IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

  President. − The next item is the joint debate on:

– the report (A6-0259/2009) by Petya Stavreva on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [COM(2009)0038 – C6-0051/2009 – 2009/0011(CNS)],

– the report (A6-0261/2009) by Eugenijus Maldeikis on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy [COM(2009)0035 – C6-0049/2009 – 2009/0010(COD)] and

– the report (A6-0278/2009) by Reimer Böge on behalf of the Committee on Budgets on the amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards the multiannual financial framework [COM(2009)0171 – C6-0508/2008 – 2008/2332(ACI)].

  Petya Stavreva, rapporteur. – (BG) Today in the European Parliament we are initiating an important debate on the provision of additional resources from the European budget to rural areas in the Community to help them cope with the consequences of the economic crisis. We must mention that EUR 1.02 billion will support the European Union’s agricultural sector during a difficult time. I believe that the Community’s farmers and inhabitants will understand this important message in terms of providing financial resources for additional support.

The amount which each country will receive is intended for the development of broadband Internet and for meeting the new challenges which were defined in the regular review of the common agricultural policy for 2008. I believe that the investments in the Internet infrastructure, restructuring the dairy sector, renewable energy sources, protecting biodiversity and water resources are key to resolving a large proportion of the problems in these regions, providing alternative options to the people who live there.

In my report I am proposing that, in relation to the budget for the funds earmarked for 2009, an additional EUR 250 million should be provided for the budget line for rural development. As a result of this amendment, the total amount of resources available for 2009 would reach almost EUR 850 million. Due to the need to respond quickly to the current economic crisis, it would be a good idea, to start with, for the payments scheduled for 2010 and 2011 to be made in 2009.

I would like to emphasise the possibility of distributing the resources among Member States depending on their specific requirements. This flexibility will allow individual countries to use the financial resources according to the needs of their farmers and rural inhabitants.

In view of the restricted availability of credit during a financial crisis and taking into account the obstacles preventing the use of the funds from the rural area programmes, I think that this is a good opportunity for some of these resources to be earmarked for funds providing loans and credit guarantees. We can then really help people who want to implement projects but do not have the necessary start-up capital.

It is important for Member States to abide by the scheduled timeframes and to include additional activities in the rural development programmes, thereby allowing these funds to be used. The quicker the money gets to the farmers and regions, the greater the benefit from this financial assistance. Another important condition for the successful use of the resources is for every country to quickly provide regional and local bodies and potential beneficiaries with relevant, easily accessible information about new opportunities for projects under the reviewed rural development programmes.

I would like to emphasise how much of a pleasure it was for me to work on a report which highlights the active approach and support of Europe’s institutions for the future of the Community’s agricultural sector and rural areas. I have always believed that assistance is most valuable at the time when people most need it and, at the moment, rural areas need more resources for development and modernisation. This is the only way for us to halt migration, protect nature and guarantee employment and new jobs.

I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development who were involved in drafting the report, as well as the representatives from the European Commission and the Council for their helpful cooperation. I would also like to thank the sector organisations for the proposals they made. I call on you to support this report so that we can give new impetus to the development of the European Union’s rural areas.

  Eugenijus Maldeikis, rapporteur. – (LT) The Commission has presented an extremely important additional Economic Recovery Plan package in the area of energy projects, which is extremely important, because the economic crisis presents a challenge for European energy.

The package consists of three parts. The first of these is gas and electricity infrastructure and projects involving particularly important electricity and gas interconnections. We know that this is a very sensitive and old problem. Given the current crisis, the funding of interconnection projects would provide a great boost to the regional development of energy and inter-regional cooperation, and would strengthen the creation of a common European energy market.

The second part of the package is offshore wind-farm projects and the third part carbon capture and storage projects, which take into account the needs of climate change and renewable energy, as I believe that, faced with the economic crisis, the European energy sector must fundamentally reform its structure and systems. This would really be a very opportune moment to assess the current situation and reconsider many energy problems.

I think that this package, these three programmes, would significantly strengthen the European energy sector, would have an impact on other sectors, and would be of great help to economic recovery in Europe.

I believe that the 3.9 billion value of this package is a large sum, which would help to solve the particularly urgent problem of European energy security. Together with the consequences of the energy crisis and socio-economic consequences, there exists a great political risk that individual European countries will face gas supply problems. This risk remains high to this day.

The funding of interconnection projects would significantly strengthen Europe’s position and would provide additional guarantees of supply. I would like to add that while debating this document, the European Parliament proposed that the following be included in the package.

Firstly, Parliament focused on the possible redistribution of financial resources not used for projects. As we propose to lay down very strict deadlines for the preparation and development of projects, we think that if any money should remain unused, it should be redistributed to projects which are designed for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

A trialogue took place in a very short period of time and we were able to reach an agreement with the Council. The Council considered Parliament’s proposals and incorporated them into this package. I am very pleased about this and would like to thank the Council representatives, the Czech Presidency and Commissioner Piebalgs for their very close and fruitful cooperation. We really did manage to achieve a good outcome within a very short space of time.

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as soon as agreement was reached on the 2009 budget the Commission presented a proposal on the revision of the MFF in order to finance trans-European energy networks and broadband infrastructure projects in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan.

In retrospect we must say, first, that this has complicated proceedings, as we did not consider it right and appropriate that new proposals should be presented just a few days after agreement was reached on the budget and, second, that it would have been virtually impossible to reach agreement with the Council both on the food aid facility and on these elements of the economic stimulus package on completion of the 2009 budget. In the original proposal to provide five billion through a revised financial perspective split into two tranches – EUR 3.5 billion in 2009 and EUR 2.5 billion in 2010 – the Commission learned from the budget disaster of the proposal on the food aid facility. What the Commission presented on that occasion did not correspond to what had been agreed in the budget. This is clearly the case here too.

I welcome the fact that the Commission took up the suggestion from the Committee on Budgets, which we made in the first debate, to limit the review and to leave matters relating to rural areas and broadband and the modernisation of these structures in rural areas in heading 2 in the agriculture budget, and not to transfer them to heading 1a. This was a proper suggestion, which had come from this House, and which was acted upon.

In the second round we learned that it was the Council that initially said that the Commission could not present this proposal for the food aid facility and that it was in principle a review. The Council simply wanted to slink past the budgetary conditions and agreements. We correctly rectified this in the negotiations and in the trialogue of 2 April. I believe that we have taken the first correct step through our proposal to provide EUR 2.6 billion in a first step, to raise the ceiling for the year 2009 for commitment appropriations under sub­heading 1a by an amount of EUR 2 billion, to lower the ceiling of heading 2 by the same amount, and to provide EUR 600 million for rural development. We will endeavour to secure the remaining EUR 2.4 billion through a compensation at the conciliation of the 2010 and 2011 budgetary procedures by using all – and I quote, because it is important – ‘by using all means foreseen in its legal framework and without prejudice to the financial envelopes of the co-decided programmes and the annual budgetary procedure’.

It was also important to us that commitments entered into should not be affected and curtailed across the headings. That is why the breakdown we decided on was what could be negotiated in this timeframe, because we all realised we had to push forward the subject of energy solidarity and the modernisation of infrastructures, including the health check measures, in this parliamentary term.

However, it is also clear that what we said in the plenary session of the European Parliament on 25 March regarding the review of the multiannual financial framework needs to be on the agenda even more urgently. We call on the Commission to take into consideration all these deliberations on flexibility and improved conduct of negotiations in the context of budgetary policy annually and multiannually during the deliberations on the review of the multiannual financial plan in the autumn. These annual negotiations with the Council about the same issues year in, year out that we get bogged down in because one side does not want to move are just a shambles, and they have to stop, because no one outside understands what is going on any more. We need more flexibility, more manoeuvrability in the multiannual budgetary procedure. The Commission is called upon to learn from these experiences from the last two to three years and present relevant proposals in the autumn. We expect nothing less!

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the current economic downturn requires a stimulus also at EU level. This has been our common conviction since the crisis began last year.

In November 2008 the European Commission proposed a comprehensive European Economic Recovery Plan, which was endorsed by Heads of State and Government in December. Building on this, a ‘five billion package’ to inject immediate stimulus into the EU economy was proposed in January. The package directs that stimulus to key objectives, such as broadband development, energy security and low-carbon technologies.

The Commission very much welcomes the agreement found on the package, after difficult but constructive discussions, within a very tight timeframe.

I would like to thank Parliament for its support for our proposal, as well as its flexibility and sense of compromise shown in the course of interinstitutional discussions. This case shows that the EU is able to react quickly if a crisis requires an immediate response.

As regards the budget side – and now I am speaking on behalf of Vice-President Kallas – the Commission can accept the solution as now agreed by the three institutions, though its approach differs from our initial proposal of December 2008. We are confident that the projects will be implemented as scheduled.

I would also like to confirm that the Commission has taken good note of Parliament’s expectations with regard to the budget review and the assessment of the functioning of the Interinstitutional Agreement. As you know, we are working on these issues and will come forward with our conclusions in the autumn or, at the latest, by the end of the year.

I will now turn to my subject: energy. The regulation on energy projects constitutes a significant tool to achieve two goals: responding to the key security issues and environmental challenges in the energy sector whilst at the same time contributing to the recovery of our economy. The package is also an example of solidarity within the European Union. In particular, the gas crises needed a quick response.

Never before has the European Union agreed to dedicate such a significant amount to key energy projects.

I know that some of you would have preferred to see more measures on renewables and energy efficiency projects in the package, but I believe that the compromise finally found on this subject is a good one. The Commission provides reassurance in a comprehensive declaration that it will reconsider the situation in 2010, referring expressly to the option of suggesting using uncommitted funds for measures in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. The declaration was sent to Parliament and will be published in the Official Journal, together with the regulation, so I will not read it out here.

I welcome the fact that the principle of proposing new projects, if we identify serious risks in implementing the current projects, is also referred to in the recitals and an article of the regulation.

In addition, I can assure you that we will swiftly go ahead with the many other initiatives in the area of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, as they are referred to in our declaration.

After the successful and rapid conclusion of the legislative procedure, the Commission will focus on implementation of the package. I can tell you that, with respect to the energy projects, we intend to launch the call for proposals by the end of May, and I expect first decisions on support by the end of this year.

I would like to thank particularly the rapporteurs, Ms Stavreva, Mr Maldeikis and Mr Böge, for their engagement in finding a quick solution to this very important proposal.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am only going to touch upon the part of this package which relates to rural development. First of all, like Mr Piebalgs, I would like to thank Parliament for its cooperation, especially the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. There has been a very good and constructive dialogue over the past month and it is obvious that your support in this issue is crucial for a successful outcome.

Legislation must be adopted as soon as possible so that this money can be invested in rural development in 2009 and the money can be spent as well, i.e. both programming and expenditure of the money.

The final compromise left us with a bit less money for rural development than we had wanted. We had initially wanted EUR 1.5 billion and we ended up with EUR 1.02 billion. The scope for investment in broadband in rural areas has been extended, and Member States will now have full flexibility in the choice between broadband and new challenges. I think this is quite a good idea, so you do not limit people that see special difficulties in the new challenges in some parts of the European Union.

The Commission also takes good note of the amendments. You request an extension of the scope of eligible broadband operations to soft measures such as training in ICT and investments in ICT-related services and facilities. I would like to point out that these investments and activities are already widely supported within both the structural funds and the rural development funding. Focus is put on broadband, because of the fact that it is considered to boost technological development and growth in the best possible way.

As regards promotion of the recovery package, the Commission agrees that this is needed, but it can be done within the existing tools already in our toolbox in rural development. The current policy framework also allows money to already be spent on projects in 2009.

We have also studied the proposal to already include in the financing the EUR 250 million which were added to the 2009 budget for rural development by Parliament in its final vote on the budget last year. However, this proposal was not part of the agreement on the financing of the recovery package reached in the trialogue discussions. In order to avoid any delay in the final adoption of this package, I believe we should take the opportunity to come back later this year when the rest of the financing of the recovery package has to be agreed.

As this is the last meeting here in the plenary before the elections to this Parliament, I would like to express my sincere thanks for your very good cooperation and exchanges of views – sometimes with lots of patriotism and with lots of dynamism, but it has been a pleasure. To those of you who are not running for re-election, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure working with you.

(Applause)

  President. − Thank you so much, Commissione Fischer Boel. It is very kind of you to mention this. It was and is always a pleasure to work with you and with your colleagues in the Commission. Of course, there are some differences, but with you and with Commissioner Piebalgs it has always been a pleasure, and I want to thank you very much on behalf of Parliament and also personally.

  Mario Mauro, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the trialogue of 2 April, an agreement was finally reached between Parliament and the Czech Presidency. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, I am very pleased about this agreement, which has made it possible to continue with the legislative process for the recovery plan within the timeframe we had hoped for.

The financing methods for 2009 are very clear: of a total of EUR 3.98 billion, EUR 2 billion will be earmarked for energy by means of compensation under heading 2, ‘Preservation and management of natural resources’. The remaining EUR 1.98 billion allocated to energy will be decided on as part of the budget procedure for 2010 and, if necessary, the conclusion will come with the budget procedure for 2011.

I feel it is important, however, that the compensatory mechanism applied to the various headings should not jeopardise the financial package for codecided programmes, or the annual budget procedure. I also consider that, in the light of the deficit that the current interinstitutional agreement has highlighted, we need to look more deeply into the subject in order to make this agreement more flexible and therefore more able to respond to further financial needs.

  Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − (ES) Mr President, I am conveying the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, for which I was draftsman, on the proposal to amend the regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The proposal forms part of the European Economic Recovery Plan.

The European Council held in late March 2009 proposed allocating EUR 3.98 billion to the energy sector and EUR 1.02 billion to the Rural Development Fund, in order to create new broadband infrastructure in the countryside, improve existing infrastructure and respond to new challenges: climate change, renewable energy, biodiversity and the restructuring of the dairy sector.

The Committee on Budgets unanimously decided that the reference amount indicated in the legislative proposal is compatible with the ceiling of heading 2 of the current multi-annual financial framework 2007-2013.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Rumiana Jeleva, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (BG) As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, I would like to say how pleased I am with the final version of the European Energy Programme for Recovery. Parliament defended a strong position during the negotiations with the Council and obtained the best possible outcome for Europe’s citizens.

The Energy Programme for Recovery is extremely important for the future of our European economies. The current economic and financial crisis is jeopardising various programmes in the area of energy security, which is detrimental to our future economic growth and success.

As a result of this, the correct approach is to grant additional financial incentives for projects in the energy sector which will help restore our economy and promote the security of energy supplies, and are also aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

This new programme will effectively strengthen energy security in my country, Bulgaria, too, thanks to the provision of funding for the Nabucco gas pipeline and our connection with the infrastructure networks in Greece and Romania. This will make us less vulnerable during crises similar to the one we had last winter.

Fellow Members, our European economies and our infrastructure depend on good access to energy. In this respect, the European Energy Programme for Recovery paves the way for a more effective and efficient energy infrastructure in Europe. This is why I would like to stress once again the need for a common European Union energy policy. Only together will we be able to achieve greater success and give our citizens the energy security which they deserve. I would like to end by congratulating the rapporteur for her fine work.

  Domenico Antonio Basile, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Regional Development has been called on by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to give an opinion on the proposal for a Council regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), which has now reached the Chamber for debate within the context of the more general EUR 5 billion package.

The measure in question can be seen as a timely response by the Commission to the needs underpinning the decision, adopted by the Council on 11 and 12 December 2008, to approve a European economic recovery plan containing specific measures in many sectors of Community and national competence to tackle the economic and financial crisis that has involved the European markets since 2007.

In the rural development sector, the Commission measure proposes the introduction of appropriate updates to Council Regulation No 1698/2005 that are designed to implement the guidelines of the said European plan.

Taken as a whole, the Commission’s proposal – which provides for a budget of EUR 1.5 billion to be made available to all the Member States through the European Fund for Rural Development, to develop access to broadband Internet in rural areas and to confront the new challenges identified in the medium-term common agricultural policy reform assessment, concluded in November 2008 – has the full support of the Committee on Regional Development, which feels that the suggested measures, if implemented quickly and in full, will certainly be able to help pick up the national economies and make consumers trust in the system again, while also effectively pursuing objectives of territorial and social convergence in regions of the Union. All of this is particularly true if the measures are combined with the need, expressed by the Council, to maximise spending opportunities during the early years.

In expressing its opinion, the committee did not limit itself to a simple evaluation of the measures proposed by the European Commission but decided to make its own proposal by including certain amendments in the text submitted to it. The main aspect that the Committee on Regional Development wished to highlight is that which refers to the need to increase transparency and information on results obtained during the period 2009­2011 and to provide appropriate instruments for coordinating actions funded by the EAFRD and the Structural Funds in relation to broadband Internet infrastructure.

It did this by asking the Commission to insert a section specifically devoted to the verification of the results obtained in relation to this activity within the annual monitoring report required for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in the form of a specific amendment introduced in the text of the proposed measure.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SL) Tackling the financial and economic crisis is an important test of Europe’s unity and solidarity. We have to demonstrate two things: firstly, that we are going to take concerted action and that we will be able to profit from it and, secondly, that we are capable of maintaining the strategic priorities which we have set over the past few years: that is, priorities facilitating a shift towards a knowledge-based society and an innovative society with low greenhouse gas emission levels.

I am pleased to see that Europe has responded to this challenge in a rapid and unified manner. We have spoken out against protectionism and established the internal market as one of Europe’s important achievements, and one which also needs to be preserved at a time of crisis. In so doing, we have also managed to preserve our vision and to take action, without losing sight of our long-term challenges, which certainly include climate change, also.

Let me also briefly mention projects in the field of energy. In a relatively short space of time, we have secured additional financial resources which we intend to earmark for the future development of new, cleaner technologies and for the purpose of increasing a reliable energy supply. What is important here is that we include, within this package, technologies for carbon capture and storage, the promotion of offshore wind energy and interconnection of gas and electricity transmission networks.

However, I would draw your attention to the fact that, despite the number of good projects to which additional aid is to be allocated, some important projects are missing from this dossier. For this reason, I would ask that these projects be carefully monitored, that their implementation be supervised and that we also find additional funds with which to finance projects that promote efficient use of energy and other renewable energy sources.

Let me also add, in this context, that geothermal energy is certainly another major potential which remains untapped. I consider this to be one of our most important tasks for the very beginning of our next mandate.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems as though the peace of Christmas is upon us – everything is passing off so peacefully. Unfortunately, I have to add a sour note to the proceedings.

The Council, which is not represented here today, has taken months to revise and reconsider the proposals presented by the Commission and to come up with a solution in a situation where we have huge, rising unemployment. It is therefore not the fault of Parliament. In this case the people responsible for the budget were even ahead of us in the energy field. That certainly did not make our life very easy. Normally, they are the blockers. But then we tried to find a solution, and the Commissioner was very helpful, but the Council was obdurate.

Our concern – and this really ought to be self-evident – is that all the budget appropriations that cannot be disbursed should be allocated to projects to create jobs, especially in projects aimed at energy security, energy efficiency and energy conservation. This really ought to be self-evident. Were we to ask the citizens of Europe whether they would be in favour of allocating money that is not spent to this particular area, the vast majority would say yes. Only the Council has not yet acknowledged that this is actually what is needed. In this context, all of us – including the members of the new Parliament – should insist that this is exactly what is implemented.

