When the agreed quota of 4 850 tonnes per year is reached, each additional tonne will cost EUR 65.
The tendency not to put a ceiling on how much EU vessels may catch in the waters of third countries is damaging and wrong.
It is not good enough for us to pursue a different fisheries policy according to whether we are in our own waters or the waters of a third country.
I would also like to press for us to ensure to a greater extent that the money the EU pays out to third countries in return for concluding fisheries agreements is earmarked in such a way that it definitely benefits the local population.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Damanaki, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that Parliament is finally to vote on this issue and would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work.
The amendment to the Council regulation on the financial measures in the Community is one of the main tools we need in order to implement the common fisheries policy.
This is true in particular for the areas of international fishery relations, data collection and scientific studies.
The control systems of the common fisheries policy and their implementation are particularly important.
The rapporteur has made every effort to convince his fellow Members of the need to increase the co-financing rate to a maximum of 75%.
We have been unable to acquiesce to his wishes.
The existing regulations have proven themselves in practice and already allow for some exceptions.
The Member States already make use of the opportunity to avail of co-financing and there is no need for any further incentives.
It is important that the amendment to the regulation should clear the way for a coherent legal framework.
Mr President, the Grelier report gives too many concessions to the Commission, I would say.
West of Scotland fishermen find it difficult to understand why it is that the Commission can say that it wants to eliminate discards and at the same time reject amendments to these technical measures.
The Commission prefers to extend the current range of technical measures that are causing discards, including of haddock, for at least another 18 months.
The Commission prefers another 18 months of so-called temporary measures, which have failed to conserve the stocks.
Another 18 months of dumping dead fish back into the sea.
I urge colleagues tomorrow to support all of the amendments in our vote and I hope that these amendments will be adopted and, if they are adopted, I hope that the Commission will change its attitude and grasp the opportunity that presents itself to act now on discards, not just talk about action at some time in the future.
Mr President, I have lodged an amendment to the Technical Measures Regulation to try to resolve the anomaly that Ian Hudghton just referred to, which has arisen off the west coast of Scotland.
In a well-intentioned attempt to conserve white-fish stocks in this area, the Commission introduced temporary catch composition rules for a period of 12 months at the end of 2009, but these temporary rules have already been rolled over for a further year under a catch-all agreement that extended all EU technical measures for 12 months.
Now the Commission is seeking to roll the rules over yet again to the end of 2012 while it prepares a new framework for technical measures under the CFP reform package.
The unintended consequence of this will mean that a temporary regulation that was introduced for a period of only one year will now run for at least three years, during which time the circumstances in the west of Scotland have changed dramatically, forcing our fishermen to dump good fresh haddock back into the sea, dead.
I hope Parliament will support my amendment tomorrow.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, while I congratulate all four rapporteurs, I would like to focus on just two of the reports being debated.
In 2008, the absence of any agreement on a draft regulation intended to simplify and clarify the EU regulation on conservation of fish resources led to the adoption of the current regulation, which established a set of transitional measures, initially provided for the period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2011.
The current legislative proposal extends this transitional arrangement for an additional period of 18 months - in other words, until 1 January 2013 - pending a new regulation on technical measures framing the reformed common fisheries policy (CFP).
It is important to maintain a regulatory framework for fisheries during this transition period, safeguarding the interests of fishermen without losing sight of the basic objective of promoting sustainable fisheries.
The current intention not to extend the use of trammel nets, and to ban them at a depth of between 200 and 600 metres from 1 October 2010, does not constitute a good example of what has been described.
The current ban on this fishing technique, which has been used for decades by a section of the Portuguese small-scale fleet for the sustained exploitation of species such as monkfish and hake, was a severe economic and social blow to the sector and to the fishing communities most dependent on the exploitation of these resources.
I therefore call for your support in adopting a proposal that I and my colleagues Mr Capoulas Santos and Mr Ferreira have tabled in the Chamber, which seeks to do no more than ensure that what was law until 1 October 2010 remains so until 2013.
I would also like to mention the draft regulation setting out Community financial measures relating to the implementation of the CFP and the law of the sea: the Ferreira report.
Together with the European Fisheries Fund, this is the most important financial instrument for supporting fisheries, providing for financing in the areas of international relations, governance, the collection of scientific data and opinions, and the monitoring of the implementation of the CFP.
In this context, I would like to express my complete support for the proposals tabled in this Chamber by the rapporteur to increase the possibility of EU co-financing to 60% in the area of the collection, management and use of basic data, as well as with regard to the collection, management and use of supplementary data.
The widespread and growing recognition of the importance of fisheries management supported by up-to-date and thorough scientific knowledge of the status of stocks fully justifies adoption of the rapporteur's proposals, as well as of his report as a whole.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would congratulate the four rapporteurs of these reports on their sterling work.
I am going to focus on two reports, given their importance.
One of them is about the agreement with the Union of the Comoros.
This is a fisheries agreement between the European Union and a country in south-eastern Africa - I mention that so we also know where we are spatially - where 60% of the population lives below the poverty line and where their only form of income is tourism or state aid.
This agreement establishes the possibility of catching their excess fish.
I repeat: excess fish.
It also provides for compensation in order for the country itself to develop, and to improve its infrastructure and its own capacities.
It establishes a partnership framework under criteria of sustainable and responsible fishing, preserving biological resources.
We must take into account that there are migratory species such as tuna there and that every year the following year's stock is established using scientific criteria.
It facilitates scientific research and the presence of onboard observers, as well as the maintenance of the area's fish, as it is limited to a coastal area so that home-grown fishing will develop.
This protocol is of great benefit thanks to the access that European fishing boats have to the area, development aid, improved employment and greater economic prospects.
However, it also has a very important element: it prevents third countries from fishing unless they adequately ensure the preservation of the environment.
Third countries catch 75% of the area's fisheries resources.
We therefore believe that this agreement not only helps the Union of the Comoros, but also helps maintain the environment.
Particular attention must also be paid to the important Grelier report on a regulation establishing technical measures that expire in three months' time, for which an extension until December 2012 is being requested because, if not, there would be a legal vacuum, legal uncertainty and poor conservation of marine resources.
However, we would also stress the assessment of the attached declaration calling on the Commission to accept certain amendments: some technical measures proposed by the Member States.
The issue of nets has already been mentioned here, and we are also talking about the question of depth.
It affects certain fisheries and we believe that the Commission should include it because of the impact it has on the stocks themselves.
