IN THE CHAIR: MR BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09.05)

  President. – First of all, I would like to read out an important piece of information. On 2 December, I received a Communication from the Commission, addressed to the European Parliament and the Council, concerning the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures. By virtue of this communication, Parliament as an institution deems that all the proposals listed in the communication for which the Treaty of Lisbon granted it competence have been resubmitted to Parliament. Parliament has also taken note of the fact that, by virtue of the communication, the European Commission has withdrawn certain proposals.

In the case of legislative proposals pending as at 1 December 2009, the date on which the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the President of the Commission has invited the parliamentary committees to which proposals have already been submitted in the current legislative term, as recorded in the minutes of the part-sessions, to verify the legal bases and procedural modifications proposed by the Commission, along with any other amendments to be made in the light of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, and to decide whether they intend to adjudge positions already adopted under the consultation procedure to be ordinary legislative procedure first readings or to constitute approvals.

It is understood that Parliament reserves the right, in all cases, to request that the Commission submit a new proposal. In the case of proposals on which Parliament had not been consulted prior to entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it falls to the Commission to forward new proposals under the ordinary legislative procedure or other appropriate procedure.

It is a communication about our legislative activities in the near future – a communication concerning mutual relations between the European Commission and the European Parliament in the legislative process. As you know, we are in a transition period – we are moving from the Treaty of Nice to the Treaty of Lisbon and, at the same time, we are beginning a new Parliamentary term. The new Commission still has not been approved. This all requires rather arduous work, which must be carried out in accordance with the law, between the Commission and Parliament, and this is the subject of the communication.

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

- the report (A7-0083/2009) by Mr Surján and Mr Maňka, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 as modified by the Council (all sections) (11902/2009 - C7-0127/2009 - 2009/2002(BUD)), and Letters of amendment Nos 1/2010 (SEC(2009)1133 - 14272/2009 - C7 - 0215/2009), 2/2010 (SEC(2009)1462 - 16328/2009 - C7-0292/2009) and 3/2010 (SEC(2009)1635 - 16731/2009 - C7-0304/2009) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010,

- the report (A7-0081/2009) by Mrs Haug, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft amending budget No 10/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009, Section III – Commission (16327/2009 - C7-0288/2009 - 2009/2185(BUD)),

- the report (A7-0080/2009) by Mr Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on mobilisation of the Flexibility instrument: in accordance with point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (2009/2207(BUD)),

- the report (A7-0085/2009) by Mr Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the financial framework 2007-2013: the European Economic Recovery Plan, second revision (amendment of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management) (COM(2009)0662 - C7-0305/2009 - 2009/2211(ACI)).

  László Surján, rapporteur. – (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, right at the start of this budget debate, I must say that I would like not so much to cause an argument as to express my thanks. I wish to thank the Council and Commission for the fruitful cooperation which has enabled us finally to reach an agreement and now table, in a sense, a joint proposal before this House. However, I must also extend this expression of thanks to the various groups in the House, because had these groups not been able to cooperate and jointly represent the values which are important to Parliament and Europe’s citizens, it would not have been possible at all to prepare the budget.

I was entrusted a year ago with the task of being the rapporteur for the 2010 budget. We got started immediately on formulating Parliament’s political expectations and directives. These matters were discussed by Parliament in the spring of this year. It was extremely important, looking ahead to the future as well, that a decision was made from which lessons could be drawn, because we preceded the preliminary draft budget by several months. In other words, the EU Commission was aware of Parliament’s opinion and more or less took this into consideration as well when preparing the preliminary budget.

I think that we should also adopt the same timing in subsequent years. What did we want to achieve? We knew that Europe’s economy was in crisis. We felt and still do now that this budget must play an instrumental role in the management of the crisis. We discussed this point with the Council because another obvious solution to the crisis is for us to spend less on Europe. It is not a solution, but it may help the situation. If we spend the money wisely here and place huge emphasis on the good use of resources, the EU budget may then appear not as a burden but as part of the solution to the crisis. In light of this, we wanted to boost competitiveness, using research and development programmes as one means of doing this. We also wanted to lay the foundations for and contribute to a common energy policy.

More than EUR 11 billion are being allocated for these purposes. We wanted to boost the economy, mainly via the cohesion policy. This facility is worth EUR 36 billion. It became clear over the course of the year that there were serious problems in the dairy sector, for instance, which were not a consequence of the general economic crisis. However, Parliament felt it necessary to stand up for the farmers, which resulted in the creation of a EUR 300 million dairy fund which, although not a permanent fund, still represents a EUR 300 million increase. With total funds of some EUR 750 million available, more assistance can be given to the dairy sector. However, Parliament would also now like to stress that this must be accompanied by a complete review of the dairy sector’s problems and its restructuring.

At the same time, we also had to face the fact that we had insufficient room for manoeuvre. Some headings have no margin, which makes a mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework inevitable. There is a huge need for this, but there is also a huge need for Member States to use the funds which they have available in a much more targeted and prudent way in order to encourage growth. Only then will we be able to look Europe’s citizens and taxpayers straight in the eye, as it is their money we are spending in an attempt to make the EU operate more efficiently and successfully.

  Vladimír Maňka, rapporteur. – (SK) Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen, today I do not have to worry about failing to mention something important from my report. Everything that has been drafted over a whole year with colleagues and fellow workers has already been sufficiently discussed in the budget committee, the plenary sessions and the conciliation proceedings or in trialogues. Most importantly, there is sufficient support for everything in this chamber.

When we began work on drafting the budget at the start of the year, I was curious as to how far my advisors, coordinators and political group would allow me to go, since I had been told that I had already gone too far. I saw many unused opportunities and shortcomings that I wanted to sort out. Further opportunities and suggestions for improvement emerged from dozens of discussions with senior representatives of the institutions, departmental directors and other staff.

Staff at the institutions have themselves begun to come forward with information and suggestions. I have the feeling that they hope and believe that we can sort things out together. On the one hand, I was pleased that they showed me such trust and came forward but, on the other, I would be even more pleased if their direct superiors could listen to their opinions and resolve the problems.

I believe, of course, that most of the units carry out high-quality and professional work, but at this point, and in this place, I would like to emphasise the importance of personnel work. On the basis of the documented shortcomings, we managed to implement more systemic measures. However, it is not the rapporteur but the Secretary General of the European Parliament or the senior representative of the European institution involved who can uncover and resolve everything.

I therefore warmly welcome the agreement from the arbitration proceedings with the management of the European Parliament concerning implementation of an organisational audit. For the first time in the history of the European Parliament, there will be a functional audit next year in two of its important units, the INLO Directorate-General and the security service. The aim is to bring about a more efficient use of resources.

In the past, the Court of Auditors was the only institution to agree to external inspections of its work. The outcome has been beneficial. The Court of Auditors has managed to reduce its administrative costs and has achieved higher productivity levels.

I would like to applaud the great professionalism of the Swedish Presidency. In April already, before our mandate actually came into effect, we met with government minister Hans Lindblad and his colleagues. We agreed on the priorities very quickly and together managed to introduce rational elements and points of departure.

We are submitting a joint declaration in the plenary session today on the policy on buildings, which form a significant item in the administrative costs of the institutions. I believe that together, we have managed to initiate a process that will bring cost savings in this area.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is only through joint efforts at a European level that we will manage to meet the greatest challenges of the 21st century: climate change, the risks and cost of raw materials and energy, economic globalisation and threats to our security. If Europe is to overcome these problems, it must have effective and complex instruments at its disposal. The Lisbon Treaty will bring us these instruments. In the initial phase of the treaty coming into effect, the EU will need to have adequate financial resources at its disposal in order to implement new policies.

Even if today’s discussion on the EU budget for 2010 really proves to be the last one this year, the work of both rapporteurs on the 2010 budget will not end but will continue for at least another three months for reasons connected with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. I believe that this work will produce successful results.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, when we debated this year’s budget in December of last year, we were already aware and, as general rapporteur for the 2009 budget, I mentioned in the discussion that the impact of the financial market crisis and its repercussions on the real economy would be felt in all the Member States. This is exactly what has happened.

In April 2009, Parliament and the Council agreed on the funding for the first part of the economic stimulus proposed by the Commission. In order to make the EUR 2.6 billion available, we needed what was referred to as a minor revision of the financial perspective. How would we have been able to find the funds otherwise, given our tight budgetary constraints? The remaining EUR 2.4 billion, which was missing from the total of EUR 5 billion, was to be found this autumn. This is where we are now. Autumn is here and, because Parliament and the Council have come to a sensible arrangement on the 2010 budget, we have a solution. The 2009 budget is also making a significant contribution to this solution.

The 2010 supplementary and amending budget cuts the payment appropriations by more than EUR 3.4 billion. In line with this, the margins of the unused areas under the different headings will be reduced by almost EUR 1.5 billion. All of this applies to the 2009 budget, which consists of EUR 133.8 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 116.1 billion in payment appropriations, and is therefore not exactly on a lavish scale. If we take a look at the budget lines where the Commission found the necessary money, it becomes abundantly clear that the Commission simply does not take the budgetary authority’s resolutions seriously.

I would like to remind Parliament that in 2008, when we adopted the 2009 budget, our priorities were also the competitiveness of the European Union, growth and employment. This is why we allocated more money than proposed by the Commission to budget lines which promoted the social dimension by creating more and better jobs and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. However, it is precisely these budget lines which are being plundered for transfers or amending budgets. Would it be asking too much to call on the Commission to implement the resolutions of Parliament and the Council and to make an effort to ensure that the money reaches its intended destinations where it will have a positive impact? The draft budget submitted to us by the Commission has not been accurately calculated or carefully estimated. In 2009, we had more than 50 transfers and 10 supplementary and amending budgets. It is not possible to talk about budgetary accuracy and clarity in this context and this situation must improve.

Our fellow Members in the specialist committees must pay greater attention to the implementation reports in the course of the financial year and the Commission must finally live up to the good reputation that it still has of being an effective European administrative body. I hope that we will all work towards this.

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the agreement on the 2010 budget, we are talking in terms of EUR 141.4 billion in commitments and EUR 122.9 billion in payments.

First of all, I would like to thank both rapporteurs very warmly for their dedication and I would also like to say at this point that everything that Mrs Haug has just said about the 2009 budget is absolutely right.

If we take a look at these figures, we can see that EUR 11.2 billion remains below the payment ceiling for the multiannual financial framework. This means that, if required, and if there is the political will, the multiannual financial framework leaves us some leeway within the agreed limits.

In recent years, we have, on several occasions, found the solution to necessary changes in the economic and political environment by using reallocation, repeated squeezing of margins and multiple revisions. These instruments are in place, but with what we have done in 2010, they are definitely reaching the limits of their possibilities. This also applies to heading 2, where, after 2010 and given the possible margins, the air will be much thinner and actually should not be available at all.

Now we have integrated the second tranche of funds of EUR 2.4 billion for the so-called economic recovery package into these agreements. It was the right thing to fund the second half, consisting of EUR 2.4 billion, in 2010 and not to postpone part of it until 2011. Of course, it was not an economic recovery package. In fact, it involved correct supplementary political priorities with regard to energy and the provision of broadband in rural areas.

The use of the flexibility instrument has enabled us to find an additional EUR 120 million for energy projects and EUR 75 million for the nuclear power plant in Kozloduy. I would like to point out to the Commission that the way this was handled was very strange and I must also say clearly at this point that this is not the end of the matter. We are expecting a total of EUR 300 million. In that context, we are also expecting you to include the funds which have yet to be found for the development of the nuclear power plant in the mid-term review of the budget and not to finance this by means of more cuts in category 1 B. It is important that this is stated very clearly.

In addition, we have carried out a revision for unused funds from 2009 so that a total of EUR 1.9 billion for energy and an additional EUR 420 million for broadband Internet in category II could be put in place.

At this point, I would like to say that this decision on the total amount was the right one, but, of course, we must also make it clear today that our next task is the budgetary implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. We surely cannot wait until 2014, as then we will be faced with further political priorities, which the European Union has to resolve as part of the globalisation process, and with other new tasks.

The resolution to be submitted on Thursday states clearly that we are calling on the new Commission to publish a report on the implementation of the interinstitutional agreement as soon as possible, as provided for in the agreements. At the same time, and I would like to put particular emphasis on this, the Commission must commit to adapting, reviewing and modifying the current multiannual financial plan for 2007-2013 and to extending it until 2015-2016. In addition, it must set in motion the process for the next multiannual financial framework in order to be able to hold a proper open and public debate about the subsequent financial framework.

This is the job of the new Commission and we will, of course, use both the hearings and the debates during the next quarter to call forcefully on the Commission and the Council to take on board these political priorities. We have an exciting time ahead of us.

  Hans Lindblad, President-in-Office of the Council. – (SV) Mr President, it is an immense honour for me to be here today for your debate. The budgetary procedure for 2010 has been demanding and I am pleased with the agreement that was reached between our institutions during the conciliation meeting in mid-November. This agreement serves two different, but equally important, purposes.

On the one hand, it creates the framework for establishing the 2010 budget with the goal of enabling the European Union to function as smoothly as possible and to implement policy in the way that we want it to be implemented, while guaranteeing a controlled increase in payments, particularly in the times that our Member States are currently facing. On the other hand, it provides, among other things, for the complete financing of the second part of the recovery plan. It is a significant contribution from the European Union to dealing with the current economic and financial situation.

I would also like to express the Council’s satisfaction at the agreement we reached with regard to the common foreign and security policy. I believe that the 2010 budget as a whole represents a balanced compromise between, on the one hand, the requisite budgetary discipline and sound financial management and, on the other, our duty to meet the expectations of our citizens. The budget also represents a compromise between the different political groups, the different Member States and the different interests of the Council and Parliament.

It is not entirely the budget that the Council would have wished for at the start, nor is it entirely the budget that Parliament would have wished for at the start. However, I think that it is a good compromise that balances our goals and priorities in the best way possible. In this connection, I would like to say how proud I am that we, in other words Parliament and the Council as the budgetary authority, with a great deal of help from the Commission, were able to demonstrate the required leadership and sense of responsibility and reach the general agreement that we came to in November. I think this sends out the right signal in connection with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

It would not have been possible without our joint efforts, as everyone involved played their part. Nor would it have been possible without the excellent and constructive atmosphere that, in our opinion, characterised the whole process. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Lamassoure, for his strength, openness and skills as a negotiator. I would also like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Surján and Mr Maňka, for their constructive cooperation and express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Ecofin Council. In particular, I would like to thank Commissioner Šemeta, who fulfilled his role as an honest broker to the full.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank all of the staff in the three institutions who, in a very professional manner, helped to make this possible.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to Parliament before it finalises its second reading with Thursday’s vote on the 2010 budget and on amending budget No 10/2009, which has, in part, contributed to the successful outcome of the annual budgetary procedure.

The negotiations on the 2010 budget have required compromises and – may I dare to say – even sacrifices on all sides to achieve our common goal. This would not have been possible without the constructive and responsible role played by the European Parliament and the Council throughout the negotiations.

I would like to highlight four main points.

Firstly, let me point out some key elements of the conciliation outcome. Since the joint declaration agreed last April, we knew that we had to strike a delicate balance to find a source of financing for the EUR 2.4 billion of the European Economic Recovery Plan still outstanding. That could only be achieved through a compensation mechanism and by using all budgetary means existing in the multiannual financial framework. This was indeed a difficult constraint.

Despite such a difficult constraint, we succeeded in financing completely the Recovery Plan in 2010 and, as the general rapporteur points out, in agreeing on an EU budget that can be a tool to help overcome the economic crisis.

In times of difficulties, I believe the message to citizens is even stronger as we have also been able to respond at the same time to the unforeseen specific needs of milk producers, with the substantial support of Parliament.

Last but not least, the two arms of the Budgetary Authority have acknowledged the need for further assistance in 2010 to Bulgaria’s efforts relating to the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, through the use of the flexibility instrument.

Secondly, as regards the reserves, let me thank Parliament and particularly the general rapporteur, Mr Surján, for taking into account the responses given by the Commission in reaction to Parliament’s first reading, in the so-called ‘letter of executability’.

That has led to an important reduction in the reserves entered in the 2010 draft budget at the time of Parliament’s first reading.

Thirdly, I wish to stress the importance of a smooth transition to the Lisbon Treaty. We are now definitively rooted in the Lisbon Treaty as regards the budgetary procedure. Despite the uncertainties relating to the entry into force of the new treaty, we have been able to secure a smooth transition into the new legal framework.

The period ahead of us will be a challenge for all the institutions, as it will imply a modification of their approach and behaviour, with the need for reinforced dialogue from the very start of the budgetary procedure. The Commission is ready to play its part and to reconcile positions in the new conciliation committee, while respecting the rights of the two arms of the Budgetary Authority, on an equal footing.

Today, we know that efforts are still to be made to put in place all the new legal instruments stemming from the entry into force of the treaty. Nonetheless, by building on the loyal interinstitutional collaboration developed over the last two decades, we have been able to agree on a set of transitional measures that will allow the 2010 budget to work effectively.

Finally, there is amending budget No 10/2009, revision of the financial framework and mobilisation of the flexibility instrument. I take note that Parliament has also agreed to adopt the proposals on the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework and, as already mentioned, on the flexibility instrument and amending budget No 10.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Böge, for endorsing the results of the conciliation. This shows that, to achieve our goal, we have been able to make the best use of the tools provided by the current interinstitutional agreement.

I would like also to express my thanks to the rapporteur for the 2009 budget, Mrs Haug, for her work throughout the year on the implementation of the 2009 budget and her support for amending budget No 10/2009, which is part of the ‘package’ linked with the revision of the Multiannual Financial framework and the financing of the Recovery Plan.

I have also noted your critical remarks towards the Commission about the need to improve its performance in terms of budget implementation.

This year’s amending budget foresees a reduction of EUR 3.2 billion in payment appropriations, which is significantly lower than the EUR 4.9 billion reduction of last year, and points to an improvement in the execution of a budget which, after the proposed reduction, is set at EUR 113 billion for 2009.

However, there is still room for further improvement, and I can assure you that the Commission will continue to do its utmost to make best use of the authorised budget appropriations in 2010.

As to the issue of the simplification of procedures in order to accelerate the implementation of expenses, while this avenue can be explored, I believe a careful balance needs to be struck between real simplification and the need to abide by the rules in order to safeguard the EU’s financial interests.

Once again, I would like to express my thanks to Parliament’s negotiating team and, in particular, to the Chair of the Budget Committee, Mr Lamassoure, and to the rapporteurs for the 2010 budget, Mr Surján and Mr Maňka.

I would also like to thank the Council’s negotiating team and, in particular, the State Secretary, Mr Lindblad, for the constructive work done during the budgetary process.

I hope that today’s debate will be constructive and productive and will lead to a positive vote on the 2010 budget this Thursday.

  José Manuel Fernandes, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this budget represents a response to the economic crisis, with its focus firmly on Europe’s citizens. It is a budget designed to fight unemployment and kick-start the economy. We are therefore prioritising the European Economic Recovery Plan, with financing of EUR 2.4 billion for the coming year. It should also be noted that we are promoting economic recovery when we increase the payment appropriations for the main budget headings.

With regard to unemployment and youth unemployment, I would like to highlight the proposal to review the Erasmus programme. We welcome the granting of EUR 300 million of additional support to the dairy sector but I would stress that a budget heading should be created to establish a permanent fund for this sector.

We also consider it very important that the current multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013 be revised and extended to the 2015-2016 financial years, as we proposed. I must point out that tackling climate change, together with energy security, are EU priorities that do not feature prominently enough in this budget. As for the budgets for Parliament and the other institutions, which have now been tabled for second reading, they are the same as we approved at first reading.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) repeats that rigour and transparency are paramount, and therefore it supports a long-term buildings policy, the implementation of a zero-based budget at the beginning of each parliamentary term, and a cost/benefit analysis of policies such as Parliament’s communications policy. As for the new demands that have arisen with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we support excellence in lawmaking and the demand for adequate resources to achieve this objective.

  Göran Färm, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to say a big thank you to everyone involved. These negotiations have produced results. There are few problems remaining to be solved ahead of the second reading and all of the parties concerned have helped in a constructive way to achieve this.

Even though it took a long time, it was definitely important for us to manage to finance the economic recovery plan without postponing the solutions to a later date. We were pleased that the Council finally accepted our view that the solution required new money and the use of the ‘flexibility instrument’, just as in the case of Kozloduy.

However, I am still surprised at the Council’s and the Swedish Presidency’s position on a few points. For example, I did not think that Parliament’s proposal to allow the new Baltic Sea Strategy to receive new money of its own would be opposed. I am, however, pleased that this point, too, was conceded. The second thing that surprises me – and that is still not fully resolved – is the Progress programme and the new instrument for micro-credits. From Parliament’s point of view, the idea is that the EU should increase investment in innovation in order to tackle social exclusion and unemployment. This would seem to be particularly important given that 2010 is the European year of social integration. It is difficult, then, to understand why the Council and the Swedish Presidency seem to be fighting so hard, to the bitter end, for the financing of the new instrument for micro-credits to be found from cuts in the Progress programme.

In this regard, I have a direct question for the Swedish Presidency.

In view of the high rate of unemployment, an ever increasing degree of social exclusion, huge integration problems and a Progress programme that is functioning exceptionally well, why is the Council persisting in demanding cuts in the Progress programme?

This year’s budget negotiations have resulted in nearly all new priorities having to be financed by changes in the ceilings of the long-term framework and by utilising the flexibility instrument. There are barely any margins left. This framework will apply for another three years yet, but living with these conditions for such a long time will be totally unacceptable. I therefore have another question to put to both the Commission and the Council.

What is your position with regard to Parliament’s demand for a swift and forceful revision of the financial framework for the period 2011-2013?

We believe that the budget negotiations for the three remaining years will be problematic if there is no change, particularly if we consider the fact that we are about to undergo a new round of enlargement and we are facing major new commitments in the area of the climate. In my opinion, the principle should be that new funds should be appropriated for new tasks. This principle usually applies at national level and should also apply to the EU. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Surján for the positive outcome of the negotiations. As others have done, I would like to express my satisfaction at the fact that we, in Parliament, have been able to retain our important priorities in the second reading, too, even if we have had to make some cuts in connection with the agreement that we had with the Council. In addition to the energy investments in the recovery plan, we have also succeeded in allocating extra money to budget headings that are aimed at research and innovation in the field of energy. We have succeeded in safeguarding our pilot projects and preparatory actions, which are new initiatives that are being instigated by Parliament and, on a personal note, I would like to say that we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are pleased that we have succeeded in securing funds for the Baltic Sea Strategy.