I do not know whether Mr Piebalgs will still be a Commissioner and will still be responsible for this area, but I hope that the Commission is also of the opinion that we must ensure that all budget appropriations that cannot be disbursed are transferred in other areas to employment-related projects concerned with energy efficiency and energy security.

Finally, I would like to thank both Commissioners for their cooperation both personally and on behalf of my Group. Whether it was always a pleasure is another matter, but you were always prepared to engage in dialogue, and I hope you can say that of us too. We are in the middle of an election campaign but things are a bit calmer for you now. I do think, however, that you can live without us parliamentarians.

  Donato Tommaso Veraldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal we are discussing is part of a package of EUR 5 billion allocated to the European economic recovery plan, of which EUR 1 040 is earmarked for the construction and completion of infrastructures for broadband Internet coverage in rural areas and for development in relation to the new challenges brought to light by the health check on the common agricultural policy.

In order to respond to the current financial crisis, we must take action above all in rural areas using instruments designed to help these areas emerge from the structural isolation in which they find themselves. It is therefore crucial to guarantee the use of available Community funds, increasing their effectiveness and added value. In the field of rural development, every possible tactic must be adopted to ensure greater financial flexibility and efficiency.

I believe it is essential for the Commission to undertake to assist Member States in the adoption of national strategies and rural development programmes aimed at boosting employment. I am bound to say, however, that, according to the rules of the Rural Development Fund, broadband implementation projects are mainly managed by public administrations – provinces, municipalities and mountain communities – which are, however, unable to include VAT in their accounting. This does not happen with other programmes, with other regulations underpinning the Structural Funds, where such expenditure is considered eligible.

The economic crisis has simply accentuated the difficulties that were already present for these local authorities, and thus the incidence of VAT on budgets associated with the implementation of various works is so high that there is a risk of public authorities failing to invest and the unspent resources returning to the Community budget. Lastly, as far as the distribution of resources is concerned, I believe we must focus on the use of historical criteria, as proposed by the Commission.

  Guntars Krasts, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Thank you, Madam President. I believe that the agreement that has been reached on support for the European Union’s energy policy in the long term, providing incentives in the short term for the recovery of the economy, achieves both goals. The only exception, which cannot provide an economic return in the short term, is the funding of carbon capture and storage projects. However, this undoubtedly meets long-term energy policy challenges by increasing the competitiveness of the technologies of EU businesses on world markets, where alternative forms of energy will not be able to replace the burning of coal for the foreseeable future. I very much welcome the channelling of the majority of funding towards European energy network interconnection projects. I am pleased that significant resources have been allocated for the integration into European electricity networks of the Baltic States, which are the most isolated region in the EU. Although these investments do not bring about the full integration of the markets of the three Baltic States into European networks, nonetheless this is an important, strengthening factor that will promote energy supply security. I hope that this will serve as an incentive to the Baltic States to continue to make structural reforms to their energy systems, and to create market conditions that will improve the situation for energy consumers in that region. Thank you.

  Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, this is a sad day for the credibility of the European Union. The economic recovery package we will vote on is, in reality, a non-recovery plan which will produce almost no immediate economic stimulus. We have had months of sometimes intense negotiations with the EU Council. Unfortunately, rather than standing up to those governments like Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, which adopted a short-sighted ‘I want my money back’ approach, the majority of this House and the Commission have simply caved in to their demands.

This outcome is very bad and it could have been avoided. We could have built a real solidarity instrument, where the vast majority of the funds would have gone to those economies most in need: our friends in eastern Europe. We could have enhanced the economic effectiveness of this package by using innovative finance instruments, like loan guarantee funds and the public banks, or the European Investment Bank. This would have transformed the EUR 5 billion into EUR 50-80 billion in investment, which we need at this moment for the European economy. We could have focused our investments on those areas with immediate job creation, such as cities in Europe investigating in the renovation of buildings and public transport, or independent power companies investing in renewables, or our industries in Europe investing in eco-technologies. Instead, you have decided to concentrate the bulk of these EUR 5 billion on old-fashioned state aid to those least in need of cash: the big energy oligopolies in the UK, Germany and France.

Instead of sending a strong signal, we are sending a signal of a lack of political courage: spineless European institutions that have caved in to the whims of nationally blinkered governments.

Unfortunately, we have no brave and visionary Commission President. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Socialists in this House were not ready to fight with the Greens to make this recovery package a real first step to a green new deal. Before change can happen in Europe we must change the President of the Commission. In order to make this change happen, we need to change the majorities in the European Parliament. ‘Stop Barroso – go for a green new deal’: this is more than ever the right slogan for the upcoming European elections.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) With regard to the European Union’s so-called 5 billion package for the European economic recovery plan, it is useful to recall the resolution adopted by this Parliament on the mid-term review of the 2007-2013 financial framework. That resolution states: that the own-resources ceiling represents 1.24% of EU GNI in payments and that this has effectively been below 1%; that every year significant margins are left below the ceiling set up by the multiannual financial framework, with over EUR 29 billion in payments in the last three years; and that huge margins exist between the multiannual financial framework ceiling and the ceiling of the EU own resources, with over EUR 176 billion from 2010 to 2013.

In view of this, we must ask ourselves: why is it that, faced with the worsening economic situation, we are not at least using the funds provided in the multiannual financial framework?

Why is the European Union opting to deduct EUR 2 billion from the agriculture margin, when thousands of farmers are facing ever greater difficulties?

Do farmers have a greater need for support to deal with increasing costs of production and falling prices to the producer, or for broadband Internet?

To ensure that this adjustment is neutral, from which other budget headings will almost EUR 2 billion be deducted? Will this amount be deducted from cohesion?

How will they go about distributing the nearly EUR 4 billion for projects in the area of energy and the nearly EUR 1 billion for – apparently – the promotion of broadband in rural areas? How will this unfair exchange be applied?

Where, finally, is the highly proclaimed solidarity across the European Union? Or will the mountain, in the end, once again turn out to be a molehill?

  Patrick Louis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, wanting a recovery plan is a good intention. A Keynesian recovery is needed to respond to a cyclical downturn, but this crisis is structural. The tool, then, is inadequate.

Re-injecting funds into an unrestrained economy is just throwing money down the drain. In fact, boosting an economy without first having restored Community preference at our borders is like trying to warm a house when all the windows have to be left open. What happens is the boiler runs out and the heating bills go through the roof.

After these opening remarks, I have three comments to make. Firstly, an energy market is not relevant. In fact, in this area, competition does not reduce prices because these are determined by the costs of the means of production. We believe, therefore, that it is essential to invest in truly efficient energy sources, to avoid the trap of energy sources that are largely subsidised, such as wind power, and to opt for solar and nuclear energy.

Secondly, there is no efficiency in a single electricity market. Over a large distance, energy loss is proportionate to the distance travelled. The likelihood of breakdowns and outages grows with the geographical complexity of the network. Therefore, the interconnection of Europe’s electricity network should get back to its primary purpose, which is to serve as a reciprocal backup resource at the borders and to allow energy swaps, but merely in the background. This work should be our priority.

Thirdly, as for the Podimata report, which relates to the current report, we recommend that we not only take into account the energy needed to operate a product, but also consider information on the amount of energy needed to manufacture that product.

The communication of this information to consumers will enhance the standing of those products with high added-value and low energy requirements. The inclusion of this information will give a much-needed competitive advantage to our economies, which are under too great a threat of unfair global competition.

  Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion the European Parliament and the Council have taken some extraordinary but effective decisions in transferring EUR 5 billion of unused resources from 2008 to 2009 for a stimulation package to mitigate the effects of the financial crisis, along with the sum of EUR 4 billion to resolve some of the bottlenecks in the European energy network. On the other hand, Mr Turmes’s speech was true in many respects, particularly concerning fund management.

I consider it important for Member State governments to respond flexibly and for all of the resources allocated for the years 2009-2010 to be spent and to be spent effectively, as far as possible. The crisis situation in gas supplies at the beginning of the year after the dispute between Russia and Ukraine showed how vulnerable a significant part of Europe is in critical situations. The measures implemented and financed from this package should therefore help prevent a repeat of this crisis.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank Mrs Stavreva for her excellent report. It is absolutely crucial that this economic programme, which we have adopted in its entirety today, is also available in rural areas. Broadband is an indispensable means of communication for rural areas, especially in Austria, for new and modern jobs and for rapid information delivery. It should not be overlooked that more than 50% of the population of the European Union lives in rural areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am coming to the end of my political career. I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to all my colleagues, the Commission and all the institutions of the European Union, especially officials and staff, for their help and support. It has been a pleasure to work with you all. Finally I would like to thank the interpreters who had to interpret my Austrian German.

I am convinced that it must continue to be absolutely clear that the common agricultural policy, with its two pillars, is essential for the society of the European Union. Farmers are naturally aware of their responsibility towards society. But I also expect the society of the European Union to be aware of its responsibility towards all those who safeguard its resources. With this in mind, I wish the European Union all the best for the future.

(Applause)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Stavreva for her cooperation and to congratulate her for her excellent work which received the unanimous support of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Following the debate held in the Council, we have EUR 1.02 billion available to us to alleviate the painful impact of the crisis on rural areas. We have successfully reached a situation where the money can be used in a much more flexible way compared to the original proposal, within a suitably broad framework, to develop broadband Internet access in rural areas and to tackle the new challenges defined during the review of the common agricultural policy.

Member States’ rural development plans must be reviewed as quickly as possible so that the amounts now specified can be made available as soon as possible. This is perhaps the most important aspect for the rural population as with the help of these developments, new jobs, new training courses and new markets may become accessible, resulting at the same time in a reduction in costs and the deployment of new innovative technologies.

The rural population are the most vulnerable victims of the economic crisis. In fact, looking at the future, it can be said that there is also the risk of further territorial and economic exclusion, extending beyond the economic crisis. Even before the crisis broke, a large number of Member States had to face continual decline in rural areas. Our responsibility is to devise and implement as soon as possible the necessary measures aimed at safeguarding our rural values.

Fellow Members, given that my party is not expected to do well enough in the elections for me to continue working for the next five years among you, I would therefore also like to thank you for the excellent cooperation which I have enjoyed in this House. As a young politician, I can only wish every young politician the chance to learn in such an excellent organisation how European politics works.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). - (SV) Madam President, there are three crises in the world and in Europe right now: the financial crisis, the consequent job crisis and the climate crisis. Packages of measures should be directed at finding solutions to all three crises, but I find it difficult to see that this is case with this package. Marilyn Monroe once said ‘lead me not into temptation, I can find it myself’. This is how the governments of the Member States seem to have acted with regard to using the money that we have jointly been able to release for this economy package. It can be greatly criticised for dealing with the old type of energy and, in particular, in terms of the time factor. The measures contained in the package lie so far in the future that they are more likely to create jobs during the next recession than this one. Our intention was to try to get new technology and new ideas in place as well as measures for creating jobs now during this recession in Europe. We will therefore (hopefully, if we are re-elected) continue to monitor what the Commission promised via Commissioner Piebalgs, namely proper, reliable monitoring of the implementation and supervision.

Finally, Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Fischer Boel for the extremely constructive work that she has done and Commissioner Piebalgs, who has worked very closely with the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and who has personally been extremely important as far as the energy package and the climate package are concerned and in terms of what we have achieved in this area over the last five years. I would like to thank the rapporteur, who has done a good job, and my fellow Members. Finally, I really think that we should discontinue the European Parliament’s work in Strasbourg and meet in a single location in future.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, support for rural areas is a very important activity, irrespective of what form it takes. All the more so, when that support comes in the form of the introduction of new technologies on a massive scale to rural areas. However, the order of priorities raises doubts in my mind. What is more important at the moment for the development of urban areas — broadband Internet, further modernisation and development of the transport infrastructure, or measures connected with increasing jobs in rural areas, especially during the crisis?

For me it is obvious that the money needed for the introduction of broadband Internet and tackling climate change in rural areas will be provided mainly to the enterprises and firms which carry out this work, and not farmers or residents of rural areas. Perhaps this money should have been designated for reducing the disproportion in subsidies for medium-sized farms, especially in the new Member States? The European Union is currently giving farmers broadband Internet at huge cost instead of meeting more important needs, such as bringing farms, and not farming concerns, to a higher level.

  Konstantinos Droutsas (GUE/NGL). - (EL) Madam President, the aim of the EUR 5 billion economic recovery programme is to take advantage of the capitalist crisis and help capital to achieve its objectives by promoting capitalist restructurings in strategic sectors, such as energy and electronic communications.

Broadband internet and networks are necessary for the development of rural areas, but they are not a priority. When the income of owners of small and medium-sized farms is constantly shrinking and they face the threat of eviction from their land and unemployment, when the economy of entire areas is in crisis due to the CAP and the dictats of the WTO, it is not the development of networks that will contribute to rural development; it is a mockery at the expense of poor farmers. EUR 1.5 billion has basically been earmarked for the development of electronic communications companies, not for farming and rural development.

Exactly the same applies to the EUR 3.5 billion earmarked for the completion of an integrated electricity network and the completion of the single electricity market, facilitating the privatisations, mergers and takeovers promoted by the third liberalisation package and carbon capture and storage, that extortionately expensive and non-environmentally friendly plan designed to increase the profits of and allow continuing pollution by production units.

The workers and farmers understand that these measures are being taken in order to strengthen capital and the monopolies, which is why they are rejecting them and fighting them and demanding that grassroots changes be satisfied so that they do not become the beasts of burden of the crisis.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true to say that the European Union is trying to make its own contribution in this major financial and economic crisis. It is also true to say that, with regard to promoting broadband in rural areas, it should be entitled to make a real contribution to ensuring that the digital segregation of society is overcome and that more people have the opportunity to take part in it and to strengthen internal cohesion in the European Union.

However, as a budgetary politician, I would like to point out that, although the announcement of such a programme will have public impact, it is not clear where the money will actually come from. It is, to some extent, dubious. I cannot endorse it, and if the Council takes such decisions, and if the Commission, through Mr Barroso, comes up with something like that, one must seriously ensure that it is clear where the money is coming from. That is the only really convincing form of politics that we can present to our citizens. At the moment the money is unfortunately not there. Member States must once again take a stand so that we can really make it clear that this is a contribution to a better structural policy and to more solidarity in Europe. Then we must make a joint contribution so that it can actually become a reality.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, although the European Union has introduced subsidies for rural development, at the same time the rural depopulation caused by the conditions imposed by Maastricht has encouraged unbridled enthusiasm for liberalisation and the accompanying dismantling of rural infrastructures.

Following the demise of Chrysler and the closing of police stations and schools, thanks to deregulation decreed by the EU the post offices will also soon be closing. The Commission is quite clearly planning to administer further euthanasia. Should the eligibility criteria of below average economic power and rural depopulation cease to apply from 2014 this could be the kiss of death for many disadvantaged areas. This, in my opinion, is an assault on all rural areas, which we should not let pass. We need equivalent living conditions in towns and cities and in the country. Otherwise not only individual areas but also entire valleys in Europe will soon be deserted.

Cutting subsidies is certainly the wrong approach if we wish to safeguard vital rural areas and lower middle­class structures. However, rural areas cannot be kept alive through agricultural subsidies alone. The demise of farming in recent years shows this more clearly than ever. Subsidies for disadvantaged areas must not be cut but increased. Small, medium-sized and organic farms must survive and food sovereignty should be maintained. If the EU cannot soon be dissuaded from promoting primarily intensive stock-rearing and large landowners – like the British Queen for example – then it is high time that agriculture was renationalised or, at the very least, party renationalised.

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). - Madam President, can I thank the Commissioner very much for presenting this to us this morning, and thank Ms Stavreva very much for her report.

It is very important that we deal with this ‘five billion’ package. Can I say quite bluntly to the Commission that, when they embark upon a five billion package in future, they should probably get a little more agreement out of the Council before we get this far. I understand it is not always easy to get the Council to agree to the money but we do need to know whether this money is going to be forthcoming in the end. I suspect it probably will be and I think it can actually be put to very good use.

There is no doubt that agriculture is very important to the countryside but there are also many other businesses out there. Especially when it comes to smaller farms, you do need another income. Broadband in particular means that lots of small businesses can be developed in the rural areas. Once broadband is available, the connections can be very good in some of the most rural areas we have in the European Union. Broadband could also be essential to help businesses go forward in agriculture, tourism and all those businesses that are linked to the Internet.

At this time of a real recession in the European Union this is a stimulation package that – if we can get the money out to the right areas and if we can get it out in time – will make a real difference because we need to stimulate business. Agriculture is important but other businesses are also important to the rural area and this package can help.

So I wish the Commission well with the whole project. I hope that you get the money but – as I said – I think in future we probably need to go about it in a much more uniform way.

  Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, in November 2008, the Commission presented a recovery plan that was not up to the job, either in volume or in content. Six months on, it has to be acknowledged that the implementation of this recovery plan is almost non-existent, and I want to find out what is happening with these EUR 30 billion of recovery funds.

What has happened to the EUR 15 billion announced via new actions and entrusted to the EIB? How can one reconcile a announced stimulus of EUR 7 billion through the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund with an announced structural budget under-spend of EUR 10 billion in 2009?

Finally, as for the EUR 5 billion that we are discussing today, I would like to make four observations. Despite the pressure from the European Parliament, the Council of Finance Ministers was unable to release the EUR 5 billion for 2009, providing only EUR 2.6 billion.

We are by no means sure, therefore, that the Council will be able to find the EUR 2.4 billion missing for 2010. Parliament is ready to find any possible solutions through regulatory means. However, the other political priorities must not, under any circumstances, be called into question. That will not be permitted by Parliament. We cannot accept re-deployment; that is a red line that we will not cross.

It will be difficult to find these EUR 2.4 billion because, with the presentation of the Commission’s PDB, we know that a maximum of EUR 1.7 billion will be available. Moreover, the Council still has to agree to release these margins. It is therefore important, in any case, that, in the name of short-term budgetary orthodoxy and of a legal approach to budget regulation, the many Member States no longer be able to stop this entire recovery plan.

A strong budget needs to be maintained for the future of the Union, and we can see – and this is my fourth observation – that the size of and the manner in which the latest financial perspectives were negotiated and accepted puts Europe’s future at a great disadvantage.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). - (NL) Madam President, listening to this debate, I get the feeling that most of us are satisfied but, nonetheless, I am under the strong impression that this is a meagre package. I think the paramount concern here was saving the faces of President Barroso and the Commission. The measures put forward will undoubtedly be useful, but the funding still remains insecure.

Although the agricultural budget needs to take into account unforeseen situations, even in the case of a surplus, I have some objections to it perpetually being used as a cash cow to cover any unforeseen event. I am of the opinion that the Commission and the European Union have failed to learn much from the outbreaks of infectious animal diseases which have occurred in the past. If they were to occur again, we would have to finance them from the agricultural budget.

What I would like to know is: what are we giving priority to? Funding the measures proposed for combating animal diseases or funding this package, which still needs to be tidied up? There is a major uncertainty there that continues to remain, but I understand that income support will always be available, in any event, and that does put my mind at ease.

As far as the actual measures are concerned, they vary from Member State to Member State, but they are useful, without a doubt. I, too, am in favour of energy security and I think that anything we do in that respect will be useful.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the two commissioners on the work they have done and Mrs Fischer Boel, in particular, with whom I have enjoyed very close cooperation over the past five years.