It affects areas 8, 9 and 10, and is important to overcome these shortcomings that are emerging in the application of a regulation that not only damages fisheries but also local populations.
(ES) Mr President, I shall vote for this agreement because it is positive for the European fleet.
In total, 70 ships will benefit from it, 12 more than in the previous agreement, and these will carry at least one local crew on board.
It is positive for the Comoros, for their people and for their productive sector, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it is positive because the report encourages cooperation based on fostering local development and because the financial compensation involved is channelled into this area.
Secondly, it is positive because it encourages the region's governments to respect human rights, which is a key condition to maintaining the agreement.
Thirdly, it is positive because it supports the smaller-scale forms of fishing practiced there and guarantees that the 8 500 people in the Comoros who live off this type of activity will have their own fishing area: European ships will not be able to fish within a 10-nautical mile radius of each island.
Finally, it is positive because it promotes sustainable fishing in the area, it includes a mechanism for objectively analysing fish stocks, and establishes mechanisms for scientific cooperation to that end.
(GA) Mr President, I am pleased to say a few words on behalf of my group on this subject and, without doubt, fishing is a controversial topic, one of the most contentious subjects that come before Parliament.
There is an old saying in my country that there are as many opinions as people, and this is true of fishermen and fishing.
Therefore, it is difficult for us as Members to speak unanimously on the matter but, at the same time, we must do our best.
Regarding Greenland in particular, I think the Commissioner gave a fairly balanced view of the situation.
There are issues obviously regarding the confidence of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the Council, but, as she said herself, a pragmatic solution will be found and that is obviously desirable.
It is important from the point of view of the European Union.
It is equally important, or more important perhaps, from the point of view of Greenland - a country that is almost totally dependent on the European market for its fish and, of course, almost totally dependent on fishing for its economy.
One thing we can say regarding Greenland is that the fish coming from there, as envisaged here in this report, will be verifiable and be of top quality - unlike many of the fish coming into the European Union from the monstrous fish farms in South-East Asia, the quality of which cannot be verified, and indeed which many think come from polluted waters.
There is therefore a huge area for us to deal with, in particular because the Commissioner herself earlier this afternoon in Question Time painted a somewhat grim picture of the sustainability of fish stocks and coastal communities into the future.
For that reason, there is a need to develop a major policy regarding aquaculture within Europe as part of the future CFP.
In the meantime, I welcome the proposals here and I accept the Commissioner's words on what will happen.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would congratulate the rapporteurs of these four reports.
Before talking about the reports by Mr Ferreira and Mrs Fraga Estévez, I should like to express my support for the report by Mr Capoulas Santos, which recommends adopting the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement with the Union of the Comoros, and reminds us of the need for Parliament to participate actively in this process.
I also agree with the fundamental aspects of Mrs Grelier's report on technical measures.
I call on the Commission to speed up its impact assessment and to prioritise the drafting of a regulation on these measures so that it may be adopted as soon as possible: before 2013, if possible.
The Ferreira report amends Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 on Community financial measures, one of the tools used to apply the common fisheries policy, alongside the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).
The report clarifies its scope and adapts it to the real needs of the common fisheries policy under the new Treaty of Lisbon, so I think it is positive.
However, like the rapporteur, and given that one of the fundamental conditions of achieving sustainable fishing is ensuring up-to-date, accurate knowledge of fish stocks, I regret that it has not been possible to raise the co-financing rates as regards data collection, management and use.
The Fraga Estévez report affects the establishment of rules on animal health and food safety for the importing of certain fisheries products and fishing by-products, whether originating in Greenland or in third countries.
The rules affect practically 90% of Greenland's exports in this area, which reached EUR 251 million in 2007.
There is broad consensus on applying the rules governing trade within the European Union, with which Greenland remains associated, to these imported products.
This will expand the single market in fishery products and their by-products.
It is clear that there is no agreement over what the legal basis should be and we therefore warmly welcome the Commission's decision to promote an agreement.
Parliament is following the report of its legal services, the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the position being maintained by the Committee on Fisheries.
We hope that these issues can be resolved, that Greenland will be given the priority that it has and deserves, and that a legislative agreement will be reached.
(RO) Mr President, I would like to congratulate all four rapporteurs on all their hard work on this package of fisheries measures.
I would like to stress that the Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy are a major European Union funding instrument in this sector and must be constantly adapted to the needs of the citizens involved in this area and strictly in keeping with the current challenges being faced.
The financial resources required to implement the common fisheries policy also include funding for projects in areas such as: international relations, governance, data collection, scientific advice, control systems and enforcement of this policy.
I think that fisheries management has to be based on up-to-date, accurate scientific knowledge of stock status.
This is precisely to enable the provisions of the regulation to be geared more effectively to real needs.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to give you some short explanations concerning your remarks.
With regard to the discussion on the Fisheries Partnership Agreements, we are now trying, in the framework of our proposal for the reform, to ensure the good implementation of these fisheries agreements for the benefit of the local population.
Until we have the new proposal for the new generation of fisheries agreements, we have tried to improve the current situation.
We are trying to ensure the implementation of the Comoros agreement and to do our best for the local population.
With regard to the problems mentioned in connection with Parliament and the information given to Members of Parliament about the agreements, the Commission has given all information - even restricted information - to Members of Parliament and this is what we will do in the future.
With regard to the technical measures and Mrs Grelier's report, I can understand that there were a lot of concerns because we are now prolonging the current regulation.
We had to do so, because we have to wait for the implementation of the reform, but I can understand why you are urging us to take some measures in order to have new regulation before the end of 2013.
What I can say - as I cannot give you promises I cannot keep - is that we will do our best to accelerate the procedure for a new regulation and also for the implementation of the basic regulation for the reform in order to give the Member States some competences regarding technical measures.
Regarding the next issue - the Financial Regulation - I hope that we will achieve a first reading approach, because this would be very good for the implementation of the regulation in the future.
With regard to the case of Greenland, I would like to reiterate that we are here to find a solution on the legal basis of the proposal.
For the Commission, it is very important to work on the substance because a good relationship with Greenland is an absolute political priority for us.
I can reiterate that the Commission is here to facilitate and to find a compromise with the Council.
Mr President, just a few seconds to express my thanks for the comments made, and then we will go on to what I was expecting to talk about.
We know that there are minor aspects of the partnership agreements that need to be corrected.