As others have done, I would like to highlight two things. Firstly, the lack of flexibility, with regard to which I would like Mr Šemeta, who is, of course, continuing in another post within the Commission, to take note of the fact that we do indeed need this mid-term review of the budget and I would like the Commission – the new Commission – to take this seriously. Secondly, we need to look at things closely and ask ourselves whether there are any new priorities that we need to set within this framework. Are there any programmes that are not working very well? Can the priorities be changed within the existing framework, or do we need to revise the framework itself? We are, of course, in the position of having had resources as a result of the fact that plenty of money was allocated to agriculture to start with within the multiannual financial framework. However, this is no longer available, so now things will get difficult, as Mr Böge pointed out. Now comes the moment of truth. The next few years, when we will need to be flexible, will be very, very difficult if we cannot get the finance ministers to provide more money, and I think this will be more difficult than usual in the current economic climate.

There is another issue that I would also like to raise, and that I would also like you to take into account in your future work, Mr Šemeta. Mr Maňka has done some very fine work with regard to administrative expenditure and we are now seeing very populist politicians saying that we must not give the EU’s staff the pay rises that they are actually entitled to. In my group, we do not advocate the contravention of existing agreements. If people are dissatisfied with the system, they must change the system. It is no good simply to be dissatisfied with the result of the established system. I think there are good grounds for examining the conditions of EU employees and, first and foremost, examining whether the rules that we have in place for staff in the EU system also provide the leadership opportunities we need in order to attain the effective implementation of the EU’s policies. It is several years now since the Kinnock reform. It is five years since enlargement. It is now time to review things once again. This is just something for you to think about, Mr Šemeta.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lindblad, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance also believes that the budget for 2010 which we have negotiated and agreed on is a reasonable compromise. At the beginning of the budget discussions, there were still several open issues and gaps which had not been funded. We have now more or less resolved these problems. Parliament will pay one third and the Council two thirds to fill the gaps, so from our perspective, this is a reasonable compromise and we are in a position to start the new year.

Nevertheless, I would like to begin by looking at the problems relating to the structure and inflexibility of the European budget. We have already heard about the political symptoms. The fact that we had 50 transfers and 10 supplementary and amending budgets in 2009 must make it obvious to everyone that the objectives of this budget, with its tight constraints and rigid structure, are clearly no longer up to date. We must all work together to change this if we want to do things better in future.

Therefore, I will now move on to the questions concerning the forthcoming review. The budget which we are now adopting is a budget for times of crisis. This was a motto coined by Mr Surján. In this context, crisis refers to both the financial crisis and the economic crisis. However, while the conference in Copenhagen is still underway, I would like to add the following point. We are, of course, faced with a crisis which threatens our very existence, in other words, the question of whether we, by which I mean people all over the world, will be able to save our planet and limit global warming to 2 °C. To achieve this, we must all act together with regard to our budgets, our management of resources and the way in which we live and manage our finances. We must move over to renewable energy sources. We must reduce our CO2 emissions dramatically. We must become a low-carbon economy. Of course, we must also spend much more on research into sustainability, new materials and new products. This is the only way to create new jobs.

We must do this in such a way that the European internal market benefits from it and that we open up new opportunities for the European Union on the world market with green technologies and environmentally friendly products. This is our only hope of convincing the citizens of Europe that the European project has a future. This also means that we – the Member States and the European Union – must jointly invest more in education. This is the main resource that we have in the European Union. We must provide support for it in quite a different way so that our young people have opportunities in Europe and also throughout the world.

There is one thing that I would like to add. We must also change our agricultural policy and our agricultural export subsidies dramatically and focus on the Structural Funds. These must also undergo significant change with regard to the restoration of old buildings and sustainable transport policy. What is it that I want to say? The 2010 budget represents a step in the right direction, but it is by no means enough. We in the Verts/ALE Group have coined the term ‘the green new deal’, because we are convinced that only a joint effort by the Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament in the spirit of Europe will generate the political strength and conviction to bring about major changes, to transform our economy and to create new jobs.

Only when we can generate the political strength to make real changes will we be able to modify the European budget and the national budgets in the same way. With regard to Copenhagen, in the next few years, we will hopefully also be able to make funding available to enable the poor countries and, in particular, those in sub-Saharan Africa, to put in place new growth models. It is important that they do not copy our mistakes, but instead that we all cooperate – the industrial nations, the emerging economies and the developing countries – on moving towards a new way of living together and a new type of economy. This is the only way in which we can be successful throughout Europe and on a global scale.

  Lajos Bokros, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the EU budget has been suffering from a number of structural problems. It is too big and it keeps growing. There are built-in automatic increases for many items, especially for the operating costs of bureaucracy without any apparent improvement in output performance.

All budgets are supposed to be mirror images of some economic policy considerations. The EU budget is an exception. It does not reflect any consistent set of common values. Instead, it tries to justify an EU-wide policy of neo-Keynesian demand management by spending more on a great majority of items without any underlying structural reforms.

Take the example of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Half a billion euros is supposed to be spent on mitigating the negative impact of globalisation. Instead, Member States are having a hard time putting together rational proposals for a couple of tens of millions. On the one hand, it is a tremendous waste of scarce resources; on the other hand, it is a prime example of distorting the rules of creative destruction in capitalism.

The Committee on Budgets was unhappy to see a new item – the cost of decommissioning the Kozloduy nuclear power plant – coming up at the last minute. It was a sign of bad planning. Nevertheless, not only the decommissioning of Kozloduy, but even support for the construction of a new power plant, would be more important than spending in the milk fund with this untimely and inefficient increase.

As if it were part of a beneficial demand boost, the EU bureaucracy gets undeserved and unnecessary wage increases. When the EU is struggling with a once in a lifetime deep recession, it is just not appropriate to shield ourselves and our own administration from the negative consequences. Would it not be more appropriate to accept even a nominal wage decline and hence boost employment in the name of European solidarity?

It is also a worrying sign of inadequate planning that the disparity between commitment and payment appropriations is growing in the case of a large number of items. Since we cannot incur a deficit, we push more and more commitments to the future. It is tantamount to mortgaging the future of the EU and undermining prospective discretionary spending beyond repair.

Many MEPs are concentrating on pet projects and pork-barrel spending. The budget should not be used as a backward-looking tool preserving the status quo, but as a forward-looking instrument to sharpen the institutional regulatory framework of the EU which, in turn, should aim at strengthening the single market. Less protection for vested interests is the key for the EU to avoid sinking into irrelevance on the world stage.

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees with this budget. The question I put to you, quite frankly, is this: if there were no crisis, would this budget be very different from what it is? We all know it would not. That is the crucial issue. That, in fact, is why the report on which we are going to vote on Thursday recognises that the Council is not prepared to increase the funds available to tackle the crisis, is reducing the appropriations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds precisely when the crisis is happening and is severe, and, I repeat, does not give climate change the prominence it deserves.

The report itself adds further criticisms, like those made by Mrs Haug. For example, there is an enormous disparity between the level of spending authorised and the payments made; spending remains below the planned limits; and we basically do not even know whether what is spent is spent well. In view of such a damning assessment, how can this House approve such a budget? There is only one explanation: Parliament is the weak link in the budgetary authority. Even children know that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is the Member States who pay.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are also talking about the future, because within a year, Europeans will be confronting the greatest budgetary adjustment programme in living memory in each of our Member States. It is quite simple for the ordinary citizen: when one crisis ends, another begins, this time ostensibly to restructure public accounts. This policy is irresponsible and, in the meantime, it keeps the zero deficit in the European budget. The difficulties cannot continue to be borne by the same people as ever: the unemployed, casual workers and pensioners, through cuts in their pensions.

The Union will only stop being part of the problem when it starts sending the bills to the right addresses. Without closing offshore tax havens, without taxing financial transactions and without issuing bonds, we will never be able to attack the crisis with the only response that can really put an end to it: social justice. You can therefore count on the left for a robust, radical and redistributive revision of the financial perspective until 2016, but do not count on the left to tart up a mediocre budget that neither addresses the social crisis nor shows the ambition needed to fight climate change.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the proposal for the second reading of the 2010 budget still represents a 6% increase in respect of 2009. That proposal appears to come from another planet – a planet where there is no financial crisis. Following the conciliation meeting in November, Parliament still deplores the Council’s refusal to increase the financing of programmes under the grand heading of ‘Competitiveness for Growth and Employment’. The Council must know all too well how such funds are used.

Parliament also criticises the Council over the reduction in payments, alleging that this does not contribute to reducing the disparity between commitments and payments. The Council must know all too well that this disparity is due to the lack of intelligence and of consultation that characterises the budgeting process. The Court of Auditors recently brought to our attention that the amount of unpaid commitments presently stands at EUR 155 billion – or 126% of the current annual budget. Does this say something to you?

Parliament welcomes the increase in administrative expenditure – an increase which also includes Members’ salaries. It is obscene for us to vote for an increase in our own salaries, all of which are to be paid by taxpayers who are losing their jobs and social securities owing to the reduction in national budgets. In the current circumstances, we should renounce any increases. The European Parliament rejects the budgetary cuts introduced by the Council in the structural and cohesion funds. Colleagues, are you aware that these are the areas where the Court of Auditors has found the highest levels of errors? Does the European Parliament think we should be injecting more money into programmes where we are certain abuses are taking place?

In addition, the public should know that this budget does not cover the costs of implementing the Lisbon Treaty, which will be added through amending budgets – i.e. through the back door. One might ask how much this will amount to. ‘Who cares?’ comes the answer, ‘It is taxpayers’ money’. As I advised back in October, British citizens will see their contribution to the European Union raised from GBP 45 million a day to GBP 50 million a day, while the British Government will be reducing public services so as to allow a cut of GBP 12 billion in the national budget. That is almost the same amount that the United Kingdom contributes to the European Union. There is no question that this budget is a burden and not a way out of the crisis.

Colleagues, listen to your conscience and vote against this budget.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, regardless of whether we live in urban areas or in the countryside, we all form part of an information and knowledge society. Those people, businesses and organisations which are able to use modern information technologies most effectively have a significant competitive advantage. However, this also requires the necessary funding to be made available for developing and extending the technological infrastructure in the form of broadband Internet in rural areas in particular. This is where the second part of the European Economic Recovery Programme comes in and logically, this also supports the Lisbon strategy.

Energy security, both now and in future, is an important issue at a European level. Bulgaria has decided to close the Kozloduy nuclear power plant immediately. This will cost hundreds of millions of euros, but the radioactive waste will remain a permanent risk factor which will endanger the health and safety of future generations. I am interested in the real, external costs of using nuclear power and how they should be calculated.

It is high time for us not only to research and promote alternative renewable energy technologies, but also to implement them more widely. The joint declaration on building policy emphasises the importance of a medium- to long-term approach to building. For me, three things are important in this area. Firstly, energy-efficient buildings can result in a reduction of up to one third in CO2 emissions. Secondly, the use of building materials which are harmful to health, such as asbestos, must be avoided at all costs. Thirdly, I am, as always, in favour of policy being transparent and manageable, and this applies also to building design and planning.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I, in turn, would like to express my satisfaction with the agreement reached in conciliation. It required the intelligence of the Swedish Presidency, the effective contribution of the Commission, the competence of our rapporteurs and the sense of compromise of the political groups’ representatives. May we thank them all.

In my view, however, the big news of the day is not this agreement. When it comes to the future of the European budget, the week’s major event is not taking place here in Strasbourg, but in Copenhagen. There, our great national leaders have taken two days to agree to find EUR 2 400 000 000 to finance so-called EU aid for disadvantaged countries affected by climate change, and this is just for 2010. We MEPs would have been considered irresponsible had we failed to make EUR 81 million in EU budget cuts, and here we see EUR 2 400 000 000 being plucked out of thin air.

I welcome this outcome, but no democrat can accept a procedure that is so obscure, so devoid of all democratic control – all the parliaments, the European Parliament and the national parliaments, are going to be presented with a fait accompli – and which has such unfair consequences for certain Member States, since some will pay two or three times as much as other, equally wealthy, States.

Nevertheless, let us welcome this first: our Heads of State or Government are recognising that common EU policies can no longer make do with a budget that is limited to 1% of gross domestic product. They are reinventing the European budget, but in a kind of parallel form. I am counting on the new European Commission and on the Spanish Presidency to help us lay the foundations of the new budgetary Europe, which no one now disputes is necessary.

  Francesca Balzani (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we reach the end of a budgetary procedure and it is possible to assess the work carried out as a whole, I think that we need to ask a very frank, straightforward question: is this a useful budget?

This budget is a transitional budget, one marking a shift towards the Europe of Lisbon, a shift within the major economic and financial crisis which has affected the entire world. This budget is therefore awkward in two respects. It needs to respond to the crisis, but reflect awareness that during a crisis, the resources available are scanty. It needs to make a positive contribution to economic recovery, but also cut, reduce and contain spending where possible.

This budget will make EUR 141 billion available for next year. That is not much more than was available in 2009, but huge efforts have been made, a great deal of work has been done on the priorities and on channelling the available resources to the current priorities. The focus is on two budget lines: competitiveness and the environment. Competitiveness, because it contains social policies, employment policies and the delicate challenge represented by the Structural Funds, which still constitute the cornerstone of redistributive policies within Europe. This budget line will be allocated about EUR 65 billion for next year.

The environment too, which encompasses agricultural policy, will be allocated approximately EUR 60 billion. This 2010 budget, however, relates, above all, to the economic recovery plan. This plan attracted strong support last year, but it was not fully financed in 2009. Today, thanks to significant efforts to redeploy resources, EUR 2.5 billion can at last be invested in energy infrastructure and broadband.

Substantial efforts have also been made, however, to shape this budget in accordance with the Lisbon strategy, to provide even more resources than those provided by the Commission in the draft budget for the Erasmus programme, for lifelong learning, because there is a question which we must ask ourselves honestly, namely, whether this is a useful budget, but, first and foremost we have a fundamental yardstick: the usefulness of the budget must be tailored to Europe’s citizens.

It must be a useful budget for every constituent citizen of Europe, and it is on the basis of this usefulness, tailored to the people, that I believe we must initiate and continue a sensitive debate on the review of the margins of availability and the resources that we wish to give to Europe for its policies.

  Ivars Godmanis (ALDE). – (LV) Mr President, I would like to speak about Europe’s Structural Funds. These account for approximately 35.5% of Europe’s total budget. Specifically, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Cohesion Fund from 2007 to 2013 total EUR 308 billion. In 2010, they account for EUR 39 billion in commitments, and approximately EUR 31 billion in payments. What risks and problems can be seen? The most recent information is as at 1 October 2009: we are at the end of the second year, linear implementation might be 28.5%, the payments rate is 24.35%, and here are the first problems. 55% of Member States are under this average. The indicator in the worst state is 40% less than the average, and the difference between the best and the worst states in the uptake of funds is 370%, i.e. a factor of 3.7. If we look at the individual funds, then in the reconstruction and regional development fund, 22% of the Member States are below the average, with the worst figure being 50% below the average, and a difference of 500% between best and worst. There are countries where the uptake of resources is five times worse than those that have the best uptakes! In the European Social Fund, 22% of countries are below the average figure, with the worst being 43% below the average, and differences of a factor of 3.7. For the European Cohesion Fund, the worst country is 68% below the average and the difference between the best and the worst is 300%. Where is the risk? If we look at this in comparison with the 2000-2006 period, when there was no crisis, then we can see that the states that are now lagging behind in the uptake of resources are among those countries that did not take up funds previously. Specifically, we have unpaid money of EUR 16 billion for the old fund for the 2000-2006 period. In the reconstruction and development fund, EUR 2.4 billion overall has been lost. That means that 20% of the Member States have not taken up this money and will not now receive it. In the European Social Fund, this figure is EUR 1.9 billion, since 16% of the Member States have not fully implemented the amounts. Altogether, that means that EUR 4.3 billion was planned for...

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, we are all aware of the remaining EUR 2.4 billion for the European Economic Recovery Plan that has been committed in the 2010 budget, and I welcome the attempt to get Europe through this difficult economic climate in this regard. I feel the focus of this plan should be on innovation and employment and essentially limiting job losses. I hope that this will be money well spent and not wasted. These resources must be properly allocated and used in an effective and efficient way by Member States.

I am glad that the promised EUR 420 million for broadband in rural areas has been secured. This will be a very important initiative in many rural areas and, if properly implemented, should encourage the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in those areas.

I welcome the fact that the milk fund has been established. I think this was very much needed and it is a good example of this Parliament’s achievement in the formation of the budget, with funds being used, let us put it this way, that were not being used in other areas.

I want to speak a little bit on what I would like to see in the budget for the future. I want to see that the people it has helped are the victims of violence, the victims of terrorism, because I think we can do more in this area. These are people who have not been helped. They are not getting enough nor receiving enough help from their national governments. Where I come from, there are many areas whereby they are being helped at the moment through existing funds, but there are other areas where we could do more. After 2014, there will be no funds available to them and I appeal to this House to begin now to look at how we can actually help the victims of the violence of terrorism. I hope the incoming Spanish Presidency will be able to help me in this area.

Can I take this opportunity to briefly express my concerns about the administration of EUR 60 million of funds in Northern Ireland. I hope the Commissioner for budgets here will take on board this particular point. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the responsibility of administering the funds. They are about 18 months behind in distribution of these funds. I would ask them if they are going to administer these funds that they do it efficiently, that they do it effectively and that they do it wisely at a time when people need to go to work.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, in our Union access to a reliable and low-carbon electricity supply should be recognised as a fundamental right for every European citizen. To this end, our Union must conduct a genuine European public energy policy, and not finance, by way of a budgetary procedure, the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria.

Building a Europe of energy for all means recognising that energy is a public right of mankind, not a commodity. It means repealing all the directives on deregulation and liberalisation of competition in the energy sector, guaranteeing the public regulation and ownership of the entire nuclear sector, including on issues relating to decommissioning and subcontracting. It means creating a European energy agency that would coordinate and pool all the Member States’ research and security efforts in the energy sector and guarantee equal access to energy for all EU citizens, and setting up an economic interest group bringing together all European businesses, public and private alike, that operate in the energy sector.

This EIG would enable major projects – projects relating to distribution networks, to low-carbon energy production, to research and security – to be undertaken within a context of cooperation. Therefore, Europeans’ money would be put to good use; it would promote development, and not just increase the return on capital invested.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, the 2010 budget is being adopted against the background of the economic crisis, and additional care must be taken when budgeting EU funds. In this context, the Council has forced the European Parliament to set priorities. The ailing economy and investment in sustainability have been placed high on the agenda, and rightly so. In his report, Mr Surján consistently gives expression to the priorities of economic growth and employment.

These priorities are reflected in the shifts between the various headings of the Multiannual Financial Framework, and can also be seen in the financing of the European Economic Recovery Plan, which rightly puts a heavy emphasis on new technology. Particularly relevant here is support for projects involving sustainable energy sources and the improvement of energy-network links with third countries. To this end, we are to help bring about the badly needed diversification of energy suppliers. This is a successful set of priorities.

I should like to make one observation in this connection, however. We should have been rather stricter. If the European Union wants its work to be credible, it should be confining itself to its core tasks rather than inflating its own role in combating the crisis. Matters not falling within the European domain include education, culture and citizenship. Yet the request for more disposable funds, which recurs every year, is at odds with this. It should not be necessary to mobilise the flexibility instrument to make up for the shortfall in funds.

A stronger set of priorities, on the other hand, would make us a constructive partner for the Council, particularly at a time of economic crisis, when Member States are experiencing shortfalls and are having to make drastic cutbacks. In short, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Surján, for taking this step in the right direction and putting the emphasis on economic recovery, yet without losing sight of the social aspects of EU policy such as care for children in homes, particularly in Bulgaria.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, with one minute to speak about a budget of EUR 141 billion, one must of course confine oneself to the essentials, namely that, at all levels – Community, national, regional and even lower – so-called ‘European’ money is really spent less efficiently and less carefully than money from closer to taxpayers. To give an example, the European Court of Auditors itself reported that, until recently, some 11% of the huge Cohesion Fund was disbursed completely erroneously. For 2010, the figure concerned would be some EUR 4 billion; no negligible amount. This is objectionable and unacceptable. Now we are allocating an additional EUR 2.4 billion in the 2010 budget for the economic recovery plan. I do not oppose this, but I continue to wonder whether the European level is really appropriate, and whether Europe would perhaps do better to confine itself to the efficient coordination of tangible, determined action at national level.

Finally, I continue to oppose the colossal waste that is commonplace in all the European institutions.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I would, of course, like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Lindblad, for the Council, and particularly the Commissioner, Mr Šemeta, who has only been responsible for the budget for a few months. I sincerely believe that he has done an excellent job and he has succeeded in finding a significant consensus solution for the conciliation in November. For this, I would particularly like to congratulate the Commissioner.

It is the last year that we will be drawing up budgets in this way. I think the system has reached the end of its life and I think the political groups need to think very seriously over the coming months about how we are going to arrive at a new budget procedure that is in line with the realities of Lisbon.

I will give you an example. This year we have had discussions in the area of agriculture, which have been virtual discussions, but which have had a real result. Next year, the discussions will be real from the start in that we have the ordinary legislative procedure, and therefore it will be an exercise in responsibility for all MEPs.

Finally, it will be a real budget and, as Mr Lamassoure said a moment ago, it will be a budget in which it will not be possible for the Council to brilliantly decide on new budget lines in a few summits outside of Parliament, after which the European Commission and the European Parliament will have to do some financial magic tricks in order to be able to introduce these new and brilliant promises made by the Council into the budget. That has come to an end, and what we hope from 1 January of next year is that everyone in the institutions will exercise their responsibilities in order to genuinely draw up budgets that reflect the political reality and the economic and financial situation of Europe.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I believe we should be pleased with the result of the negotiations between Parliament and the Council for the final adoption of the Union’s budget for 2010.

We should also be pleased because we have managed to maintain the funding for the dairy sector that we adopted in Parliament at first reading, which could help our farmers to ride out this crisis period. I hope that we will manage to find a permanent solution and that they will soon be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

We can also be pleased that an agreement has been reached to fund a microfinance mechanism for the European Union with fresh money. We can also be pleased because of something that seems obvious but is scarcely talked about: agricultural expenditure and expenditure on cohesion, which are the two most important European Union policies, have not been questioned. The truth is that today we can consider this to be a success.

We can be especially pleased because we have found EUR 2.4 billion of fresh money to fund the second part of the European Economic Recovery Plan.

Hidden underneath all this celebration, however, is a much less pleasant reality. There is no money to fund the policies that we have all allocated to the Union, or rather there is money, but there appears to be an unshakeable dogma in the Council: not a single euro more than what was approved in 2006 for the current financial framework. President-in-Office of the Council, this is not budgetary austerity, it is economic and political short-sightedness.

Just over a year ago now, the European Commission proposed an Economic Recovery Plan for the European Union. It was a relatively modest plan compared with what there was in the Member States, but it was focused on boosting the future sectors of our economies.

The Council was opposed at first because it was proposed that the financial framework be increased by EUR 5 billion. Following long negotiations and discussions, you accepted the plan, but we have had to do it in two years. You have forced the European Commission to do some clever creative accounting so that this money can be used without it hardly being noticed in the financial framework.