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, an initiative of EUR 5 billion in total is a good basis both for the further development of the European Union’s common energy policy and for rural development in the long term. The reinforcement of internal networks is also important, as is the establishment of interconnections, forming single networks. In my view, greater emphasis should be placed on energy efficiency and diversification, by creating real incentives for the use of offshore wind energy, geothermal power and other renewable energy resources. The Member States’ plans, including those of the large states, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, must be developed in accordance with the European Union’s common energy policy. For those states particularly badly affected by the economic crisis, a cofinancing ceiling of 50% ought to be laid down. Genuine support must be given to local and regional initiatives aiming to introduce renewable energy and to encourage its use. With regard to rural development, more attention must be paid to the real situation than to historic indicators. There is talk not only of the introduction of broadband, but also, for instance, of the development of rural roads. Resources from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ought to be made particularly accessible for the economically weaker Member States. Thank you.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioners, this Economic Recovery Plan is no masterpiece. Above all, there is not much left over for rural areas. It also entails a transfer of funds from the agricultural budget to rural development. Commissioner, it does not lead to independent rural development for rural areas but once again follows a balancing logic.

Above all, it is left to the discretion of the Member States to create compensation programmes. In Germany, this affects the milk fund. A loss of 15 cents per kilo of milk means a shortfall of EUR 4.2 billion for German milk farmers alone. Now, a compensation is to be created with EUR 100 million. Commissioner, let me be clear about this. This is just peanuts, not an economic recovery plan!

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE). – (RO) I would first of all like to congratulate Mrs Stavreva for the quality of the report which she presented to us today.

I support the amendments proposed by the rapporteur, such as making available EUR 250 million for activities related to tackling the new challenges, even though, as the Commissioner herself said, we will need to revisit this. Given the need for a rapid response to the current economic crisis, it would be helpful, as we are all well aware, for payments to be provided which can be made already during the 2009 budget year. This approach actually reflects the conclusions reached by the Presidency of the European Council on 12 December 2008.

One significant aspect of the current economic crisis is the reduction in the general resources available and in loans, along with stricter conditions being imposed for obtaining credit from banks. As a result, I support the rapporteur’s suggestion for Member States to have the opportunity to use funds made available through loans and credit guarantees, which would allow the relevant parties in rural areas to make investments during these difficult times.

Given how widely dispersed the population is and the high costs in some rural communities, not all citizens would have personal access to the broadband infrastructure. In my opinion, therefore, in addition to the infrastructure operations being proposed, Member States should have the opportunity to support public Internet access points in rural communities, such as those in public libraries and town halls.

Consequently, I agree on specific information being made available to the general public and the local authorities responsible for implementing these new measures. In order to ensure the most effective use of the resources available and to give a considerable boost to the development of broadband Internet access in rural areas, I think that the current differences between Member States in terms of broadband coverage should be used as a guide for making differentiations when allocating these funds.

  Jutta Haug (PSE). - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are less than two hours away from the final decision on the European Economic Recovery Plan. It has taken us five months – needless to say because of sophistry in the Council – five months to come to a decision on the package now before us.

Had we taken the title of this package at all seriously, we would have had to be much quicker. The package in itself is fine; there is no question about that. However, I very much doubt whether it can really bring about Europe’s economic recovery in the current crisis. Can the designated money flow into the designated projects within the designated time?

It is a good thing that the Members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy also had their doubts and negotiated a declaration from the Commission not to put leftovers into energy efficiency. There is a chance therefore that the EUR 2.6 billion to be decided on will be used reasonably. But will we also manage to agree on the EUR 2.4 billion deficit in the EUR 5 billion Recovery Plan with the Council in the autumn?

EUR 5 billion over two years are an expression of European solidarity. That is all well and good. However, more effective help for the entire European economy comes from a common regional and structural political framework: EUR 38 billion – this year alone! These resources are the driving force behind the European economy.

  Roberts Zīle (UEN). – (LV) Madam President, Commissioners, the compromise on not giving this EUR 5 billion back to the donor states but using it for rural development projects in energy and broadband has the following important political message. It shows that even at a time of crisis European solidarity has not completely disappeared. I understand what a few of my fellow Members have said, about most of the money having simply gone back to those states and their energy projects, but I believe that in this proposal the solidarity principle is evident. I also think that the initiation of a long-term project in the energy sphere, like the connection of the Baltic States to the Nordic electricity networks, also sends the right signal, for it is rather up to the Member States themselves to resolve issues to overcome the short-term crisis, taking into account their specific situations. Another point on which we must, in my view, be very careful is that these short deadlines for the introduction of the project may lead to great bitterness if the projects contained in this proposal are not completed. On this point, we must all act jointly in a very responsible manner. Thank you.

  Esther de Lange (PPE-DE). - (NL) Madam President, this is the third year of our financial perspectives and it is also the third year that we have gathered here to talk about their intermediate adjustment. In 2007 we had Galileo, which was fairly easy to explain. In 2008 we had the EUR 1 billion Food Facility, when we had to use every trick in the book to secure funding because it had to be funded within the limits of the existing categories even though there was little space left to accommodate it. Now we are talking about an economic stimulus package, which is certainly a welcome contribution to national efforts in this field and which will hopefully be a stimulus for energy and broadband projects in the northern part of my country.

However, once again, I feel obliged to express two reservations in this regard. I am glad to see that we are sticking to the rules and actually adjusting financial perspectives, but we have had to resort to jiggery-pokery again in order to make an appeal for the 2010, and possibly 2011, budgets. Naturally, it is good to know that this will not affect the codecision programmes, but what about agriculture, which we know still does not fall under codecision? What will happen, if, as has already been suggested, another animal disease breaks out or if we experience a serious market crisis and we still need this funding for agriculture? Can the Commission reassure us that it will not shirk these responsibilities?

My second reservation is that we have to be able to monitor the spending on which we, as a whole, decide. A fortnight ago, my delegation opposed the granting of discharge for the 2007 budget because of problems involving oversight and financial responsibility. What this package must not result in, in any case, is deterioration of responsibility and oversight. As the British would say, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, and I think that this plan will only be a success if we meet all the conditions.

I know that my speaking time is over, but I would like to take another three seconds to thank the Commissioner for spending many late evenings here with us, discussing things after debates on agriculture had finished. So thank you, Commissioner, for your accessibility and cooperation.

  Costas Botopoulos (PSE). - (EL) Madam President, the report and the initiative in general which we are debating today is necessary, but I am afraid that it is of dubious efficacy. It is more of a shot in the arm than a therapy. Europe had to do something, because this is a serious crisis and it had to do something, but I think that this is not up to the challenge. Firstly, it is not much money for the crisis we are going through and there is no guarantee that it will reach those who need it most. Both energy and broadband Internet are important sectors, but we cannot be sure that they are the top priority sectors and, more importantly, the sectors that will generate the additional jobs and growth that we need.

Secondly, as all my fellow Members have said, we still do not know if, when and where a large part, almost half of the money, some 2.4 billion, will come from. The other day we were talking in the Committee on Budgets to Commissioner Kallas, who is unable at present to give us an answer as to where the appropriations will come from.

Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, we are providing solutions which will not help us to address the problems in the long term. It is no solution to keep taking the money left over from agricultural policy; it is no solution to shift the balances underground between agricultural and regional policy and the Union’s other needs. Europe needs a global plan in the face of the crisis, which it does not appear to have at present. I am afraid that this opportunity has been lost for the European Union and I am afraid that it has been lost mainly by the Commission itself.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioners, President-in-Office of the Council (wherever he may be, because he is not here), in this House words are important: calling EUR 5 billion a ‘European economic recovery plan’ is a flash of humour by the European Commission, but it has nothing to do with reality; it is a simple budget diversion, which is modest, of limited scope and with limited effects.

However, we should welcome it, not so much because of the funding allocation, but for what it means in political and budgetary terms: it means, firstly, an acknowledgement that the current financial framework that we adopted for the 2007-2013 period does not have appropriate instruments with which to tackle a situation of economic crisis. In order to find EUR 5 billion it has been necessary, as Reimer Böge said, to force a way through the budget procedures, to strain the interinstitutional agreement and for the three institutions to work for six months; and all this, as has been said many times, in order to leave half the funding subject to the hazard of another conciliation procedure.

It is also a strange way of protecting Community agriculture. Let us make no mistake: what it comes down to is that extra money from the common agricultural policy is funding the inadequate allocations of other categories of expenditure. This is a direct consequence of the mistakes made in negotiating the financial framework. We will see what the results are when we have to negotiate the next agricultural agreement in 2013.

I therefore welcome this package’s aims, but I hope that we will not in the future be forced to repent the means that we have used.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). - Mr President, our citizens expect us to provide real help for them in these troubled times. The European economic recovery measures before us constitute an important package, and I applaud the strong emphasis on green jobs and technologies that will help reduce our carbon emissions and promote energy security.

I am also, naturally, very pleased that my own country will be receiving up to EUR 500 million of financing to promote offshore wind energy and carbon capture and storage projects. However, it is clear that the overall package proposed is lacking in both size and ambition. I would like to see more emphasis placed on youth unemployment. We need to give the younger generation hope for the future. Nevertheless, what we have here on the table today is, without doubt, better than doing nothing at all. Labour MEPs will therefore support these measures, although we are clear that a new economic recovery plan is needed.

I hope the Conservative MEPs present will also vote to support these measures in defiance of the ‘do nothing’ approach of their isolationist leader, David Cameron, who has consistently opposed Labour measures in the UK, which offer real help to those worst hit.

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, European countries are adopting bailout packages worth billions to save their financial institutions and industrial sectors. The European Union as a whole is also seeking to invest in the European economy. The debated proposal to support economic recovery through Community financial assistance for projects in the energy sector is part of a European economic recovery plan which envisages allocating an overall sum of EUR 30 billion. This EUR 5 billion plan for public investments is aimed primarily at energy infrastructure, high-speed Internet access, and agricultural restructuring. It should be understood that European diplomats spent several weeks debating the specific shape of the package. The presidency, led by the Czech Republic and the Commission, has made a responsible attempt through this package to respond – among other tasks – to the gas crisis, and in so doing to defuse some sensitive issues, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The fact is that some of the issues remain unresolved. Some Member States that are slower in drawing down EU funds may pay the price of failing to prepare all of their projects by next year. Doubts also persist as regards financing the package. However, in my opinion, these facts do not justify us rejecting this hard-won compromise. Rejection may eventually cause not only a shortage of money for energy-saving projects, but also a lack of funds to ensure reliable supplies of gas to our homes. And voters would surely count that against us come the next gas crisis.

  Margaritis Schinas (PPE-DE). - (EL) Madam President, today’s debate is defined by two important parameters. Firstly, by the incontrovertible need for us to do more in Europe for electricity interconnection and broadband Internet. Secondly, today’s debate indirectly raises the very important question of the present and the future of agricultural spending under the Community budget.

The positive message, of course, is that Europe is using the Community budget as a tool against the crisis. That is positive and we must hold on to it. The five billion is not much, but our systemic method of using the Community budget as a tool to fight new problems is the right method and that was precisely why the Heads of State and Government approved it at the recent summit, where they upheld this approach. However, we must be careful. If this systemic method leads us to the simplistic deductive reasoning that agriculture will always have unused appropriations to pay for new requirements and from that we conclude, in the run-up to the important debates on the future of agriculture after 2013, that agriculture already has more than it needs, that would be a huge strategic mistake for Europe. In other words, we should not consider that we need to go ‘lower’ in agriculture, because the budget proved that, up to 2013, we always had money, which we took from for Galileo, for energy and for broadband Internet.

Farming needs resources and it will still need resources after 2013. At the same time, we must clarify something in the European Union which is self-evident: new priorities will always need new resources.

  Lutz Goepel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, the ‘peanuts’ have meant that, in my small village of 450 inhabitants, it has been full steam ahead with work on bridging the broadband gap. I believe that, in three to four months’ time at the latest, we will have it.

Mrs Stavreva, thank you very much for your report. It is very good.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been able to work in this lofty Chamber on the development of agriculture for 15 years, helping to shape it, irrespective of farm size and legal form. The time has now come for me to do something else. I would like to thank all my fellow Members, officials, Mr Piebalgs and, in particular, you, Mrs Fischer Boel.

  Atanas Paparizov (PSE). – (BG) I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Maldeikis, and emphasise the importance of the projects linked to energy security. They will create proper conditions for greater solidarity between Member States through the diversification of gas supply sources and the actual suppliers.

I would like to mention that after the negotiations, my country, which was hardest hit by the energy crisis at the start of the year, received some resources and connections were established with the systems in Greece and Turkey. The resources earmarked for Nabucco and the reverse supply of gas will also contribute to security in south-eastern Europe.

I think that these measures from the Commission and these proposals are just the start of devising an energy security policy. I am expecting a strategy for improving the gas supply directive, as well as a draft common energy policy to be proposed in the very near future.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) I would like to talk about the macroeconomic impact of this package. We often say that we need to solve the banking problems and give the banks more liquidity, more funds. This package is important because it boosts our common market’s liquidity. As capital circulates among countries because of the crisis – a natural process in economic development – in many countries companies have ceased operating because of a shortage of funds.

Such a package is needed not as some sort of subsidy or aid. It is needed to sustain our united European market, our integration, which we have built up over many years.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to thank Commissioner Fischer Boel and Commissioner Piebalgs. This is a good sign: agriculture and energy side by side, working together. The same is true of Mr Schierhuber and Mr Karas, Members of Parliament, who are putting themselves on the line, so to speak, for small and medium-sized farms. This is a good sign. This debate about the EUR 5 billion shows that we have the right agenda and that we have to strengthen purchasing power in rural areas. In a time of economic and financial crisis in particular, our challenge is, as a matter of priority, not to send the money we need for energy to the Russia oligarchies and oil magnates, but to keep it in Europe and strengthen rural areas here.

I should like to express my congratulations on this initiative and am particularly pleased that we can adopt it today.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) I too would like to congratulate our rapporteurs. This document is important as the interconnection of the energy infrastructure must be a priority.

However, I think that more must be invested in modernising the infrastructure for producing and transporting electrical energy. I say this, bearing in mind the power outage a few years ago, which affected many European states. I do think, however, that the Nabucco project must be allocated a larger amount of money. It is good, nevertheless, that the importance of this project is being recognised once again through this document.

With regard to energy efficiency in buildings, compared to the communication from the Commission in October in which EUR 5 billion was earmarked for this area, we do not find anything about resources in this document. We have this provision linked to intelligent cities, but the resources will only be able to be used if there are unspent resources left over. I think that this situation is unacceptable because jobs need to be created and this sector has huge potential.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I see broad support for our proposal and I think it is very important to remember where we were at the beginning of this Parliament.

We have more or less 27 national energy policies and 27 markets with different states of liberalisation. Cooperation between Member States on energy issues has been rather complicated. We provided for the very important common drivers, namely the energy and climate change package and strengthening the European dimension of the European internal energy market. But the issue of where the money comes from was always there and until now we really have not dedicated substantial sums of money to energy. Due to the financial crisis we are clearly facing delays in a lot of energy- and capital-intensive projects. Additionally, the gas crisis at the beginning of the year again reminded us how vulnerable Europe is with regard to its energy supplies and how badly we are interconnected, making it hard to use the scale and scope of the European Union. The lion’s share of this package actually goes to this much needed interconnection.

Mr Paparizov mentioned Bulgaria. If Bulgaria were to have three additional interconnections there would be less suffering in Bulgaria, and it does not cost a lot of money. The question is why it was not developed. There are many factors. Interconnection is not just developed by one Member State: you need at least two for this. You also need companies to deal with this. This package also actually provides for political drivers. The Baltic States talked a lot about cooperation and interconnections with the Nordic market but, until the formulation of this package, we had somehow stopped short of real development on Baltic interconnection. A recent meeting of Baltic prime ministers and the decisions taken there are so vitally important that the Baltic countries will no longer be an energy island.

I believe the package provides exactly what the Parliament is looking for to achieve three goals: security of supply, sustainability and EU competitiveness. So I would ask the Members of this House to support this proposal, because it really is a significant change in European energy policy.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I have listened carefully to the many positive, constructive remarks in the discussion here today.

First of all, as some of you have said, we have to make it very clear that we will not be facing a situation where there will be absolutely no margin in the agricultural budget. We have a surplus because we have not had extraordinary expenditures – we have had very low costs on intervention and a very low cost on export refunds – and therefore we can manage this specific situation. But we are not leaving ourselves in a situation where there is no margin in the budget, because of the reasons mentioned by Mr Mulder. If we run into a situation with an animal disease, I can give a guarantee here today that we will not face a situation where there will be no money or insufficient money to solve these situations.

It is also important to underline the solidarity in the distribution of the money. When you look at rural development, it is obvious that it has been redistributed in accordance with the money available in the rural development budget for the various Member States, which de facto gives an advantage to the new Member States.

It is also important to see this injection of money as a one-off. In rural development it is simply going to cover the gap that we have in 2009 because the Health Check only enters into force on 1 January 2010 and therefore we found ourselves in a situation where we had no money to meet the new challenges. Those challenges are quite in line with my dear colleague Mr Piebalgs’s ideas on renewable energy in the rural areas, using new technologies, using waste from the agricultural sector to contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, water, biodiversity and the challenges that we are now facing in the dairy sector in Europe.

Finally, I completely agree that broadband is an advantage, not only for the agricultural sector but also for everybody. However, it is very important that we secure a link to the broadband network in rural areas to encourage small and medium-sized companies and to make it easier for people to move out and still use their computers, maybe one or two days a week, to take care of a job that might be in the city. So broadband is one of the issues for the future.

In general, and in conclusion, I think there has been broad support and I hope that the investment we are going to make in this one-off payment will prove to be well spent.

  Petya Stavreva, rapporteur. – (BG) I would like to thank you for your positive attitude, as well as for the recommendations and views which you expressed. I also wish to thank Commissioner Boel for her positive approach and for the support which she continues to give farmers and rural inhabitants. I wish to extend special thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, and our coordinator, Mr Goepel, for their support and confidence.

Today when we are discussing the future of the common agricultural policy and the opportunity for adequate support, it is very important for us to say that hundreds of millions of European citizens live in the rural areas which cover a large percentage of the Community’s territory. They need support through our solidarity.

I am very pleased that all the reports which we have been discussing over recent months here in the European Parliament in Strasbourg with the common agricultural policy as their main subject are all drafted in the same spirit and have the same general thrust: that we must take into account and recognise the needs of and opportunities for farmers and rural inhabitants from all Member States.

As a representative of Bulgaria, one of the last Member States to join, I feel it is paramount for European institutions, and in particular the European Parliament, to send the Community’s inhabitants today a clear message of support to show that we are there to help in the difficult times of an economic crisis. It is important on the eve of the European elections for European institutions to show that they are close to the people and that they want to help them during the difficult times which we are currently going through.

  Eugenijus Maldeikis, rapporteur. – (LT) I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support. This debate has revealed that the package is of huge importance and we simply cannot forget how complicated it was for the Commission to prepare it and to ensure that this agreement is adopted. I think we must value the fact that, within a very short space of time, Member States were able to come to an agreement, and this document is in Parliament and will be put to the vote.

It was very difficult, I think, to strike a geographic balance for the funding of these projects and assess recovery measures (by which I mean how much they will impact on macroeconomic processes and individual sectors), and to use various energy subsector projects for funding. Thus I believe that the composition, which we now have, must provide a result, and today I was very glad to hear Commissioner Piebalgs mention that calls for tender should be announced before the end of May. This demonstrates that we are reacting in a sufficiently strategic manner, knowing the sensitivity of this whole question.