I appreciated the Commissioner's position, including her personal position relating to the participation of Members of the European Parliament, and I hope that this personal position of hers may influence the institutional position of the Commission, so that we achieve the objective that we are working towards.
rapporteur. - (PT) Mr President, I would also like to express my thanks for the comments that everyone has made, and for the notable stamina that everyone is still demonstrating at this hour.
I also need to say, with regard to the comments made about the report on financial measures, that the amendments we are proposing do not jeopardise the consensus obtained to date in the trialogue.
I believe that it is possible to go a little further whilst safeguarding this consensus, and in this regard I am thankful for the comments that have been made by a number of Members in support of the proposed amendments.
I believe, as several Members have said, that not adopting these amendments would constitute incomprehensible inconsistency on the part of a European Union that, on the one hand, wants increased participation in certain areas, to which it ascribes growing importance, while on the other resists allocating the funds necessary for actually acknowledging this growing importance.
With regard to the report on transitional technical measures, I would like to highlight - which was also done during a number of speeches - the amendment supported by myself and two other Members, seeking to eliminate negative discrimination with no scientific basis, and I emphasise that there is no scientific basis justifying the negative discrimination against some segments of the Portuguese small-scale fleet that use trammel nets.
Over time this fleet has demonstrated its ability to use the resources in question, namely sole and hake, in a sustainable manner.
As there are no solid, scientific reasons justifying this ban, it should not have gone ahead in the first place, particularly in the light of the significant negative economic and social consequences that it would entail.
For the same reasons, I would like to say in conclusion, Mr President, that we also support the proposals tabled by our Irish and Scottish fellow Members in relation to this same report.
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I will do my best to speak more slowly - I promise.
(FR) Mr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for their generally favourable comments on this report, which also echo the debates that took place during the meetings in the Committee on Fisheries.
I share the Commissioner's standpoint on accepting the amendment specifying the mesh size for boarfish nets and on not agreeing to any specific requests for amendments to certain technical measures, on the grounds that they are not supported by any impact assessments for the vessels and the ecosystems concerned, or because the Member States have not sent the necessary scientific data.
These measures are all interconnected and have not been evaluated.
I would like to stress, as previous speakers have done this evening, the urgency for the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the current measures as quickly as possible and on the basis of this evaluation to draw up a new proposal that can be dealt with at the same time as the reform of the common fisheries policy, rather than after it.
I wanted to draw your attention to this point, Commissioner, and I note your readiness to speed up the drafting of the proposal.
To conclude, I must mention once again the importance of joint work between the EU institutions and the fisheries sector on gathering and sharing the scientific data.
I believe this is a necessary basis for a new, fair and collaborative common fisheries policy which has sufficient resources - and that is an important point - and which reconciles the economic necessities and the sustainability of the sector in the interests of all: the fishing community, consumers and citizens.
Mr President, I should like to give special thanks to the Commissioner for the answer she gave to my question, saying that she would be ready to accept the change to the legal basis, and I hope that the Council will also follow the same line that the Commissioner has set out.
In any case, I had been considering the possibility of asking for this report to be returned to committee before it reached the final vote, but I later thought better of it and realised that it could only delay even further this proposal, which I believe is positive for Greenland and for the European Union, and that it would be advisable not to delay it more.
I hope, anyhow, that the Council will go along with the intentions of the Committee on Fisheries, which are entirely justified, and I hope that a solution will be reached, given that the only problem is the legal basis and not the content.
In any case, I am pleased that we have achieved this result; moreover, we always have the option of going to the Court of Justice if we see that it is advisable to continue with this matter.
Anyhow, we will demonstrate goodwill tomorrow, by issuing our opinion, and we hope that the Council will respond and consider this Parliament's first reading, as I have said.
Therefore, thank you to the Commissioner for being prepared to cooperate on this issue in a straightforward way, and thanks to all my colleagues who have worked on and supported this report.
All that remains is to hope that the Council will go along with our intentions, which are justified, as I have said, and endorsed not only by the Committee on Legal Affairs but also by the legal services of the European Parliament.
The joint debate on four reports relating to fisheries affairs is closed.
The vote on all four reports will take place on 6 April at 12:00.
in writing. - With regard to the Grelier report, I voted against my Group on four amendments - Amendment 4, Amendment 5CP, Amendment 6 and Amendment 3.
I am disappointed that the amendments were not accepted.
Nevertheless, I supported the report in the end in order to ensure that the Irish boarfish industry is protected, and there is legal certainty on this point, instead of waiting for full reform in 2013.
in writing. - (FI) The reform of the Union's common fisheries policy is one of the most important tasks of this Parliament.
As we all know, the EU's fisheries policy has come under intense criticism for a long time now, and with good reason.
There are a lot of questions relating to overfishing, fishing in the territory of developing countries and state aid for the fishing industry, all of which need to be resolved quickly.
The report by Mr Ferreira on Community financial measures before us today deals with key issues as far as the reform of fisheries policy is concerned.
These are: data collection, research, internal cooperation, the administration of fishing matters, and common fisheries policy monitoring systems.
It is also important to ensure that the harmonisation of fisheries policy, especially with environmental and maritime policy, is a major priority, and it will also require resources.
in writing. - (PT) The common fisheries policy (CFP) groups together a series of measures designed by the European Union to ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of the European fisheries sector.
Within the framework of reforming the CFP, the main priorities are making it more effective to better ensure the economic viability of European fleets, the conservation of fish stocks, the linkage with maritime policy and the supplying of quality foodstuffs to consumers.
The measures adopted today by Parliament, such as a review of technical measures and the adaptation of existing legislation to take scientific data collected into account, come under this heading.
The sustainability and competitiveness of the sector should be balanced.
Fishing activity is essential to the economic and social development of coastal communities, because it contributes to the galvanisation of regions and fosters activity in related sectors.
For example, in the Union's outermost regions, which represent the European Union's largest exclusive economic zone, the fisheries sector plays a fundamental role in their economic activity, making it a priority to ensure the sector's sustainability and development.
(The sitting was opened at 09:00)
Governance and partnership in the single market - Single market for Europeans - Single market for enterprises and growth - Public procurement (debate)
The first item is the joint debate on the Single Market, and will include a discussion of the following material: the report by Mrs Kalniete, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on governance and partnership in the Single Market [2010/2289 (INI)], the report by Mr Correia De Campos on a Single Market for Europeans [2010/2278 (INI)], the report by Mr Buşoi on a Single Market for enterprises and growth [2010/2277 (INI)] and the Commission statement on public procurement.