All we can talk about is transparency and simplification, but the Commission had to draw us a wonderful diagram in order for those of us who work on the budget to be able to understand its proposal. I challenge you, President-in-Office of the Council, to explain this agreement to a citizen who is still interested in what we do in the European Parliament.

This means that we are not creating the Europe that is close to the citizens that we all want. I am not saying this to be critical, but because until the Council changes its policy, European integration will be weak.

We have just signed a treaty, but we need a new spirit. Either we stop thinking that every euro spent in Europe is a waste or we join the eurosceptics.

On Thursday, we are going to adopt a resolution asking for a review of the financial framework in order to serve the new needs of the Union. I completely agree with this point of view, but I warn you that a review of the financial framework must be an increase. The new needs cannot be funded by cutting back on the current priorities. To make myself clearer – and I will finish now – we are not going to accept cuts in the cohesion policies or in the agricultural policy.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, we are discussing the last budget under the Treaty of Nice. Next year, things will be very different: for the first time, Parliament will be able to get its teeth into agricultural policy and fisheries expenditure, for example. This part of the budget will finally come within the reach of Parliament, and I am looking forward to that, I can tell you. Anyway, we are now talking about the 2010 budget. I should like to make a couple of brief remarks.

The additional money for energy and research and also for decommissioning the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria are positive aspects, but what I take issue with are the broad lines of the EU budget. Will the European contributions really make our economy fit for the future? The answer is ‘no’. Let us not fool ourselves. Let us use the forthcoming review of the financial perspective to set our sights on the future. I call on the Council and the Commission to really take this review seriously, then, rather than regarding it as a bit of a joke. The current budget is still investing too much in yesterday’s economy: there is too much of the old support for agriculture and the regions and far too little investment in what is really important, namely sustainability and innovation. We are at a turning point. Do we want to turn Europe into an open-air museum where Americans, Chinese and Indians can experience fine culture and good food, or do we want to make it into a dynamic, progressive region, one that the rest of the world regards with envy? In other words, do we choose stagnation or progress? My answer goes without saying.

Let us also take a close look at the financing of the European Union. We are going to have to move over to a system of own resources no matter what. In response to a request by our group, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Commission will be presenting a proposal on this. I am looking forward to this. The current system gives the Union too little elbow room and has the perverse effect of making Member States more interested in how much they can get back than in whether the European contribution is really effective. I also take the view that we need to do much more to halt the decline in world biodiversity.

  Takis Hatzigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, we do not agree with the political approach of this budget, because it increases military spending and because it slowly but surely merges its policy with NATO policy. Essentially, this permanently excludes the potential for an independent EU foreign policy. The five-year financial framework cuts agricultural spending and fails to support the household economy, cohesion and the fight to maintain the climate.

We want a European Union which passes legislation to protect consumers from speculation and citizens from the indiscriminate eye of authority. We have all been turned into prima facie suspects.

I want to make one thing clear: we are against the budget, but our arguments are completely contrary to those we heard earlier from the non-attached members from the United Kingdom. We believe in linking national interests and we do not accept that it is right for each nation to retreat into its shell. That just leads to hostility and ultimately to conflict.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – (HU) The European Commission is planning to divert considerable resources to two areas in the modification of the 2009 budget. One area is competitiveness, which includes the research and development framework programmes, even though this was regarded as a priority until now. If we blame the candidates in this sector, this makes reducing red tape an even more emphatic requirement. The other area is the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, which has suffered a EUR 1.6 billion reduction. This fund is intended to be used for rural areas to retain or restore their population. Hungary is hit particularly hard by this problem. Hungarian agriculture is dominated by large holdings. They are the ones which receive the area payments, while their use of labour is fairly small. The rapporteur had some harsh words for the modification. He said that the Commission was raiding the main areas. My question is the following: why does he still support the approval of this modification?

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lindblad, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pick up on the call made by Mr Garriga for realistic budgets. What are the costs of the Treaty of Lisbon? This has become a very urgent problem. Why can we not be more realistic with regard to the Structural Funds? They have become our sacred cow. We already have outstanding appropriations from a period of two and half years which have not been discharged and we are piling up at least a further EUR 30 billion on top of these appropriations.

We have a problem in the Balkans, where countries are preparing for accession to the European Union. As a result of negative resolutions from the socialists and liberals, we have little interest in finding out what is really happening in the Balkans. How are the different EU institutions in Kosovo, for example, of which there are now large numbers, working together? These were all important amendments which this House has rejected and which I believe we should all follow up on, because we have a job to do there.

Where is the progress in the progress reports? We have voted in favour of the report of the Court of Auditors in which we called for a traffic light system, but the Committee on Budgets later refused to lend its authority to this system with corresponding reserves. All of these things are contradictions and, in my opinion, the House is not yet prepared to be realistic or to lend its authority to its own resolutions.

I would like to call for a realistic approach to Kozloduy. The special report from the Commission on the use of EU funds in Bulgaria until this summer did not mention Kozloduy, although it has received money from PHARE. Up to the end of 2009, at least EUR 602 million was spent on Kozloduy. I have tried to find out what happened to the money and I have discovered that nothing has yet been closed down. Plans have simply been made for managing the decommissioning process. Kozloduy has demonstrated to me how little the Commission knows about what is happening with our money. It also demonstrated that the numerous subsidiary budgets which have come into existence make it more difficult to control the situation and also result in the Commission losing its overview. Therefore, we should at least stop pressing for the subsidiary budgets, because the result is that we ourselves no longer have any idea what is happening.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during the current financial and economic crisis, particular attention must be focused on growth, competitiveness, jobs and a more efficient and simpler implementation of the Cohesion and Structural Funds. Other priority objectives, apart from these, include increasing the security of the energy supply and its transportation, internal security, demographic challenges and the issue of climate change.

This is precisely why we welcome the major parliamentary successes achieved in the draft budget tabled before us, connected with the economic recovery plan and support for energy investments. We also welcome the minor successes, such as the support granted to dairy producers or the microfinance facility for SMEs, achieved after lengthy debate. I would also like to mention the intelligent energy projects and support for lifelong learning. We must emphasise that it is a real result that we have managed to raise the EUR 2.4 billion for economic recovery. I am also delighted that we have managed to guarantee confirmation of the Galileo budget.

Almost EUR 2 billion has been allocated to energy projects, which is perhaps the most significant result that the European Parliament can credit itself with. We have also managed to provide support for the safe closure of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria, and I would particularly like to emphasise the safe aspect in this matter. We have managed to get support for dairy producers included in the budget at the European Parliament’s request. We must also stress that Parliament has made responsible decisions and acknowledge that we have allocated the budget margins sensibly.

However, our margins are dwindling. Parliament can be proud of the 2010 budget. I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs for this, Mr Surján and Mr Maňka. Our task for the future is to ensure that the Treaty of Lisbon not only strengthens Parliament’s remit, but also that the EU budget, thanks to its reform, will also make life easier for Europe’s entrepreneurs and citizens. In order to achieve this, I wish us great strength and perseverance in the coming years. Thank you for your attention.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my turn to pay tribute to the imagination shown and the efforts made by our institutions in order to release – via some budgetary techniques, as Mr Lamassoure mentioned, by some miracle – the very substantial sums of money that correspond to the second phase of the economic recovery plan, that is, EUR 2 400 000 000. I should also like to say how pleased I am with the EUR 300 million that we have managed to find in order to respond, in the short term, to the very serious crisis affecting farmers today. I hope that this sum of money and these difficulties will mean that we take a pragmatic approach with regard to their future. We should also pay tribute to the pilot projects and the preparatory actions which, as Mrs Jensen stressed, breathe new life into our budget.

Beyond these remarks, which have been made very effectively, I should like to stress two points. I should like, firstly, to ask a question and, secondly, to adopt a political position. The question is this: I should like an official explanation as to how our Union is going to stand with regard to cohesion policy and the Structural Funds, elements which seem to have been caught up in the eye of the storm affecting certain EU partners. I believe that this is evidence of what is happening in Europe.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has come out well in these negotiations. I would like to thank all my fellow Members who took part in the negotiations and who clearly stated their opinion to the Commission and the Council.

Now it is important for us to do full justice to all the issues relating to the Treaty of Lisbon, including the entire budget area. We have shown that Parliament must be taken seriously and that it makes sense to take Parliament seriously. These budget negotiations have made that very clear. Many of my fellow Members have already mentioned the fact that we have achieved our most important objectives.

As rapporteur for the agriculture budget in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I can say that although our budget – the agricultural part – has been squeezed very tightly, we are still within our margins. We have pulled in our horns. We have achieved this ourselves in our committee and I attach great importance to this. It is a success for Parliament to secure EUR 300 million for the milk fund in the face of all the arguments against this made by the Commission over the years and by the Council, especially given the difficult situation which dairy farmers find themselves in.

Other sectors of agricultural production are also having problems at the moment. This affects not only agriculture and farmers but also many jobs in downstream areas. Given the current situation, this creates even more difficulties. We need a permanent budget line for the milk fund and we aim to achieve this in future. We have allocated more money to the 2010 budget than we did in 2009. That is the result of the current situation and we are aware of this. We will act accordingly and do everything in our power to ensure that our agriculture policy is sustainable and innovative.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, in essence, the vote on the budget is a profoundly political act, and we must learn a political lesson – a major, fundamental political lesson – from the budget being proposed to us.

The European Union budget, and particularly this one, reflects the lack of a European political project even though, against a backdrop of crisis and at the start of our new mandates, European citizens need it more than ever. This budget marks the absence of a global vision for Europe.

The Council and the Commission have chosen to let the Member States develop their own, often rival, recovery plans, and have abandoned efforts to coordinate an economic, social and environmental recovery at EU level. There has been no leverage attempt, no encouraging of European solidarity.

The Council and the Commission are easing their consciences by applying a recovery plan bit by bit. Indeed, the 2010 budget provides funding for the second part of the recovery plan totalling EUR 5 billion, a derisory amount. Admittedly, it will allocate EUR 300 million to the milk fund, but this is insufficient when we know that in France, for example, the net income of farmers fell by 34% in 2009.

The 2010 budget earmarks EUR 25 million for microfinance and, against the advice of the Council, allows the draft budget relating to Cohesion Fund interventions to be kept.

It is therefore somewhat through the lack of an alternative and by default that we shall vote for this budget, because Europe – the citizens – cannot do without its interventions, however inadequate. Nevertheless, together, we must question – and this is urgent – the methods of financing the ambitious policies with which Europe must equip itself and of extracting the EU budget from its current restricted and unsuitable framework.

Above and beyond major political declarations, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, must tell us how he intends to finance the future European policies about which he talks so much, particularly those relating to the new strategy on growth and to climate change. From now on they will be unable to make do with such a feeble budget as the one we are being offered.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – (GA) Mr President, I completely support the European Parliament's decision to prioritise funding for the European Economic Recovery Plan. A recovery plan of this kind is necessary to increase economic demand and to re-establish the competitive capability of the region.

As a result of the economic crisis, unemployment levels are rising in Europe and this is seriously affecting the European economy. Unfortunately, young people who are looking for jobs for the first time in their lives are the worst affected. It is essential that measures be taken to protect those who are under the greatest disadvantage.

We must establish retraining plans so that those who lose their jobs today can quickly find another job in the future.

The plan is designed to work with the European Social Fund and with the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

Since 1973, when Ireland agreed to take part in the European Economic Community, the European Union has repeatedly taken a central role – when necessary – in tackling the country’s unemployment problem by means of the European Social Fund.

The Union has again taken on this positive role in Ireland and the recovery plan is vitally important in relation to this.

  President. – Thank you Mr Gallagher. As the Vice-President responsible for multilingualism, I would like to say how glad we are to hear you speaking Gaelic in Parliament.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, I should like to make four points.

Firstly let me emphasise the need to use our 2010 budget and, in particular, the European cohesion policy financial instruments, with the utmost expediency in order to stimulate economic activity in all of the Union’s regions and cities and create the leverage necessary to revitalise Member States’ economies. Cohesion policy is providing a strong and necessary bridge between recovery from the crisis and long-term structural transformation of the European economy.

Secondly, it is for this reason that the Committee for Regional Development has encouraged the Commission and Member States not only to use the financial resources available to invest in what are Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 priorities – climate change, knowledge and innovation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, broadband, sustainable urban transport and renewal of skills – but also to promote the leverage function of the cohesion policy; which is to efficiently use all the financial engineering tools which the cohesion policy has created in collaboration with the European Investment Bank in order to assist small and medium-sized companies not only to survive this difficult period but first of all to go the distance, to adapt to the changing face of the global economy, which is transforming itself, and to rise up to the challenge – and the opportunity – of climate change.

Thirdly, let me inform Members that all payment applications for the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund from the 2009 budget, totalling EUR 25.5 billion, have been fully used, thus contributing to recovery, structural change, growth, employment and to climate-change energy efficiency.

Lastly, in this context, I regret the cuts in support for candidate countries, the IPA regional development and human resources instrument, which addresses areas such as unemployment, social exclusion and education investment – a cut of EUR 7 million, which is 0.5% of the available operational credits that go to administration – without regard to the need of ensuring good local administration and without regard to the basic principles of good financial management which is so dear to this House.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs for the results they achieved in negotiating the 2010 budget. Europe’s citizens need now more than ever a substantial European budget to tackle the economic crisis and their problems.

Member States’ budgets are currently experiencing major difficulties in tackling the economic crisis, especially when many of the problems they are contending with extend beyond a national scope. These are global difficulties and require coordinated responses at the highest level. For this reason, I am delighted that we can present in this House today a budget which will finance entirely the second phase of the European Economic Recovery Plan, to the tune of EUR 1 980 million. We are likely to see the first shoots of economic recovery in 2010, however, national budgets will be hit extremely hard by the efforts that were made during the last year. In addition, unemployment is set to reach a record high in Member States.

The future Commission will have a huge responsibility in helping Member States and the European Union’s citizens overcome these hardships. However, I wish to draw Member States’ attention to their responsibility in accessing European funds. It is pointless us making all the effort to negotiate to obtain money for the cohesion policies if these funds are not used. I join my fellow Members in calling for the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework to be reviewed as urgently as possible, failing which we will not manage to return here with a budget for 2011.

I would like to emphasise one further last point. The 2010 budget will still introduce an innovative feature, which may seem of minor importance to many, but this is not the case. I am referring here to the launch of the preparations for creating a common European framework for the Black Sea. This action represents recognition of the Black Sea as an important European issue and lessens the discrepancy between how the Black Sea and Baltic Sea are treated as part of the European Union’s policies.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs and our Chair of the Committee on Budgets, my friend, Mr Lamassoure.

I have five observations to make. The first concerns research, in particular, the sixth and seventh framework programmes. For the sake of legal certainty, we in the Committee on Budgetary Control repeat that we want the European Commission to refrain from recalculating, via new interpretations of the eligibility criteria, financial statements for completed projects that it has already approved and paid for. We repeat our request for the Commission not to deviate from international accounting and auditing standards.

The second point is the inclusion of EU staff pensions in the budget. We propose that the claims against Member States in respect of staff pensions – EUR 37 billion as at 31 December 2008, an increase of EUR 4 billion since 2007 – be entered in the accounts as an asset, and we propose a study on the creation of an EU pension fund.

The third point is that the Anti-Fraud Office should be supported. It should be strengthened so that it can do its job better, particularly where interventions outside the EU are concerned.

The fourth point is that we would like the Commission to provide the resources to enable us to hold an interinstitutional conference with the aim of obtaining a positive statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors. This conference would bring together the national courts of auditors, the European Court of Auditors, the national parliaments and the administrations concerned.

The final point is that the European Union does not invest enough, and this is a personal proposal: is it not time that we included a section on investments in our budget and that, in association with the European Investment Bank – of which I propose that, henceforth, since we have legal personality, the European Union becomes a partner, alongside the Member States – we had an investment plan, notably on trans-European networks? This covers energy, motorways, high-speed rail links, waterways, universities, education, broadband, health, space, and so on.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, this is my first budget in this Parliament, and I have been very impressed by the consensus on what Parliament’s priorities are and by the consensus that we should protect those priorities. I wish to thank everybody involved in this process.

We have achieved a lot. We have not achieved everything, but I am pleased we have achieved so much. In particular, I am pleased with the declarations on the structural funds and cohesion policy. I hope those declarations are remembered when we decide on policy post-2013. However, difficult decisions remain for Parliament, such as that on funding for the Microfinance Facility – I hope Members will still regard that as a priority – on ensuring that we find the funding for Kozloduy in the next three years, and on finding funding for new priorities: priorities coming out of Copenhagen, priorities coming out of the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty and priorities coming out of the new 2020 strategy we will be discussing next year.

We have to solve all these problems in the knowledge that margins are tight and that the Council will be reluctant to provide extra funding. That is why a fundamental review of the budget in the future is absolutely essential. We should make sure that the budget in the future meets our priorities.

We also need to look at a new budget line for the Globalisation Fund, rather than to keep taking money from other lines. We also need to make sure there is enough money under the flexibility instrument so that we can respond and change our priorities. At the moment, that amount is not enough. If we can do all these things, then we will meet our priorities and, more importantly, we can show the citizens of Europe that this Parliament is relevant.

Our budget should follow our priorities, but it should also follow the priorities of our citizens. That is the key message for us as a parliament, but also a key message for the Commission and for the Council.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) It is perhaps no coincidence that the preparation of the 2010 budget is attracting this much attention. All this attention is fully justified in view of the worsening unemployment and the difficulties caused by the economic crisis. As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I wish to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Surján, for the professional way in which he has handled the relevant dossiers.

We specified earlier the following priorities in the opinion recorded by me in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We obviously gave number one priority to instruments aimed at alleviating the effects of the financial and economic crisis on Europe’s citizens. We supported every proposal, including the 8.4% increase intended to boost competitiveness, that we hope will retain jobs or create new ones and contribute to the economic recovery plan, the renewed Lisbon strategy, as well as the lifelong learning programme.

We also highlighted the tasks associated with the Social Fund, vocational training, obtaining technical qualifications and lifelong learning. I feel that it is particularly important that we managed to earmark EUR 25 million in funding for the future microfinance facility in 2010. Yesterday, we debated this new facility. Hopefully, we will be able to agree quickly on the other funding details as well.

I believe that it is important for the budget to emphasise the significance of the funding for the activities and policies under budget line 1a. They will contribute to sustainable development and job creation. I would especially welcome the items intended to improve the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the support given to the Progress programme, the EURES consultancy and information network and pilot projects such as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Taking all these together, I feel that the objectives defined by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can play a major role in the budget, for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteurs.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, in the last Parliament, much attention was paid to the Members’ and assistants’ statutes, and I think that was quite appropriate. Now, at the beginning of this Parliament and new Commission, it is time we turned our attention to other members of staff of the three institutions and examined the role of those staff.

We are very privileged to have very professional and committed people working for Parliament, the Council and the Commission, but the reality of it is that within this Parliament, we do not have a grasp of exactly what a lot of these staff do. They have done what they have done for years.

When there are 27 Member States represented in this Parliament, 27 Commissioners coming together from those Member States into the Commission, and Council Ministers going back to their Parliaments and coming here, it is very easy for the staff elected to serve us to actually take over the agenda.

What I am asking from the very beginning of this Parliament is that the incoming Commission – I do not know, incidentally, what proportion of the budget is on staffing, but I know it is substantial – require a study on what it is that the staff of the three institutions do, to ensure that they are being efficient and effective and, above all, that they are transparent and accountable in what they do. I think that this would be an important public service.

There is a sort of growing belief that there is a faceless bureaucracy. I do not share that view, and I do not mean that as a backhanded compliment as we have some very good staff, but that is not the measure of efficiency and effectiveness. We have to know what the staff are doing and, if we are serious about having a Lisbon agenda with an efficient and effective economy, then we have to be sure that the staff who work for our three institutions are being applied effectively, efficiently and accountably. I believe that in each of the institutions, there should be a deputy secretary-general who reports to those institutions on the efficiency and effectiveness of staff from time to time.

I would ask the Commission to have this examined independently and fairly in the early stages of the new Commission.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, it appears worth pointing out during the budget debate, too, that the law is a fundamental element in the life of society, and its cohesion unites our continent. The Court of Justice of the European Union plays an essential role in this area, and this is why the Committee on Legal Affairs has proposed a series of amendments intended to restore means provided in the initial draft budget, which will barely allow the Court to meet just its most fundamental needs.

One of the most pressing problems is the matter of increasing budgetary means for 2010 for the translation of questions referred for preliminary rulings, which are a basic instrument used by national courts to allow them to adapt national jurisdiction to European jurisdiction. The ECJ has insufficient means to increase its resources of personnel working in its translation service, and this is causing delays to court proceedings. Granting additional means to the Court will contribute to an increase in efficiency of operation in this area, and also to a reduction of delays to court proceedings in Member States. The reduction of means by the Council affects what are already highly curtailed strategic IT projects proposed by the Court for 2010 to improve its quality of service with a simultaneous reduction in the number of staff employed. It is imperative that the means provided in the joint draft budget be restored. Information technology is a fundamental area which enables the new challenges of our times to be met, brings long-term savings, and offers the citizens better service.

I would also like to stress the need to support the draft Reference Frameworks. In February 2009, a group of academics presented the final version of a summary of the draft Reference Frameworks which European institutions will be able to use as a basis for the creation of European contract law. At this stage, it is extremely important to make the Frameworks available in as many of the official languages as possible, to enable political and legal groups and other interested parties to have a thorough discussion on the subject of the future of European contract law. I am glad that the European Parliament will make good these mistakes of the Council and allow the Court to function in a better way.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ROUČEK
Vice-President

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Mr President, like everybody else, I find this an extremely good budget. A great deal of work has gone into it, and congratulations to all those who were involved in it.

What I would like to do at this stage of the debate is to try and look at the big picture. Extremely important contributions have been made about particular issues, but we have to look at the broad European context in order to understand the significance of what we are talking about. It seems to me that, in a democracy, every institution has to have a budget, and the institution must account for what it is spending to those who are actually making the contributions and who are providing the resources.

This particular budget is, in consequence, loaded with responsibility. In fact, it is loaded with the responsibility of being the budget of an institution which is particularly committed to transparency and accountability. Not least, given our commitment to transparency and accountability, this will enhance good governance and, in an ideal world, it will increase trust between those who spend and those who provide. Perhaps I should stress that is in an ideal world – reality is often different. The particular significance of this transparency is that it can help to overcome the remoteness that exists between individuals and those who exercise power. This remoteness – I think we can all agree on this – is an unavoidable feature of modern life, so every institution should do what it can to bridge the gap.

On top of that, there are difficult times ahead for Europe, and I think that enhances insecurity among citizens. What we can do in this context is to illuminate the issues by promoting debate and discussion which should, incidentally, include disagreement. From this perspective, I think the budget is an excellent step in the right direction, and I would like to give my strong support to it.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). – Mr President, the 2010 budget is far from being generous – just like any other budget. Under the circumstances, we need to work with what we have, and what we have is the impact of a major global crisis as a priority. Everything else becomes secondary.