I think that this package is also very important in the sense that investment processes in the European Union are slowing significantly in the face of the economic crisis, and this package will be a very good impetus and signal both to Member States and energy companies to continue their investment activities, so that our strategic energy goals within the European Union can be achieved.

Once again I thank everyone for their support and I urge you to vote and support this package.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, you overlooked me during the catch-the-eye procedure. That is, of course, your prerogative, but now I would like to make a personal statement according to the rules of procedure.

  President. – It is not possible, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, the debate is closed. You know very well that there are five minutes available under the catch­the­eye procedure and that Members who have not spoken in the debate have priority. I therefore cannot allow you to speak now, the debate is closed. I am sorry.

***

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Adam Gierek (PSE), in writing. – (PL) The regulation establishes a programme of aid for the EU economy during the crisis. Allocating this aid to energy projects will lead to economic recovery, increased security of energy supplies and a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. At least, it is assumed this will happen.

A sum of EUR 3.5 billion has been allocated for this.

Will this programme contribute to overcome the crisis? I doubt it. Not many jobs will be created immediately with that money. Time is needed to prepare each of the projects, so they will improve the economic situation only after a delay. The projects differ in their importance. The most important are the ones which concern energy connections between networks. This will strengthen cohesion within the EU.

In my opinion however, the projects should include energy connections between Poland and Germany.

In the area of carbon capture-and-storage technology the eligibility criteria are too high, and there is an assumption that this technology has already been developed on that kind of scale, although, in fact, it has not.

The nonchalant manner in which the Commission squanders the Community’s money is puzzling, and I think it is the result both of poor discernment and of the doctrine behind their approach. Surely money thrown down the drain, I mean money thrown into CCS installations, would have done more to tackle the crisis if it had been used for the large-scale renovation and insulation of buildings, or for the construction of hundreds of biogas stations. The environment would also have benefited.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN), in writing. – (PL) In the debate on the report on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards the multiannual financial framework (2007–2013) I would like to draw attention to three matters.

1. We should support the allocation of EUR 5 billion to financing energy projects in 2009 and 2010 and to financing development of the Internet infrastructure in rural areas. We should allocate EUR 3.5 billion to the energy network and EUR 1.5 billion to the Internet infrastructure in rural areas.

2. Having given my support, I would like to express my concern that the source of this additional money is found in heading 2, so this means the common agricultural policy, where the annual ceilings foreseen for the financial perspective for 2007 to 2013 will be reduced by EUR 3.5 billion in 2009 and EUR 2.5 billion in 2010. This is particularly disturbing, when the food security of the European Union is under threat.

3. I must also express my concern at the fact that this kind of fundamental change in the financial perspective for 2007 to 2013 is being made two months before the end of the current parliamentary term, in great haste, and without any chance of objective debate on the subject.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – As part of the European Economic Recovery Plan, an extra €1 billion has been earmarked for the development of broadband internet infrastructure in rural areas via the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

As someone who focuses on agricultural and rural issues, I heartily welcome this initiative. In many Member States including my own, farmers and rural dwellers do not enjoy the same levels of broadband access, putting them at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with people who live in cities and towns.

We should remember that this initiative is part of a package which aims to stimulate failing European economies. In this context, I am hopeful that improved broadband access will help stimulate small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FI) It is excellent that the five billion package promised by the Commission when the economic crisis first began has at last been approved. The cash was badly needed, and I think that the Commission’s chosen priorities of energy and rural support, which means in particular the development of broadband networks, are worthwhile. The 100 million granted for the Estlink 2 submarine cable project will have a special impact on Finland. It is excellent that the Estlink project should have remained on the list, its sum unchanged, right from the time the Commission first put forward its proposal.

The priorities for the energy recovery package, however, are really very irritating – the fact that the Commission’s original idea purely and simply to support power lines, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and offshore wind projects has not changed along the way. Power lines and offshore wind did, of course, deserve the additional cash. The unreasonable emphasis on carbon capture and storage, however, is incomprehensible, especially as this is likely to receive considerable funding from revenue from emissions trading.

Other renewable energy projects should also definitely have had an equal chance to apply for the extra recovery funds, apart from those relating to wind power. Instead of investing in CCS technology, which is an uncertain venture, the emphasis ought to be on renewable energy sources. The various solar energy projects, in particular, would have deserved to receive financing.

There was a statement that came with the package that suggested that unused funds might be channelled into projects to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In the Commission’s original plans, funds would have been earmarked for energy efficiency, rather than using any of the crumbs that might have been left over for this. It is also very unfortunate that the component originally planned for ‘smart cities’ was, in the end, excluded from the recovery package.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Madam President, the European Economic Recovery Package, also known as the 5 billion package, is connected with the development of rural areas in the EU. We will allocate an additional sum of over EUR 1 billion to improving Internet access in rural areas and to the new challenges which are specified in the review of the common agricultural policy. It is a pity that the money available has been somewhat reduced, but now the most important thing is to complete the entire legislative process as quickly as possible. This action will enable us to reduce the disproportion which exists between rural and urban areas in the development of broadband Internet infrastructure and of services related to new technologies. The Internet is not only a special kind of window on the world, and a tool for exchanging views and gaining knowledge, but it is also a means for facilitating many administrative matters.

By accepting this package the EU will send a positive signal to our rural society. Farming plays an important role in rural areas, but many kinds of small enterprises are also found in rural areas, such as shops, workshops and warehouses. I believe that development of the Internet will contribute to the development of education and of small enterprises, including tourist services, in these areas. It may also help to gain additional income, especially in small, family holdings.

  Vladimir Urutchev (PPE-DE), in writing. – (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the timing of the European programme for supporting economic recovery, including the investment of almost EUR 4 billion in energy projects, is ideal and it will have at least a two-fold positive effect: boosting the recovery of important sectors in the economy and resolving the substantial energy problems.

The recent gas crisis showed in no uncertain terms that the security of energy supplies is directly dependent on the interconnection of the energy infrastructure between Member States, without which assistance cannot be provided to the countries affected. Without establishing good connections between the systems in the relevant countries, it is not possible either to create a unified energy market or to apply the principle of solidarity in the EU.

The economic crisis demands quick solutions. This is why I support the programme being proposed, while being clearly aware that the way in which projects are selected and resources are distributed is not the fairest.

I would like to highlight support for the Nabucco gas pipeline separately, because it is high time for the EU to put more effort into this project if we do not want to miss out on the opportunities to use gas from the Caspian Sea to diversify our sources. I urge the Commission to take much more active intervention so as to achieve real results and progress on Nabucco as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on:

- the report (A6-0139/2009) by Mr Karas, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements, and crisis management (COM(2008)0602 – C6-0339/2008 – 2008/0191(COD)), and

- the report (A6-0246/2009) by Mr Hoppenstedt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing (COM(2009)0014 – C6-0031/2009 – 2009/0001(COD)).

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today I have the opportunity to present to you not only the findings of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs but also the results of long negotiations with the Council and the Commission. Last week we reached agreement in a trialogue on a common approach to developing a new framework for the financial markets.

I tell you, I ask you, to look on these proposals, which we are debating today, as a complete package. Some of us wanted more, some of us wanted less, in this Parliament, in the Council and in the Commission. I can tell you that we did not agree on the smallest common denominator but attempted to agree on more than the biggest common denominator.

We have proposed a line for the next steps, because this can only be a first step. We have not come up with an answer to the economic and financial crisis. But we are ready to take a new step, to achieve a breakthrough in the development of a new framework for the financial markets, which will lead to the simplification of financial market regulation and to Europeanisation, which will create certainty on the financial markets and stability for all market participants, which represents a development of the financial markets, is a reaction to the financial crisis and safeguards the decentralised sector.

I would like to thank Mrs Berès, Mrs Bowles and my fellow Members in the other groups for their support and, especially, the Secretariat and all staff members.

This proposal leads to more transparency, more legal certainty and more stability and therefore creates more trust in a time characterised by a lack of trust. It is not the only body of laws we are proposing. In the last plenary sitting we decided to regulate the rating agencies, we adopted the new supervisory structures for the insurance industry, and the Commission presented a new proposal for hedge funds. It is an additional package, with which we are pointing the way.

There are five points. The first is financial market supervision, where, as a first step, we have strengthened the role of CEPS and that of the European Central Bank. We have also enhanced the balance between home and host regulators. The second step is that we must now achieve stronger integration of financial market supervision. All the requirements are contained in this report, because we need an integrated supervision structure to enable us to overcome the new challenges.

The second area is securitisation, the granting of loans. For the first time we are introducing the rule that a loan can only be granted if the lender holds a retention for securitisation in its books. We have provided for a retention of at least 5%, but we have commissioned CEPS to look into whether an increase is reasonable and to publish its findings in a Commission review before the end of the year, taking international developments into consideration. This is an important signal to the markets: without a retention there is nothing. The retention leads to transparency and also to better control.

Thirdly, we have regulated large exposures in terms of the own funds/risk ratio. No large exposure may account for more than 25% of a bank’s own funds. And, when banks lend to each other, the sum of EUR 150 million must not be exceeded.

The fourth point is that we are working to improve the quality of own funds and hybrid capital. However, we are taking into account existing statutory regulations in the Member States, because we do not wish to have pro­cyclical effects during the economic and financial crisis. That we have created a correct, professional transitional regulation is an important point, especially for cooperatives, savings banks and silent capital contributions in Germany. Nonetheless, there is still a lot to do.

I would like to single out pro-cyclicality as the fifth point.

This reports states that the Commission must clearly identify the pro-cyclical effects of the existing directives very quickly and that we must see that the necessary change is made before the autumn.

I call on you to accept this report and the proposal for agreement with the trilogue so that we, as the European Union and as the European Parliament, can maintain our leading role in the reform of the financial markets. It is also important that we implement all the requirements for future development so that can open the door to an improved, more stable and more trustful financial market and once again assume a leading role at the next G20 Summit. I ask for your support in this.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the lack of financial oversight operating uniformly throughout Europe and the failure of the system at international and European level are some of the reasons for the current financial and economic crisis. We must therefore ensure that information is integrated in the system in a coordinated manner and that the individual organisations exchange information so as to prevent another crisis.

The good public oversight operating in some Member States must be optimised for all 27 Member States to ensure the good transfer of information. This needs financial resources. We must resolve the crisis now and provide the resources now. This is exactly what the Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing achieves.

I welcome the fact that the Commission has responded to Parliament’s call for action and is proposing to provide financial support for the Community in the financial services sector and in the financial reporting and auditing areas as well as for the activities of certain European and international institutions in order to ensure that Community policies in this area are effective. A new Community programme will be brought out to enable direct contributions to be made to finance these individual institutions from the Community budget.

Cofinancing of this kind for the committees and the supervisory authorities can to a large degree help to ensure that they fulfil their mandates independently and efficiently. The programme must be flexibly designed and adequately funded to ensure that the requirements of at least the level 3 committees, including CESR, CEIOPS and CEBS, are covered. The Commission proposal was 40% below what the level 3 committees considered necessary for the next four years. There was little appetite in the Council for substantially increasing the budget even though it was clear that considerable improvement of financial market supervision was called for.

At the end of the negotiations we had agreed on a figure of approximately EUR 40 million over the four years: EUR 500 000 for the level 3 committees for 2009 and a further EUR 38.7 million from 2010 to 2013, 13.5 million of which are earmarked for these committees. As regards the financial reporting and auditing committees, the original Commission proposal for reform of this organisation was too weak. This means, therefore, that we, as Parliament, have been able to make improvements and, following the trialogue negotiations, we have achieved an acceptable result as far as the individual financial reference amounts and financing periods are concerned. The latest findings of the Larosière Group and of the report indicate that there are goods reasons why the Commission should present to Parliament and the Council no later than 1 July 2010 a report and the necessary legislative proposals for further reform of the regulation and oversight of the European financial markets to adapt this programme to the changes made.

Against the backdrop of the current financial crisis it would seem essential to give top priority to expanding convergence on oversight and cooperating in the area of financial services in connection with financial reporting and auditing.

In the plenary session on Solvency II 14 days ago I said that it was important that Europe sent clear signals that were heeded in the rest of the world. I believe that we have sent clear signals in recent weeks, including with the report by Mr Karas on the rating agencies, that we can be taken seriously by our international partners and that we are not just passengers, as we have been over the last few decades. This is a good signal.

I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Bowles and Mrs Berès. As this is my last speech in this Parliament, I would also like to thank the Commission, my fellow Members and the Council for their cooperation. It has been a pleasure to work with you all. Let me give you an example of a pleasing result of this cooperation. The Czech Presidency of the Council decided 30 minutes ago to accept the outcome negotiated in the trialogue negotiations. We have a proposal that we can adopt today and I am certain that the large Groups in this Parliament will also vote in favour of these proposals.

Many thanks once again for your cooperation.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, two weeks after our last debate on measures against the financial crisis, I welcome this opportunity to discuss with you further actions which were jointly taken to face this challenge.

Today I am particularly pleased to welcome the prospect of a first-reading agreement on two key measures: the Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing, and the review of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD). They would both make an important contribution, not only to the recovery efforts, but crucially to the long-term effectiveness of financial supervision and the strength of the EU financial sector.

Firstly I would like to welcome Parliament’s amendments to the proposal for a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing. The financial crisis has demonstrated the need to further strengthen EU supervisory arrangements. It has also reminded us of the importance of transparency and independence for bodies active in the field of financial reporting and auditing standards.

For the Commission, an essential move to achieve those aims is to reinforce the role of the key bodies in these fields, but at European and at international level. This is why the Commission proposed to provide them with financial support.

We believe there is a consensus that these bodies all need stable, diversified and adequate funding. When adopted, the programme will enable them to accomplish their mission in a more independent and more efficient manner. For the three committees of supervisors, the programme will be a first step in the strengthening of their capabilities in line with the recommendations set out in the de Larosière report.

It would give them the opportunity to develop projects which will enhance the convergence of supervision in Europe and the cooperation between national supervisors. In particular, exchange of information will be made easier by the setting-up of new IT tools. Common training for national supervisors will enable the emergence of a common supervisory culture.

The programme will also prepare the ground for the next steps of supervisory reforms, which the Commission will be dealing with in the coming weeks. We also need to ensure high quality for finance reporting and auditing rules, which are harmonised at international level. We need to make sure that there is a level playing field for European users and these rules are being developed by the standard-setters.

This is an important condition for creating a favourable business environment for firms, even more so in the current economic context. By avoiding the reliance of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group and the international Public Oversight Board on voluntary funding from non-diversified potentially interested parties, we can improve the quality and credibility of the standard-setting process.

By strengthening the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group we will provide stronger advice for the European Union when international financial reporting standards are being developed by the International Accounting Standards Board. By helping the international Public Oversight Board to increase its oversight capacities, we aim to ensure that the international auditing standards will fit the EU’s requirements for quality when applying them.

The proposed amendments make adjustments to the Commission’s proposal on the way the envelope should be redistributed between beneficiaries. We are not fully satisfied with this. In particular we would have preferred that no amounts be redistributed from the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to the EU Committees of Supervisors.

EFRAG is a European body. It is an essential element of the EU’s influence in the standard-setting process of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation. Distributing amounts under the envelope from EFRAG to other European bodies does not send the right signal. However, we recognise that only a very limited amount will be redistributed from EFRAG to the EU Committees of Supervisors.

We also believe we can still achieve most of the objectives we are aiming at under the programme and for these reasons we can support the amendments. As Mr Hoppenstedt said, I am pleased to take this opportunity to announce that Coreper has adopted proposed amendments this morning and this means both the Council and the Commission can now support the Parliament proposal.

Moving to the review of the CRD, I am pleased to express the Commission’s general support for Parliament’s amendments. General support, but not full support, as the Commission still harbours some concerns on securitisation.

The proposal adopted by the Commission last October is the outcome of extensive consultation, a process that started before the financial crisis. In many aspects this review of the CRD has turned out to be a timely and robust first response to the crisis.

The European Parliament has commendably responded with a sense of urgency to adopt this proposal at first reading. As a result, we now have tighter liquidity risk management principles, strong rules on risk diversification, strengthened supervision, a better capital base, and skin in the game, coupled with due diligence requirements for securitisation. By any measure this is significant headway.

On the now famous 5% retention for securitisation, I am pleased to see that Parliament has resisted the call from industry to do away with what they had only last year characterised as complete nonsense. I would like to say that the retention rule has emerged as something that is not nonsense but plain common sense. It is now recognised by the G20 as a key measure to strengthen the financial system. Looking forward, the Commission will, without a shadow of a doubt, support any further efforts making the text even more watertight.

The Commission has been at the forefront of the global initiatives to tackle the crisis. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision will follow suit. I therefore very much welcome the clause providing for a review by the end of 2009 suggested by the European Parliament. The Committee will consider the need for an increase of the retention requirement, taking into account international developments.

I am also pleased to see that Parliament has resisted the calls from industry for less stringent rules on interbank risks. Let us just remind ourselves that banks are not risk free. This is a crucial lesson of the financial crisis. Adequate diversification and collateral are critical to ensuring financial stability.

On own funds I understand the reluctance of some Members that Parliament could consider the downgrading of certain national instruments that do not meet the eligibility criteria for Core Tier 1. Let me be more precise. I understand this reluctance, but only for the current economic context. Much recovery is on track. The Commission is strongly committed to further enhancing the quality of own funds, as agreed at the G20 Summit.

As regards securitisation, the Commission still considers that in some aspects there would have been merit in further clarifying and specifying the way the 5% retention will be calculated. I understand that the European Parliament has worked under time pressure and I am pleased that the Commission has been given a second chance to tighten up the text in a report due by the end of 2009.

The two reports on which you will vote today demonstrate that, when MEPs, Ministers of Finance and Commissioners think ahead of the curve and provide political leadership, a speedy and effective response to the challenges we face is possible. Both measures discussed today will significantly contribute to paving the way for the revision of the EU financial and supervisory framework.

In addition to these measures, last Wednesday we presented a package of crucial initiatives to respond to the financial crisis, on alternative investment funds, on remuneration structures and on packaged retail investment products.

Last but not least, in three weeks’ time a Commission communication will set out its views on follow-up actions to the recommendations of the de Larosière report on financial supervision. Upon endorsement by the June European Council, further legislative proposals will be presented in the autumn.

  Gary Titley, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − Mr President, I rise on Mr Hoppenstedt’s report to give the Budget Committee’s opinion. Like Mr Hoppenstedt, this will be my last speech before this Chamber after 20 years.

The Budget Committee recognises the importance of these proposals and their urgency. It is quite clear that some key EU policies will be undermined without proper financing and therefore we are happy to support the proposal. However, we would point that this money is coming from the margin of heading 1a, so that will reduce the margin and therefore reduce the availability of funding for other projects which may be important in the future. We should bear that in mind.

Secondly, we should also ensure that these organisations do not in any way become agencies because, if they did, they would of course be subject to the interinstitutional agreement on agencies.

Finally, we would not want the Budget Committee’s position to be in any way undermined by the rush for these proposals. That is why the Budget Committee was happy to support Mr McCreevy’s proposal on Monday night about interim funding, so that we can ensure that proper financial procedures and a proper trialogue takes place on the financial implication of these proposals.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Titley, for the 20 years you have dedicated to the European cause.