I would like to welcome Commissioner Barnier and the President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Győri, to the Chamber.
I now give the floor to the rapporteurs.
The first to speak will be Mrs Kalniete.
Mr President, when we speak of governance and partnership in the Single Market, we in Parliament consider that one of the major requirements for putting the Single Market into practice is to ensure that it has political leadership at the highest level.
The President of the Commission must, in association with the President of the Council, take responsibility for consolidation of the Single Market.
The Member States must also take an extremely active part in this process.
Otherwise, many ideas about what we could do to restart growth in Europe, create new jobs and increase its competitiveness in the globalised world will simply remain good intentions, paving the way to Europe's transformation into the sick man of the world.
That is why, in this resolution, we call upon the President of the Commission and the leaders of the Member States to take part in and assume responsibility for introducing the legislation and changes in policy that the Single Market requires.
The resolutions to be adopted today send a clear signal of those directions in which Parliament expects action from the Commission.
I shall mention some of the most important work priorities: a single digital market and a unified intellectual property space, professional mobility for European citizens, encouragement of cross-border public procurement and services, and alignment of tax systems.
As regards governance of the Single Market, I consider four directions to be decisively important.
First, ensuring implementation of Single Market norms that have already been adopted.
All Member States must introduce Single Market regulations in a timely and transparent fashion and, for its part, the Commission must monitor their implementation strictly and consistently.
Second, reducing protectionist tendencies.
Protection will merely encourage fragmentation of the European market and a reduction in our overall competitiveness.
Third, a reduction in various transaction costs which are hindering the brisk functioning of the European economy.
This refers not only to such mechanisms as an effective, simple and extrajudicial dispute resolution procedure, but also to user-friendly cross-border e-management with functioning electronic exchange of necessary information and documents.
The fourth direction is the greater involvement of social groups in policy formation and implementation in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Finally, Mr President, I should like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and coordinators for their contribution and the business-like collaboration that ensued, which, as I hope, will enable us today to adopt resolutions on the Single Market with a convincing majority, and to continue the work of recent years on the development of legislation that will truly consolidate the Single Market and make it the instrument for creating growth and jobs in Europe.
rapporteur. - (PT) Mr President, Mr Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has responded to the Commission's request concerning the measures needed to revitalise the Single Market by means of the report that we are debating and voting on today.
From the set of 19 proposals relating to the Single Market Act for Europeans, for which I have been rapporteur, we have identified five priorities, using tangibility and feasibility in the short term as criteria.
Firstly, we need to increase the mobility of European citizens through the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, professional identity cards, the European skills passport and the regular measurement of mobility within the EU.
Secondly, we must improve border controls on goods imported from third countries and draw up a multiannual action plan for market surveillance and product safety.
Thirdly, the Roaming Regulation should be extended until June 2015, with price caps for roaming in order to reduce costs for the public and businesses.
Fourthly, we need guaranteed access to basic banking services, with improved transparency and comparability.
Fifthly, the obstacles encountered by mobile workers must be removed in order to ensure the full portability of their pension rights.
This exercise was simple and consensual, but it was more difficult to reach agreement on measures to address the Single Market fatigue mentioned in the Monti report and to achieve the holistic, concerted approach to respond to citizens' needs and mistrust, which were clearly identified in the Grech report adopted by this House in May last year.
We certainly consider it artificial to divide Parliament's work into three separate reports, despite the efforts of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection to unify the analyses and actions.
The three components - businesses, Europeans and governance - have to progress simultaneously in order to produce a competitive Single Market, with smart, inclusive and sustainable growth making Europeans central to that market's concerns.
We also acknowledge that the proliferation of Commission initiatives on this subject, together with Europe 2020, the industrial policy and the Europe of innovation, runs the risk of blurring the central issue of revitalisation, which is to make the idea of the Single Market not only more friendly but also more appealing to Europeans.
Consensus, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, was most difficult on two issues.
Firstly, with regard to respect for social values and rights, we came up against the reluctance of Members on the right and in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to accept the need to permanently safeguard Europeans' social rights so that they can never be swamped by market considerations in any future legislation.
We especially regret the failure to prioritise a reference to the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive.
Secondly, with regard to safeguarding social services of general economic interest, the aim was to prevent the content of the activities of those services from being subject to purely market considerations or, at least, to eliminate the possibility of turning public social services into private monopolies or oligopolies in areas such as water supply, urban transport, education, health and social support.
Although it would appear to be useful to introduce competitive management and internal market mechanisms to those services, the social values associated with universal access will need to be safeguarded, since the principles of solidarity outweigh mere market considerations in such cases.
In this, we encountered reluctance from the parliamentary groups on our right to accept European legislation on this subject, and they only agreed to 'using all the options available [...], based upon and consistent with Article 14 Protocol 26' to the Treaty.
The group to which I belong abstained from the final vote on the three reports in committee since no progress had been made on the social dimension of the Single Market.
After the vote in committee, however, a number of positive points were included which improved the report considerably.
Consensus was reached through a succession of compromises, with final amendments being subscribed by the main parliamentary groups without winners or losers.
All the parliamentary groups contributed to the end result - which does credit to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and to those who worked on the report - through 266 amendments, as well as the opinions of five committees.
All the contributions were useful.
I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs Róża Gräfin von Thun, Jürgen Creutzmann, Malcolm Harbour, Emilie Turunen and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, as well as the group coordinators, for the productive criticism and spirit of cooperation that enabled the negotiations to reach a positive outcome.
I particularly thank Mr Harbour for the generous, forward-thinking attitude that he has stamped on the committee's work throughout the last four months.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market is undoubtedly one of the European Union's greatest successes and one of its undeniable strengths, and something of which we can all be proud.
I think it is no exaggeration to say that the internal market is central to European integration.
As time has gone by, the internal market has demonstrated its benefits to the consumer as well as to European businesses, and it has contributed to our economic growth.
Recently, however, we have noticed a certain lethargy in the market's integration.
We therefore need to give new momentum to the internal market. We need to renew the confidence of European citizens in it.
We need a new start.
I greatly value the Commission's work in this respect and, in particular, the excellent work done by Commissioner Barnier, whom I would like to congratulate once again for his determined commitment and his efforts to revive the internal market.
The Commission has set out for us an ambitious and, at the same time, practical and much-needed programme for restoring strength to the internal market.