As the rapporteur for the Committee on International Trade (INTA), I would hope the increased amounts under Heading 4 (The EU as a global player) will be well invested and well monitored so that they stimulate increased flows in trade and, together with the elimination of barriers, we should achieve stronger GDP and employment growth.

The WTO Doha Development Agenda is the best multilateral platform to accomplish this task, particularly in developing countries. Therefore, there is a strong incentive to bring this long-lasting saga to a successful resolution as we will then be in a position to fight the nasty impact of globalisation with a truly powerful tool.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, the budget for 2010 is a difficult compromise. On the one hand, it is supposed to act to limit the economic crisis and, at the same time, we are financing efforts to combat climate change, mainly by limiting CO2 emissions. This is good, but surely in the short term, this hinders development, which is an area where we continue to spend too little.

The increase in spending on research and innovation is justified. This will improve our competitiveness. It seems we still spend too little on education, including the Erasmus exchange programme. It is good that money – although not enough – has been found for the milk fund, because the past year has been a difficult one for European farmers. If we want to stimulate economic conditions and reduce unemployment and social exclusion, we should increase funding for the Microfinance Facility. Financing broadband Internet in rural areas is important for development, but of course, as I said, this budget is a compromise.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to take the floor under the catch-the-eye procedure since, earlier, I had only one minute of speaking time when the agenda said I had two. I would just like to add something: although I will join the rest of my group in voting in favour, on Thursday, of the budget we are debating, I nevertheless wish to stress that we are experiencing not only an economic, financial and environmental crisis – as was pointed out earlier – but also a very profound social crisis linked to the rise in unemployment.

Although the budget strikes a delicate balance, I, for my part, regret the Member States’ failure to take account of strong political signals sent out precisely to those people experiencing difficulties. The wish was expressed that additional funding be provided as part of the plan to help the poorest citizens, but unfortunately, it has not been acted upon. I regret that, because it would have sent out a strong signal that we are moving in the direction of a more social Europe.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Thank you, Mr President, Council, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the 2010 budget really is an example of a good compromise. I definitely do not agree with those colleagues who have said that the 2010 budget is a crisis budget. We, the representatives of some states, know very well what a crisis budget is, when budget revenues have decreased by 30% and more in two years.

We must congratulate the Commission for certain priorities; together with the Council and Parliament, it mobilised additional funds, in particular, to finance the Economic Recovery Plan, for example, to increase broadband Internet access, and also to fund the SET-Plan. I would also like to mention that there are some problematic areas.

Nevertheless I would like to draw attention to the speech made by my fellow Member, Mr Godmanis, in which he mentioned that for more than a year, individual states have failed to manage financial support. Therefore, I really think that this is a good budget, it should be supported and I congratulate the Commission.

  Ivars Godmanis (ALDE). – Mr President, briefly, I want to stress one thing as the Commissioner is here.

We have a problem: in the Committee on Regional Development, we are still working on the proposals for changes whereby, for 2009-2010, the European Commission (EC) will not ask the Member States for cofinancing. The entire funds amount to more than EUR 6.6 billion. We have adopted the 2010 budget, but there is no money in this budget to provide for those needs; the 2009 budget is finished.

The Committee on Regional Development is still waiting for the new EC proposal because the previous proposal was rejected by the Council. We have to be very clear on what we have to do next. My understanding is that there is no room for this proposal, but the situation has to be qualified. Otherwise, the Committee on Regional Development will be working in one direction, and we in the Committee on Budgets will have no idea what we can do because we have no more money for these proposals in the upcoming 2010 budget.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, in the midst of the economic and social crisis, which is having terrible effects on employment and people’s living conditions, I am sorry to say that this draft Community budget for 2010 does not go nearly far enough. It does not even take account of either the financial perspectives, which suggested 1.1% of the Community’s Gross National Income, or the draft submitted and approved at first reading in this budget, which was for 1.08% of Community GNI.

The draft which is now here for approval perpetuates a budget that prioritises and finances the European Union’s neoliberal and militaristic tendencies. It should be noted that this first budget under the Treaty of Lisbon is to the detriment of the much-vaunted policy of economic and social cohesion, which now receives a much smaller share. In total payments, the cuts in cohesion spending amount to roughly EUR 2.5 billion compared with what was approved at first reading.

For all these reasons, we cannot agree with this draft budget, which is over EUR 11 billion smaller than was planned in the multiannual financial framework for 2010.

  Hans Lindblad, President-in-Office of the Council. – (SV) Mr President, I think this has been an exciting debate. We have had differing views and that is how it should be. Some people want to slim down the budget. However, it seems that many people will not be completely satisfied until all of the national budgets are transferred to the EU. Fortunately, transferring all power to the European Parliament is probably not what our voters want.

I received a direct question from Mr Färm. To listen to Mr Färm, it would seem as though we would have no employment policy in Europe if we did not have micro-credits. That is not the case, of course. The various Member States are investing enormous amounts of money in supporting the economy and employment. In addition, Europe is making substantial general increases in the budget, including the provision of EUR 5 billion through the recovery plan. Finally, we also have the European Central Bank’s very expansive policy. Thus, we no doubt have a very powerful policy for employment and growth.

If Mr Färm believes that micro-credits are something that should be prioritised, something else will, of course, need to be given a lower priority. It is all about choices. However, simply wanting to have more and to send the bill to the various Member States is not, of course, an acceptable solution.

  Vladimír Maňka, rapporteur. – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your inspiring speeches. I would like to thank the representatives of the European institutions, the Presidency of the European Parliament, the shadow rapporteurs, coordinators and all of you.

Everything has taken place this year under the leadership of two Budget Committee chairs. In the first half of the year, it was Mr Böge, and in the second, Mr Lamassoure. Mr Böge, Mr Lamassoure, I am sure I am not the first to tell you that you have both made a great contribution to the work of the committee and the entire budget process.

I appreciate the cooperation of the Swedish Presidency and the Commissioner. The women and men who do not appear officially are our advisors, assistants and administrative staff. However, they are key people. Without them we would not have achieved today’s result. I would like to thank them all.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Lisbon Treaty will have an impact on the entire range of services of the European Parliament and the other institutions. For the European Parliament, codecision making will increase dramatically, covering up to 95% of the legislation in areas such as freedom, security and justice, agriculture, fisheries, research and structural funds. There will be greater use of qualified majority voting in the Council and the creation of a number of new legal foundations in areas such as tourism, sport, energy, civil defence and administrative cooperation. This will increase the legislative activities of the EU generally with a significant overall impact on the powers of the European Parliament and its activities and therefore also on the need to boost the administration.

In the coming months, we will examine and quantify the financial resources necessary for implementing the new policies of the EU connected with the Lisbon Treaty. I believe that together, we will succeed in setting out the next budget process.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members. We have managed to find a common position with regard to the Council. However, I would also like to thank the Council and the Presidency of the Council very warmly at this point. Anyone who knows me will be aware that I am normally very sparing with praise and thanks. Nevertheless, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Swedish Presidency and, in particular, Mr Lindblad, for its work and its constant presence during the discussions on budget issues. This made a pleasant contrast to the other Council presidencies that I have experienced during the course of my long career as a Member of Parliament. Thank you very much.

This morning, many Members took part in the discussion and I believe that on this occasion, there were many more Members involved than usual. The majority of them referred to the limitations of the budget and its structure. Ladies and gentlemen, we can confidently assume that the 2010 budget will be the last of its kind, the last with this structure, which leads us to believe that we can finance the necessary policies of the European Union and its new challenges and tasks in this way.

We expect the new Commission to carry out the mid-term review quickly, as, under the terms of the agreements made in 2006, this should have been submitted by 2009 at the latest, in other words, by the end of this year. To spell it out, we also expect a revision proposal for the current financial perspective. We cannot wait until 2014 for reform. We need sustainable instruments now, so that the European Union can meet the challenges of the immediate future with democratic legitimacy, as the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Lamassoure, has just called for on behalf of all of us.

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, now that we have all agreed on the 2010 budget, in line with political realities, today we must, of course, focus our attention on what lies before us in the next few months.

As the European Council has granted itself EUR 23.5 million using a very one-sided process, we will also have to put in place the necessary supplements to the parliamentary budget very rapidly, in order to maintain the balance between the institutions and to ensure the ability of Parliament to respond to the challenges posed by the Treaty of Lisbon. We will also have to pay sufficient attention to the ability of the groups, the committees and, in particular, the individual Members, to act with regard to the tasks that face us.

In addition, we will have to hold general discussions over the next few months on adjustments, reviews and revisions. This concerns adjusting, renewing and enhancing the interinstitutional agreement. It is about linking up parts of the interinstitutional agreement into a multiannual financial framework, which has a different decision-making process on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. It is about the codecision procedure in the Financial Regulation. In addition, it relates, for example, to the large package to develop the European External Action Service, with regard both to guaranteeing Parliament’s budgetary rights and to the possible adjustments to the legal bases that may be necessary for the multiannual programmes of the External Action Service.

For this reason, I would like at this point to say once again that without adjustments, reviews and revisions, nothing can be done. We cannot put off indefinitely the necessary process of phasing in the budgetary challenges of the Treaty of Lisbon. I expect the new Commission to begin work very quickly and to make proposals which guarantee the rights of Parliament in every area and which do not attempt to modify individual rights through the back door, as this could be to the disadvantage of Parliament. We know how to stop this happening.

  László Surján, rapporteur. – (HU) If we want to increase Europeans’ sense of security in 2010, we need to implement this budget in an effective and practical manner. This is exactly why we have increased energy security, are supporting the creation of jobs and introducing a microfinance facility. We also support research and development, as well as lifelong learning. We want to help the dairy sector and alleviate, as far as possible, the harmful effects of climate change.

We have all achieved this by spending every last penny of the resources received through the multiannual financial framework. However, this means that the budget has become completely inflexible, failing to provide sufficient margin. This is another reason for the great urgency of the mid-term review, which I am also reiterating. The Commission and Member States share particular responsibility for future success. We can only look taxpayers straight in the eye if we use the framework available to us not only lawfully, but purposefully as well.

If there are resources available for creating new jobs, the number of jobs will actually increase. If there are other resources available allowing underdeveloped regions to catch up, the volume of the GDP produced locally in these regions will actually grow. Only when we are in control of these conditions can we say that we have received value for our money and that it was worthwhile Europe’s citizens making the sacrifice, because the current contribution to the EU budget of EUR 123 billion is certainly a sacrifice.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, I hope that this Parliament will give its firm support to the current report which has been tabled, and that on Thursday, we will give Europe’s citizens a good budget which is not only legally sound, but morally sound as well.

  President. –The joint debate is closed.

The vote on Jutta Haug’s report will take place tomorrow.

The vote on the Surján, Maňka and Böge reports will take place on Thursday.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), in writing. – (HU) My colleague from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Mr Surján, and Mr Maňka have completed an important task. Just as with a budget debate in any national parliament, we also need to make it quite clear in this House what a draft budget specifically contains and the message which this conveys to society. In spite of the fact that there was no mention of accessibility in the report, I would like to draw your attention to the following: based on the decision made by the General Affairs Council on 26 November, the EU has joined the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a regional organisation. In light of this and in accordance with paragraph 43 and the provisions contained in Appendix 2 of the report, we should welcome the joint declaration made on the policy on buildings.

However, it is very important that accessibility is included in the case of construction and other infrastructure investments as well, in addition to complying with the other important requirements (e.g. energy savings). The additional costs for accessibility are always much higher. As part of this, it is of paramount importance that the European Parliament also considers the visually impaired with regard to safety requirements. For instance, when designing buildings and getting them ready for use, clearly visible signs should be used, along with tactile floor markings to help the visually impaired find their way. In addition, in connection with language rights, I would consider it important that along with making buildings accessible, documents (including electronic versions) should also contain appropriate information about how the visually impaired can gain access (what the recommended software packages are).

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) During an economic crisis, when the citizens of Europe are being subjected to waves of redundancies and cuts in social services, the European Union must also make savings. Next year, the EU plans to spend about EUR 123 billion, which is seven billion more than this year. In difficult economic times, measures are, of course, needed to stimulate the economy, but it is doubtful whether instruments such as the European Economic Recovery Programme can achieve this. In the past, much-vaunted EU programmes have turned out to be paper tigers. In addition, various EU subsidies have proved to be an invitation to commit abuses of many different kinds. For years, the European Court of Auditors has been identifying in its annual reports blatant faults in the agricultural and structural funds. This means that hard-earned taxpayers’ money has, for years, been trickling away into mysterious channels. The complicated regulations which even Brussels eurocrats often find confusing are a major contributor to the defective nature of the system. The EU does not even have control over the recovery of funds which have been paid out mistakenly. Therefore, continuing to inflate the EU budget is the wrong route to take. Instead, the errors should be eliminated from the system by means of far-reaching renationalisation measures, for example, in the agricultural sector. This would allow the Member States to decide for themselves which areas they want to subsidise. As far as the measures to stimulate the economy are concerned, these should form part of a coordinated approach by the Member States.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) In March 2009, with the economic recovery plan that has been approved by the European Council, it is intended that in 2009 and 2010, EUR 5 billion of unused EU budgetary funds will be allocated for investment in projects concerning the connection of energy networks and the development of broadband networks. I am very pleased to note that, in relation to the second year (2010) of funding of the recovery plan for the European economy, a result was achieved in the Conciliation Committee, through the investigation of the 2007-2013 financial framework and a transfer of funds, which guarantees funding amounting to EUR 2.4 billion for next year, and also makes it possible to implement the objectives specified in the economic recovery plan. If the changes made to the financial framework in connection with the recovery plan for the European economy leave very little funding in 2010 to cover the expected financial needs, then I agree with the rapporteur’s position that the multiannual financial framework currently in effect does not meet the European Union’s financial needs, and also that the European Commission should immediately put forward a proposal concerning an interim summary of the multiannual financial framework currently in effect.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I would like to begin by stating my admiration for everyone who worked on the budget. Preparing an EU budget in conditions of economic crisis and the transitional period from Nice to Lisbon was a very difficult task. The budget for 2010 is the last one in this structure. The Lisbon Treaty is nevertheless in force and it will be difficult to work within the framework of a budget whose structure does not reflect the new conditions. However complicated the Lisbon Treaty ratification might have been in the end, it cannot be an excuse for the Commission, which failed to submit the draft of the new budget structure on time. The Commission must complete this task without delay. The 2010 budget is very carefully balanced as it makes full use of all the opportunities for allocating expenditure. As a result of this and as a result of economic fluctuations caused by the turbulent period of economic crisis, the budget may become very fragile. This budget must be supported in the knowledge that it is perhaps too finely crafted for the current period of insecurity and working with it in 2010 will require a certain measure of flexibility.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to express my satisfaction at the agreement reached on the budget for 2010. At the same time, however, note should be made of the fact that the margins available are extremely limited for coming years. That leaves little room for response in the event that the EU has to respond to unforeseen requirements or wants to react to new political challenges, such as the EU strategy for 2020, or to new measures to combat climate change.

I am especially pleased that we managed, thanks to the persistence of the European Parliament, to safeguard financing for energy networks and infrastructures within the framework of the Economic Recovery Plan, placing emphasis on ‘green technologies’, innovation, research and the creation of broadband networks in the countryside.

It is also extremely important that we succeed in safeguarding the viability of existing Community infrastructures and tools in the civil protection sector, especially by further strengthening the rapid response capacity of the European Union in the event of natural disasters, thereby paving the way for the future creation of a European civil protection force.

Finally, I think that we all agree that we cannot talk of a better Europe, of a Europe which is closer to the citizens, without commensurate financing.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The 2010 EU budget is the last budget to be approved in accordance with the Treaty of Nice. The new treaty grants the European Parliament greater power and the last word when it comes to the adoption of the budget. Parliament and the Council will have equal powers as legislators in areas such as agriculture, energy, immigration, justice and internal affairs, health and the Structural Funds, which obviously includes their relevant budgets as well. The 2010 budget allocates significant proportions of its funds for the conservation and management of natural resources, social and economic cohesion, growth and employment, competitiveness and innovation, regional development, agriculture and rural development. The European Economic Recovery Plan features in the 2010 EU budget with EUR 2.4 billion available for funding strategic projects relating to energy, transport, the development of broadband networks in rural areas and for supporting rural communities. I welcome that the European Parliament has managed to allocate a sum of EUR 300 million in support of dairy producers. The economic crisis has affected the GDP of Member States and will influence Member States’ contributions to the EU budget. I hope that the mid-term review in 2010 for the 2007-2013 financial framework will enable Member States to absorb the Structural Funds better, particularly in the area of transport and energy efficiency in residential buildings.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.25 and resumed at 12.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PITTELLA
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Kinga Göncz (A7-0050/2009)

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the excellent work carried out by the rapporteur and by all the Members who have worked towards the creation of this new instrument which will allow micro-credits to be granted to small and medium-sized enterprises and to people who have lost their jobs in recent years.

In view of the loss of 3 million jobs in the EU alone and the banks’ difficulties in extending credit, this instrument will provide easier access to the necessary resources for those who wish to start up a new business.

I am certain that this new initiative will help create new jobs, especially if we introduce new accompanying measures such as funding for training, which will help young people set up investment projects.

This instrument, Mr President, must be adopted as quickly as possible in order to revitalise small and medium-sized enterprises which represent the life-blood of Europe’s economy.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Thank you, Mr President, I voted in favour of the financial measures report. I think that this facility is very appropriate at this precise moment in time and that it will have a very positive impact if it is applied properly, as it was in my country, Bulgaria. At the moment, the climate is extremely unfavourable for small entrepreneurs who, with few opportunities available, have no chance of obtaining credit from banks.

All the banks are pursuing a policy which is basically incompatible with the concept behind banking institutions. I get the feeling that the banks are deliberately inventing an ever-increasing number of additional terms for no other reason than to prevent them from issuing credit. However, without credit, a business cannot operate.

Nevertheless, when credit is issued, these companies are obliged to provide guarantees of 100-150%, making them liable to go bankrupt. This is why I believe that the European Union and Parliament have, in this case, taken very appropriate action with this report, which will really contribute to the development of the European and Bulgarian economies.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I want to make it clear that while I feel that helping small business is a very good idea and one that should be pursued, it should be pursued at national government level. I have huge concerns over this proposal, about the accountability of the money that will be lent, and the payback in relation it.

I would encourage national governments to do all they can to help small business, which is the backbone of our economy. The EU can help by decreasing regulation and making funds available at a national level.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, we were in favour of this proposal. I think it is very important that we help entrepreneurs right across the EU and in Member States to create wealth and jobs and take people out of poverty. I am also grateful that we were looking at taking the money from the existing budget, rather than new spending, and using that to leverage even more spending from the private sector.

However, I must point out that we have to be very careful here when using state financing and taxpayers’ money. In my own constituency, I am aware of some microfinance facilities, such as the excellent Croydon Caribbean Credit Union, which helps underprivileged communities come out of poverty. These facilities have been squeezed out by local government and other state microfinanced facilities. It is important, in pursuing increased accessibility to microfinance, that we do not squeeze out the many excellent private providers that are already there.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we all agree on the issue of micro-credit, but we should also discuss financial resources. I believe that it should be our duty to increase this financial resource.

We must also be careful not to extend micro-credit to further stakeholders in small and medium-sized enterprises, since micro-credit came into being to help less fortunate social partners. Along with this, we also need to discuss a cultural question: in many countries, and I believe especially in countries where there is the greatest need, the right cultural approach required to obtain these sums is lacking. I strongly believe that these instruments should be adopted first by the governments concerned.

There are two speeds in Europe: the speed of countries which have already applied this approach, such as France and Germany, and there are other countries which instead need to take a cultural approach to this question. In short, I strongly feel that the true problem, what is really at stake in Europe, is that it is not just a question of procuring funding as an end in itself; we must seek to bring about the conditions whereby the least fortunate workers can create employment for themselves.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Kinga Göncz (A7-0050/2009)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the creation of this microfinance facility for employment, since it aims at providing opportunities for the unemployed and encouraging entrepreneurship. This facility, which is aimed at people who want to start or develop a micro-enterprise (less than 10 employees and a turnover of less than EUR 2 million), will open up new horizons for many unemployed people. Given the current state of the economy, it would have been useful if this important programme had been launched sooner, because people have been finding it difficult to access credit for a long time now.

As this facility is aimed at public and private organisations that provide private individuals and micro-enterprises with micro-credit at national, regional and local levels in EU Member States, it needs to be carefully monitored by the relevant bodies to ensure that the credit is actually reaching the places where it is most needed and that we do not see a repeat of the situations that occurred during the last financial crisis.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI), in writing. – I am in favour of the state providing microfinance to individuals to help them to establish small businesses. However, I am opposed to the European Union carrying out this function. Nevertheless, I did vote in favour of some amendments because it was always likely that the resolution would be carried and I wished to improve the resolution as much as possible. The ‘blocking’ of the votes on several amendments prevented me from voting separately on some amendments.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – One of the most detrimental consequences of the global economic crisis is the lack of credit being supplied by banks, which is preventing individuals as well as large companies from conducting their economic activities. The proposal being made by the European Commission provides for the establishment of a microfinance facility that seeks to aid in alleviating the current hesitation in funding by banks and other financial institutions. It is for this reason that I have decided to support the rapporteur on this issue and vote in favour of the report.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report because unemployment, which is constantly increasing in the European Union, cannot be combated with a microfinance programme. Integrated programmes with adequate funding under a separate budget line are needed, programmes which focus on combating youth unemployment, which is extremely high in Greece in particular, with one in four young people under the age of 25 out of work.

Generally speaking, what we need are policies which call for an increase in the Community budget and which overturn the neoliberal framework of the Stability Pact and low deficits. I also believe that funding within the framework of this mechanism should be purely voluntary and should not in any way force anyone to use the mechanism under the threat that their social security benefits will be cut or reduced. Unfortunately, amendments to this effect tabled by me and my fellow members in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left were rejected.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As Europe is going through a deep economic and financial crisis, which has led to serious social problems with unemployment growing in all the Member States, it is essential for the European Union to create effective mechanisms for tackling the crisis and also supporting those worst affected, including the unemployed and businesses in difficulty.

That is why I welcome the creation of a microfinance facility for employment, focusing on entrepreneurship and giving everyone the opportunity to start their own business. European microfinance will be available for cases where access to banking credit is denied or made difficult, through support for the growth of micro-enterprises, together with mentoring, coaching and interest-rate support from the European Social Fund.

It is also important to point out that this facility should serve the sole purpose of supporting entrepreneurship as a means of creating new jobs, by helping to realise solid business ideas, and it should not be used for social support or to boost consumption.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the current context of economic crisis and rising unemployment it is important to foster the growth of self-employment, as well as the creation and development of micro-enterprises. Micro-credit will help achieve this objective. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal and Parliament’s work on this subject. This is a way to encourage entrepreneurship and raise the levels of employment and social inclusion. This microfinance facility is complementary to other programmes that support employment and inclusion. I therefore think it is important that this facility should not be financed at the expense of existing programmes or jeopardise them.