  John Purvis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, we seem to be a succession of old hands rising to speak, but would that I were not making my last speech in the European Parliament in the worst economic situation of my lifetime – and that is a lifetime that started in the blighted 1930s – and would that I were not also having to speak in a debate on a piece of European legislation which is not, I am afraid, wholly satisfactory: the Capital Requirements Directive.

I and my group will support the compromise reached by rapporteur Karas with great skill and patience under heavy time pressure and in the current feverish economic circumstances. But I hope my colleagues who return here after the election will revert to the full codecision process, which can really fully test and refine our legislation. I fear that much of this over-hasty legislation will reveal unintended and untoward consequences. For example, I fear that the rules on large exposures, extolled by Commissioner McCreevy and prompted by genuine concerns about counterparty risk, will make it that much more difficult to reactivate the interbank money market to its full and desirable extent. I fear that the new retention rule, also extolled by Commissioner McCreevy, will, in fact, impede the revival of securitisation, which is an essential and predominantly beneficial mechanism for funding mortgages, car loans and consumer spending.

All the government-induced stimuli which one might contemplate cannot compensate for a moribund securitisation market. So I just hope that, when the time comes to review this directive, the necessary impact assessments will have been made, that wise counsels will have been consulted, that the global context will have been properly and fully considered and that fully appropriate rules are ultimately implemented.

  Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Commissioner, I deplore the absence of the Council Presidency. Mr McCreevy, you have made your mandate as commissioner for the internal market one of regulatory standstill. Unfortunately – I do not know how to phrase this – you should have changed your mind and ultimately taken the advice of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament which, when Mr Katiforis’s report was presented, told you that legislation on rating agencies was needed, or you should have listened to our rapporteur, Mr Rasmussen, who told you that retention on securitisation needed to be introduced in the banking sector.

Finally, you should have also decided to introduce guarantees for bank deposits. You see, the regulatory holiday is not news. Fortunately, we will no longer have to address these issues with you in the next parliamentary term. I say this because the last proposal that you submitted to us on alternative funds and investment funds was unreasonable, and the fact that you will not even agree to come and discuss it with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proves it.

As for Mr Karas’s report, I think it is an important report that we should adopt today, because it gives the signal, within the Union, to our banking sector and to all our G20 partners that retention must be introduced for securitisation. Own funds must be defined better. In future, there will need to be more transnational supervision of groups, and integrated supervision along the lines of Jacques de Larosière’s report. Finally, we have to organise clearing houses for derivatives and credit default swaps.

I would also like to thank Mr Karas for the way in which we have been able to re-open the trialogue so that we will be able, in the period before this directive comes into force, to revise the retention threshold. Having ordered studies, and having given CEBS a mandate to determine under which conditions this retention should be expertly planned, we have been able to verify whether the 5% threshold that we are going to vote on today was the appropriate threshold, even more so now that we have corrected the scope of the retention by making what I believe was the right choice and getting rid of the guarantees sought by Mr Purvis.

As for Mr Hoppenstedt’s report, I wish to thank him most sincerely, as I believe that, here, we are getting involved, usefully and positively. In the past, the Commission would tell us that it could not fund level 3 committees; today, it is possible even before these committees become agencies. We welcome this. At the rapporteur’s instigation, both the operating costs and the project costs will thus be eligible for funding, and Parliament will have a clear insight into the nature of the projects being funded in this way. We can only welcome this; it is along the right lines.

Finally, in relation to accounting standards and the conditions in which international organisations contribute to their drafting, we have put pressure on these organisations so that they improve their governance and define their roles better. I believe that in this area, too, the European Parliament, with Mr Hoppenstedt’s report, has done a useful job, and I wish to thank all of the rapporteurs, as well as this House if, as I hope, it adopts these two reports by a large majority later on.

  Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the agreed CRD text is a good step forward on core capital, exposures and supervision. The securitisation provision, now with proportional penalties for due diligence failures, is not perfect but it is fit for purpose – the purpose to rebuild confidence and repair the securitisation market. Review at the end of the year on the retention per cent means we have covered all bases, including international cooperation.

European problems with securitisation came on the buy-side from the US, but fear has dried up our own securitisation. Banks have lost the main instrument that enabled them to sell on their loans – an important instrument because it freed up capital for further lending and was a major driver for growth. In 2006-7 European securitisations totalled EUR 800 billion: EUR 526 billion supporting European mortgages and tens of billions each on car purchases, credit card spending and SME loans – yes, including something like EUR 40 billion of German SME loans. These are the very areas where the credit crunch is biting hardest. It is no coincidence. Because we have to face the fact that bank lending is limited by their capital and they are stuck until either more capital is raised or the loan sold on. So the sooner that we can get Europe’s quality control securitisation working, the better.

It may seem that, if 5% retention guarantees good behaviour by banks, then 10% would guarantee it more, but the retained portion attracts a capital charge so it reduces the capital that can be freed up and in turn restricts lending. A 10% hit during times of ongoing capital stress would just hurt borrowers and businesses, not banks. That is why other forums – also having started with higher retention proposals – are tending to settle on 5% too.

Ultimately, it will be intelligent supervisory vigilance that will prevent future new abuses rather than regulation for the old and gone. On Level 3 committees we can see that, despite the problems and failures in supervision, it is Parliament that has recognised better than Member States that holes cannot be plugged without resources. It has followed this by demanding more resources for those committees. International accounting and audit bodies will also benefit from more diversified neutral funding and the EU can lead off on this, but not indefinitely if other countries do not join in. I am pleased to have clarified that. Funding should also be sought from the user-side such as investors.

  Konstantinos Droutsas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, today’s economic crisis is a crisis of over-production and over-accumulation of capital. It is, as everyone now admits, a crisis of the capitalist system itself. Efforts to present this crisis as a financial crisis, as a liquidity crisis, are being made in order to mislead the workers and to avoid acknowledging the real causes, which lead to increased unemployment, reduced incomes, flexible labour relations and the all-out attack on them.

The measures being taken to supervise accounting standards with controls on lines of credit and own funds, not only fail to limit the unaccountability of the banks; in essence they are measures which the banks themselves are seeking in order to safeguard that unaccountability beneath superficial supervision and control, supervision which, instead of protecting the interests of small depositors who have been and continue to be at risk from the economic crisis, will safeguard the conditions of competition of the banks and will allow new tools to be used to increase their profits.

The reserve which the banks demonstrated even to their cofinancing by the state, in return for even minimal controls, is typical of their stand, a stand of unaccountability which, in the jungle of the market, again results in increased profits and prices, while the workers are again being called upon to pay the costs of the crisis. The workers are not being deceived or disorientated by the decisions of the European Union to end the crisis. They know that these decisions put the entire weight of the crisis onto their shoulders and seek to safeguard even greater profits for capital.

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Thank you, Mr President. We have now gone through a global financial meltdown and it is continuing to cause us problems. We need then to analyse why this has happened before we begin to act at EU level. I would like to say the following. Firstly, we have an ownerless capitalism. The large companies are no longer governed by their shareholders, but by pension funds, insurance companies and other types of fund. This leads to a situation in which officials can govern however they want to, and they do this in a way that suits their own interests, which are in increasing the risks enormously, and then the result is what we are seeing now. We have banks that are ‘too big to fail’, as the catchphrase goes. The Glass-Steagall Act was intended to prevent this, but it has been abolished in the US. We ought to consider whether this might not be part of the solution. We have deposit guarantees for small-scale savers and even quite large-scale savers. This means that people depositing money in banks do not give two hoots whether the banks are safe, as they know that taxpayers will protect them. This is a problem. The heads of the central banks do not burst the bubbles, but rather are praised when they constantly ensure that the bubbles can continue to grow ad infinitum.

Alan Greenspan gained an immensely good reputation for something which, in practice, is a significant explanation for why things have become so bad. Subprime lending was the start of this and a fundamental part, and it was introduced by politicians who are now saying that we will solve this by taking more power away from the market. I doubt that. The regulatory system in Basel II was circumvented by means of shadow banking. Now we are talking about new rules for capital. If this is more shadow banking, it is not going to help. I therefore believe that we should tackle this in a different way and ask what should be done. Then we will discover that very little should be done at EU level. This is a global problem and should be dealt with elsewhere.

  Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion one of the best steps taken by the European Parliament in the current functional period was last year’s decision on the need for close regulation and greater stability in the financial system. It is a pity this did not happen three years earlier. The submission of a draft directive on capital requirements is another practical outcome in this context. The financial crisis has drawn attention to the shortcomings in supervision mechanisms, including consolidated supervision.

I agree that the starting point for resolving the problem should be the creation of a decentralised European system of banking supervision bodies based on the model of the European central banks. I am also in favour of stricter securitisation rules. Originators should hold a certain percentage of the risk arising from the exposures that they securitise and further due diligence should be required from the investor. This is the only way to achieve progress.

  Zsolt László Becsey (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I wish to congratulate the rapporteurs and the groups’ shadow rapporteurs for the compromise that has been reached. Although many of us find a large number of the arguments far from ideal or beneficial, I think it is important that the regulation is drawn up right now, before the elections.

I would like to make a couple of remarks. 1. As the rapporteur responsible for microcredit, I welcome the fact that the report featured the requirement, which also appeared in my report, for a risk management system to be devised reflecting microcredit features, such as no traditional collateral and excess. I hope this will happen as soon as possible. I would like to thank Mrs Berès for her amendment to the proposal. 2. I was highly critical of the supervisory arrangements even during the debate on the 2005 amendment. This applies particularly to the supervision of parent institutions, which actually also raises constitutional concerns with regard to deployment in the country of the subsidiaries, although subsidiaries are generally located in the new Member States.

This vulnerability is reduced, if not actually stopped by the collegiate system which, in my view, is still only a step in the right direction, but not the real solution. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I regard this situation as progress mainly because the current compromise also advocates that the draft regulation on the integrated supervisory system should be produced quickly based on the De Larosière material, which will already be good, in our opinion, as well as providing a very significant benefit for communitarisation.

I would like to say a special word of thanks for the solidarity shown to the countries outside the euro zone in connection with the amendment to Article 153(3) as, with the acceptance of my proposal, the separate risk premium will not apply until the end of 2015 to the credits for these countries, which they have generally received in euros from the public finances or central bank. Taking all these points into account, I propose block-voting on the compromise, including the 5% retention, since this in itself marks some measure of progress.

Finally, as this is my last speech, I would also like to thank you, Madam President, and all my fellow Members for the work which I have been able to do here for the last five years.

  Elisa Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) This year European wealth will fall by 4% and unemployment will increase up to 26 million. The world and the European Union should have done more, better and earlier with regard to regulating the financial markets.

I welcome the work done by this Parliament, much of it in an atmosphere of urgency, but I would underline the contribution made by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which should have received more recognition at the appropriate time.

I regret that the Commission’s reaction has been slower, more piecemeal and more limited than the situation required and requires, as illustrated by the recent proposal on hedge funds.

The adoption of the directive on capital requirements is another step in the right direction. We know that it is not ambitious enough and falls short of expectations, but today the most important thing is to give a clear signal to the financial institutions and markets that business as usual has come to an end. I applaud the work of the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, particularly Pervenche Berès, in their search for a compromise.

This directive does introduce clear rules, but a great deal of work will still have to be done during the next revision on some of the more controversial issues, particularly on the level of retention for the purposes of securitisation.

Today it is vital that this Parliament ensures the adoption of this directive, thus sending a clear message to European citizens that things are changing and will continue to change, and that we are particularly concerned about them.

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the financial crisis has made it clear that the financial market framework of the European Union must be revised. My Group supports the proposals developed in the trialogue negotiations, especially the proposals for a new Capital Requirements Directive for banks. Risk-based supervision will increase, the abuse of special purpose vehicles will disappear and the quality of structured products will improve as a result of the 5% retention for securitisation. However, I regret that the rule for in-year interbank loans is very restrictive and that silent capital contributions are accepted as full-value capital for a transitional period only.

The progress achieved with the restructuring of the financial market framework is good but not yet sufficient. The work will therefore continue. I hope that the banks will prove to be more cooperative than they have been in the last few months, when I saw them more in the role of a brakeman than a partner in search of forward-looking solutions.

  Werner Langen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would first like to say that we have started on this second project, which is under discussion today, to put financial market regulation on a normal footing. The financial market crisis can be attributed partly to a failure of the markets and partly to a failure of regulation. We have drawn up a list of measures that must be regulated by the rating agencies. We have adopted resolutions on the Capital Requirements Directive, on managers’ salaries, on hedge funds, on accounting regulations and on the European supervisory structure. Today, we are dealing with the second point.

Negotiations are being conducted on the basis of a vote in committee, not in the normal first reading procedure but on the basis of an agreement reached between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. I acknowledge that Mr Karas has achieved many things. However, a large number of fellow Members, like me, are of a different opinion, as Mr Klinz pointed out. This primarily relates to the retention for securitisation. The securitisation market and the financial market crisis arose not least because financial market products without own risk were created. That is why the banks no longer trust each other, because no one has securities for which they take responsibility through risk. The proposal is for a 5% retention. In my opinion, 10% is far more appropriate and that is why I have tabled an amendment. I am certain that the Council, if it accepts all the other things, will have to consider this 10% retention. We, as Parliament, have a responsibility to give citizens further assurances that a global financial market crisis of this kind can never be repeated.

That is why I propose and request that we accept the compromise reached by Mr Karas apart from the 10% retention and the deduction of silent capital contributions.

  Ieke van den Burg (PSE). - Mr President, I am standing here with mixed feelings in my last debate in this House. I am very happy with the decision that we took on the Hoppenstedt report to increase the funding of the Level 3 committees. This is a step towards strong European supervision of the financial markets that have developed far beyond national borders. I have been a strong supporter of this and I hope the debate on this will continue very strongly in the next term.

The other dossier on the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) is not, in my view, a good example of better regulation under the Lamfalussy process that we have developed in the 10 years I have been active. I will support the results because we need to send a strong signal to the market, but I would have preferred a more principles-based approach and more transparent consultation in the political process. This was the pressure of obtaining this hasty result. I hope that, at the end of the year when there will be a fuller review of the CRD, the Lamfalussy process will also be taken properly into account. I strongly recommend that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs reinstate this process.

In my last speech, I would also link to what Ms Berès has said and would say to Mr McCreevy that it is a pity that what he has done to regulate these financial markets is really too little and too late. I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their cooperation over these 10 years. I hope they get a Commissioner in the new term who will be exclusively devoted to the financial markets, handling a portfolio which really focuses on this very important subject that brought us into these dire straits nowadays, and who will really be devoted to regulation and proper European supervision of the financial markets.

  Udo Bullmann (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to drain a bog you do not ask the fattest frogs how they would like it to happen. That is exactly the problem with the report on the Capital Requirements Directive, which is under discussion today. If we do not wish to still be setting up bad banks in ten or twenty years’ time then we must get banks and credit institutions to assume a significant business risk if they continue to deal in critical products. Five per cent is not significant.

Commissioner McCreevy brought up 15% and was then beaten down to 5% by the industry. The Council went along with this and the European Parliament cut a very sorry figure indeed. We German Social Democrats will vote for a higher retention and we will also vote for the continuation of the silent capital contributions, because a competition policy that attacks a business model and that has nothing to do with restructuring the banks is unfair.

I hope that we will adopt a reasonable resolution and that, after 7 June, we will have a Parliament that, with courage and more guts, speaks a clear language during the restructuring of the financial market.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, as a first response to the financial crisis of August 2007, the adoption of this directive should not be delayed. In view of the circumstances, it should be applied with prudence, in order to avoid U-turns, and it should be accompanied by a more ambitious revision, in accordance with international developments.

The financial institutions require a solid capital base and need to compete in a balanced way through a harmonised definition of own funds, in particular of hybrid instruments, and a proportionate strengthening of the management of major risks. It is vital to bring in more transparency and align the interests of issuers and investors in securitisation processes. Retaining at least 5% of securitised products on the balance sheet, avoiding multiple use of such products and stepping up the due diligence of investors are steps in this direction. Creating colleges of supervisors for cross-border groups and making the role of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors more robust are moves towards more fully integrated European supervision.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) I would also like to thank my colleagues for five excellent years of cooperation, although I have to say that there are still unsolved questions for the next legislative term. Above all, this directive does not solve the problem of assessing bank activities.

The risk-based approach was not fit for purpose and we really need to think about another type of assessment, perhaps what is known as the performance-based approach. Moreover, we still have not decided who will pay. Which country’s tax payers are going to risk their own money, if a large European group has problems?

Will a special fund be set up at European level? Will various countries contribute to a joint fund? Until we have the answer, we cannot say that we have strong and well prepared regulation of the financial sector.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, I firmly believe that the measures we are debating here should also be of a preventive nature, since the situation is very grave. The volume of financial derivatives on the world market is five times larger than the worldwide gross domestic product and this is a bubble that is going to burst, with the risk that gross domestic product will drop dramatically, particularly in the United States. The whole world, including European countries, would suffer. There is also the danger of hyperinflation, since the prevailing idea, especially in the United States, appears to be that all problems can be resolved by pouring more and more money into the system, even though this strategy displays serious shortcomings. I therefore believe that the preventive aspect is highly important, and that some of the more controversial instruments used on the financial markets, such as shadow banking for example, should simply be banned.

  President. − Before Commissioner McCreevy takes the floor, because several Members have today spoken for the last time in the Chamber, I feel it is my duty, on behalf not only of the MEPs but also of all European citizens and voters, to thank them for their commitment over the years. I believe that their chosen task of seeking to improve things deserves the gratitude of all our fellow citizens.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, firstly may I thank in particular the rapporteurs, Mr Karas and Mr Hoppenstedt, and others for their dedication in finding compromises in these two particular areas.

As regards the Hoppenstedt report, the positive outcome of Coreper this morning paves the way for an adoption at first reading. An agreement on this strategic initiative is very welcome because it sends the right signal: a signal of our determination to respond to the financial crisis, to strengthen financial supervision and to improve the standard assessing process for financial reporting and auditing. But this is only a first step in a very long process. In the months to come, I look forward to continuing this work with you in the new Parliament.

On securitisation, we all agree that the 5% retention requirement is a first step. The Basel Committee will work on quantitative retention. This has been required by the G20. The European Union is ahead of the curve, and we will contribute to bringing about further consistency at global level.

Let me just make a point concerning securitisation. Mrs Bowles made a pretty strong contribution in this regard. She is very much for securitisation and pointed out the good aspects of it and the amount of money that is contributed to the capital markets for small and medium-sized enterprises and to lenders at large in all Member States of the European Union. In case there is any impression that I do not see the benefits of securitisation over the years, may I say that I certainly do! In my previous capacity, and long before I came here, I was aware of the benefits of securitisations. However, the issue is what proportion the originating securitiser should hold in that particular matter. I accept what Mrs Bowles said: that in future a holding of whatever percentage will attract a capital charge. One cannot be certain as to when the current financial crisis will end. But, irrespective of when that end is going to be, I think we can be absolutely certain in years to come that financial institutions will be required, at all levels, to hold more significant and more quality capital against their lending. I will not be here – but many of you will – but, whatever the end is, that will be the inevitable outcome of this particular financial crisis – not immediately, not maybe in the medium term, but in the longer term that will be a certainty. If I looked into my crystal ball, that is what I would see in years to come. So it is the percentage which is being debated. People know my views on this. I have held very strong views on this for a long period of time.