I am quite sure that if these measures are implemented, they will make the internal market more attractive to our citizens and businesses and will help it to function more effectively overall.
Concerning my report, I have to say that we did not have an easy task.
Our task was ambitious because we had to find a consensus on the measures laying down the foundation for a strong and modern Single Market which would contribute to future growth and which would, above all, meet the expectations of our citizens and enterprises.
We considered whether the emphasis should be put on innovation, what should be done in the field of intellectual property rights, and what fiscal measures are appropriate in order to enhance the Single Market and, at the same time, respect the sovereignty of the Member States.
Following our discussions, and after many contributions - for which I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the rapporteurs for opinions and all my other fellow Members who tabled amendments - we managed to identify a set of five priorities to be implemented immediately.
The first priority refers to the means to support innovation and creativity in the Single Market, which is essential if we want stronger and more sustainable growth.
The creation of an EU patent and of a unified litigation system, which is already under way, as well as the improvement to management of copyrights, are of paramount importance.
If we want innovation, we also need to come up with a solution for financing it, such as long-term investment and a framework that would make it easier for venture capital funds to be invested effectively.
EU project bonds can also be a great opportunity for infrastructure investments in the field of energy or telecommunications.
Our third priority seeks to bring the Single Market in line with our digital agenda by stimulating e-commerce.
This requires measures that would enhance consumer and business confidence in e-commerce, such as fighting counterfeiting and piracy and facilitating cross-border deliveries and cross-border debt recovery.
The fourth priority aims to make the Single Market a better environment for SMEs, given their importance for economic growth and their job creation potential.
They need better access to capital markets.
Fiscal measures such as the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base, a clear VAT framework and reducing administrative burdens could encourage SMEs to do cross-border business.
Finally, public procurement procedures need to be rationalised.
They need simplification to allow SMEs to take part in procedures, and they should be better used in order to support smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are at a crucial point in this work we have undertaken together in the light of Mr Monti's clear, comprehensive and painstaking examination of the internal market, in the light of Mr Grech's report, which you adopted by a very large majority, and at a time when, if we are listening attentively to the citizens in each of our Member States, we need to take stock of where we are going in terms of growth, employment and social cohesion.
What messages are people getting from Brussels and Strasbourg?
At the moment, the messages are necessary, but they are always difficult or restrictive.
They are messages about regulation, or, as in the case of my job, about governance, supervision, deficit and debt reduction.
They are essential messages therefore, but restrictive and difficult.
I believe we need to add other messages and, above all, other actions to them in order to restore confidence in the European project, and in the reasons why we should all pull together instead of standing alone or doing things alone to tackle the challenges of globalisation.
That is what is really at the heart of our work, and I would like to personally thank our three rapporteurs who have just spoken: Mrs Kalniete, Mr Correia de Campos and, a moment ago, Mr Buşoi.
I would also like to thank the Chair, Mr Harbour, who, as has already been mentioned, has succeeded with great efficiency and by listening very carefully in setting nearly 11 parliamentary committees to work in a very short space of time.
I would also like to add to these thanks my gratitude to the coordinators of the different political groups, because you had a great many matters to coordinate between you, given the large number of issues we have covered.
By doing this, you will be sending a very strong signal to the other institutions, and also to businesses and citizens.
Following on from the Monti report and the Grech report, President Barroso asked me to work with 12 of my colleagues, as a joint task within the college, on reviving the internal market and on the structural reforms that will be required so that the two, three or four points of growth which the market contains can emerge.
I would remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that in this big market, which, moreover, constitutes the basis of the European political project, 60% of our exports go to the other 26 Member States.
Each country, from Germany the biggest, down to the smallest of our countries, exports, on average, 60% of its goods and services just next door to the large market itself.
It is thought that there is still more potential growth in this market if it functions more efficiently.
That is how the Single Market Act came into being.
That is how we identified the 50 proposals contained in this little Blue Paper that I sent to all your countries, in the 23 EU languages, to every national MP, trade union and professional organisation.
We then spent time in our discussions to choose from those proposals the ones that will be most effective in improving life for businesses and citizens.
On Wednesday of next week therefore, the college will debate the Single Market Act in the wake of these discussions, before taking action and in the light of your deliberation and debates today.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my firm belief that every region is needed, every business is needed and every citizen is needed in order to win the battle for competitiveness and growth.
Every region: this is why, right at the beginning of the Single Market and the Single Market Act, the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, wanted to support the construction of the Single Market with a cohesion policy so that even regions that are behind in terms of development can also take part in the battle for growth and competitiveness: all regions, including the most distant, outermost regions.
Every business is needed when it comes to innovating or creating - the patents we are pushing through come to mind - when it comes to small and medium-sized enterprises obtaining financing and having less administrative complexity and red tape to deal with, when it comes to trading securely online, and when it comes to participating in public procurement, which I will return to in a moment.
Every region, every business, every citizen is needed.
In our daily lives, we are all, by turns, consumers, service users, savers, shareholders, workers, craft workers, and the objective is that cross-border mobility should be made easier, that professional qualifications, skills and welfare rights should be respected and recognised, that we should be able to access high quality public services, that we should feel safe and protected when we buy products over the Internet or in any other way, and that we should not be taxed twice.
Those are just a few examples that we must deal with in order to make the internal market work more effectively.
What is the next step now after your debate?
On 24 and 25 March, the European Council welcomed this action we have taken and the action it has taken itself in terms of joint legislation.
We were asked to decide on priorities and therefore, as I have said, together with my colleagues, who have worked so hard and whom I thank, next week, I shall propose that the college choose 12 levers which will make the internal market work more effectively for businesses and citizens.
For each of these levers, for example, mobility, financing of small businesses, intellectual property, taxes, public services, or social cohesion, we will propose a key action that will be new, that we hope will be effective for businesses and citizens, and that will be deliverable within two years.
Deliverable means that the Commission will table it and that Parliament and the Council will be able to vote on it and adopt it in 2011 and 2012.
It will be the 20th anniversary of the Single Market Act and the Single Market in 2012.
If we understand rightly what Europeans are saying to us, we have no right, honourable Members, to allow this anniversary to be a nostalgic or melancholic one.
It must be a proactive anniversary, one that boosts growth, and this is how we want to celebrate it through the Single Market Act.
We will have 12 levers: 12 specific but not exclusive proposals.