I had already voted in favour of this facility in the Committee on Budgets in the context of the budgetary procedure for 2010, through which two new budget lines were created, one for operational expenses in the sum of EUR 37.5 million and the other for administrative expenses in the sum of EUR 0.25 million. I hope this programme will soon become operational and the process of approving applications will be swift and not tied up in red tape.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We regret that a majority in this Parliament has yet again gone back on its word and approved a proposal that takes money out of the Progress programme, which was already clearly underfunded for its areas of action in the social field. Irrespective of any considerations regarding the objectives of the new European microfinance facility, it is unacceptable that it should be financed by reducing the funds available to existing programmes, in this case Progress, a Community programme in the area of employment, social inclusion and equal rights.

The text approved by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs clearly rejected the idea of financing this facility from Progress and proposed creating a new budget line with its own resources: in other words, ‘new’ money. The amendments tabled by our political group were along the same lines, but were rejected today.

Since social conditions in the various Member States are deteriorating, it is unacceptable for funds to be channelled away from the employment and social inclusion area towards other priorities that have been defined in the meantime, even if it is to the area of microfinance.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Thanks to the Göncz report on micro-credit and the controversy that surrounded the financing of this project, I went to see what this famous Progress programme – which the left is so adamant should not be deprived of a single cent for the financing of micro-enterprises and individual initiatives – is all about. Because, for the moment, what purpose does Progress, defined as the ‘Community programme for employment and social solidarity’, really serve? That of creating paperwork, and of financing studies and reports. Because, for the moment, Progress’s ‘target’ audience is neither the unemployed nor the excluded, but political decision makers and opinion formers.

Some people are refusing to deduct EUR 100 million for micro-credit from the paltry sum of EUR 700 million allocated over seven years. A little less money for those who profit from the system, a little more money for Europeans, with a constant budget: one cannot argue with that! The time has come to stop observing the poverty and the difficulties of our fellow citizens and to take concrete action instead. I have one reservation, however: micro-credit is necessary only because the ‘banksters’, who are so quick to pocket State aid, are not doing what they are supposed to be doing: pumping money into the economy.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Göncz report on the European Microfinance Facility. Micro-financing concerns micro-credits (loans of less than EUR 25 000) and micro-enterprises (enterprises that employ fewer than 10 people).

In this period of economic crisis and due to the considerable fall in the number of loans granted, it is vitally important for the European Union to create a facility aimed at the most vulnerable, such as the unemployed, young people and small businesses.

When an economy or jobs are at stake, it is crucial to stimulate growth with substantial investment. The facility will see its funding increased to EUR 100 million, the money being taken from the budget for the Progress programme (Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity), and will come into force on 1 January 2010 (for a four-year period). The Council must hear this message so that an agreement can be reached in the next few days.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mrs Göncz, because I feel it is crucial, especially in the context of an employment crisis and of a social crisis, to support micro-finance by providing it with a specific budget line. This is a special instrument in the fight against banking exclusion and poverty. Contrary to what the European Commission is asking, we oppose the idea of reallocating appropriations from the Progress programme to the European Microfinance Facility, because that would send out a negative message to economic operators. We must maintain the Progress programme, which targets the most vulnerable groups, and it is the joint responsibility of the Member States and the European Union to implement it effectively in the current circumstances.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I am absolutely delighted that the vast majority of the European Parliament has today approved the report on the European Microfinance Facility for Employment and Social Inclusion. The planned micro-credit system can contribute significantly to the creation of social cohesion and new jobs, not to mention greatly help alleviate the harmful effects of the financial and economic crisis. During the global recession, it is particularly important to provide new opportunities for citizens who have been squeezed out of the labour market and the traditional credit market, and pave the way for stable, long-term self-employment. Furthermore, it is vital that a simple financial facility exists for those in disadvantaged regions intending to start up their own business and for the most vulnerable groups, which, in spite of the high risk, low margins and risk of default, helps businesses to start up and thrive. The overwhelming majority of employees in Europe are employed by micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.

This is the reason why, in order to ensure that these companies do not lose, but actually increase their employment potential, suitable support must be provided to them which, in certain cases, is of such a small amount that the traditional banking sector is unable to provide such funds. During today’s vote, the European Parliament gave the clear message that the codecision procedure should be completed as soon as possible so that the microfinance facility may already be accessible from 2010.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on microfinance facilities.

There is still a lot we could do to encourage young people in Europe to go into entrepreneurship. The financial and economic crisis has brought with it an employment and a social crisis, and it is indeed predicted that there will be another 10 million unemployed people in Europe next year. If there was ever a time to take prompt action, it is now.

With the current credit squeeze aggravating the situation at present, I am very much in favour of the initiative in the report to provide micro-credits for the unemployed or those threatened with unemployment who have difficulties having access to commercial loans for their business ideas. Nevertheless, we must also invest, for example, in young people’s workshops and business incubators, as well as entrepreneurship education.

A comprehensive approach to investing in improving the employment figures and entrepreneurship is a prerequisite for a prosperous Europe.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of financing social provisions in order to assist workers who have lost their jobs. However, this should not mean that businesses are exempted from their social and territorial obligations. It is not up to the public authorities to compensate for this unacceptable failure to fulfil one’s obligations. That is why I shall abstain.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I am voting in favour of the report on establishing a new microfinance facility which will help people whose jobs are at risk to set up or develop micro-enterprises. These are defined as companies with fewer than ten employees and a turnover of less than EUR 2 million. This finance opportunity will be available initially for a period of four years, starting from 1 January 2010.

This will give people who have lost their jobs as a result of the crisis or who are finding it difficult to gain access to credit for their company the opportunity to undergo training, to retain existing jobs and, in some cases, even to create new ones. This will help to stimulate the economy and contribute to bringing the crisis to an end.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) We shall vote against the proposal for a decision establishing a European Microfinance Facility for Employment and Social Inclusion. At a time when so many European citizens are being made redundant because of the crisis of capitalism and the complete lack of solidarity shown by those who continue to make profits at their expense, it is time for the European Union to change its liberal approach to solving the problems encountered.

Faced with the insatiable commercial appetites that the European Union’s liberal dogmatism has created, we need a policy that protects European workers, the creators of the wealth of which they are being deprived in the name of profit. Again, this is a case of the Europe of big profits and of small, arbitrary handouts. The paltry sums pledged, the lack of clarity concerning their allocation and the individualistic logic behind the vehicle promoted testify to this. This bears no relation to the Europe of the general interest and of social equality that our peoples need.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time of crisis, when credit is scarce and access to it difficult, this kind of facility is essential to help provide micro-credit for small enterprises and people who have lost their jobs and want to start up new businesses on their own. It is difficult to achieve such goals without this kind of support facility. Furthermore, in the current crisis situation, banks are not sensitive to the credit needs of start-up enterprises which, in most cases, makes it impossible for them to get off the ground. With the prospect of several million more jobs being lost in the EU, it is important to have incentives that people who are made redundant can access in an attempt to make a new life for themselves, thereby avoiding social crises and reducing Member States’ spending on social support measures.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The financial and economic crisis caused primarily by British and American speculators is now leading to growing unemployment in Europe as a result of the economic downturn. It is mainly young people, who were already at serious risk of unemployment, who have been particularly hard hit by the changing situation. Therefore, it is especially important to give them an opportunity to start or restart their careers and to pave the way for some of them to start their own companies. I hope that the new European microfinance facility for employment and social inclusion – Progress – will give them significant support in this respect.

This new instrument also allows us to respond to the continuing credit crunch. As well as interest rate support, people who set up micro-enterprises will also receive support in the form of mentoring, training, coaching and capacity building. I support the committee’s initiative to increase the funding for the microfinance facility by 50%, compared with the Commission’s proposal, to EUR 150 million. Looking at the huge sums that have been spent on rescuing the banks, it is important to be generous to those people who have been hardest hit by the situation. For all of these reasons, I have voted in favour of this report.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) On 10 November 2009, the European Commission published a Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Microfinance Facility. It is related to the Commission document entitled ‘Realisation of the European Recovery Plan’ and the priorities of the Council, which are: maintaining employment, creating jobs and promoting mobility, improving skills and adapting to the needs of the labour market, and increasing access to employment.

The microfinance facility is supposed to give easier access to financial services to the unemployed and groups of businesspeople who have found themselves in a difficult situation. It is concerned with people from certain social groups who do not have the creditworthiness required by commercial banks but would like to start up in business. Introduction of this type of support facility, which comes from EU funds, has particularly significant meaning in a situation in which lending levels are currently reduced and the value of loans which have been made has fallen.

The situation in the lending sector shows that the financial and economic crisis is changing into an employment and social crisis. The report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs contains significant amendments to the Commission Proposal, including opposition to transfer of the necessary funds from the Progress programme to the European Microfinance Facility. The rapporteur proposes putting the facility under a separate budget line, and also proposes increasing the facility’s budget for the next four years by EUR 50 million. In view of these aspects, I endorse the report.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the resolution to introduce the microfinance facility, because for me, the top priority is to adopt this resolution quickly. This will give disadvantaged sections of the population the opportunity to take out loans and to help themselves. However, I am calling on the Council not to take the funding from Progress. It is important that this programme retains its funding in full. In particular in this crisis, EU money must not be redeployed at the expense of the weakest members of society.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I am delighted that the European Parliament has today approved a scheme for ensuring that additional loans will be made available to small businesses. This decision will allow EUR 100 million to be made available at regional and national level over the next four years. This is a valuable and timely development which will provide many of those people suffering the effects of the global recession with new opportunities. The measures announced today will support those wanting to start new businesses, as well as providing professional training – thereby increasing the range of skills upon which citizens can draw to set up the enterprises which are vital to Europe’s economy. More and more, we are seeing greater consideration of small and medium-sized enterprises in European Union policy and legislation. I welcome this new development and, in particular, the European Parliament’s contribution to stimulating the development of small businesses in difficult economic times.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Progress programme was started to assist in realisation of European Union objectives in the fields of employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, which are laid out in the Social Agenda. The budgetary means available under this programme are supposed to be a stimulus for the process of transformation and modernisation in the five areas of employment, social integration and social protection, conditions of work, combating discrimination and equal opportunities for women and men.

Currently, the financial and economic crisis is changing into a social crisis and an employment crisis. The unemployed and people from social groups which are in an unfavourable situation need active support and advice if they want to become independent. The Progress programme is aimed at the most exposed groups, and in relation to this, I think Member States and the European Union are responsible for effective implementation of the programme. The Union should also make every effort to increase the range of directed financial support for new sole traders and the founders of micro-enterprises in the form of monitoring, training – including practical training – and skills development.

Progress is supposed to serve the development of micro-enterprises and the social economy. In the present economic and financial situation, which is characterised by a reduced supply of loans, the Progress programme extends the range of directed financial aid for new businesspeople. The main responsibility for employment and social policy rests with the Member States, but the European Union should be the initiator of these changes. It is necessary to create real possibilities of employment for all, and to raise the quality and productivity of work.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) Microfinance is an interesting instrument to provide people who are unemployed or in danger of losing their jobs, and also enterprises in the social economy, with financial support in times of crisis. I voted against this report, as it is not certain that this instrument is to be financed with fresh money. It is possible that resources from the existing Progress programme will be used, a programme that was launched in 2007 and comprises actions concerning poverty reduction, anti-discrimination, social inclusion, gender and employment. Taking money from programmes that fight poverty in order to fight poverty is not a good strategy.

The Council, in particular, rejects a separate budget. The Member States clearly lack political courage. To enable this to start at the beginning of 2010, EUR 25 million is being released from the 2010 EU budget. There is no agreement between Parliament and the Council at present on the financing for the following three years (2011-2013). What Europe needs is a sustainable strategy and not a one-off injection such as this initiative. The microfinance instrument has no coherence and no long-term vision. In addition, micro-credits can already be granted under the European Social Fund, and also under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I say an emphatic ‘no’, then, to this report.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This is a great initiative that will make it easier for people who have lost, or risk losing, their jobs to get credit to start up their own businesses. The European Progress Microfinance Facility will make available up to EUR 25,000 to people who want loans to start or grow very small firms, and who have been unable to obtain credit through conventional markets.

I am pleased that the European Parliament was able to ensure this money did not come from the ‘Progress’ programme, which is designed to help vulnerable people, but was created using money from the 2010 budget for the first year. The EUR 100 million fund, available from early 2010, is exactly the kind of help that small businesses need at this time of financial crisis when banks are still unwilling to release credit. This will help businesses across Wales, and I am disappointed that colleagues from UKIP were unable to support this progressive initiative.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.20 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR BUZEK
President

  President. – The next item is the Question Hour with the President of the Commission.

Open questions

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Mr President, expectations of EU 2020 are running high, not only in our group but also among European citizens. They expect prosperity, jobs and a sustainable, innovative social market economy by 2020, as well as specific proposals for strong SMEs and an open European single market, including in the field of capital and knowledge development. They expect a 2020 strategy with a solid, transparent European governance structure, with no free-for-all for Member States.

Mr President, what Parliament wants is not merely to be informed after the event about proposals by the Commission and the Council; it wants to actually participate in developing and implementing the 2020 strategy. How are you going to ensure this, and what timetable are you working to? The Council President has announced that the intention is to reach conclusions as early as March. Will you take the initiative? Can we expect a specific framework in the near future containing starting points and objectives as a basis for participation by Parliament in this discussion? Can you let us know what timetable you are working to and who is responsible? Are you Mr 2020?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – As President of the Commission, I will be responsible for that, in coordination with my colleagues in the Commission, because this will be the central task for the next Commission, as was presented in my political guidelines. Regarding the timing, we hope to have a formal communication ready in time for the Spring Council, but I feel it would be better only to have the formal conclusions at the June Council. That will be my proposal to the European Council, so that we can have – and I very much wish for this – full participation and ownership for Parliament of the strategy.

At European Council level, there has also been a very interesting pre-discussion about the economy and, in fact, I have encouraged the European Council to take full ownership on the Council side as well, and to reinforce the mechanisms of governance. As you know, five years ago, when we re-launched the Lisbon strategy, there was resistance from some Member States to follow certain recommendations of the Kok report. This time, the conditions exist for having a reinforced system of governance in this strategy.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, 2009 is drawing to an end in a difficult situation, with major unemployment and economic and budgetary problems. At the same time, the five-year period of the Barroso Commission is coming to a close. What conclusions do you draw from the first five years about the second five years, providing that the Commission is confirmed in office, in particular, with regard to these economic and social issues? What will you be saying to our citizens and also to your commissioners about the things that should be different in this new period?

We should work together to set new priorities with respect to our economic and socio-political objectives and to avoid recreating the situation that we currently find ourselves in. Therefore, I would like to ask you again what conclusions you draw from the first five years and what you want to do differently, better and more clearly in the next five years in order to fulfil the wishes of the citizens of Europe.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – First of all, I think that the fact that this Parliament voted again for a mandate for myself is a signal that there is support for the action we have been taking. Having said that, there are issues that we have to change and to improve.

The situation today is different. There is a much greater sense of social urgency than before. As I have said very often, the most important problem we face in Europe today – which most likely we are going to face for some time yet – is unemployment. We have to find not only new sources of growth, but also to look at what was wrong with the previous model of growth.

It was obvious that the previous model of growth was dilapidated. Although it created some artificial bubbles – not only in the financial sector but also in other sectors – it was not sustainable, including from an energy and climate point of view. That is the focus of my strategy – the strategy I have put forward to this Parliament and which I hope to develop with the next Commission in, of course, very close association with this Parliament.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) I would like to ask a brief additional question, Mr Barroso. If, during the hearings in Parliament, we are of the opinion that the allocation of the portfolios does not fully meet these objectives and we make proposals for changing the portfolios, are you prepared in principle to address our objections and to make changes? Would you, in principle, reject any objections or are you prepared to accept them?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – It is clearly stated in the Lisbon Treaty that the internal organisation of the College and the Commission services is a responsibility of the Commission.

I am always ready to listen to your suggestions and to your comments. In fact, some of the innovations were as a result of some debates with your group and other groups. I count on your support for the full respect of the competences of the Commission, as I will always respect the competences of Parliament.

I am always open to listening to your suggestions but I think we should concentrate more on matters of policy, of substance. Regarding the organisation of the Commission, I believe that after five years of everyday work in the Commission, I am pretty well informed about the best ways of allocating resources inside the Commission.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, my question concerns the situation in Greece. This situation is very alarming, of course, with a government deficit of 12.7% and government debt poised to exceed 130%. This is exactly the situation I found in Belgium when, at a young age, I became Minister for the Budget in 1985. The figures were exactly the same – I shall never forget them – 12.7% government deficit. Clearly, then, Greece will have to work hard and implement reforms it has not implemented to date. Yet we, too, can do something, President Barroso. We can enable the costs associated with the government debt of the various Member States to fall by installing, at long last, a European bond market that would cover a large proportion of this government debt. We are currently paying several hundred billion euro too much in interest on our government debt owing to the fact that there is no European bond market and all the bond markets are still segmented, with an enormous shortage of liquidity. My question is whether you will take the initiative in this matter and launch such a European bond market at long last. This would not obviate the need for Greece to make an effort itself, but it could help.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I was very reassured by yesterday’s commitment by Prime Minister Papandreou to cut public deficits and reduce the Government’s debt through permanent expenditure cuts and revenue increases. We believe the current budget for 2010 that is now being discussed in the Greek Parliament and Prime Minister Papandreou’s statements are steps in the right direction. I have been following the situation very closely with this government and with the previous government, namely the question of public finances.

We were also very impressed by the candid presentation made by the Prime Minister of Greece in the last European Council. He is fully aware of the problem and he has shown us his determination to address it. Greece will submit to the Commission in the course of January an updated stability programme, as foreseen in the Stability and Growth Pact. I trust that this programme will include concrete measures to strengthen fiscal adjustment in 2010 and to ensure lasting consolidation of public finances. Naturally, the Commission will continue to monitor very closely the macroeconomic and fiscal situation and the implementation of the measures in Greece.

Having said this, I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to elaborate on possible scenarios. We believe that Greece is now taking appropriate measures and that we should support Greece in the enforcement of those measures.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, to come back to what I was saying, a European bond market could help Greece. It would by no means obviate the need for that country to carry out reforms, but it would help all the other EU Member States too, as it would mean a much lower interest rate being payable on the debt. Let us compare the interest rates payable in Germany and the United States. The Americans pay 0.4% less interest on their treasury bonds than the Germans, even though German public finances are in much better shape. This is proof that we urgently need to take that course. I expect the Commission to do so.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – We are not at this stage contemplating the kind of measures suggested. I personally believe it is not very appropriate to link this kind of proposal to the specific situation in Greece today; in fact, it could send the wrong signal.

Let us be honest about it. Greece and the countries of the euro area have a specific obligation when it comes to implementing the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact. It is very important for them and, above all, for their own economy, but it is also important for others. I believe that raising this issue at this moment and suggesting that there could be a solution outside Greece’s own efforts is not the best way to help our Greek friends to implement, with determination, the measures announced by Prime Minister Papandreou.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) I would like to ask you today about the structure of the next Commission. The portfolio responsibilities that you have presented seem to us to have very presidential overtones. In our opinion, you are organising this structure in such a way as to give you personally, as Commission President, a great deal of power. We are surprised that you want to abolish the working groups of the members of the Commission. In our opinion, these groups have produced good results during the last parliamentary term. We are also surprised that the responsibilities in some areas have been fragmented in a way which seems to us incomprehensible. It is a mystery to us how you will handle the division of responsibilities between Mrs Reding and Mrs Malmström. It seems to us that Mrs Malmström will be creating a sort of homeland security office. I definitely have nothing against making the climate into a separate responsibility. However, if you appoint a climate commissioner, you must also show that she has real power and will have access to areas such as energy, industry, transport, the environment and agriculture. We do not believe that this is the case.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Two different questions: one regarding the portfolios on justice and security, the other on climate. Regarding justice and security, I have forwarded the suggestion made by many of you in this Parliament to have a specific portfolio more centred on fundamental rights. So, Commissioner Reding, if she meets with your approval, will be Commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship.

There will also be a Commissioner for home affairs, which is basically what happens in most, if not all, Member States in Europe – there is a minister for the interior and a minister for justice. I believe that it is much more efficient so that they can work with their colleagues in the respective Councils. It will also be much better in terms of the amount of work because, as you know, we have just approved the Stockholm Programme. This is a very ambitious programme in which this Parliament has a lot of important competences now, so it is fully justified to have two different Commissioners. It is not because of the role of the President in this case. It has nothing to do with the role of the President of the Commission. It has to do with the need to have some kind of division of labour in such an important area. I would like the Commissioner for fundamental rights to have security concerns in her hands, and I would like the Commissioner for security to do the job whilst respecting fundamental rights and the spirit of liberties in the European Union.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) I would like to repeat my previous question. How can the climate commissioner be a powerful force and how can she assert herself, if this, on the basis of the second option, is not reflected in the structures? Secondly, there is another issue in the detail which seems totally unreasonable to us and that is that green genetic engineering, which you, Mr Barroso, are in favour of, now forms part of the health portfolio and is no longer included in the environment or agriculture portfolio. We need you to explain this.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I am happy to see that you are happy with the creation of the Commissioner for climate change. She will, in fact, have a lot to do because, as we are now seeing, Copenhagen will not be the end of the road. There will be a lot to do after Copenhagen.

Her main tasks will be to mainstream climate change in all sectors of the Commission – not only the ones you have mentioned, but many others. There is almost no policy in the European Union that does not have some impact on climate action: from agriculture to research, from enterprise and industry to maritime affairs. That is the task.

She will have a dedicated DG for climate change. I want the Commissioner for climate change to have some instruments to pursue her policy but, of course, she has to do this in cooperation with other Commissioners – namely the Commissioner for the Environment, the Commissioner for Energy and others – because this is such an important policy that also has a very important external dimension.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to ask for your assessment of the EU-Ukraine Summit which took place almost a fortnight ago. At the same time, I would like to raise two matters. When I was in Kiev, I learned that the European side refused to accept a reference in the final declaration to Ukraine’s European identity. I will not hide the fact that this surprises me greatly, because it seems to me that the question of Ukraine’s European identity should not be a matter of dispute. Secondly, I learned in Kiev that our European delegation refused to lay wreaths at the monument to the victims of the Ukrainian famine, something which is customary for all diplomats visiting Ukraine, and I must say that these two facts surprise me greatly.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I think the meeting we had with Ukraine was successful. To be frank with you, our Ukrainian friends have to do more if they want us to help them more.

I have been spending more time working on Ukrainian issues than on most of the Member States of the European Union, which shows the attention we give to Ukrainian concerns. This is a country that is very close to us and a country we want to be closer to. That is why we have offered them a comprehensive and innovative European Union-Ukraine association agreement. This is the most advanced status we can give to a country, barring accession, which is not possible under the current situation.