Various amendments have been put forward during the Council of Ministers stage and with the European Parliament about different ‘outs’ on one thing and another, which my officials, at my request, are very, very strongly against, because I strongly believe in the very simple proposition that 5% of something is better than 55% of zero. The more outs that there are – we can have 5%, 10%, 15% – 15% of zero is still zero. That is why I welcome the opportunity that the Commission in its report by the end of this year will come back to this particular matter in order to ensure that the wording is fairly tightened up. I am strongly of that view because I do not wish to see particular outs. But I readily appreciate what Mrs Bowles and others have said regarding the merits of securitisations for the capital market. I hope I have never given the impression that I did not.

Finally, may I, too, join with the President in wishing those Members who are retiring well in their future careers, whatever they might be. I have known most of them in some capacity or other in my five years here and I appreciate their contributions, even though I have not always agreed with them. I suppose I should not single out any one person, but I would like to make special mention of Mr Purvis in this regard. I always found his advice to be wise, measured, considered and not dogmatic, and I wish him, in particular, a very successful future.

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank you for your support and for the signal we are sending to savers, businesses, banks and the world of finance.

The debate was very open. It also highlighted the weaknesses and the need for further development. I can tell you that all your wishes, as well as your criticisms and reservations, played a role in the negotiations, that we tried to incorporate them in recitals and in the request for reviews. There is nothing that was said here today that did not also play a role in the agreement presented – in some cases not a very strong role – but everything played a role.

It is therefore absolutely clear that this is an important step forward, but it is not the final step, because we are announcing, giving notice of and promoting further steps in this agreement and specifying the direction for this debate. In other words, the debate will continue, it has to continue. But I believe that it is important that we send a clear signal now, in this legislative period, that we are competent, that we wish to create trust, security and stability, that we can react quickly and that we know what still needs to be done in the future. I therefore call on you to take this step together and with a big majority.

Thank you very much for the debate.

  Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, I have already given my opinion on certain things in the first round of talks. However, I would like to say once again very clearly that the world, including our partners in the United States, China and other places, is watching the European Union, the Council, the Commission and Parliament to see how we will react to the crisis. I have already said that there has been a reaction, which we notice in certain rules that are being re-drafted. Things are moving somewhat in the US in terms of the Reinsurance Directive and other things like that, such as the collaterals. Moreover, the received wisdom is that, if we, as Europeans, do not have anything concrete in our hands, then our partners will not react.

Last month and this month we took decisions and got them off the ground, and we managed to find reasonable solutions together with the Council.

I would once again like to take this opportunity to thank the Commission, which was sometimes a bit heavy­handed, and the Council, where we tried to find reasonable solutions in night sittings and in many trialogue sittings, because, just an hour ago, they also approved the reasonable compromise we found.

I of course thank my co-combatants in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Mrs Berès, Mrs Bowles and others, but also the members of staff, who had to bear a large part of the burden.

I believe that it is important to perhaps point out once again that I was involved in the introduction of the European Single Market, as coordinator during the introduction of the euro and other things like that. These are milestones that have naturally informed this work and also policy making. It has been fun working with you all, and I should once again like to thank my fellow Members, the Commission and the Council – I have already said that – for their cooperation. I wish all those who will voluntarily not be returning all the best for the future.

There are many tasks, including the task of conveying just how important the European Union is and what an important job the European Parliament does. It is also important for the elections to be held in Germany on 7 June and elsewhere from 4 to 7 June that people’s attention is drawn to just how important our work is. I hope that there will then be a high turnout. Once again, many thanks to you all and all the best for the future. This is my last speech, as I have already said.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Wednesday 6 May 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by amending the directives on credit institutions, their own funds, large exposures, supervisory arrangements, and crisis management, the European Union is moving towards a general realignment of the entire system.

The amended directive would eliminate the discretion the Member States have over their own funds, which would hinder the harmonisation of supervisory and fair competition practices between banks. These discrepancies must be overcome by common rules to allow audit bodies and central banks to face up to the possible insolvency of the banking system, particularly in countries that have adopted the euro. The amendments concern the need to tighten up the supervision of cross-border banking groups.

The reopening of interinstitutional negotiations on the agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council concerned the minimum threshold to be allocated to the nominal value of the securitisations. This refers to the amount of risk that banks must retain in their own balance sheets when they place ‘structured’ products with savers.

Within the Council all the Member States voted to keep a threshold of 5%. Raising it would make it impossible for the securitisation market to recover and would not help to make the markets safe again.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - (DE) Madam President, I refer to Rule 145 of the Rules of Procedure. In the sitting of 24 April, in my absence during the vote Hans­Peter Martin claimed that a vote was illegally cast with a voting card from my seat by an unauthorised person. The Presidency was able to reject this immediately as incorrect.

I understand that, at present, in the election campaign, many of my fellow Members are becoming nervous. However, this is tantamount to an accusation of deception, fraud, and unjust enrichment on my part. It is an accusation of a serious criminal offence. Mr Martin defames, denounces and maligns Parliament, its Members, even the officials and, especially, his Austrian colleagues time and again in public with distortions, half-truths and untruths, and the extent of what I can tolerate has been exceeded. I demand the retraction of this accusation, an apology and a condemnation by the Presidency.

(Applause)

  President. − Thank you, Mr Mölzer. As colleagues will know, the machine was checked last time and it was found that there was no other or inappropriate use of the machine, so the matter has been clarified.

I see that Mr Hans-Peter Martin would like the floor. I give it to you briefly.

(Murmurs of dissent)

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - (DE) Madam President, could you please call for silence in the Chamber?

(Laughter)

Or will I be punished through the withdrawal of my daily subsistence allowance if I dare to call out ‘referendum’?

I have the right to make a personal comment under Rule 149. I absolutely reject what my fellow Member has just uttered. I recall what I actually said in plenary in the absence of many of the right wing extremists and the mob behind me. I stand by it. And if I am being accused....

(Protests)

You can hear many other protests here that are so terrible that I do not wish to repeat them in public. But that is what the right wing extremists are like. We know that from history and that is the huge danger that lies ahead of us.

As regards the accusation of the unlawfulness of my action, I would just point out that there may have been various attempts to criminalise me, but never any criminal investigations, not because the Austrian judges or public prosecutors were prejudiced but because they saw how unfounded those allegations were. If the right wing extremists now go on the offensive with such arguments, it is up to the electorate to judge.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. − We have listened to you. I have said that the matter has been clarified. That is enough. Thank you.

⁂

  Beniamino Donnici (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, as you are aware but many of my fellow Members are not, due to the extreme lack of information supplied by the Presidency on this matter, which is being kept quiet, the European Court of Justice has finally reached a verdict on the long dispute that has unfortunately seen me oppose the European Parliament and Mr Occhetto.

The Court has overturned the decision taken by this House on 24 May not to confirm my mandate following the proclamation by the national authorities, and the European Parliament has been ordered to pay costs. The intention of the Court’s timely decision was to restore Parliament’s legitimate composition before the mandate came to an end, but at 5 p.m. on 4 May President Pöttering gave this Chamber a one-sided, ambiguous and confused account of the affair, calling once again on the Committee on Legal Affairs to confirm my powers even though he was well aware that this was only a notation. Not only this, but he also failed to request an extraordinary meeting of the Commission, because this was the final sitting of the parliamentary term, unless he decides to extend my mandate to the next term too.

I therefore call on the Presidency to rectify this further gross mistake by tomorrow in order to comply with the Court of Justice ruling. Madam President, I would have preferred the European Parliament to have been spared this heavy legal defeat, and, in spite of everything, I offer my sincere regards to you and my fellow Members.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Donnici. Your comments have been noted and, of course, the President did make a statement on Monday afternoon. Your comments will be passed on to the Bureau meeting this afternoon.

  President. − The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)

– Before the vote:

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my group would like a separate vote on the last indent of paragraph 1(a), entitled, and I quote: ‘Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo’. In our opinion, this represents de facto recognition of the existence of Kosovo, which we find unacceptable.

I would therefore like us to be able to vote separately on this paragraph.

  President. − The request is outside the deadline, but if it is accepted… Are there any objections?

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I have serious objections. This House voted in favour of the independence of Kosovo by a three-quarters majority, as did the Commission and almost all the Member States. I find this unacceptable.

(Parliament rejected the request for a separate vote.)

− Before the vote on Amendment 9:

  Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I am making a request for referral back to committee and I would like to explain why. When discussing this legislation we talked a lot about impact assessments. That is to say: every time you introduce a new rule you have to be able to say what the impact will be. Concerning the new rules that we are going to vote on today in the Corbett report, we do not understand what the consequences will be of dramatically changing the way in which we make legislation by allowing the possibility of committees and multiple rapporteurs being able to present completely contradictory procedures and amendments for the vote in plenary.

That is why the Verts/ALE Group demands a referral back to the committee, not because we believe that we cannot improve the situation but because this involves pushing through a reform that will make our legislative life very difficult in the future.

(Applause)

  Jo Leinen (PSE), Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – (DE) Madam President, the reform of the European Union is difficult enough but the reform of the European Parliament appears to be even more difficult. However, I must say to Mrs Frassoni that this reform process has now lasted two and a half years. We had a reform group that Mrs Frassoni herself belonged to. Our Committee complied with the conclusions of the reform group point by point. In other words, today we are presenting in plenary something that took two and a half years to discuss, debate and decide. There is therefore no reason why this point should be referred back to committee. Today, we should complete this final act and prepare for the new legislative period with many improvements to our work. I am therefore voting against the motion tabled by Mrs Frassoni.

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Madam President, I do not really think I need to add anything except that Monica Frassoni’s justification about particular amendments might be a reason for her to vote against those amendments. They are certainly not a reason to refer the whole thing back to committee, which would preclude the adoption of any of the amendments that have been tabled today and which would be most unfortunate.

(Parliament rejected the request.)

– Before the vote on Amendments 49 and 67:

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Madam President, before you proceed to vote on Amendments 49 and 67, could I ask that you reverse the order of the vote and vote first on 67, which is a later compromise that emerged after the vote in the committee? I think it would be more helpful for us if we were to proceed that way around.

(Parliament agreed to the request.)

(The sitting was suspended briefly.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, in a few weeks’ time, between 4 and 7 June, the citizens of the European Union will elect the new European Parliament. For the first time 375 million people from all 27 Member States will be able to take part in the European elections together.

For many of you this will be your last week in Strasbourg. For me, too, this is the last week in which I will be allowed to chair the plenary part-sessions.

We all know that democracy gains strength through constant change. We do too. Together we have covered a good part of the way towards creating a forward-looking European Community. Together we have been able to achieve a great deal.

We have been successful not only during the last two and a half years of my term of office but also in the term of office of my predecessor, Josep Borrell Fontelles. What we have achieved in the last five years has been achieved by all of us.

I would like to extend to you all my sincerest thanks for your commitment and for your passion for our common European cause.

As the European Parliament, we are the directly elected representatives of the citizens of the European Union. Ladies and gentlemen, we all embody the rich diversity of our European continent and reflect, through our political families, the huge variety of convictions and attitudes. What is more, a few days ago we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the historic enlargement of the European Union, the reunification of our continent on the basis of our common values. In the words of our Berlin Declaration of 25 March 2007, ‘We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better’.

(Applause)

The successful integration of Members from Member States joining the European Union in 2004 and 2007 and the adaptation of our parliamentary work to a European Parliament now bigger and more diverse rank among the most significant successes of this parliamentary term.

We, the 785 Members of Parliament, have learned to meet each other half way, to learn from each other and to work better with each other. During this time, the European Parliament has gained in experience, strength and cultural richness.

Ladies and gentlemen, new Members will soon revitalise the work of Parliament. They will join those who are re-elected in June. I hope that we will continue to have the mutual respect that binds us across all political and national boundaries.

In my work in the last two and a half years, I have been guided by a basic feeling for parliamentary work and I have you all to thank for your support, encouragement and counsel. The President is responsible for ensuring that all the rules of the European Parliament are followed and must ensure that these rules apply equally to all Members and are applied uniformly, and that the dignity of our Parliament remains intact. That is what I have striven for.

(Applause)

I would like to say to those entering Parliament that we are only convincing if we preserve the dignity of the European Parliament and always defend it on the basis of our common laws.

Today, very few resolutions are adopted in the European Union without the explicit consent and involvement of the European Parliament. To an increasing extent, the European Parliament has developed into the place where, crucially, political compromises are found at a European level. Evidence of this is the adoption of the Services Directive and the Chemicals Regulation, REACH, in recent years.

For the 2007-2013 financial perspective, the codetermination of the European Parliament was groundbreaking. The European Parliament was instrumental in ensuring that the necessary funding was provided for programmes such as Erasmus to promote the young generation. Ladies and gentlemen, we have also placed tackling climate change at the top of the political agenda. The fact that we arrived at an acceptable result lent tremendous credence to the European Union for the negotiations at the Conference to be held in Copenhagen in December.

Today, we are no longer alone in our endeavour; the new US administration led by President Barack Obama supports many of our proposals. Our task is now to win the hearts and minds of our global partners to support measures to combat climate change. One often hears that others are taking the lead in tackling climate change. We have taken the lead in tackling climate change and, ladies and gentlemen, it is something we can be proud of.

(Applause)

Financial market reform at European level is, in many respects, taking place on the initiative of the European Parliament. Since 2002, Parliament has called for better financial market supervision and regulation. All legislative procedures for better banking and financial supervision and for regulating hedge funds and managers’ salaries should be completed as quickly as possible.

The European Parliament has already set many important benchmarks as a result of the resolutions it has adopted. There is still a lot of work to do, however. The newly elected European Parliament must continue this work in a committed and resolute manner in order to find a way out of the crisis on the basis of the social market economy defined in the Treaty of Lisbon and to safeguard the competitiveness of the European economy for the benefit of society against a backdrop of globalisation.

Ladies and gentlemen, the overwhelming majority of Members see Parliament as the motor of the European unification process. In the last two and a half years we have revived debate on institutional reform and driven forward the process leading to the conclusion of the Treaty of Lisbon. We also succeeded in ensuring that the basic principles we have always represented are maintained in the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Treaty of Lisbon contains the central reforms required to make the European institutions more democratic, transparent and capable of action. We should put all our effort into ensuring that the Treaty of Lisbon can enter into force at the beginning of next year. We are hoping for a positive outcome in the Czech Senate in Prague.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary as a directly elected democratic European Union institution. It is now at the heart of a European parliamentary democracy unimaginable in 1979. Together we have advanced parliamentary democracy in the European Union and beyond.

The European Parliament and national parliaments are now partners. Our work is complementary. We have deepened our cooperation with national parliaments and held regular meetings to move the important current issues forward together.

The development of our relations with parliaments in third countries has always been a core concern of all our efforts. Today, Parliament is a partner respected around the globe, an advocate for human rights and democracy. And it must stay that way.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have made every effort to ensure that Parliament is represented, through its President and through representatives of the political groups, in bodies of importance for shaping our common future. The President of the European Parliament now participates in the annual meetings of the Heads of State or Government of the G8 and in summits with third countries, such as the EU-Africa Summit, the EU-Latin America Summit and the EU-US Summit. Tomorrow morning, I will participate in the Troika summit on employment and tomorrow afternoon in the Summit for the inauguration of the Eastern Partnership in Prague.

It is also an achievement of this legislative period that the role of Parliament in the European Councils is no longer restricted to the inaugural address by the President. Now Parliament also participates in the institutional and constitutional deliberations of the summits. At the Intergovernmental Conference that led to agreement on the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament was fully involved at the level of the Heads of State or Government through the participation of its President and, at the Intergovernmental Conference itself, through a delegation consisting of three Members. This is a huge step forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reform of the working methods and procedures of the European Parliament was and still is a major project. To this end, the Conference of Presidents set up a working group equipped with a detailed mandate, in which all Groups were represented. The work was completed successfully. Much – approximately 80% – of what was proposed by the working group has been put into effect and implemented. This includes the reorganisation of the plenary debates, the reform of the legislative process, the improvement of the work done in committee with enhanced cooperation between the committees as well as the possibility of legislative initiative reports or conflicting resolutions.

I would specifically like to thank the Chair of the working group, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, and her – our – colleagues for their special commitment.

(Applause)

Together we have succeeded in adapting the working methods of the European Parliament to changing political circumstances. Now we have modernised procedures and reorganised working methods at our disposal and that is a good basis for the work to be carried out in the new parliamentary term.

In the Bureau of the European Parliament we have also tried to improve the administration of Parliament, to make the day-to-day work of Members easier and to modernise the infrastructure for communicating with the citizens of the European Union through the introduction of Web-TV, the prize for journalism, the citizens’ prize, and the European Charlemagne youth prize.

The new Statute for Members, on which we have worked for many years, will come into force in the new legislative period. It is an important contribution to the policy on Members’ finances, transparency and public relations.

The adoption of a clear, transparent assistants’ statute is an important step forward and a huge success, for which we have to thank all our fellow Members.

Ladies and gentlemen, today I should like to repeat and reaffirm the central idea that, for me, sums up the work of European integration. We are committed to the dignity of every human being. It is the supreme value. It unites us in the community of shared values of the European Union. Human dignity must always be respected – it is the ethical answer to the moral crises in Europe’s past.

(Applause)

For us, this leads to the precept of the unconditional protection of human dignity and the promotion of a dialogue of cultures, which have been guiding principles during my term of office.

A lasting impact was made by the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, be it dialogue with the Euro­Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, encounters between young people of different faiths – including from Israel and Palestine – or the Arabic and African weeks held in the European Parliament.

We have laid the foundation of a lasting dialogue, which must also direct, inspire and commit us in the future.

A peaceful settlement in the Middle East is also important for peaceful coexistence between Christians, Jews and Muslims as well as the people of the European Union and of countries across the globe. Gaza and the West Bank are not in the back of beyond; they are on our doorstep on the Mediterranean. We must be more self assertive on the international scene and contribute to peace and stability in the Middle East.

As Members of the European Parliament, we can offer an additional perspective in Middle East relations, as we can think and act outside conventional diplomatic channels. With this in mind, I have campaigned for a working group to be set up to deal with the Middle East crisis. Especially in the light of new developments in the Middle East it is important that we resolutely support a two-State solution – Israel within secure borders and a Palestinian State within secure borders. We must not allow these principles to be called into question.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that, in our day-to-day work, we deal with many issues, sometimes relating to very specific circumstances. We should never forget our roots or lose sight of the values that bind us. Today’s free, peaceful and socially committed European Union was a long time in the making.

We must breathe life into the foundations on which the European Union is based. That is why I am particularly thankful to you for your encouragement and continuing support for my initiative to establish a ‘House of European History’. In particular, I should like to thank not only Vice-President Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez for his unflagging support but also my fellow Members in this Chamber. The ‘House of European History’ will be used as a place where our European identity can be remembered and renewed. The basic decisions for establishing the House have already been taken.

The constituent meetings of the two oversight bodies were held yesterday. With your support – if I am re­elected as a Member of the European Parliament on 7 June of course – I will devote myself to the task of ensuring that the ‘House of European History’ is completed by the end of the next legislative period in 2014.

In 2014 we will be commemorating the one hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. A hundred years later we are living in a new Europe of peace, freedom and unity.