For each of these levers, we will have identified other ideas, actions and proposals that the Commission will develop at the same time, but there will be 12 key actions that will symbolise this work.
I hope that the European Council at the highest level, the Parliament that you represent, the Commission for our part, and the Hungarian Presidency - which I thank, Mrs Győri, for its involvement - will be in a position to undertake, somewhat solemnly we hope, before the end of June or July, to deliver this Single Market Act.
Mr President, that is all I am able to say on this matter.
You asked me to talk about one of these aspects in a Commission statement.
I would like to do that now, in order to leave time for the debate later.
This aspect, found in the Single Market Act, relates to 17% of the European economy, namely, public procurement and public contracts.
I would also like to say a few words on the four projects we are undertaking with you on public contracts, as highlighted in the Buşoi report.
The first project is the general revision of the 2004 directives aimed at guaranteeing best use of public funds, enabling as many businesses as possible to participate in public procurement contracts and ensuring that high quality products and services can be purchased with less red tape.
In practical terms, I would like to simplify the procedures and make them more flexible, and also to look at how we might cater for the specific needs of small local authorities, for example, by making simplified procedures available to them.
Secondly, I would like to make access to public contracts easier, especially in terms of cross-border participation by small and medium-sized enterprises.
Finally, I would like to encourage in every way possible, as stressed by the Committee chair, Mr Harbour, and your committee, more responsible and more environmentally aware, or greener procurement that also promotes innovation or social inclusion.
The various reform objectives will now be translated into simple, more balanced rules.
We have carried out, but not completed, a very extensive consultation and economic evaluation on the ground.
We have a Green Paper and we are currently looking for the most effective proposals.
The laws will not cover everything.
At the same time, the Commission will work on sector-based initiatives aimed at making better use of public contracts, and at promoting objectives such as those contained in the Europe 2020 strategy.
These will range from updating the Handbook on green public procurement, which I am preparing with my colleague, Mr Potočnik, to implementation of the European Energy Efficiency Plan, which we are working on with Mr Oettinger or Mrs Hedegaard, or promoting pre-commercial procurement plans and plans for innovative purchasing activities generally, which we are coordinating together with Mr Tajani and Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn.
That is the first project.
The second project involves concessions.
I would like to make tangible progress quickly on the issue of concessions, without waiting for this long-term work on modernising the public procurement framework to be completed.
Ladies and gentlemen, concessions play an increasingly important part in the creation of public service provision infrastructure.
Sixty per cent of public/private partnerships in Europe operate through concessions.
Apart from public works concessions, however, at present there is no European law on concessions, and even though the general principles of the Treaty are applicable, there is real legal uncertainty in this area, which is preventing this type of contract from developing.
As proof of this, I could mention the 24 judgments by the Court of Justice in recent years.
I would like to propose the creation of a simplified framework, limited to certain basic rules, which will not interfere with national legislative frameworks when they are working well. It will not impose an excessive administrative burden on local authorities, primarily because of the thresholds that I will be proposing.
I know that there are doubts and debates going on in several of your groups.
For my part, I am convinced, in listening to everyone, that if we set our goals carefully, we will be able to avoid misunderstandings.
Public authorities will still be free to organise public services themselves, but if they do decide to outsource them, I do not think anyone will object to a basic level of transparency and rules that ensure there is no discrimination.
I believe this is essential in order to optimise the use of public money, reduce the practice of awarding contracts without adequate publicity or without effective right of recourse, and to reduce certain risks of corruption.
From the enterprises' point of view, if we are trying to revive the internal market, who can object to the idea of putting it into practice in the area of concessions?
I am thinking, in particular, of small and medium-sized enterprises which do not currently have the resources that large enterprises have for identifying and winning contracts abroad if they are not published.
Having a minimal framework on concessions will mean transparency and information, and will thus make it easier for the smallest enterprises to gain access to some of the contracts.
It is also a question of better regulation.
Targeted, well thought-out legislation is a better option that will cost less than trying to sort out problems simply through the rule on violations.
The third project, which I will talk about quickly, concerns the European defence market.
We will work with Member States in connection with the implementation of the 2009 directive, for which the transposition time limit runs out in a few weeks.
It is a question of adapting payment policies, which often conflict with EU law.
Together with Mr Tajani, I will organise a conference on this issue of the European defence industry market at the Brussels Parliament buildings on 23 May.
Finally, I would like to quickly raise an issue that has been set aside for too long, namely, the international dimension of public contracts.
The aim is clear: increased access to markets for our enterprises, and we too are naturally ready to offer more, in a spirit of mutual reciprocity and benefit.
More trade will benefit all.
Now, I must draw attention to a problem that we currently have in connection with this basis of open trade and the benefits associated with it.
The truth is that our main partners - the United States, Japan, under the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), and China, under a bilateral agreement - do not really want to commit to opening up their markets further.
For our part, we do not have any real levers for negotiation, insofar as our own markets are already considered, virtually as a matter of course, as being open.
Ladies and gentlemen, the international undertakings under the GPA and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements have not yet been transposed into EU law.
Against this background, Member States apply the rules in very different ways, and that distorts the internal market.
At present in Europe, therefore, our enterprises are suffering from an inequitable situation - I remember the case of motorways in Poland.
Foreign enterprises enjoy very wide access here in Europe, often going well beyond what the EU has negotiated, whereas our own enterprises encounter difficulties if they try to participate in procurement contracts of some of our major partners.
That is why this year, with my colleague, Mr De Gucht, we are planning to table legislation that will transpose our international obligations on public procurement contracts into EU law, and this will give us the lever for negotiation that we need.
We are in favour of openness, but we do not advocate gullibility.
It is a question of giving European purchasers a sound, clear legal basis for dealing with bids from enterprises from a country with which we have an agreement differently than with those from a country with which the EU does not yet have an agreement, and of providing greater legal certainty.
Let me be clear: it is not a question of turning Europe into a fortress.
We must create an environment for our enterprises that is realistic, fair and open, but not naive.
There we are.
As you and your Parliament requested of me, Mr President, I wanted to take the opportunity of this debate on reviving the internal market to bring up this important area which will, moreover, constitute one of the 12 levers for reviving the Single Market that I referred to at the beginning of my speech, namely, that of public procurement and the modernisation that we are going to propose in agreement with you in the next few weeks.
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, as Mrs Kalniete, too, has said, the European Union and the economy need a locomotive.
I strongly agree with this idea.
