Commissioner, as much as it is possible, I would recommend increasing both financial and other assistance for this purpose, because investment in the education of Belarusian students will help Belarus itself, and will prove an investment for Europe.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, Belarus, the Belarus of 2008, is a blot on the conscience of all of us. It is shameful that, at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a totalitarian state in Europe. During our Thursday meetings in Strasbourg we discuss breaches of human rights throughout the world. Belarus, however, is the European Union’s closest neighbour.

I have the impression that, up to 1989, western democracies did everything they could to liberate many oppressed countries from Soviet occupation. Today, Belarus remains as it was. I have the impression that, although there are no longer many countries, but just one, we are doing less. We are certainly not doing enough. It is clear that we cannot have a direct political and economic influence on what happens in Belarus but we can have an influence on whether independent information, which will stimulate people in Belarus to fight for independence, will be broadcast there.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the positive momentum generated in Belarus by the release of five of the six political prisoners appears to have stalled. Regrettably, renewed pressure on civil society and a number of particularly harsh and disproportionate sentences have ruined this positive atmosphere. We continue to condemn the political arrests and the way in which civil society and the independent media are being treated.

At the same time, we must make Belarus understand that we mean what we say when we propose a partnership subject to progress being made with regard to respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. However, in order to make such progress, Belarus needs to take a number of measures that, for us, are essential. These include the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Alexander Kazulin.

They also include the holding of parliamentary elections, scheduled for September, which must comply with democratic principles. In this regard, we ask that the international OSCE/ODIHR observers be granted unhampered access. The Belarusian authorities have informed us of their intention to admit both short-term and long-term observers; we will be sure to hold them to their word. Naturally, the presence of observers from the European Parliament would be an additional source of valuable expertise. It is also vital that opposition parties participate fairly in these elections. We will take into account any suggestions made by Parliament in this regard.

However, irrefutable evidence that progress has been made would be the presence of opposition in this Parliament, which is not currently the case. In that event, the European Union would be ready to respond positively, as it confirmed only last month in a statement relating to sanctions and to the progress that would encourage us to ease these sanctions.

I shall now address an issue that we feel most strongly about: contacts with the people of Belarus. However regrettable the situation in Belarus may be, we must expand our contacts. Naturally, restrictions on ministerial-level contacts with the Belarusian authorities are still being maintained. Nevertheless, I think that it is necessary to draw a distinction between political and technical levels. Accordingly, the Commission is holding meetings to discuss technical issues such as energy, transport and the environment with experts from the Belarusian administration. These contacts are obviously a means of getting across various messages on matters about which we feel very strongly.

The fact that we currently have a delegation in Minsk will also enable us to forge closer links both with the Belarusian administration and with civil society, local NGOs, independent media and students, all of whom we have a duty to assist, as you have rightly pointed out in your report and as several speakers have said. In addition, aid is being provided to the European Humanities University, which is currently in exile in Vilnius and will continue its activities there for as long as the University is unable to return to Belarus.

Finally, I should like to broach a subject that comes up time and time again: visas. As you and I are aware, we are unable, as things stand, to open negotiations on the easing of visa restrictions with Belarus – this has been determined by the Council – but this does not prevent us from taking advantage of the discretion enjoyed by the Member States under the Schengen rules as part of their consular prerogatives.

  President. – The debate is closed.