Many people support us in our constant striving. In particular I thank all the committed staff in the administrative services of the European Parliament, especially our new Secretary-General, Klaus Welle, and his deputy, David Harley, without whose commitment, expertise and dedication our political work would not be possible.

(Applause)

You are worthy of our thanks, our support and our appreciation.

I extend my sincerest thanks to my personal staff in my Cabinet, but, above all, I thank you, fellow Members, especially the Bureau and the chairmen of the political groups, for your trustful cooperation. We have just had another meeting of the Conference of Presidents. On Monday evening we had a meeting of the Bureau, and we will have another meeting today. On substantive issues of European democracy, hardly any contentious, really controversial decisions were taken, and we agreed on the basic issues. A bond of trust was created, for which I am sincerely thankful.

We have achieved a great deal together and we must once again gain the trust of our electorate. We do this, firmly convinced that this is the historically correct way towards European unification. The upcoming election campaign gives us the opportunity to speak with citizens about why the European Union is necessary. I should like to call on all citizens to vote in the elections and to cast their votes for the future of Europe in the 21st century.

Much work awaits the newly elected Parliament. This includes helping to overcome the economic and financial crisis, implementing a European energy policy, moving to a low-CO2 economy, providing more security for the citizens of Europe and peace and stability across the globe. Our work has provided a good basis for the newly elected Parliament to build on.

My work over the last two and a half years as President of the European Parliament has been a tremendous challenge, and I have carried it out gladly and with dedication and will continue to carry it out until 14 July. It is a great privilege to be at the service of Europe.

I thank you most sincerely for placing your confidence in me and for every moment of this collaborative effort in working towards a unified Europe. I wish you all the best for the future.

(Sustained applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, my dear Mr Pöttering, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament is the voice of 500 million Europeans and they are not sufficiently aware of this.

They are even less aware that this Parliament has a heart and a soul. Mr Pöttering, during the two and a half years of your presidency, not only have you been the citizens’ spokesman, you have also personified the heart, generosity and solidarity of Europe. Some say that it is not possible to fall in love with Europe; you have proved the opposite.

Although this parliamentary term is coming to an end, I wish to stress how far European integration has progressed and how much our Parliament, under your leadership, has contributed to this. I will mention only the most remarkable examples of this, which you have already referred to: the energy and climate change package, the Services Directive, the 2007-2013 financial perspective and, more recently, the regulation of the financial markets.

However, rather than running through a tedious list of directives and regulations, I would like to stress how much, behind the often very technical legislation that we debate and adopt here, our joint work has meaning. This meaning is the general interest of all Europeans. It is often said that Europe is removed from its citizens, but are issues such as toy safety, research into the prevention of rare diseases or of Alzheimer’s disease, consumer protection, environmental protection measures and the fight against global warming, energy policy or the defence of human rights around the world really removed from citizens’ daily lives?

Under your presidency, this Parliament has seen other major advances. I am thinking of the internal reform, which you have brought to fruition and which will make our institution more transparent and more effective, and of the new statute for Members of the European Parliament and their assistants. Under your presidency, this Parliament has multiplied the initiatives within the framework of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, doing justice to the great wealth of cultures and faiths in our society, and sending out the best possible image of Europe: that of openness and tolerance. Under your presidency, Parliament has seen the importance that it attaches to the future of the Mediterranean region and its desire to help bring about peace in the Middle East.

Mr President, on 25 March 2007, you signed on our behalf the Berlin Declaration commemorating 50 years of the European Union. That declaration reminds those who might have forgotten the objective of our daily work, in other words the integration of a free, democratic, tolerant Europe that respects the rule of law. By taking the initiative of creating a House of European History, you are giving a lasting dimension to the work carried out by yourself and your predecessors and by all those who, in their own way, have contributed to our common history.

For all these things, I would simply like to thank you, Mr President.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you, Mr President, for your hard work. I should like to say on behalf of my Group that you have exercised your office with great dignity. You have given Parliament dignity through the way in which you have led this House.

This is not the time to review your work. The legacy of a President of the European Parliament is always subject to political scrutiny. You can agree or disagree with one thing or another. A review of the President’s work must focus on what the President has done for the success of this House. You have presented your conclusions. There is nothing to add. The question therefore remains: what has the President, as a human being, done for this House? For me and my colleagues in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament it is clear that you have conferred dignity on this House, both inside and outside.

This House does not always conduct itself with dignity. But that is true of all parliaments worldwide. The dignity of a multinational joint parliamentary assembly of well over 700 Members from 27 countries, who belong to eight different parliamentary groups, who belong to different faiths, who have different skin colours, who come from different political traditions, who have experienced different historical development, must be safeguarded. To unite them and to give them a sense of unity through their own representation is difficult. That is exactly what you have done. And for that you deserve our sincere thanks.

(Applause)

Mr President, you have tackled many activities in your two-and-a-half-year term of office. To underpin what I have said about the way in which you have exercised your office, on behalf of our Group I should like to single out one point on which we fully shared your view and where you gave this House a voice that extended far beyond the bounds of political divisions, and hence gave a voice to disenfranchised people in a place that is assembled in exactly the way I have described. You raised your voice against the scandal in Guantanamo at a time when it was not easy to do so. That, Mr President, will remain an enduring milestone in your term of office. You have shown that the requirement you placed on yourself to be a tolerant and cosmopolitan person on the one hand and to be committed to your fundamental Christian understanding on the other has been met.

But to place the entirety of human dignity, whether it comes from the tradition of enlightenment or, as in your case, from a religious orientation, at the core of your activity has earned you the distinction of being a good President of the European Union and that is how we will remember you. Thank you very much.

(Loud applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, your words today were typical of your time as President. Our groups may not always agree, but during your mandate you have proven an honest, fair and unifying figure, one whose modesty masks your many achievements.

You were elected on the basis of a worthy pledge to engage our House in intercultural dialogue but your record reaches further than that. On Members’ allowances, you concluded the vital work started by Pat Cox. On parliamentary procedures, you oversaw the reforms that many of us have long called for and, through initiatives like Europarl TV, you have supported modern methods of communicating with our citizens. That is a record to be proud of and a legacy on which your successors should build.

I hope you will write about your experiences and impressions. They will be too interesting to be left in the cold and powerful hands of oblivion. Moreover, as the poet Emerson taught us, there is no such thing as history, only biography. This Parliament has become more powerful over the years. It will be more powerful still under the Lisbon Treaty, if and when it is eventually ratified. It will be interesting to see what plans future presidents will bring to expand on the role that you have played, projecting the common values and principles that we hold dear.

But today I think I can speak for many when I say that you have earned our respect and affection. Like you, this is my last plenary speech in my current role. Having led my group since 2002, I have a touch of what we call in English the seven-year itch. Although I will not sit in this seat again, I know you are aware that I am keen to try sitting where you are. President, on behalf of my group, I thank you. I thank the session services and the interpreters and all the staff who have contributed to the very fine job you have done as President of our House.

(Applause)

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during this term, Parliament, especially under your presidency, has reinforced its ability to make a political impact on the future of the Union, even though we will have to wait for the new treaty to see the realisation of the ambitions of those who have always believed in the need for increased legislative power for our institution, which is unique in the world because it is elected by the citizens of 27 countries.

Events – tragic ones, in many instances – have followed one another thick and fast during this term, and on many occasions, particularly during the last two and a half years, Parliament, through you, Mr President, has been able to perform a crucial role in mediating proposals. Ours has become an increasingly obvious political role that must help us to overcome the party differences that divide us in our own countries so that we can achieve shared goals in the common interest of our peoples and ensure more justice, peace and safety in the world.

When the parliamentary term began, we finally saw nations join us that for many decades had been deprived of their freedom, and the accession of Romania and Bulgaria during the parliamentary term has reinforced the world’s image of a Europe that is able to create unity by respecting differences.

We are concluding the parliamentary term in the midst of an economic crisis that has made us realise that we have a systemic crisis on our hands, and the new Parliament must therefore also be a driving force that will help society to rediscover values that are nowadays too often neglected. Now more than ever, parliamentary democracy, in Europe and nationally, represents a guarantee of freedom.

Mr President, I thank you on behalf of my group and personally for your commitment – you have represented all of us – and for the great contribution you have made to establishing the reputation of our institution, for which we demand not only ever more transparency, but also due attention on the part of certain sections of the media that have taken an interest in Europe solely for the purpose of stirring up petty, futile debates instead of contributing to the growth of common awareness and shared progress.

Mr President, after the 20 years I have spent in this Parliament, I feel it is my duty to join you, representing me magnificently in this Chamber, in thanking the millions of European citizens who, through their daily toil and respect for the principles of solidarity, justice and the roots of our past, are contributing to the development of a society that is more respectful of rights and more aware of its own duties.

  Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Herr Präsident, you have had the immense privilege of presiding over the most original institution in the world, and we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are sure that you have done so with motivation and with passion, and we thank you for this.

When, two and a half years ago, I stood against you as a candidate for the Presidency of the European Parliament on behalf of my group, I laid great emphasis on the need for the President of Parliament to represent an institution free from the interests of the Member States and the pressures exercised by financial lobbies, to guide an equally free administration chosen on the basis of merit and not of political loyalty, and to be able to speak to an increasingly divided and indifferent public. At the time, we very strongly criticised the joint decision taken by yourself and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to rule out any attempt to relaunch the constitutional debate following the 2005 referendums, an enormous mistake that made it easier for the States to reappropriate the process of European reform.

Two and a half years later, we in the Verts/ALE Group would assess your work, President Pöttering, as having its ups and downs. We approved and supported your work in the Middle East, particularly your work in the Presidency of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. We appreciated your unwavering pro­European belief, the idea of a Parliament open to citizens, groups, associations and the boldest cultural initiatives, and your determination over the Assistants’ Statute.

We also looked positively on your determined commitment to fundamental rights, even in places that did not sit comfortably with the majority of the European Parliament, from Russia to China, and on your new green credentials, as borne out by your comments on climate change made a short time ago.

Yet it is also clear, Mr President, that, under your presidency, our Parliament has continued its gradual transformation from an institution that demands and fights for democracy to an assembly that is all too often submissive and careful not to rock the boat of this or that government. It has resigned itself to not making this fight or transparency privileged areas in relation to which voters have visibility – one need only think of the entirely orchestrated failure of the working party on lobbies, which has come to an end today having achieved nothing despite a very explicit resolution approved a year ago, or the silence on the matter of the two seats in Strasbourg and Brussels and on that of the waste of money and CO2 that is incomprehensible to our electorate.

Mr President, I will now conclude. Through the successive reforms of the rules, your presidency has also overseen the gradual centralisation of power into the hands of the few in our institution, with respect to strengthening the work of the committees and the role of individual MEPs, and doing more to promote diversity and pluralism.

Mr President, perhaps there will be a new majority in the new Parliament, but we are certain of one thing: the long fight for strong, respected, pluralist and sympathetic European democracy is not over, and at least in this we will always have you by our side.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, your presidency – as you have just pointed out – has been marked by events of major political import, which have, on more than one account, been a challenge for Europe and, at the same time, for our Parliament.

Some of these are internal to the Union, especially what many call the institutional crisis, and which I would describe instead as an additional symptom of a crisis of confidence in, or a crisis of legitimacy of, the current European model among a growing number of our fellow citizens.

Others have an international dimension, such as the conflict in the Middle East, which you mentioned. The latter, far from advancing towards a just and sustainable peace, is worsening as we watch and is poisoning international relations, when it is not threatening the cohesion of our societies.

Others, finally, are shaking the entire planet, such as the environmental crisis and, ultimately, the financial, economic, social and political crisis, which is imposing on us certain choices of society or indeed civilisation.

It is in this exceptionally complex context that you have had to lead the European Parliament and to represent it before our Member States and before the world. My group and I consider that you have fulfilled your duty with honour.

Of course, our political choices are manifestly different and are sometimes at odds with one another. However, it is precisely on the ability to manage these necessary and healthy conflicts of ideas, whilst respecting everyone, that the holder of a high office such as yours is judged.

Now, I can say that, as the chairman of a minority group which, in many people’s opinion, expresses ideas outside the current mainstream, I felt at ease under your presidency. Better still, whilst our political differences naturally remain unchanged, our relationship as people has been noticeably enriched.

Mr President, we have known each other for 30 years. We have really got to know each other in the last 10 years of our excellent cooperation in the Conference of Presidents. I greatly appreciate your personal ethic, which has enabled you to recognise – at least I think so – that it is possible to be simultaneously a communist, a democrat, a European and a humanist. Thank you.

(Applause)

  President. − Thank you, Mr Wurtz. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of you all I should like to thank Mr Wurtz, who has been a Member since 1979 and will now leave Parliament. Our thanks also go to three other fellow Members, who have been here since 1979 and will now leave: Klaus Hänsch, a former President, Ingo Friedrich, former Vice-President and Quaestor, and Karl von Wogau, former Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and currently Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. I should like to extend my sincere thanks on behalf of you all to these four and to all other departing fellow Members for their huge commitment. Thank you very much.

(Loud applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Independence and Democracy Group has tried to be helpful, positive and constructive right through this parliamentary term.

(Mixed reactions)

Yes, because we have been providing the voice of opposition and, in a democracy, opposition is essential. It is vital. But sadly, as President Václav Klaus pointed out when he came here, you do not actually think there should be any alternative view and, as a result of that, your presidency has been marked by your deeply prejudicial manner in the way in which you have treated the Members of this House who have stood up and opposed the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

The defining moment for me in this House was when we had the French say ‘no’, we had the Dutch say ‘no’ and then we had the Irish say ‘no’, and this Parliament wilfully carried on ignoring the wishes of the people. You just do not get it, do you? ‘No’ means ‘no’, and it is truly incredible that 499 Members of this House voted to ignore the Irish ‘no’ vote and to continue with the Treaty. What kind of a Parliament is this? If you believed in democracy, you would not just bulldoze aside those three referendum results.

Worse still, you are now so fearful of public opinion – you know that you are losing the argument – that you have sunk to abuse. I have had Mr Watson saying that I behave like an English football hooligan, when all I did was to gently point out that Commissioner Barrot is a convicted embezzler. Gary Titley said that I was a paranoid reactionary living on the fringes of society. Well, he may have a point, I do not know; but Danny Cohn-Bendit, that great champion of free speech, said that opponents of the Treaty were mentally ill, and Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists, said after one of the ‘no’ votes that we must not bow to populism and that the ‘no’ votes opened the door to fascism.

I hope in the next four weeks, in this campaign, that the voters of Europe can see the real face of this project. You are nationalistic; you are bullying; you are threatening; you are anti-democratic; you are a complete shower!

(Applause)

  President. − That you can make such a speech shows that this is a free and democratic European Parliament!

(Applause)

  Daniel Hannan (NI). - Mr President, some colleagues may find this hard to believe but I am going to miss you. In all the time I have known you, first as leader of the Christian Democrats and then as President of this Parliament, you have been a model of dignity, restraint and courtesy. You are an Anglophile as well as a Europhile and you represent all that is best in the integrationist tradition. You will be very relieved, no doubt, to hear that I cannot recall ever having agreed with you.

(Laughter)

But in the career that we have both chosen, we know that ideological commitment is a rare commodity and we value it even when we find it in an opponent.

You will remember how we clashed over your interpretation of this House’s Rules of Procedure. Those of us who wanted referendums on the Constitutional Treaty had made our point in peaceable explanations of vote. Our right to do so was set out unequivocally in the Rules of Procedure. You chose arbitrarily to disapply those rules – you did not seek to change them, which would have required a certain amount of time, you simply disregarded them. This is not the time to have that argument all over again. Instead, let me say this: the President of this Chamber is meant to embody the entire House, including those who espouse minority views, and when you treat us differently you open the door to despotism. For example, virtually every month there are demonstrations here about something or other and they are tolerated, but when we held up placards with the one word ‘referendum’ you sent in the ushers to snatch away our banners and several of us were later fined.

I can understand why the word ‘referendum’ causes so much disquiet in this Chamber: the electorates of three nations had rejected your constitutional model. It made you feel vulnerable and that made you tetchy and, since you could hardly attack the voters directly, you took out all your frustration on us, the visible Eurosceptic minority in this Chamber.

Colleagues, I do not expect to change your minds about the desirability of centralising power in Brussels. But, from your own point of view, I would urge you to be a bit more even-handed in your dealings with those of us who are the minority. If only you could conquer your reflexive dislike for us, you might find that it would bolster your own democratic credentials. All organisations need their critics. Your insistence that the EU is an absolute good and that any criticism of it is either dishonest or xenophobic has done you no favours, because without critical scrutiny the Brussels institutions become bloated, self-serving and corrupt.

My friends, I hope that there will be many more of us souverainistes here in July. For the first time in 50 years, this Parliament will have something in the nature of an official opposition. It will be up to your successor, Hans-Gert, how to deal with that opposition, but I hope he will live up to the value of tolerance which this Chamber keeps claiming to espouse.

(Applause)

  President. − We have taken note of it.

  Jan Kohout, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I am grateful to you for this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the Presidency and on behalf of the Council, in response to you and to the interventions from the representatives of the political groups. It is particularly significant for us that the five years of this legislature have coincided with the first five years of membership of the European Union for the Czech Republic and for the other countries which joined at that time. All the more so, given that the Czech Republic has had the privilege of holding the Council Presidency as this legislature draws to a close.

I would first like to pay tribute to you, Mr President, for the exemplary manner in which you have led this institution throughout the last two and a half years. It is a powerful witness to your qualities, in particular of fairness and integrity, that you are held in such respect by this Parliament, a respect which clearly cuts across party political divisions. As one of the relatively few Members first elected back in 1979, you have been able to bring your considerable experience, wisdom and knowledge to this office. Speaking in particular on behalf of the Presidency, I can only say that we have very much appreciated all your qualities in the contacts we have had both before and during our Presidency. On behalf of the Council, may I wish you all the best for the future.

I hope you will allow me, since we are looking back over the past five years, to pay tribute also to your predecessor, Mr Borrell, who manifested the same qualities of impartiality and leadership. You have both ensured that this office of President is one which is held in respect and esteem. This Parliament and the Union more generally have good reasons to be grateful to you both.

During the course of the last five years, this Parliament has made effective use of its powers and prerogatives, not least in the important area of codecision where the Council and Parliament find themselves on opposite sides of the table, sometimes with very different views and objectives. Despite these differences, both institutions work together to ensure that the system delivers. We can disagree and we can argue constructively, but we do so within a framework of agreed rules and procedures. I think both institutions can take some pride in our shared commitment to making the system work, and the last five years have provided plenty of examples that it does work and work very effectively.

Mr President, Honourable Members, in less than three months’ time a new Parliament will take up office. There will be many new Members. You will elect a new president and a different Member State will be seated here as the presidency representing the Council. I am sure that all of them will, during the course of the next five years, look back with gratitude and respect at the legacy which you, Mr President, have left this institution. Thank you for your attention.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, under your presidency relations between the European Parliament and the Commission have developed very well, not to say smoothly. It is to your credit that, even during election campaigns when, as is generally known, the potential for conflict is at its greatest, at no time did the normal political debates turn into a crisis among the institutions.

If I may be permitted to make a personal comment, I should like to thank you warmly for your, at all times, friendly and courteous approach to your work. You not only acted politely but also took corrective action when necessary. And you were always gentlemanlike. I should also like to emphasise how important it was for this Parliament and for the entire European Union that you had the courage and the willingness to defend the democratic principles and privileges of this Parliament, even against Heads of State where necessary.