Perhaps you remember that, some time ago, at the start of the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union, the Hungarian Prime Minister, too, made it clear in this House that it is not enough to cope with and manage the after-effects of the crisis, to encourage Member States to follow a tighter fiscal policy and to also inspect this.
We are working on a number of such laws currently as well.
A comprehensive economic crisis management package has also been prepared.
We also need to pay attention to remaining credible in the eyes of our citizens.
This, however, will only happen if we are able to create jobs.
It is for creating these jobs that we are seeking resources, the wherewithal that will enable us to do this.
I firmly believe that the Single Market is just that: an unexploited opportunity where our future lies, alongside the implementation of the European Union's strategy up to 2020 as well.
Therefore, along all these lines, I expressly welcome both the European Commission's and the European Parliament's commitment to relaunching the Single Market, and the priorities which the Commission has indicated and which this Parliament is also setting out in the three excellent reports.
We have already been able to debate the various ideas and positions regarding the report made earlier by your fellow Member, Mr Grech.
Moreover, I believe that the current three reports will also contribute to a targeted debate, as a result of which we will be able to take specific measures jointly by 2012, by the twentieth anniversary also mentioned by Commissioner Barnier.
As you, too, know, and the Commissioner has also pointed out, at its meeting on 10 March, the Competitiveness Council exchanged views on the outcome of the social consultation focusing on the criteria defining the prioritised commitment areas of the institutions and Member States.
Based on this debate, the Hungarian Presidency is preparing to adopt conclusions on the proposed priority measures at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 30 May.
Allow me to remind you of the broader context as well.
In the situation today, due to political and economic pressure and measures taken to relieve this, the Single Market may not be at all popular with citizens, enterprises and institutions.
However, in Professor Monti's words, I think that it is precisely at times like this, now, that there is the greatest need for the Single Market, at times when, due to the effect of the crisis, we instinctively try to withdraw into narrow but very familiar national confines.
I am convinced, however, that we must not succumb to this temptation.
Therefore, the time has obviously come for us to provide a political incentive for the Single Market.
As you, ladies and gentlemen, have also emphasised in your earlier report on the creation of a Single Market for consumers and citizens, and Professor Monti's report, too, has stated, the Single Market is facing a test.
Will it become a means which brings the European Union closer to its citizens by producing a perceptible improvement in their everyday lives? Or will it be merely an arena which serves to protect both the bottlenecks inhibiting the functioning of the Single Market and the sectors maintained?
The answer to these questions depends on how committed we are to doing our job over the coming months.
After the European Parliament adopts its resolution today, the Commission will be able to adopt its revised communication in the middle of April, as has already been mentioned.
We hope that all the political messages and also what you have advocated in your report will be included in the Commission's document.
Once the legislative proposals are made, we are counting on being able to create a special partnership with you and the Commission, which will afford an opportunity for the swift examination and adoption of the main measures designated in the final Single Market Act.
Now, allow me to highlight a few elements of the three reports before us without reacting fully to every point made.
The Presidency welcomes the fact that the rapporteur would like to put the issue of the Single Market on the European Council's agenda.
We believe that progress on the Single Market Act falls under the scope of the European Union's general political guidelines mentioned in the Treaty.
Indicating the political guidelines, however, is certainly the European Council's task.
The agenda for this is set by the President of the European Council, but I would like to remind everyone that the European Council's conclusions of 24 and 25 March also referred to the importance of the Single Market.
The Presidency would like to express its gratitude to Parliament for consistently supporting the Competitiveness Council in drafting specific measures regarding the creation of a unitary patent system.
We are all aware that the unitary patent system would boost the competitiveness of enterprises no end.
Moreover, we had a very good debate on this here, and I thank Parliament for its cooperation in authorising the Council to initiate this within the framework of enhanced cooperation.
We also agree that the completion of the single digital market and strengthening and improving the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises are indispensable in promoting European innovation.
Through the mobility of citizens and, in particular, the recognition of professional qualifications, we can consider further issues concerning European citizens.
For this reason, we agree with the statement that our priority task in this area is to take increased EU action and achieve immediate, tangible results.
The Presidency has also found that almost all the reports reviewed, including the earlier Grech report and the Correia De Campos report as well, lay particular emphasis on guaranteeing the exercising of internal market rights for EU citizens.
In relation to this, we welcome the results achieved in this field, which are due to measures taken by the Commission.
These include the creation of the Your Europe portal, the SOLVIT network and points of single contact under the Services Directive.
Nevertheless, we share your view that more can still be done in the interest of EU citizens exercising their rights.
Finally, allow me to make a digression concerning the other priority on the Hungarian Presidency's agenda.
During my parliamentary consultations to date on the package of six legislative proposals on the economy, the six-pack, I have frequently heard the criticism that the Member States, by which we should understand the Council, and the European Council, while bearing in mind financial macro-stability, neglect encouraging growth and the recovery of the real economy from the crisis, or, if they do not, they only attribute soft, unaccountable tools to these latter objectives, and that the content of the Europe 2020 strategy is mainly limited to this.
Well, I believe, and I referred to this in my introduction as well, that the Single Market and the massive potential for growth concealed in it can give an appropriate answer to these concerns, while also providing a guarantee for the balanced response of the European Union.
I think that our primary task is to complete the entire process, the consolidation of the Single Market, by as transparent means as possible, in close cooperation with the European Parliament.
The Council is ready to cooperate in this way, in full partnership with the Commission, Parliament, and their Members.
Thank you very much, Mr President.
Ladies and gentlemen, these five speeches - three on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Commissioner's speech and that of Mrs Győri - have started a great debate, one which is very important for the future of the European Union and its citizens, and also for our rapid development.
I would like to remind everyone again that the initial idea to relaunch the Single Market is one which arose in the IMCO Committee.
Once again, I would like to congratulate all fellow Members who serve on the committee, and I would like Mr Harbour to accept these thanks and congratulations on their behalf.
It was the IMCO Committee, too, which came up with the idea of Mario Monti's report - an excellent report which is of great help to us in our work.
I would also like to thank Commissioner Barnier for an excellent and very broad-ranging presentation of the European Commission's proposals in response to our reports.
As for public procurements, they do often prove to be the Achilles heel of our work in the Member States.
So it is extremely important that we move this matter forward, and the Hungarian Presidency is certainly going to help with these efforts.
We are convinced of the need for this, because this issue is very important for the people of Europe.
The importance of these reports and this discussion can be seen by the number of parliamentary committees which have drafted opinions.