There were some discussions, but if you look at the final conclusions, it is clearly reaffirmed that Ukraine is a European country, Ukraine is bound by the same European values and we want to be closer to Ukraine. We want to help them to be closer to us. I believe that it was a productive meeting, but we cannot honestly expect to create a new status for Ukraine every time there is a summit.

The last summit before this was in Paris. We granted Ukraine this association possibility, but we cannot move to a new status every time there is a summit, and we had a very honest, open and friendly discussion about this with President Yushchenko and the other interlocutors.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I have a question for you about the Tobin tax. This tax is a worthwhile proposal, but as yet, no one has introduced it. Everyone says that it will never be introduced unless all the Member States do so at the same time. I am now afraid, after the decision at the European summit, which I welcome, that this will once again be postponed, because we are not all starting at the same time.

I would like to know what your opinion on this is and what you think are the chances of the Tobin tax being introduced.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – If there is an overall global tax for financial transactions, we should support it. In fact, I have personally supported this in discussions in the European Council. The European Council has asked the Commission to put forward some ideas on that, and we are preparing it.

Also linked to the issue of innovative financing, I personally believe that, if we want to meet our obligations regarding the fight against climate change, it cannot be only with the money from our budgets. It is obvious that our budgets are under such pressure that our national budgets alone over the next few years cannot provide the resources for fighting climate change. We have to think of innovative ways of financing. A global financial transaction tax seems to me a very good idea, and we are working on that area in order to put forward proposals at an appropriate time. I hope the new Commission will put forward some proposals in this area.

  Paul Nuttall, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr Barroso, we have recently heard that there is to be a closure of the Corus steel works on Teesside in northern England. This is due to an EU target reduction of 20% of carbon emissions. Thanks to the carbon credit, Corus can no longer afford to employ over 5 000 steel workers, including suppliers. We also have the spectacle of the British Government admitting that its hands are tied on this issue because of punitive EU competition law.

The real gain to Corus from stopping production on Teesside is the saving it will make in its carbon allowances allocated by the EU under its emissions trading system scheme, which will be worth up to GBP 600 million over the next three years. But surprise, surprise – guess what: the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is also the head of the Tata Foundation, so, one must ask, cui bono? Because Tata owns Corus.

(Protests from the floor)

The question I would like to ask is: is it now official EU policy to offer incentives to companies to close plants such as Teesside so that they can outsource their business to countries such as India, or is there a more personal interest at stake here?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Regarding the insinuation you are making, I really cannot comment. If I were the person involved, I would take the matter to the courts.

Concerning the issue at stake, you said that the British Government said this was the position of the European Union. I do not know anything about that statement, but let me tell you that, if there is one government that has been pushing the European Union for ambitious targets in the fight against climate change, it is precisely the government of your country, whether you like it or not.

In fact, the common agenda today in the European Union is to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases. This does have some consequences in terms of the adaptation of our industry. We want industry to be kept in Europe, but we want another kind of industry, which is less energy consuming and friendlier to the environment.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). – You did not answer my question, because the question was: is it official EU policy to offer incentives to companies to close plants such as Teesside and outsource the business to countries such as India? You did not answer the question. Would you please answer it?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I will answer by saying ‘no’.

  President. – Colleagues, the blue card procedure is not applicable now because these are discussions between two people. It is very difficult for the blue card to be used for an additional question now as I do not know which of the two people it is intended for. I am sorry about that. It will, of course, be applicable during other debates.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the European Commission, in response to the referendum in Switzerland on minarets, has gone to the lengths of making a statement that is disturbing and ambiguous, to say the least. It felt it necessary to reaffirm, for the benefit of those Member States that might be tempted to take similar decisions, the need to ‘respect fundamental rights such as freedom of religion’. This thinly veiled threat requires some explaining on your part, when opinion polls show that the vast majority of Europeans would have voted in such a referendum had it been an option in their respective countries.

Mr Barroso, do the EU Member States have the right or not to hold a referendum for their people that is identical in every way to the one held on 29 November in Switzerland? Would the Commission oppose or not the sovereign decision of these peoples if they were to vote as the people of Switzerland did? If, as we believe, the European Union is today more totalitarian than democratic, it is high time it was acknowledged.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) It is the sovereign right of Member States to decide, in accordance with their constitutional rules, how they wish to consult their people directly. I am not going to make hypothetical statements about hypothetical referendums. What I can tell you is that the Member States take their own decisions on this matter. Therefore, I will not prejudge a referendum in a country or the reaction to a referendum organised by the Commission.

The Commission has powers to verify the measures and the decisions taken by the Member States in relation to the application of European law. In this case, the Commission has not only the right, but also the duty, to voice its opinion.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr Barroso, all the same, the question was clear. I was not asking you a question about a hypothetical referendum, but about a referendum that is identical in every way to the one that was held for the people of Switzerland.

If one of the EU Member States, in a completely identical referendum, asked the question that was asked of the Swiss people, how would the Commission react? Do they have the right to do so? And would the Commission oppose the decision of the sovereign people if it decided to vote as the Swiss did? The question is clear.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Mrs Le Pen, you are asking a hypothetical question. My French is not as good as yours, but, when you say ‘if’, that is a hypothetical question. ‘If there were a referendum’, that is a hypothetical question.

(Applause)

I am not in the habit of answering hypothetical questions. The reality is already complex enough. Therefore, what I can tell you is that the Commission is against all forms of discrimination, including all forms of religious discrimination. That is our position and it is clear. It is not only the Commission’s position; it is the position of all the democratic Member States of the European Union.

That being said, I am not going to express an opinion on a hypothetical referendum.

Europe 2020

  David Casa (PPE). – (MT) I had intended to address a question to the President of the Commission concerning the Commission. However, an intervention was made today by the Socialist Party concerning the hearing we have with the Commissioners. I hope that the Socialist Party will not start playing around with the portfolios assigned to the nominated Commissioners. We do not have the competence to change the Commissioners’ portfolios, since this falls under the exclusive competence of the President of the Commission. The selected individuals, from our Party, the Liberals and the Socialist Party, are all very valid persons, and we should not have the competence to start debating as from now, prior to the hearing, whether we can change the portfolios of the Commissioners. I am aware that this was not the subject, but following the Socialist Party’s intervention, I felt that I had to make this intervention.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – It was not a question so I do not have to answer but, since I have the opportunity, I will just say the following.

The principle of loyalty between the different institutions is very important. Also, now that we have a new treaty, we need to respect the competences of each institution. I told you how important it is to have a special relationship between the Commission and Parliament, and I will work for that. This, of course, means respecting the competences of each institution in its own field according to the treaties.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, at the start of his speech, the Commission President referred to what had been wrong in earlier models. What is wrong, surely, is that the Commission has had some good programmes, but the Member States just do what they like. In other words, the stick and carrot approach is not enough to guide the Member States.

I also noticed that the 2020 document contained no innovative ideas regarding how the Member States might be guided. I would like to ask whether the Commission intends to use the warnings under Article 121 of the Treaty of Lisbon if a Member State does not comply or even want to comply with the ideas of the 2020 Strategy.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Thank you for your question and for the intention behind your question.

My intention is to propose to the Member States to reinforce economic governance in Europe. I think now we have an opportunity to do it. Frankly, it has been refused several times before. You have probably read a recent interview given by one of my predecessors, Mr Delors, who said that his proposal of reinforced coordination on social matters failed in 1993. It was refused by the Member States.

It was interesting and I looked up what I said then as Foreign Minister of my country. I was one of those supporting a reinforced cooperation of the Member States in that area. Unfortunately, it was not possible.

When the Lisbon Strategy was being revised, we put forward a proposal based on the Wim Kok report, and it was refused by Member States. After this crisis, I think there is now much more awareness of the need to have real coordination in the response to the crisis. I am going to fight for that but, of course, we need the support of the Member States to achieve this. We need them, because some of those policies are made at national level and some are at Community level.

I am encouraged by the first exchange of views with the European Council. In fact, the new President of the Council, President Van Rompuy, has already announced that he wants an informal exchange of views at the beginning of February. I hope that will be a way of having more commitment from the European Council for a strengthened mechanism of governance of the European Union 2020 Strategy.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr Barroso, the Lisbon Strategy has had its day. The European Union will therefore not be the most competitive economy from 1 January. Please excuse my harsh words, but one can almost talk in terms of a mirage. What we need to do now is ensure that, for the years ahead, for 2010, the EU is more like an oasis of calm for Europe’s entrepreneurs and citizens.

In this connection, I read in the memo with which you have presented us that you are talking about internationalising SMEs, the main creators of jobs in the EU. Do you not think, Mr Barroso, that the urgent requirement today is to stabilise the situation, to reassure people? Moreover, can you guarantee today that the Commission will oppose any regulatory hysteria and will apply, on a daily basis and in all its policies, the principle, the strategy, ‘Think small first’?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Thank you, Mrs Ries. This was one of the priorities of my Commission, but it is also a priority for the current Commission and will certainly be a priority for the next Commission too. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the ones that create jobs. We created the Small Business Act on the basis of the very principle – ‘Think small first’ – that you are talking about, and we are embarking on a programme to reduce administrative burdens, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why we have placed the completion of the internal market at the heart of our priorities, as there is potential and also an international dimension to exploit, because the truth is that our small and medium-sized enterprises are still coming up against a number of obstacles when trying to work with other markets. I therefore believe that this is one of the priorities of the new strategy, of the 2020 strategy. It is precisely a strategy that is linked more closely to the international dimension, because, today, the effects of globalisation are being felt, and it is only by adopting an aggressive, proactive stance that we can win this battle of competitiveness.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to provide an explanation in response to a very important question by Mrs Ries. We started to prepare the list of speakers at 15.00, when we started this item. I have about 30 people on the list, in the order you took your blue cards. Of course, we can add other speakers to the list, but it will be impossible for them to speak during this item.

If you wish, you can keep your cards for now, and Ms Durant will be the next speaker for one minute. We can try to add to the list the remaining Members wishing to speak, but I can tell you very honestly that it is impossible to have so many speakers; I have about 30.

We started to deal with the list at 15.00. If any other Members would like to add their names, please keep to one minute.

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission, I would like to ask you, in the context of this 2020 strategy and, in particular, of the system of enhanced governance, how you wish to deal with the issue of lobbies. You know, as I do, that if a 2020 strategy is drafted, there will inevitably be lobbying across the board. Lobbying takes place just about everywhere; there is lobbying of the Commission, of Parliament, of the Council.

As you are also aware, an interinstitutional debate is being held today on the issue of lobbies. Mr Kallas was in charge of this issue in the previous Commission. I should like you to tell me who in the Commission will be in charge of this issue of lobbies, and what his or her mandate will be. Do you wish to make progress – as I and other members of this interinstitutional group hope – towards a mandatory registration system for lobbies?

That is the condition governing transparency and it is also, in my view, the condition governing the citizens’ support. They must be able to understand how decisions are taken at European level by the Commission, the Council and Parliament.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, this is a well-known problem, a very important problem, and I am in fact proud that we have made progress during this Commission’s term of office. As you mentioned, Commissioner and Vice-President Kallas has done a great deal of work in this area, and we have made progress with the lobby registration system.

In my view, however, it should be acknowledged that the best way to deal with this problem is to be transparent, not to hide information. It is only natural! It is only natural in an open society and in an open economy for different, sometimes conflicting, interests to be expressed.

It is along these lines that the Commission will carry out its work: its relations with representatives of the various interests – the interests of businesses, of trade unions, of specific causes sometimes – will become more transparent.

The person responsible for this matter within the Commission, if you will kindly offer him your support, will be Commissioner and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. It is he who the administration will appoint to carry out this task within the new Commission.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – President Barroso, I welcome your vision for 2020. You show that even in the dark days of recession, one can dream of Utopia. I welcome your comments on European research areas. I represent Cambridge, which is home to the leading research cluster that has already seen great successes in high-tech, green-tech and bio-tech. If we are to turn your dreams into anything like reality, then we could do with listening to, and learning from, the Cambridge experience. Research needs funding; innovative businesses need funding; world class-innovation needs world-class funding.

Last week, I met representatives of the Wellcome Trust, which is the UK’s largest charity and last year gave EUR 750 million to medical research. They came to Brussels to tell this Parliament that, if we pass the legislation, as drafted, on alternative investments, then we would cut their organisation’s funding by two thirds. Please do not say one thing and do another.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Congratulations to Cambridge. I think Cambridge is one of the greatest universities in Europe and in the world. It is precisely because we do not have so many Cambridges in Europe that we have been working to have a real European research area, because Cambridge and other very important universities in Europe are quite international. They are able to attract very important funding, but in other countries, especially small countries and some of the poorest countries, they do not have those kinds of resources. That is why we not only need private funding like the ones you mentioned, and I certainly welcome all the work of foundations such as the ones you mentioned, but we also need public funding from the states and from the European Union budget. That will be one of the points I intend to put into the next European Union budget.

Regarding the link with alternative investment managers, I really do not see this link. I think we should not use one thing or the other. We believe it is important to have sensible regulations for products on the financial markets considering what happened, including in your country. It was in your country that we had the highest ever case of State aid in the history of the European Union, precisely because of problems in the financial markets.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Barroso, may I say that, while the ambitious objectives of the strategy for 2020 are being debated, there are certain countries, such as Greece, which will join this strategy on unfavourable terms, with huge economic problems and high unemployment.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced measures which he hopes will reduce the deficit. Athens is waiting with bated breath for reaction from the markets and an evaluation by various firms. I listened to your reply to an earlier question and I have read today’s statements by Mr Almunia and I should like to ask you Mr Barroso: apart from the Commission monitoring the public deficit in Greece, how else can it help to address this problem?

And secondly, within the framework of the strategy for 2020, how are such national peculiarities addressed, so that such problems do not arise?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – First of all, in the 2020 Strategy, our idea is precisely to have national programmes, but also horizontal European Community-wide programmes.

We are going to ask every Member State to put forward specific, simplified objectives for each country, taking into consideration their different circumstances. As you have mentioned, Greece is in a specific situation today, and we are being very attentive to it. Greece will, of course, go on benefiting from cohesion funds as it is one of the countries benefiting from those cohesion funds, and this is separate from the European Union 2020 Strategy.

However, it is important to understand why countries like Greece have to correct their deficits and their excessive debts. The interest countries pay for debt is money they cannot put into their hospitals or schools for the future. It is not because that we are attached to an idea of rigid macro-economic discipline that we recommend Member States not to maintain very high debt and deficit levels, but because we are thinking about social expenditure and addressing people’s concerns.

  Ivo Belet (PPE). – (NL) Mr President. President Barroso, I should like to ask you a question regarding the future of the automobile sector which, indeed, will remain one of the most important industrial sectors even after 2020. Some of our crown jewels are about to be sold off to China, which is an unwelcome development. In my opinion, it is by no means too late to avert this, but to do so we – you, Mr President, and the new European Commission – must move up a gear as a matter of urgency. We must mobilise more resources for research and development, with greater focus on the automobile sector, and we must also, of course, mobilise more financial resources from the European Investment Bank. As I see it, this is the only way to ensure that our current dependence on oil is not replaced with a future dependence on Chinese electric batteries, for example. Hence my question: are you and the European Commission prepared to assume a coordinating role in the short term, including with regard to the Opel dossier, so that we can join together resolutely to focus on the new, environmentally friendly technologies in the automobile sector?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – In the case of Opel, as you know, the Commission has maintained an important position, promoting the necessary meetings between the different countries involved and the companies concerned.

Regarding the issue of the automobile industry, there is a problem of over-capacity in Europe and in the world. So the future is precisely as your question suggests, finding new ways and new technologies, namely the development of cleaner cars. We have been supporting this idea, not only in terms of ideas but in terms of funding.

In fact the European Investment Bank, with our full support, has, as you know, created a special facility for this. This is one of the priorities for the next mandate: to develop a greener automobile industry in Europe which is technologically more advanced. This is the way in which we can maintain a leading position in the automobile industry in the world.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). – President Barroso, the European Anti-Poverty Network has described your consultation document on the 2020 Strategy as a step backwards from commitments by successive European Councils to strengthen the social dimension.

Your document only mentions flexicurity and training. You should know that on this side of the House, we cannot accept a strategy that is devoid of social content. 2010 will be the European Year against Poverty and Social Exclusion. Should you not make the fight against the scourge of poverty and exclusion the centrepiece of the 2020 Strategy?

Finally, recognising that a third of all jobs created since the year 2000 in the European Union are in the health, social and employment services, making a double contribution to reducing poverty, providing services and creating employment, should the 2020 Strategy not set targets for the provision of high-quality social services?

  President. – Thank you, colleague, but please do not put two questions during your one minute, because it is very difficult for President Barroso to answer two questions in one minute.

Which question do you prefer – the first or the second?

Colleagues, this is very important.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). – Mr President, in fact I put three points, and three ‘yeses’ would do!

(Laughter)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you very much for your understanding. I will try to choose the best question!

The honest answer is the following: this is a consultation document; it is not yet a strategy, and I very much welcome your input.

Let me tell you my personal opinion. Yes, we have to do more to fight poverty and social exclusion but for that, we need the support of our Member States. I can tell you that I have proposed concrete measures several times and have received a very loud ‘no’, with the argument that some Member States view social matters as something for them, and not for Europe.

That is an interesting debate. Let us see if we agree on this matter. I very much expect to have your support on this because, as you know, to fight social exclusion and poverty, we also need some instruments at European level that complement the instruments at national level. I am telling you the position that I will be defending. I hope all the Member States will be ready to support this view.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Commissioner, implementation of the Lisbon Strategy is not going very well. How do you intend to change the document on the Europe 2020 Strategy in order to achieve its objectives? Do you foresee preparation of something in the way of a programme for realisation of the strategy, a separate document for the Commission’s five-year term of office, which would set out the actions to be implemented? I think it would be a good idea. We could monitor realisation of the strategy and, at the same time, appraise the Commission on what has been implemented.

Finally, I will permit myself to make a comment: I think the time allowed for social consultations, and I mean the deadline set for 15 January, is too short. We should treat our social partners a little more seriously. It is they who are going to realise the strategy, and they should have more time to take part in these consultations.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – The deadline is the deadline for the consultation based on this document, but there will also be other opportunities to consult. In fact, there have been consultations on the future of the Lisbon strategy at least since 2008. The Committee of the Regions has prepared a very interesting report, as has the Economic and Social Committee, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am prepared, if the European Parliament so wishes, to hold a debate on this matter – not just this question hour with one-minute replies, but a special debate on this matter alone – whenever you want, because I really believe it is extremely important.

(Applause)

It is extremely important for this Parliament to have ownership, and also to associate national parliaments in this process, because this is to be the centrepiece of the strategy for the future. I would like to underline that point.

Regarding the issue of the mechanisms of governance, that is exactly what we are now preparing. There are several ideas. One current idea is precisely to have ways of measuring progress and to monitor progress in certain areas on the basis of indicators. This is what we are preparing, and for this we need the support of Parliament and, hopefully, also the agreement of our Member States.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Following up on the question which has already been asked, I would like to return to the 2020 climate strategy. Mr President, is it right that the provisional emissions trading system gives the largest steel company in Europe 90 million tonnes of CO2, despite the fact that it had 68 million last year and will have 43 million this year? Can it be that the largest steel company in Europe will have earned GBP 1 billion by 2012 from emissions, having been allocated too large an amount as a result of its lobbying activities with, among others, the Commission?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr Langen, I do not know exactly to what you are referring, but, if you are talking about emissions in Europe, let us be honest about it: our emissions are roughly speaking 14% of global emissions and that trend is a downwards one, because there are big economies on the rise in terms of emissions.

However, on an emissions per capita basis, we are still far above those economies and let us be fair about it: we also have some historical responsibility. The Americans produce more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than we do, but we produce much more than China and much more than India, for instance, if you are referring to the Indian case. This is indeed a problem that we have to address in a spirit of global fairness. If we want to solve the problem and if we believe there is a threat to our planet – that of climate change – we need cooperative efforts on all sides. So, yes, we do have more stringent conditions than in some other parts of the world, but we are also viewing this as an opportunity to develop new technologies so that we can meet our targets without putting at risk our companies, because we do not want to export our companies and our jobs.

  President. – Colleagues, during Question Hour with President Barroso, please do not ask additional questions, because a lot of people are waiting for their first question. I am very sorry, but I would prefer to move on to a fresh question.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D). – President Barroso, as you mentioned, interest rates are indeed affected by the state of the economy. They reflect the confidence in a particular economy and the international economic community is affected by them. Interest rates are affected by the confidence the Community has in a particular economy and that confidence is, in turn, affected many times by statements on the confidence that the European Commission shows in measures taken by Member States. In that sense, speculators also try to speculate on a bad economic situation and sometimes make it worse.

President Barroso, are you prepared today, in this Chamber, to state your support for the measures announced yesterday by the Greek Government to reverse the economic situation in Greece? Does the Commission believe that they are moving in the right direction and, if applied, that they could change the financial situation, which you have indicated has been problematic in the past?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I have already said that I was happy to hear yesterday Prime Minister Papandreou’s commitment to cut the public deficit and reduce government debt through permanent expenditure cuts and revenue increases. I even added that the 2010 budget currently being discussed in the Greek Parliament and the Prime Minister’s statement are steps in the right direction. Naturally, the Commission will continue to monitor closely the macroeconomic and fiscal situation and the implementation of the measures in Greece. This is very clear in my statement of support for the measures announced. I believe that this is the best way we can help Greece in the very difficult situation they are now facing in terms of budget and debt. I trust those measures will have some important results.

  Malcolm Harbour (ECR). – Mr President, I warmly welcome the chance to put a question to President Barroso because the Conference of Committee Chairs has, for the first time, been moved backward by an hour so we committee chairmen are able to be here for the first time.

I want to ask him about a policy to help framework conditions for research and innovation – which I was rather disappointed to see did not make it into this first draft of 2020, but I hope will be there in future – and that is to harness the huge potential of public procurement, throughout the European Union, to stimulate innovative products and services. I want to ask him today if he would take up the recommendations endorsed almost unanimously by this Parliament in my report last November, which showed how this could be done. Just to give him an idea and to share it with colleagues, if 1% of European public procurement was secured for innovative products and services, it would raise the investment in innovation across the European Union by no less than EUR 15 billion.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Thank you all for your comments, but let me tell you that there is no first draft of the new strategy. There is a Commission working document for consultation but we are not yet at the point of presenting a draft. Therefore, all your comments are very welcome.

Do not expect from me in a reply of one minute to give a decisive answer to such an important issue as the one you have put forward. I am aware of your report. I am aware of some of the interesting proposals you have made in terms of public procurement and, yes, it is also my intention, it is in the broad guidelines. I presented this to Parliament, as you will remember, in a reference to the need to deepen those commitments in terms of more market friendly, more innovative public procurement rules in Europe. This is certainly going to be part of our future strategy but I cannot, at this stage, commit to exactly how it will be incorporated.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, one of the biggest failings of the Lisbon strategy which, in other respects, is a good document, is that we have, to a certain extent, failed to get the Member States to actually achieve the goals set out in the strategy.