(Applause)

I should also like to congratulate you on 30 years as an elected Member of the European Parliament. Your personality has very much left its mark on these decades and you have made a significant contribution to shaping the development of Parliament.

President Barroso would very much have liked to come himself but, as you know, he is attending the EU-Canada Summit in Prague. On behalf of the President of the Commission and the entire Commission I should like to thank you warmly for your successful presidency. Thank you.

(Applause)

  President. − Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly thank you for your largely favourable reviews. I wish all my fellow Members who are not standing for re-election all the best for the future and I hope that we will meet again. To all my fellow Members who are standing for re-election and who are re-elected, I should like to say that I hope that we, provided of course that I am re-elected, will continue our good work. What the chairmen of the political groups have said today has encouraged me to continue along the path towards a unified Europe. Many thanks to you all and I hope we will all see each other again.

(Loud applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I have a question on order in the Chamber. Shortly before we were able to vote, when the sitting was suspended for just a short time, a Member of our honourable House apparently succeeded in smuggling in a parliamentary candidate, having a few cheeky promotional photographs taken with her and, in my view, abusing our Body. Is it not necessary to hold these candidates to account?

  President. − Thank you, Mr Mann. It will be investigated.

  President. − We now continue with the vote.

- Before the vote:

  Hanne Dahl (IND/DEM). - Madam President, I have one thing to say regarding the vote that we are about to hold. It seems, from the voting list, that we are voting on the compromise text from the committee, instead of the amendments, first. Normally I would have thought that we would vote on the most far-reaching amendments first, so I would ask you to use the power that you have according to Rule 19 in the Rules of Procedure and change the order of the vote so that we vote on the amendments. This concerns the citizens’ rights amendments. This is very important for both the Harbour and the Trautmann reports.

  President. − Mrs Dahl, as far as I am aware there is no problem. I see no problem with the voting order on the Harbour report. We will proceed as it is on the order paper.

− Before the vote:

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I have asked for the floor because I do not agree with the voting order on the Trautmann report. I request that I be given the floor before the vote on Compromise Amendment 10 to explain why the voting order should be changed.

− Before the vote on Amendment 10:

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I should like to request that the voting sequence be changed and that Compromise Amendment 10 be put to the vote after we have voted on a number of other identical requests by various Groups that were due to be voted on after Amendment 10.

My reason for this is that, in my opinion, the amendments proposed by the various Groups go far beyond the Compromise Amendment regarding the item ‘Protection of citizens’ rights against intervention in Internet access or capping of Internet access’. I believe that it would be a good thing for Parliament, which so clearly declared its support for the infamous Bono/Cohn-Bendit Amendment, to speak out once again in support of the highest protection of citizens’ rights.

I regret that, at the end of a very good consultation with Mrs Trautmann I am unable to request this, but this friendly consultation, the good result of the telecoms package, should not ultimately mean that we curtail citizens’ rights en passant.

(Applause)

  Alexander Alvaro, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, on the basis of Rule 154 and Rule 155(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe would like to endorse the request by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance to change the voting order of the amendments and to put Amendments 1 c, p, 2, 5, 6 and 9 to the vote before Compromise Amendment 10. This also relates, among other things – perhaps there is something else on your voting lists – to the fact that, following the motion adopted by our Group yesterday, Compromise Amendment 10 will no longer be supported by the ALDE Group. As regards the voting procedure, Rule 154 explains which amendment is to be dealt with first when there are corresponding or conflicting requests. It is important to us that a court ruling be issued before any intervention in the behaviour of individuals can take place. That is why we have withdrawn the amendment.

  Angelika Niebler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I am not speaking in my capacity as Committee Chairman but as rapporteur for my Group on the Trautmann report. I urge the House to reject the procedural motion and to allow the voting to take place in the order proposed by you on the voting lists.

Mrs Harms, no one in this House wishes to curtail the right to free Internet access. We have incorporated this aspect into the compromise, which we discussed with the Czech President-in-Office of the Council over many months. All political parties were heavily involved in these discussions. I request that the proposed order be kept and that the change to the voting order now being proposed by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe be rejected.

  Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur. − (FR) Madam President, I would first of all like to point out that, in relation to the request for a change on the voting list, if I have understood rightly, if the compromise was included by the services, using their common sense, before groups tabled the amendment, it is because it goes further than Amendment 46. It includes clauses that are not limited merely to restricting access to the Internet but that also include all devices that may adversely affect users’ rights.

Secondly, I would also like to tell the Members that this compromise has been tabled in Article 1, which relates to the scope, and that it therefore has an across-the-board effect, whilst the amendment tabled by the groups concerns Article 8, which affects the objectives of the national regulators.

Throughout the negotiations on this compromise, I have worked faithfully and harmoniously with all of the political groups. I note, Madam President, that at this very moment one of the groups has withdrawn its signature from this compromise. I would therefore like to say to you that, as rapporteur, I continue, of course, to support this compromise, and that I have also voted in favour of Amendment 46.

I would like to say that, in the circumstances in which we are holding the debate, it is wiser for our House to decide on the voting order, rather than leave it up to you or the rapporteur alone to take this decision. However, I would like to present this request to you very directly, as it must be understood what happens next if the vote is reversed.

If the vote is not reversed, the list stays the same. If the vote is reversed, Amendment 46 is adopted if it obtains the qualified majority. In that case, Madam President, I would also ask you to put the compromise – which goes further than Amendment 46 – to the vote after this vote is taken. If Amendment 46 does not obtain the qualified majority, at that stage we will vote on the compromise and, therefore, our House will have made its choice.

  President. − I have heard from several people and I take very carefully into account what our rapporteur has said.

I took the step before this vote of taking advice from the services, and I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I have the power as President under Rule 155(2) to decide on the order of vote. It seems to me that this issue is of such importance, both within and outside this House, that it would be appropriate to vote on the earlier amendments, but I do this also on the basis procedurally that, as I understand it, Amendment 10 was a compromise that came forward only after the committee vote. So it seems to me that there are both procedural and other reasons why we should reverse the order of the vote.

(Parliament accepted Rebecca Harms’ request.)

(Applause)

–On the Trautmann Report (A6-0272/2009)

  Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I asked that we also be able to vote on the compromise, as it has a broader scope than Amendment 46 alone. You decided not to put this compromise to the vote without giving us any explanation and without giving any reply to the rapporteur. I wanted you to be aware of this and to tell you that I regret that our recommendation has not been followed, just like the rapporteur’s recommendation on our House’s vote.

I would also like to say – to explain the vote that has just taken place – that when any part of the entire compromise is not adopted, it is the whole package that is subject to conciliation. That is the consequence of the vote that is being taken today.

  President. − Thank you, Mrs Trautmann, I think the House understands the consequences of what it has done, but I thank you, nevertheless, for pointing that out. It would not have been appropriate to take the other compromise and, indeed, the vote was more than clear.

⁂

- Before the vote on Amendment 14:

  Astrid Lulling, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I agreed with Mr Cocilovo, who was the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, to insert the following clause into this important Article 6: ‘If the legislation of a Member State does not stipulate obligatory affiliation to the social security system for the self-employed, affiliation is granted on request to the assisting spouse.’

I shall explain what I mean by this. We insist that assisting spouses be compulsorily insured, as is the case for the self-employed. However, if, in a country, the self-employed are not compulsorily insured, we cannot require that this be the case for their spouses, as the latter cannot be affiliated to an insurance scheme that does not exist. That is why this additional paragraph has to be adopted. I am also acting on Mr Cocilovo’s behalf in this matter.

(The oral amendment was not accepted.)

– Before the vote:

  Edite Estrela, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, I should like to ask the services to take into account that the Portuguese version is authentic for all amendments.

Secondly, I should like to ask that the order of voting be changed, and that Committee Amendment 43 be voted on before Amendment 83 for the sake of coherence.

Finally, I would point out that this directive that we are going to amend is 17 years old and is clearly out of date. The revised directive will not enter into force before the end of the next legislative term. In other words, we are legislating for the future, not for today.

In particular, we are legislating for the good of the citizens, thereby giving them more reasons to vote in the June elections.

I will therefore end by asking my fellow Members to support my report.

  Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Madam President, as things stand at present, there are 89 amendments to this report. It is totally chaotic, and the vote that we are going to take will not allow us to hold a truly objective debate with the Council and the Commission. These 89 amendments are all totally at odds with each other. I propose we refer this report back to committee because, as Mrs Estrela said, we have plenty of time to do so.

(Loud applause)

  President. − Ms Lulling, could you kindly confirm to me whether or not you make that request on behalf of your political group?

  Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Yes, Madam President, I never make anything not on behalf of my political group!

(Laughter and applause)

  Edite Estrela (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, it does not make sense to refer this report, or this proposal, back to committee, because it was discussed with all the groups. It is presumably supported by a majority in this House. It was also discussed with the Commission and with the Council.

Naturally, people have different opinions. We know that, regrettably, the Council under the Czech Presidency has adopted a very conservative attitude to the promotion of gender equality.

I therefore call on the House to vote for the proposals and to support my report, because it will give the citizens more reasons to go out and vote in the European elections.

(Parliament decided to refer the matter back to committee.)

− Before the vote on the legislative resolution:

  Reimer Böge, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, after consulting briefly with the rapporteur, we agreed that paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the legislative resolution should be adjusted. I would suggest the following English text for paragraph 2:

‘Considers that the reference amount indicated in the legislative proposal is compatible with the multiannual financial framework as the latter has been revised;’

In paragraph 3, the first sentence should be deleted, the rest remaining unchanged: ‘Recalls that any redeployment that would lead...’ and so on.

Paragraph 5: ‘Recalls that the legislative process has been completed after the financing of the programme has been agreed;’.

(The oral amendments were accepted.)

− Before the vote:

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, this report was strongly disputed in several Groups and, to guarantee the fairness of the vote, I would ask you to give me the floor before the vote on Recital 3 so that I can give my opinion on the voting order.

− Before the vote on recital 3:

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the report presents different ideas on how to regulate core capital and Amendments 91 and 92 go somewhat further in that they present a clearer and more precise definition of core capital, which will make less work for us in future. I therefore request that they be voted on first and that Amendment 89 to Recital 3 is then voted on. I hope that my fellow Members agree and I also ask you to accept that the vote on Amendment 89 to Recital 3 be taken by roll-call vote.

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, I should like to point out that we made it quite clear in the debate that the amendments are clearly taken into account in the compromise in a sufficiently detailed form. I therefore request that we keep to this order. I have no objection to a roll-call vote.

(Parliament accepted Udo Bullman’s request.)

− Before the vote:

  Janusz Wojciechowski, rapporteur. − Madam President, I have two or three short technical, but important, points.

Firstly, we have a block of amendments proposed by the Agriculture Committee, among others Amendment 64. This amendment should be voted separately. It focuses on the issue of creating the National Reference Centre, which is a very important part of the whole regulation. The Agriculture Committee has proposed to remove the obligation to create the Reference Centre at a national level. My opinion, as the rapporteur, is that this is against the general logic of the whole regulation. I suggest voting on Amendment 64 separately.

Secondly, please note Amendment 28, which focuses on the controversial and emotional question of ritual slaughter. Voting in favour of this amendment will eliminate the possibility of a total ban on ritual slaughter at national level. Voting against Amendment 28 will preserve the possibility of this ban.

The third point concerns Amendment 85. The Commission has proposed to reduce the time of transport of animals from farms and waiting in slaughterhouses to 24 hours. Voting in favour of Amendment 85 will eliminate this reduction of transport time. Voting against Amendment 85 will support the Commission proposal to reduce the transport time.

(The request was rejected as over 40 Members objected.)

- Before the vote:

  Philip Bushill-Matthews, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, very briefly, I hope the House will forgive me for this last-minute oral amendment to paragraph 14. Colleagues may be aware that this is a sensitive issue and in some languages and for some Member States this does give difficulties. It is important that we try to get the maximum support for this report at the end.

The suggestion is that, instead of paragraph 14 as written, we replace the whole paragraph with a paragraph that has already been accepted by the House. This was paragraph 23 of the Parliament resolution of 11 March 2009 concerning the Spring 2009 European Council on the Lisbon Strategy, and which covers exactly the same ground. I will read it; it is just a few sentences:

‘Notes that some Member States have introduced the concept of a minimum wage; suggests that other Member States might benefit from studying their experience; calls on the Member States to safeguard the preconditions for social and economic participation for all and, in particular, to provide for regulations on such matters as minimum wages or other legal and generally binding arrangements or through collective agreements in accordance with national traditions that enable full--time workers to make a decent living from their earnings;’.

As I said, this has been approved by political groups in the past. My apologies for tabling it now. The rapporteur is OK by this, and I hope the House will at least allow the oral amendment to be tabled.

(The oral amendment was accepted.)

  Jan Andersson (PSE). - (SV) Thank you very much. I would just like to say something briefly about the Swedish translation. In paragraphs 13 and 36, ‘minimum income’ has been translated by the Swedish word ‘minimilön’, which means ‘minimum wage’. It should be ‘minimiinkomst’. There is a difference between ‘minimiinkomst’ and ‘minimilön’, and so there is an error in paragraphs 13 and 36 of the Swedish translation.

⁂

  President. − Exceptionally, colleagues, and those who are waiting to give explanations of vote, you will appreciate that it is now very late. We have all been here some time, as, particularly, have our interpreters. There are a very large number of explanations of vote, and I suspect we would not get through them by 15.00. That being the case, I am taking the decision, as we have done before, that they will be dealt with at the end of business tonight.

  Daniel Hannan (NI). - Madam President, the rules are very clear that, after the vote, every Member has the right to make an explanation of vote for up to 60 seconds. I am conscious that our interpreters have been here for a long time. I am conscious that we are keeping a lot of people from their lunch. May I suggest a compromise that was used by your fellow Vice-President, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, the last time that this happened, which is to allow people to make explanations of vote one person after another, which speeded up proceedings very considerably.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Hannan. We did consider that formula. There are so many that I do not think it would work. You will be able to make your explanations of vote after the vote, in the sense that it will be tonight. I am sorry for that, but it really is too late – and you know how I enjoy your contributions!

Written explanations of vote

- Proposal for a decision (B6-0268/2009)

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission’s Communication COM(2007) 281 set all the European institutions a challenge: ‘The time has come to look at Brazil as a strategic partner as well as a major Latin American economic actor and regional leader’. This partnership was established on 4 July 2007 in Lisbon during the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union. On 12 March 2009 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the Council which stated that ‘the Strategic Partnership should provide for the establishment of a regular structured dialogue between the Members of the Brazilian National Congress and Members of the European Parliament’.

Despite this statement of principle and my calls to the President of this House, I note with sadness that Parliament is sticking with the anachronistic option of making Brazil the only BRIC economy without an independent parliamentary delegation. This contradicts Parliament’s own decision and demonstrates a deplorable inertia and short-term attitude, given Brazil’s real importance in the world. I hope that future Members of this Parliament, particularly Portuguese Members, will help to change this regrettable state of affairs and establish direct and productive communication with the Brazilian National Congress.

I voted against.

  Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The GUE/NGL Group has abstained in the vote on the number of interparliamentary delegations, due to the reference to ‘Kosovo’ in the formation of a ‘Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo’.

The formation of a delegation for relations with a self-proclaimed state that is a result of violation of international law constitutes in itself a de facto violation of international law.

This abstention does not concern all other delegations referred to in the same decision, which we support.

- Report: Philippe Morillon (A6-0203/2009)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I am delighted to vote here today on this report to repeal a directive and 11 obsolete decisions and note that our next report from Mr Morillon (A6-0202/2009) will repeal a further 14 obsolete regulations.

I congratulate my colleague on a move that we would do well to replicate across all our committees and all our spheres of competence. I would certainly favour some regulations and directives having a fixed lifetime that would stop the continued acceptance of laws and regulations and the burdens that consequently fall on us all.

- Report: Petya Stavreva (A6-0259/2009)

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE) , in writing. – (EL) The PASOK parliamentary group voted in favour of the Stavreva report, because it gives Member States the facility to choose support measures for rural development at a particularly crucial time for the countryside and for farmers. The original text of the Commission proposal was also improved on the basis of the amendments which I tabled in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

However, under no circumstances can opportunistic reductions in the financial limits of the common agricultural policy be accepted on the pretext that it has unused resources. The Community budget cannot be recycled using the flexibility mechanism. Instead of this practice, it would be politically and materially expedient to debate an increase in the Community budget, so as not to affect existing Community policies, including the CAP, which will be called on to cover the financing of new policies to deal with the crisis and improve the competitiveness of the EU.

  Călin Cătălin Chiriţă (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

I support this document as it is allocating an additional EUR 250 million to supplement the funds earmarked for 2009 and it offers greater flexibility in terms of allocating and using the financial resources for developing broadband Internet in rural areas and for tackling the new challenges in the agricultural sector.

This top-up to the EAFRD is necessary, especially at a time of crisis. Romania must access this fund through the implementation of viable projects, with the aim of developing our villages and raising the standard of living of those inhabiting our rural areas.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) The report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), in writing. – (PL) The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development represents a great opportunity for historically underdeveloped regions. The fund is also an opportunity to reduce the disproportion between old and new European Union Member States.

When administering the fund we must remember that the common agricultural policy is full of injustices and inequalities. Differences in subsidies, and so in the incomes of farmers, lead to the maintenance of these disproportions, and even to their increase. These disproportions concern not only the economic situation of residents of rural areas, but also the entire infrastructure, including access to the Internet. We must, therefore, remember that German farmers, for example, receive subsidies which are twice as much as Polish farmers receive, and three times more than Romanian farmers.

We must also remember that the regions which most need help are found in Romania, Bulgaria and the Eastern Wall of Poland.

- Report: Richard Corbett (A6-0273/2009)

  Guy Bono (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, presented by my British fellow Member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Mr Corbett, on the general revision of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

I support the initiative by the Socialist Group President, Mr Schulz, who sought to use this revision to prevent the French leader of an extreme-right party from having the honour of chairing the inaugural session of the new parliament.

Under the new provisions, Parliament’s inaugural session, to be held on 14 July, will be chaired by the outgoing president, if he is re-elected, or by one of the 14 vice-presidents in order of precedence if re-elected.

European democracy in fact holds principles of respect and tolerance among peoples that Mr Le Pen wilfully disregards through his determination to make revisionist remarks.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, and in particular Amendments 51 and 52, which replace the oldest Member taking the chair at the opening of the new Parliament by a ‘provisional choice’. I do not understand why we have ever had this bizarre rule. Maybe the ‘father or mother’ of the House has a logic. The longest serving Member at least has experience to fall back on, rather than merely age.

We have already had this system abused by Mr Le Pen and his Front National when in 1989 Claude Autant-Lara was parachuted into this Parliament and made a farce of the opening of the institution with a lengthy and highly offensive intervention. Within months he had stood down, having performed his function of bringing ridicule upon the European Parliament. We cannot, 20 years on, allow Mr Le Pen a second opportunity to bring Europe into disrepute.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Mr Corbett’s report aims at bringing Parliament’s Rules of Procedure into line with the current practice of general consensus and prior bargaining in small groups, which turns the plenary into nothing more than a meeting that records texts cooked up previously by a handful of experts. As a result, the institutionalisation of a final public vote on each text is merely the minimum level of transparency that the citizens can expect of the work of this House.