My fellow Member from Finland asked Mr Barroso earlier how he thought we could get the Member States to follow the strategy better. One of the targets that was included was how much the Member States should invest in research and development in terms of a percentage of GDP. I would like to know whether the Commission intends to set similar targets for the Member States, in other words, how much of its gross national product each Member State should invest in research and development.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – We are now assessing the reasons why all the goals and targets were not attained. With the new proposal, we will make an assessment – I believe a very honest and objective assessment – of what went right and what went wrong with the Lisbon strategy.

I cannot commit at this stage to what we are going to propose; we are precisely at this moment thinking about the way forward. That is why, when I mention the discussions I would like to have with you, I talk about real discussions, because your input is very important.

I personally think that to have an overall target for all Member States is probably not very realistic. I think the next phase of the European Union 2020 Strategy will have to be more refined and more sophisticated, having specific targets – agreed, of course, with the Member States – but for different situations.

This is my personal thinking. We have not yet come to the stage of presenting a proposal to you. I would also like the new Commission to have full ownership of the proposal, and we will present a bilan of the last Lisbon strategy.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Mr President, by next year, Britain’s net contribution will have doubled from what it was in 2008. In 2020 there will be four to seven new Member States at least. On their current economic performance, each one of the new Member States will be receiving cohesion funds – which are subsidies by another name – from the date they become members right the way through until 2020.

Can, therefore, the British taxpayer anticipate a further doubling in Britain’s net contribution to the European Union by 2020, and, if not, why not?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – I am not yet at the stage of discussing the financial perspectives and I cannot anticipate what Britain’s contribution will be. I understand the concern that you are expressing, because at the present time, British taxpayers are paying the biggest contributions because of what happened in the financial sector in Britain. There has been no other case of such large State aid as that which we have seen in your country.

The point we are at today is the following: we believe it is important to set priorities for the future, to see what we have to spend at national level and what we have to spend at European level, and then to have a discussion about the fair way of sharing that investment. However, we believe that in some cases, it makes more sense to spend a euro at European level than at national level because of the potential benefits of exploring the European dimension and the European internal market. We will come to that discussion and, I hope, at the end, we will come to an agreement.

  President. – This was our third Question Hour with the President of the European Commission. Thank you very much, colleagues, for putting forward questions for discussion.

As regards presence, there were slightly more people in the Chamber at the end of Question Hour than there were at the start, at 15.00. I am very sorry about that: we would have preferred to have had a lot of you here.

Thank you once again, President Barroso.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Mr President, the point I would like to make is that there are many people here today who have not had a chance to ask Mr Barroso questions. Given the huge salary that Mr Barroso is on, can he not spend another 30 minutes with us on a regular basis, to make this an hour and a half?

The first 30 minutes were with the other group leaders. There are 750 Members in this place. I think 30 minutes is ridiculous. Can we not have an hour and a half? Mr Barroso, you are on a good enough salary, sir. Come here for 90 minutes, not 60.

  President. – President Barroso is smiling very politely, but we will see. We must decide about that. Thank you for your proposal.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council on the Middle East peace process, including the situation in eastern Jerusalem.

  Cecilia Malmström, President-in-Office of the Council. – (SV) Mr President, the conflict in the Middle East was one of the issues we discussed here in Parliament right at the beginning of the Swedish Presidency. It feels good to be able to come back and report to you like this at the end of our term of office.

Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, was also in the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, where he presented a report and held long discussions, including on the Middle East. Last week, the Foreign Affairs Council discussed the situation in the Middle East and adopted conclusions. We are pleased that all 27 Member States support these conclusions, which clearly indicate the EU’s views on the peace process in the Middle East.

With these conclusions, the Council and the Presidency want to send a very clear and strong message from Europe that we hope may result in the negotiations between the parties being resumed soon. We are concerned about the lack of progress in the peace process in the Middle East. We have therefore made clear our support for the efforts by the United States to achieve peace. The EU is calling on the parties to accept responsibility and begin negotiations on all final status issues, including Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security. Our conclusions also reflect the EU’s position on the Middle East, based on international law, that we have held for a long time and that we have expressed on many occasions.

The EU’s position is, among other things, that an agreed two-state solution must be based on the 1967 borders and that the settlements are illegal. Jerusalem is a final status issue and we have made it clear that, if genuine peace is to be achieved, Jerusalem’s status as the future capital of two states must be settled through negotiations. Resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was linked to the settlement issue for a large part of the year. Recently, the Israeli Government announced a partial and temporary settlement freeze. The Foreign Affairs Council welcomes this decision and we hope that it will contribute to a resumption of meaningful negotiations.

However, we note with concern the surprising decision by the Israeli Government on 13 December to make the settlements part of the National Priority Areas programme for the first time. This goes against the spirit of the settlement freeze and damages the efforts to create an atmosphere that can help to bring about a long-term resolution of the conflict. My colleague, the Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation, Gunilla Carlsson, visited the Committee on Development in the European Parliament at the beginning of September. She promised to follow developments locally, to provide assistance and to intervene in the areas that we are all aware of – the situation in and around East Jerusalem, the settlements and issues such as access and movement, particularly with regard to Gaza. We have fulfilled this promise.

Over recent months, under the leadership of the Presidency, the EU has adopted a clear position with regard to the settlements and the continued closure of Gaza. The policy of closure is unacceptable and counterproductive. The EU is continuing to demand that the border crossings be opened immediately and unconditionally for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons. The Council has also called for the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 and for international humanitarian law to be respected. Those holding the abducted Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, must release him immediately.

I would like to say a few more words about Gaza. Of course, we hope that the mediation efforts by Egypt and the Arab League can continue. It is important to prevent a permanent division between the West Bank and East Jerusalem, on the one hand, and Gaza, on the other. We look forward to free and fair elections when conditions permit. One thing is clear – peace between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved if the Palestinians are united.

Our diplomats in the region have followed the situation in East Jerusalem closely. In their view, Israel is weakening the Palestinian community in the city. This causes us concern. The EU will increase its assistance to East Jerusalem to ease the living conditions of the Palestinians. The strong message concerning East Jerusalem in the Council’s conclusions is clear evidence of our concern for the situation. It is important to remember that settlements between Israel and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon are prerequisites for there to be peace in the Middle East. The EU welcomes the recent statements by Israel and Syria confirming their willingness to advance the peace process. It goes without saying that this would have extremely positive repercussions in the whole region.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President designate of the Commission. – Mr President, the Council adopted very substantive conclusions on the Middle East peace process last week. These set out a principled position on a number of crucial issues in a clear and determined manner. I will not dwell on the conclusions or repeat what the Presidency has said. Suffice to say that in reaffirming our principles, I hope we may have helped restore some Palestinian confidence and willingness to enter into the peace process. The conclusions, of course, will also be of great help to me, in providing me with a clear steer for the months to come.

You have invited me here today to talk about our political work, but also about the situation in East Jerusalem. This is an area of deep concern. East Jerusalem is occupied territory, together with the rest of the West Bank. The EU is opposed to the demolition of Palestinian homes, the eviction of Palestinian families, the construction of Israeli settlements and the route of the ‘separation barrier’. The EU is addressing these issues at political level, through diplomatic channels and in our public statements. We are also addressing the situation through practical assistance, aimed at supporting the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem. For example, there is a lack of 1 200 classrooms for Palestinian children in the city, so we are helping to reinforce education facilities. In addition, we enable Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem to remain viable and we do a lot of work with Palestinian young people in the city who suffer from high rates of unemployment and psychological problems. To date, in East Jerusalem, the EU is implementing activities costing EUR 4.6 million.

Another aspect of concern, of course, is the situation in Gaza. We have consistently called for the flow of aid, trade and persons. We are deeply concerned about the daily living conditions of the Gazan people: since the January conflict, donors have not been able to do reconstruction work and serious issues persist like the lack of clean drinking water. Israel should reopen the crossings without delay, which would allow a revival of the private sector and a reduction of Gaza’s aid dependency.

It is now time to move to action and put the Council conclusions into practice. We now need to think about how we can re-engage a political process. The two sides appear to have strayed further apart, in terms of engaging on an end game. I will be travelling to the region shortly and my main objective will be to meet the main actors and see first hand how the EU can be a force for change. I believe we all agree with the overall and overriding priority of a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – not negotiations for negotiations’ sake, but negotiations to achieve a peace deal and turn the page. We cannot – nor, I doubt, can the region – tolerate another round of fruitless negotiations. Negotiations have taken place on and off for several years starting with the Oslo Declaration of Principles signed in September 1993. That was 16 years ago. Negotiations should be based on international law and respect previous agreements. All issues should be on the table including the status of Jerusalem as the future shared capital.

They should also take place within an agreed timeframe with effective mediation. We need to see a serious commitment and the political will from both Israel and Palestine to engage in serious and genuine negotiations. The European Union is there to help both parties take that engagement and offer them support on the difficult road of negotiations. I am here to make sure Europe works effectively and harmoniously.

The EU has consistently supported both Israel and the Palestinians by giving them the time and space to negotiate bilaterally. Our assistance has enabled the Palestinian Authority to build the institutions of the future state of Palestine, so that it can deliver services to its people and be a reliable neighbour in the region. Today, however, the Palestinians are divided both politically and physically. Credible negotiations require a strong and united Palestinian partner. Israel stands to gain, not lose, from a strong Palestinian partner.

Israel has taken a first step with its temporary and partial settlement freeze. We hope this will contribute towards a resumption of meaningful negotiations.

The US remains an indispensable and crucial actor in the Middle East. Conditions for an effective EU-US partnership on the Middle East have rarely been as good. It is time to turn this into a reality by closely coordinating our positions and strategy. The EU will continue to support and work closely with the US via the Quartet. The Quartet needs reinvigoration – the current stalemate in the peace process demands it. The Quartet can provide the careful, yet dynamic, mediation that is required.

Peace in the Middle East requires a comprehensive solution. Both Syria and Lebanon have an important role to play. We look forward to the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative. They should be part of the solution. Our approach should be regional and inclusive. A multilateral framework should complement the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral framework.

In the coming months, I intend to remain in close contact with Parliament on all these issues. I am aware of the active role Parliament plays, not least in its capacity as budgetary authority. At political level, the EP delegations work directly with the Israeli Knesset and the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Last week, the Delegation to the PLC visited the occupied Palestinian territories and reported with great concern on the situation on the ground.

Finally, I welcome the continuation of Parliament’s working group on the peace process, which will meet again this week.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, during a visit of young Israeli and Palestinian leaders to the European Parliament, a thorough discussion was held which outlined a peace settlement for their future – a secure and recognised two-state solution, on the basis of the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital for both; demilitarisation of the Palestinian state; the reiteration of the 2007 Arab peace initiative; NATO guarantees; and the refugee issue to be arranged in a way that does not alter the demographic character of the Hebrew state.

While the young have a vision of a common future, their seniors still argue about whether they should begin negotiations. The Egyptian initiative for inter-Palestinian reconciliation – so that there is one interlocutor – is still pondering and the security arrangement in Gaza, with the liberation of prisoners, such as Gilad Shalit, is still awaited. In the meantime, the faits accomplis on the ground, according to the report by the EU Head of Mission in East Jerusalem, renders the Palestinian state less and less viable.

I regret the fact that Israel, a democratic country, pays little attention to the damage some of its actions create through the eyes of international public opinion and limits itself to damage limitation only afterwards.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Malmström, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, firstly I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Swedish Presidency for this initiative. It was a good initiative and I would like to congratulate you on it. I would also like to thank Baroness Ashton for sitting on the Commission’s side on her first appearance here, even though she has spoken primarily in her role as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This is all about a common foreign and security policy. In some ways, it may not be important where you sit. What is important is that you are here and that you are representing a common foreign policy.

My second point is that the statement adopted by the Council is a good one and it is by no means anti-Israeli. On the contrary, it is in the interests of Israel and its security and stability. It is very important to emphasise this. If we, as Europeans, are to play an active role in this respect, it is essential that we continue to do so. I would ask you, Baroness Ashton, to take this to heart.

A few days ago, we were in the US having discussions with our colleagues from Congress. When faced with one-sided approach of Congress and its lack of understanding of the situation of the Palestinians, President Obama has very few options open to him. We have great sympathy for the situation in Israel. We are also opposed to any form of terrorism and we want the captured soldier to be returned to his family at last. However, we are equally concerned about and sympathetic towards the unfortunate position which the Palestinians find themselves in with regard to everything referred to in this statement and, in particular, the 1967 borders, the difficult situation in Jerusalem and the settlement activities. It is completely incomprehensible, although it is a continuation of the policy of the last few years, that a highly conflicting approach is being taken to settlement growth. First it was stopped and then it was included in the national priority programme. After this, only natural development continued and then roads were built which cut through Palestinian settlements. The way in which land is being taken away from the Palestinians on a day-to-day basis is totally unacceptable.

What happened to a delegation from Parliament is also completely unacceptable. Mr de Rossa will also give his view on this. The Members of this Parliament must join together with the Council and the Commission to state clearly that Members of Parliament have the right to travel to Gaza and to see the situation there for themselves. What does Israel have to hide? Why is it preventing Members of Parliament from going to Gaza? We must not accept this and I hope that we will oppose it jointly. Transparency and openness, among other things, are the prerequisites for a reasonable Middle East policy. We must give this our clear support.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Mrs Ashton, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, firstly, Mrs Malmström, I should like to congratulate the entire Swedish Presidency on the Council’s conclusions on the Middle East conflict in general and East Jerusalem in particular.

I believe everyone will see it as an important omen that a joint report by the EU Heads of Delegation on East Jerusalem has been approved and adopted unanimously for the very first time, and at this time in particular, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Another omen is that the conclusions proposed by the Swedish Presidency have also been adopted unanimously, including those on East Jerusalem. I hope that the Israeli authorities realise the importance of this development.

Ladies and gentlemen, we debate the Middle East every few months, and sometimes it seems like the Echternach procession: one small step forward, then signs of a backwards step, then more cause for hope. Unfortunately, there is also cause for despondency, but we continue to hope, of course. It is of the utmost importance, of course – including to my group – that both Israelis and Palestinians be able to live side by side in peace in two separate states, to benefit from all the available development opportunities and to guarantee each other’s security. I believe we all agree on this. We also agree on what steps would ideally lead to this and, of course, we are prepared to make our contribution.

Jerusalem is one of the most beautiful cities in the world – it is really an extraordinary place – and so it is terribly tragic that the peoples living there side by side cannot manage to do so peacefully. For the sake of the wellbeing and preservation of Jerusalem, I hope that, in the few days remaining before Christmas, this can still be achieved.

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome the statements from both the Council and the Commission, but my question to them both is when are we are going to go beyond the fine words – which I very much agree with – when are we going to have real action? We have heard the same words over and again that we need to ensure that Israel does this or does that, but we need the real leverage to make that happen, otherwise Israel will simply ignore us, as it continues to do.

My question is what practically can you do to make sure that we see real movement and progress here? To my mind that has to involve issues like the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Focusing on the situation in East Jerusalem, I welcome very much the Swedish Presidency’s initiative and its clarity over the role of Jerusalem as a capital of two states and your firmness about the importance of Israel freezing its settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

I also pay tribute to the authors of the EU Heads of Mission report on East Jerusalem itself. That report speaks with a clarity and vision which is all too often absent in these debates. It sets out how Israel’s policy of illegal annexation of East Jerusalem is deliberately designed to weaken the Palestinian community in the city and prevent Palestinian development. But the Heads of Mission called on the Council to adopt a whole range of recommendations as a result of that report, and I believe that we need to see urgent action from the Council to do exactly that.

If the EU is serious about its commitment to a two-state solution, it needs to be doing everything possible to preserve and strengthen the Palestinian character and identity of East Jerusalem. The Heads of Mission statement and report show practical ways of doing so.

  Peter van Dalen, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (NL) Mr President, particularly at this time of Advent, many are praying for peace in the Middle East, but sometimes one loses heart and thinks this peace will never come. It is, nevertheless, important that all parties continue to work for peace, yet therein may lie the main problem. Are all parties able and willing to work for peace? Israel has already taken action to exchange land for peace in the past – I am thinking of its withdrawal from parts of the Gaza Strip – but, unfortunately, this did not lead to peace. Indeed, the rocket fire increased and, in 2009, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip. Now, Israel has announced a temporary halt to construction on the West Bank. A series of roadblocks has also been removed. This was a gesture to help bring about peace talks.

This action by the Netanyahu Government is already fairly far-reaching by Israeli standards, yet I still see little movement on the Palestinian side. People keep saying that what Israel does is of no account, but I fail to see a Palestinian gesture to enable talks. Is the Palestinian side willing and able to bring about further talks? Hamas seems to be embroiled in its struggle with Fatah and to be kept on a tight leash by Iran. Mahmoud Abbas seems to be a paper tiger, no longer wielding much influence to speak of. I think it is time the Palestinian side, too, made clear that it wants peace.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, Lady Ashton, we welcome the decision taken on 8 December by the Council of the European Union. This confirms the European Union’s support for the creation of two states on the basis of the 1967 borders.

Nonetheless, based on experience from our recent visit to the area, the situation which prevails in the territories in question makes the creation of a Palestinian State almost impossible. I refer specifically to the erection of the wall, to the demolition of Palestinian houses and, most importantly, to the creation of settlements in the area of the West Bank as a whole, especially around East Jerusalem.

Around 500 000 settlers are living in these settlements today. More importantly, in East Jerusalem, efforts are being made to create a palisade by erecting settlements around the city, so as to force the Palestinians to abandon their homes. It is now obvious that the Israeli Government is using talks to gain time. Slowly but surely, it is trying to impose its sovereignty on all the Palestinian territories.

In addition to advocating the solution of two states, the European Union should take specific measures against Israel. The continuing violation of human rights is sufficient cause for the European Union to impose sanctions on the basis of Article 2 of the treaty, because if, on the one hand, it chooses to support the peace process but, on the other hand, continues to upgrade economic relations with Israel without limitation, the only thing it will achieve is to serve Israel’s policy, which consists of forcing the Palestinians to abandon their land and expanding Israeli sovereignty to the whole of Palestine.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, has Europe taken leave of its senses? This rhetorical question was put by the United States at the start of December. The subject of this fierce criticism from Congress was the unilateral designation of East Jerusalem as the capital of the envisaged Palestinian State in a draft Council Resolution in circulation. As Chair of the EP Delegation for relations with Israel, I had imagined and hoped for a more constructive start to our transatlantic dialogue. Also, I hasten to add, careful examination of both the draft and the final Council statement left me, like our counterparts in Congress, extremely dismayed. I distance myself emphatically from the proposal to divide Jerusalem, in particular. I consider the Council statement on the Middle East to be a serious diplomatic and political setback for the peace process, and hence am very disappointed in the Foreign Ministers for being led by the Swedish Presidency, of all presidencies, with its strained relations with the Jewish State.

I have several fundamental objections to the said Council statement. This is hardly the way to encourage the Palestinian Authority to resume talks with Israel. In addition, the statement goes against the Quartet’s principle, laid down on 9 November 2008, that ‘third parties should not intervene in the bilateral negotiations’. The official reaction of the United States to the Council statement of 8 December underlined this principle once more. Is there nothing for it, then, but to resign ourselves to the impasse in the peace process? Absolutely not! Following recent delegation visits to Israel, I firmly believe that a gradual, solid process of rapprochement between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority is both necessary and possible. Gradually transferring administration on the West Bank, for example in Area C, and strengthening economic cooperation, whilst strengthening and establishing reliable Palestinian institutions, will really move the peace process forward. I call on the Council and the Commission, therefore, to stop making counterproductive declarations on the peace process and instead to invest in specific projects involving cooperation between the Israelis and Palestinians. This is an established European formula, is it not?

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, as a member of the parliamentary delegation to Israel, I listened with interest to the Foreign Affairs Council’s comments on the Middle East peace process and the Commission’s statement. However, I, like my previous colleague, are left with an overriding sense of concern in relation to these. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the region. The favourite tactics of its opponents have been terrorism against the state. I believe that the Council and the Commission statements fail to give proper weight to Israel’s security concerns. In fact, I did not hear the High Representative mention those concerns in her statement to this House.

Furthermore, I believe that the statement places too strong a burden upon Israel, both in terms of the failure of the process to progress and on the resolution of the outstanding issues – in particular, Jerusalem.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the truth is that this is a very unusual debate, because we have Mrs Malmström sitting on the Council benches – soon we hope to see her sitting on the Commission benches. We will see where she sits!

In any case, Mr President, the Council’s conclusions do not exactly incite optimism. The Council has expressed its deep concern regarding the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process, and is asking for it to be resumed on the basis of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, the conclusions of the Madrid Conference and the road map. Nothing is new under the sun.

It also says that the European Union is prepared to make its essential contribution to resolving the problems that the two speakers have presented here: the problem of eastern Jerusalem, the water problem, the security problem and the border problem.

There are, however, a series of new elements that I would like our guests to give their opinion about. Firstly I would like to know whether, in their opinion, the eight-month moratorium and the settlements decided upon by the Israeli Government are linked to the new United States Government.

I would also like to know what they think about the statements made yesterday in Gaza by the representative of Hamas, on the twenty-second anniversary, saying that they are not intending to make any concessions to Israel and that they are not intending to recognise it. What do they think of the continuity law that is going to give a voice to the Israeli people through a referendum on the occupation of the occupied territories?

Finally, what do they think of the Goldstone report and its adoption by the United Nations Human Rights Council? Do they think that this is something that will help the peace process or, on the contrary, as Israel maintains, do you think that it is something that will obstruct or hinder it?

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Mr President, there are two commitments which I specifically want to welcome in the Council statement and which have the potential to create a new dynamic: support for the Palestinian Authority’s two-year programme for ending the Israeli occupation and establishing the Palestinian state, and the Union’s readiness, when appropriate, to recognise a Palestinian state.

Last week, I led an official European Parliament delegation to the occupied Palestinian territories where, once again, I saw with my own eyes the apartheid system being implemented by Israel against Palestinians, along with the dispossession and destruction of their homes, their lands, their water and their places of worship.

Within hours of the publication of the Council statement, the permission my delegation had for going to Gaza was rescinded. That is not the act of a friendly state. It is certainly an interference in the democratic right of this Parliament to have decent and democratic relations with our opposite numbers, elected by the Palestinian people.

We found widespread despondency and hopelessness amongst the people we met and in the areas we visited in Hebron, East Jerusalem and Ramallah. Where there is hopelessness, there will be violence. We can make progress now or we can let the situation slide into more bitter violence, which will drive moderate Palestinian politicians out of leadership. That is the choice we have to make.

I would appeal to both the Council and to Baroness Ashton, whom I wish well, to reinvigorate the Union’s engagement with this process – not just looking towards the Quartet to reinvigorate its engagement with the process – and to put in place a timetable coinciding with the Palestinian authority’s two-year timetable for the implementation of the principles we outlined, so bravely in my view, last week.

We must vigorously defend human rights. We must act. We must use access to our markets to incentivise Israel. I am not talking about sanctions. I am talking about ensuring that access to our market is used as an incentive to ensure that Israel acts in relation to its international responsibilities. We must also, finally, persuade the United States to urgently re-engage on the same basis we outlined last week.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, the EU Heads of Mission report on East Jerusalem makes pretty devastating reading. Let us not beat about the bush. This report makes clear that what is going on in East Jerusalem amounts to a form of ethnic cleansing. Palestinian homes are being stolen, people are being forced out and hopes of peace are being destroyed. So the question is: what are we going to do about it?

The Council’s conclusions are very welcome. We know they are strong, because the Israeli Government immediately dismissed them. Nothing new, they said. They are used to dismissing our words because we never back them up with deeds. They treat us with contempt. Why shouldn’t they – we are so gullible we actually pay the bills for the occupying power! We keep the Palestinians going when it should be Israel footing the bill, not our taxpayers.

If our words are to have meaning, then we should suspend or threaten to suspend the association agreement, but not one of our foreign ministers has ever even raised that possibility, we are told. So the question remains: where is the policy? Well, we have the policy. It is in the conclusions. Now what about the action? Israel will not move unless it is pushed.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to welcome Baroness Ashton to her new position. I would also like to thank the Swedish Presidency for the resolution and for acknowledging that it will not be possible to implement the two-state solution in the long term unless we can solve the settlement problem. The Heads of Mission report has been mentioned several times and we also believe that it is very good. On this basis, I have two questions. What is the current status of this report and where will it be published? Secondly, what will you, the Commission and the Council, do to implement the recommendations in the report? I would now like to quote three of the recommendations from the report. The first is:

‘prevent, discourage financial transactions from EU Member States’ actors supporting settlement activity in East Jerusalem by adopting appropriate EU legislation’; second, ‘ensure that products manufactured in settlements in East Jerusalem are not exported to the EU under the EU-Israel Association Agreement’; and, third, ‘provide guidance on origin labelling for settlement products to major EU retailers.’

(DE) The proposals made in this report are very specific and precise. What steps do you plan to take now to implement them?

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL) . – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, I thank you and I welcome your comments.

Europe now has two essential documents with which to push for new peace initiatives. Firstly, the courageous report by the Swedish Presidency, which you just mentioned, Mrs Malmström. This report calls for progress along the lines of having two States, one of which would be Palestine, within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital.

Secondly, the text by the ambassadors, the Heads of Mission, which shows that the Israeli authorities are pursuing a strategy whereby they demolish houses and colonise land in violation of human rights. This strategy is aimed at cutting Jerusalem off from the West Bank so that the very idea of creating a Palestinian state is shelved.

However, our words in this House will clearly have no effect if we do not follow them up with concrete acts. We must act and, to do so, we can suspend the European Union-Israel association agreement until such time as the Israeli Government complies with international law. We therefore need to act to ensure an end to the colonisation, the lifting of the blockade of Gaza, the destruction of the wall of shame, the return of the refugees, and the release of all the political prisoners.

May I say one more thing. The release of the soldier, Gilad Shalit, has been discussed in this House. I agree with what has been said. However, at the same time, our Parliament must gives its support to the release of another European citizen, the young Franco-Palestinian, Salah Hamouri. Yes, freedom for Gilad Shalit, but also for Salah Hamouri!

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Please allow me to start by congratulating the Council for the courageous conclusions it reached last week. In my opinion, we have never had such clear, concrete and courageous conclusions on such a sensitive issue from the Council as the one we had last week. Therefore, I congratulate the Council.

I would, however, like to add that we must now proceed to take action, since the situation in Jerusalem is deteriorating on a daily basis and cannot be tolerated any further. There are problems of blatant violations of international law, there are difficulties which are causing great suffering to many persons, including expulsion from their homes, destruction of their residences, and the construction of illegal residences. We cannot remain silent in the face of such injustices, because by doing so, we would be conveying the message that law, diplomacy, and the much cherished principle of peaceful solution of conflicts are worthless. I do not think that we would have allowed this to happen in our country. We must therefore act by creating the right environment conducive to confidence building between the two parties, and to have two distinct and viable states which can cohabit peacefully. Kindly allow me to give credit to the instrumental role Jordan is playing in this regard. A final word to Baroness Ashton – you have been assigned a new role by the Lisbon Treaty, an important role which provides us with an opportunity. Let us please not miss this opportunity.

  Rosario Crocetta (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we were in Ramallah when we heard the news that Europe had adopted a new decision on the Middle East peace process. We saw the hopeful smiles on the faces of the Palestinian representatives.

They were days filled with emotion and suffering, etched on the faces of the children gripping the window bars of their homes on the Hebron road, the deserted road that no Palestinian is allowed to cross. We saw the suffering of an 85-year-old woman, driven out of her occupied home, forced to sleep in the cold in a tent set up in the garden of what used to be her own house, and the suffering on the faces of the Palestinians who had built a farm using European funds, subsequently destroyed by Israeli soldiers.

Israel has the right to be an independent state, but the Palestinians also have the right to a homeland, a state and a passport. The decision of the Council of Europe represents a considerable step forward, but we need to act immediately. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just the tip of the iceberg in a larger conflict. On the final day of our visit, the Israeli authorities prevented us, the European Parliament delegation, from visiting the Gaza Strip. I believe that in this regard, the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, should step in to protest on behalf of democratic Europe.

I should like to thank Mr De Rossa who led the delegation and all the other members of the delegation, because during the days we spent in Palestine, the vulnerable were able to see and hear the face and the words of a Europe which upholds rights and wishes to, and must, do more.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Ashton, I believe that the new High Representative must be amazed at how the European Parliament has done its homework. What sort of history books must it have read if it did not know how the state of Israel came about in 1947? This interpretation that the Council adopted under the Swedish leadership therefore seems a bit odd.

We have to remember that the European Union must stand by its values. We have democracy, human rights and freedom of opinion, which is important. Furthermore, Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. We should not be creating anti-democracies there, non-democracies, because they do not respect our values.

It is also very important to remember that the idea that Jerusalem should be divided, making it a city in two countries, is quite inconceivable. The European Union would not propose such a thing for any other democratic country. Of course, we need to ensure that Israel can preserve its democratic system and its rights in its own capital, and the European Union can be involved in the peace process, and it should be, but in a diplomatic role and not as a doctor or judge.

It is regrettable that Gilad Shalit, who is a French national – a citizen of the European Union – and an Israeli soldier, has not been released. This shows what the Palestinian administration and Hamas think about the European Union. They have no respect whatsoever for our principles or our values. We need to move on, and these sorts of daydreams, which the Council resolution largely consists of, should be abandoned.

Israel is a democracy; its values are the same as our own. We must defend democracy and people’s right there to a complete and secure existence, and to peace, and that peace can be achieved when the terrorist organisations, Hamas and their cohorts, stop the attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens. Here we have the scope to fight terrorism together and make it possible for Israel to exist as a nation.

  Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, in their report of 23 November, the EU Heads of Delegation in Jerusalem and Ramallah made very clear that Israel is actively engaged in illegally annexing East Jerusalem and completely isolating it from the rest of the West Bank. I ask myself, therefore, why the Foreign Affairs Council is not drawing the right conclusions from this. Why is it simply disregarding the specific recommendations, in particular, of such an important factual report – its own report, at that – knowing that the current developments are irreversible and, in so doing, even casting serious doubt on the chances of establishing an independent, viable Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel? The Middle East peace process has no need for woolly pronouncements. It is high time and the right moment for the European Union to assume an active, visible role in the region, and this is only possible, of course, if we also show the courage to take a clear and unequivocal position, particularly on East Jerusalem.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL) . – (EL) Mr President, the EU policy is to support the Israeli Government, together with the United States and NATO, in its criminal policy of genocide of the Palestinian people. This is the conclusion reached by members of the European Parliament delegation which the Israeli authorities prohibited from entering the occupied Gaza Strip.

EU policy and the recent decision essentially give extra time to Israeli governments, which burden themselves with war crimes, as we know from the UN report on the war in Gaza, so that they can continue with their occupation plans.

The mealy-mouthed talk by the European Union is out of keeping with the righteous global call for a viable and independent Palestinian state on the 1967 territories with its capital in East Jerusalem. The European Union is not taking any practical steps in this direction. On the contrary, it is upgrading relations with Israel, which continues with the settlements, especially in East Jerusalem, with the construction of the dividing wall and with the shameful and criminal isolation of the Gaza Strip.

We reject imperialist plans for the Middle East and stand side by side with the Palestinian people and all the peoples in their struggle.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) I have to say that the results of last week’s meeting of the Council of Ministers were not entirely balanced and, moreover, I have the feeling, as I have been dealing with this issue for a long time, that they have not really advanced matters in terms of our efforts for the peaceful coexistence of these two nations.

I would therefore like to say that I know that we have more to do. We have to be not only mediators but also active mediators in this peace process, and we must insist that the solution to this catastrophic situation appears equal and is equal and acceptable to both states, so that both states, both Palestine and the State of Israel, have an equal stake in it.

The Council has tried to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, despite their opposition to some Israeli measures, and we, too, are insisting that needless obstacles to the peace process are removed as soon as possible. The demolition of Palestinians’ homes in East Jerusalem and the building of settlements and separation barriers on occupied territory are not acceptable. It is also unacceptable, however, for us to expose Israel and not to manage to defend it actively against all attacks and terrorist activities aimed against citizens of the State of Israel.

I would like to emphasise, of course, that it is also necessary to respect the international legal framework, without which there can be no hope of stable development for the region. In my opinion, we Europeans, the EU and the citizens of our states, are prepared to hold out a helping hand and I hope that Baroness Ashton achieves success with her mission to the region and returns from the region with good reports.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Malmström, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, I am a member of the delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council, in other words, the Palestinian parliament. Last week, our delegation was refused entry to Gaza by Israel. The situation in Gaza is very disturbing, particularly now that winter has come. Only 10% of the population can obtain the supplies they need by smuggling goods through the tunnels and this is exactly why the tunnels are tolerated by everyone.

Before operation ‘Cast Lead’ the situation was exactly the reverse and 90% of the population of Gaza could take care of themselves. As an occupying power, Israel should be responsible for providing for the population in all the occupied areas. Israel is shirking its responsibility under international law, which means that the international community and, above all, the EU have to step in.

If we are supplying food to 90% of the population of Gaza, we have a right to see where European taxpayers’ money is being spent, whether it is being used appropriately and whether it is reaching the people who need it.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mrs Malmström and the Swedish Presidency on their excellent conclusions. They revive the expectation that we all had, namely that it would be confirmed that the EU is indeed responsible for peace in the region under international law, and that, I believe, is crucial.

Nevertheless, I am surprised that, one year after the military invasion of Gaza, no reference has been made, in these conclusions, to the follow-up to the Goldstone report sought by the Council. What stage are we at in the follow-up to this Goldstone report, to which the Council committed itself, notably with regard to the internal investigations involving the various parties concerned?

Next, I am delighted that East Jerusalem is being considered as the capital of the future Palestinian State, or the Jerusalem of the two States. Nevertheless, these conclusions lack specific operational options. On the other hand, there are very many such options in the mission report by the Heads of State or Government who visited East Jerusalem.

I therefore call on the Commission and the Council to kindly clarify for us the specific methods by which, in fact, the European Union will neither recognise nor legitimise the annexation of East Jerusalem that Israel is currently seeking to achieve by, among other things, introducing economic measures, but also by orchestrating the mass displacement of Palestinian communities.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, may I welcome the presence of the new High Representative in the Chamber and also the strong Council conclusions on the Middle East steered by the Swedish Presidency.

On the Goldstone report, I would like to congratulate Mr Bildt, on behalf of the Presidency, for praising the – and I quote – ‘credibility and high integrity’ of the Goldstone report. I do think it would be useful if Mrs Malmström could repeat today in the European Parliament what her Ambassador said in the United Nations – that the EU urges Israel and the Palestinians to launch appropriate, credible and independent domestic investigations of human rights violations in relation to the Gaza conflict.

Finally, can I ask the Presidency and the High Representative if they are aware of the British Government guidance adopted last week for food labelling to distinguish between imports originating from the Palestinian territories and those from illegal Israeli settlements, and tell us what plans they have for extending this advice to the European level. As electors, we can choose to pay the costs of peace. As consumers, we do not want to subsidise the price of conflict.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, I think that the recent European Union position led by the Swedish Presidency on the Middle East that would recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent Palestinian state may harm European efforts to play a significant part in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians. It might be counterproductive with our common objective to bring peace to this already turbulent region.

I personally believe that rather than unilaterally and unexpectedly announcing an independent capital for the Palestinian territories, it would be preferable and more useful if the European Union would concentrate all its efforts on encouraging and pushing for the creation of a real democracy in the Palestinian territories, for example, supporting non-violent opposition. This would help the Israeli state and democracy, as well as the international community, to find a credible and legitimate interlocutor.

As Cecilia Malmström has said today, the status of Jerusalem should be negotiated bilaterally by Israelis and Palestinians. I therefore believe that rather than a ‘two states for two peoples’ solution, a ‘two democracies for two peoples’ vision would be more desirable.

Democracy, dear colleagues, is a precondition for peace.

IN THE CHAIR: MR LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly I would like to say how pleased I am that Baroness Ashton is sitting on the Commission side. I hope that she will continue to do so.

I have two questions for the Presidency. In the conclusions from the Council of Foreign Ministers there is no reference to the Middle East Quartet. Is the Council not in agreement about the role of the Middle East Quartet in the peace process or what is the reason for this?

Secondly, the same thing applies to Hamas. No reference is made in the conclusions to this group which, unfortunately, is politically important. What lies behind this?

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, since Mr Le Hyaric practically doubled his speaking time, I feel entitled to go at my own pace, but I shall nevertheless get straight to the point.

Under the Swedish Presidency, we had become used to better, much better. Mrs Malmström, please forgive my frankness. Designating, decreeing, as she has done, East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian State – just to begin with, I know – is, in my view, a rare diplomatic error – I am speaking euphemistically here. The error is not one of substance – let no one be mistaken about what I am saying here – but the way in which this declaration, which prejudges the final outcome of the negotiations, patronises, indeed scorns, the parties concerned. Moreover, there are many Member States that have taken a stand and kept their distance from this first draft of the text.

So yes, of course, a thousand times yes to an open capital, a shared capital, this form of sharing that, since the 2000s now, has been part of the Clinton Parameters for a negotiated peace, a principle that has been accepted by Ehud Barak in Taba, and by others too. Furthermore, we also remember, in this very Chamber, the powerful way in which it was defended by Avraham Burg and Ahmed Qurei. Jerusalem: a sacred city for three religions, the capital city of books, an open capital. The only thing is, our role is not to impose sharing, a timetable or methods, but – as was said earlier – to encourage dialogue so as to enable the parties concerned, Palestinians and Israelis, to come to a conclusion.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, the Council conclusion is indeed a welcome vigorous statement of the EU position and its intention to play a much stronger role in a reinvigorated Quartet engagement. Do the Council and Commission therefore agree that the approach urged on it by some, which is to boycott Israel, is completely the wrong route to that engagement? You cannot boycott and engage at the same time.

Indeed, the right approach is the one also stressed by the Council conclusions, which is to reaffirm the further development of bilateral relations with Israel. However tempting it is, the Council can only be an influential player politically, as well as with economic support, if it resists the temptations – motivated sometimes by frustration at one or other of the parties – to have some sort of sanctions or punish one or the other. It is too complex a situation and it simply undermines a consistent, coherent EU pressure on both parties to get back to the table and have a peace agreement.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – (SL) I, too, am against the language of sanctions and threats and I, too, am in favour of a constructive policy and dialogue. However, I regret that we have heard far too often today the message that Israel is a democratic state. Israel is a state which is not behaving democratically when it comes to the Palestinians and when it comes to our common objective, which is the establishment of two independent, self-confident and secure states which will co-exist alongside each other. This is why, Baroness Ashton, I think that today you have been given many incentives for the development of a more constructive and a more effective European Union policy. I regret to say that Israel continues to see us as a paper tiger, not as a real entity with which it ought to establish a dialogue and which could be useful in resolving the problem.

  Robert Atkins (ECR). – Mr President, as a member of the delegation that went to Palestine last week, it became clear to me that there are a number of sensible people who believe that the two-state option is dead in the water, largely because of Israeli actions, not least the proposals to extend the wall even further into and beyond East Jerusalem, thereby dividing the West Bank into the north and the south.

What interests and what actions are we likely to take if the single-state option becomes a reality?

Secondly, are the Presidency and Lady Ashton aware of how much the views of, again, sensible people about the charade that passes off as the Quartet is prevalent amongst a number of people? What actions are we going to take to ensure that the cost of this operation is matched by its effectiveness, which presently is nil?

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I agree with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman, that the final Council statement is a lot better perhaps than the earlier Swedish draft which I saw a couple of weeks ago, but it makes no mention of the accepted Quartet principles which Hamas repudiates as it carries on terrorising Palestinian Authority officials and civilians alike in Gaza.

Also, why did Foreign Minister Bildt not visit the region to show solidarity with democratic Israel and moderate Palestinians?

Also, why was the annexation of East Jerusalem singled out for mention at this critical time?

The EU needs to be more balanced and formally recognise our common democratic values with the state of Israel and actually enhance Israel’s participation in EU programmes – unusually, I agree with Baroness Ludford on this – under the Association Agreement, in order to build confidence by Israel in the EU’s goodwill towards the Jewish state.

  Cecilia Malmström, President-in-Office of the Council. – (SV) Mr President, thank you for a very constructive debate. I would like to start by answering some specific questions and then I will say a few words to conclude.

The Goldstone report is a very important one. It is a serious report. It is important to study the conclusions carefully and the EU has called on both parties, Israel and the Palestinians, to launch appropriate investigations in the spirit recommended in the report.

As regards the Quartet, there is also a reference to the Quartet itself and to the need for the Quartet to step up its efforts in the conclusions adopted by the Council. With regard to the talks with Hamas, the Council is maintaining contact with the Palestinian leadership under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. The conditions for talks with Hamas are well-known and they have not been met.

Finally, I would like to say that it is extremely gratifying to see the high level of support in this House for the conclusions. Everyone, with some slightly differing opinions of course, appreciates how important it is to try in every way possible to support the peace process in the Middle East and we all feel an enormous amount of frustration about the fact that it is progressing so desperately slowly. The peace of Christmas that will soon settle over this Chamber and many places in the world will once again not be experienced in the way we would like it to be in the region this year.

At the beginning of the Swedish Presidency, we had hoped that the efforts of US President Obama would bear fruit in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It is important for the EU and the US to work closely together. This has not happened yet, but – as always with regard to this issue – we must be patient and persistent. The EU must be consistent and stand firm in its message with regard to East Jerusalem, borders, settlements and security. I am very pleased at the high level of consensus here in Parliament, including with regard to our conclusions, which are clear and consistent. They will form the basis for the EU’s work for a long time to come. In this regard, it will be important for all institutions to work closely together.

The EU is continuing its European security and defence policy mission in the region, and the European Union Police Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support (Eupol Copps), in particular, has made a significant contribution over the last year to improving the social and economic conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank. The EU also supports the preparations for the formation of an independent Palestinian state. A lot of work is needed here, and we, of course, support the programme drawn up by the Palestinian authorities: Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing a State.

In order to put an end to this conflict, a negotiated settlement must be reached between the parties. This must include all of the issues. We cannot accept a solution that is determined through unilateral measures, which then becomes a fait accompli. The solution must be comprehensive. It must include the Lebanese and Syrian track and it must be part of a regional strategy that settles the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are not there yet, but the EU has nevertheless taken a huge step forward. All of the institutions are very much in agreement about the need for this and I look forward to continued cooperation on this matter.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President designate of the Commission. – Mr President, can I just say that the issue of where I sit, I suspect, will keep coming back. I am sitting here because the Council is over there. I may have to go and sit over there or you may have to build me a seat equidistant, because I assure you I will be in trouble somewhere for wherever I sit. It is a great delight, though, to be here with Cecilia and I look forward very much to working with her.

What strikes me about the debate that we have just had is that pretty much – and I think, Mr Atkins, you may be the exception in what you said, though I listened with great care – there is a shared conviction that what we are looking for is a two-state solution. There is an enormous amount of passion from all parliamentarians, especially, if I may say, Mr De Rossa and those Members who have recently come back, and who have clearly seen for themselves the dreadful situation that exists on the ground.

I believe what is significant about the Council conclusions is that they are very clear. They give me a real sense of the direction that we need to move in. What is also very clear – and I pay tribute to the Presidency for the work that they have done on this – is the frustration in this House that things are not moving, frustration borne of views that are sometimes quite different, but nonetheless converge on a desire to see a solution. The nuances are important. The views that you hold on the differences, as well as the similarities, matter to me as I navigate our future in these discussions and negotiations.

There is no doubt to me that we have got to do two things. One is the rather political issues that you quite rightly raise. What is our relationship to be? I am at the beginning of that journey, and this debate is extremely important to me in listening to the views that have been put forward. What I take away from it is, first of all, that the Quartet must demonstrate that it is worth the money, that it is actually able to be reinvigorated. I have already talked with the staff by video link in Jerusalem, I have already talked to Mr Blair about his work and I have already talked to Secretary of State Clinton about the same things. It is very important, if it is going to work, that the word ‘reinvigorate’ is absolutely right.

Secondly, there are the issues in the region which the Presidency has raised about the broader questions of those other countries that we need to engage with. I think most significant from today is: what is the EU itself going to be able to do?

That brings me, in a sense, to what I call the practical. A number of colleagues have raised particular issues, whether it is a question of what the UK is doing on labelling, whether it is issues about the association agreement, whether this report – the Heads of Mission report – and the recommendations that I have not yet considered within it are there. We need to consider all of these issues carefully, but what we have got to do is demonstrate the practical support that we put on the ground.

I described 1 200 classrooms that were needed and I described our work in health. We are very committed to Prime Minister Fayyad’s state-building plan and to enhancing the institutions, particularly in terms of the rule of law. We must be seen to be practically engaged on the ground and practically working to find ways in which we can make the situation better for the people who have to live there every day and who look to us for the help that they need.

That is the most significant and practical thing I need to do first of all. I would describe the work that I want to do as this: we have the potential to do the political and the economic. What I want to do is draw those two things together, to find a way in which we can enhance what we do, to support the work that is going on, to make the Quartet more effective, to bring together what has been, in a sense, the Council and Commission operating side by side, and to meld it into one so that what we do on the ground really makes a difference.

In the end, it is the two sides who come together to make the decision and to find the peace. But, on the way to the end, we have a significant role to play, and I am determined, on your behalf as well as on behalf of the Commission and the Council, that we play our full part in that.