Eight committees have done so, and you know as well as I do that it is very rare for eight parliamentary committees to prepare opinions on one set of reports.
Those committees will now take the floor in turn.
Mrs Andrés Barea on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, you have the floor.
Mr President, the Committee on International Trade is one of the eight committees that were involved, and I would like to thank its members for the contributions they made to the report.
The consolidation of the Single Market is one of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy based on growth.
The European Union is the main international player.
In a globalised market, the EU must meet the challenges it faces.
The challenge for companies, for our companies, in the international market is to generate high expectations and major opportunities, but they also bear social responsibility: social growth with guarantees for workers and public services.
We are also making a commitment with developing countries: the fight against poverty is a Millennium Development Goal.
In the future, our industry and companies must be based on knowledge, and we need to fight against counterfeiting in the area of intellectual property.
We must defend our businesses according to research and development criteria and social criteria, as well as defending our foreign interests, for European citizens and those outside the European Union.
Mr President, I would like to begin by paying tribute to Commissioner Barnier, the Council representative and, in particular, my colleagues in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I would like to emphasise the importance of the reports that we are discussing here today, which strongly echo the spirit of the Monti report, with the idea of promoting a successful liberal economy, promoting competition and promoting a dynamic, innovative market.
It will be these paths that lead us to the point where the Europe 2020 strategy can, in fact, go beyond being a paper initiative and become reality, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the major employers in the European economy, supporting businesses in general, and creating an idea of sustained growth in the economy, which can be based more and more on the internal market, on economic governance that actually works and, essentially, on an idea of real growth for our economy.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the importance of the Single Market Act lies in its desire to satisfy the needs of the market, facilitating access and participation of all those involved: businesses, consumers and workers.
Given this ambitious goal, I am satisfied with the interventions proposed by Mr Barnier and the indications provided by this Parliament.
In my opinion, some priorities are imperative for achieving the objectives that the EU has proposed, in particular: improving the access of small and medium-sized enterprises in the domestic market, reducing their administrative obligations and facilitating their participation in contract bidding procedures, removing all obstacles to the development of electronic commerce, and supporting and financing innovation, particularly through the issuance of bonds for European Union projects, especially in energy, transport and telecommunications.
Finally, only by connecting development and support for the business world with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy regarding employment can we achieve what I believe to be the aim of this act, namely, to create a social market economy based on growth, competitiveness and sustainability.
Mr President, Jacques Delors was wrong when he claimed that you cannot fall in love with the Single Market, because there are so many ardent feelings expressed in the debate surrounding this subject.
The Commission's approach has been an ambitious one, and there are some very important projects in hand: the European patent, the common energy market, and so on.
One issue, however, has remained a nagging problem: the report's social contribution is very poor.
For example, hardly anything is said about posted employees, and the way charitable services and the social clause associated with the Single Market are described is, regrettably, very vague.
It is a mystery to me why the more robust and more integrated social rights are seen primarily as a problem.
I would like to remind everyone that, in the Nordic countries, robust social rights have succeeded in combining high levels of competitiveness with productivity.
Is that not a much smarter approach, Commissioner?
Mr President, Mr Barnier, I would like to respond to my fellow Member's remarks.
Instead of a social clause, the committee has proposed investigating the impact that the measures in the internal market will have on employment.
This is much more important than applying general formulae.
If we want to make progress with the internal market, we must pay attention to social issues and put the emphasis on them in everything we do.
For this reason, an impact assessment which specifically takes these requirements into account is particularly important.
I would like to make one more comment.
I was surprised to hear the President speak about economic governance, which is still translated in German as Wirtschaftslenkung.
This term is also used to mean central state control of the economy.
We have had very bad experiences of state control of the economy in one area of Germany.
I am certain that we can only develop the internal market further if we coordinate all our national economies. That is abundantly clear.
However, we will not be able to make progress with the internal market by means of economic governance.
Today, we are discussing how we can bring some momentum to the internal market.
This is long overdue, because we will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of the internal market next year.
Therefore, I welcome Mr Barnier's statement in which he said that he wants to focus on a few specific measures that have not yet been implemented and that will give a new impetus to the internal market.
The internal market represents a huge opportunity for all of us.
It can lead to the creation of more jobs and our goal must be to find work for people.
This is the very best social policy that we can put in place, because people who are employed will also develop self-esteem.
Therefore, we must do everything we can to make sure that progress is made in this area.
We need a balanced package of measures which brings advantages for businesses and for citizens.
On the one hand, we want medium-sized companies in particular to benefit more from the internal market than they have done in the past.
Therefore, we urgently need an EU patent system, so that companies can at last protect and sell their innovative products throughout Europe for a reasonable cost.
In addition, businesses need more funding to develop innovations.
A European venture capital market is just one of many measures that can be taken.
The harmonisation of value-added tax and the corporate tax base that we are now discussing will also give a boost to the internal market.
On the other hand, we also need to take specific measures which will increase citizens' trust in the internal market.
We must improve the recognition of professional qualifications, possibly by means of the European professional card.
This will make it easier to work in another Member State and will create more mobility for citizens within the European internal market.
We also need a European market surveillance organisation, and I would like to emphasise this point, because the Member States are constantly failing to put the dossier into practice.
We do not want dangerous products to be sold on the internal market.
If we can adopt this proposal with a large majority, we will be able to give a new impetus to the internal market.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if we are to restore confidence to the market, we need to prioritise the needs of consumers, workers and businesses.
If we want to strengthen the rights of citizens, workers and users of public services, significant attention should be paid to guaranteeing the social dimension of the future Single Market.
Growth, development and social awareness must go hand in hand.
There must be economic growth at the service of citizens.
From this point of view, the package of regulations regarding standards for companies contains some good proposals, including the action plan to increase access on the part of small and medium-sized enterprises to capital markets and new lines of financing for innovative firms and regional development.
Small and medium-sized businesses are the heart of our economy and the growth engine of the internal market.
Mr President, it is up to us to ensure these goals if we are to get out of the crisis and promote a new model of development, sustainable growth and new quality jobs.
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have one thing to say, a word which is perhaps in stark contrast with the current economic situation, but one which needs to be stressed all the more.
That word is 'ambition': ambition for the internal market, Commissioner, ambition for Europe, ambition to prove to citizens that European integration is a step forward for their rights, their rights as workers, as consumers, as tourists, but, more generally, as individuals.
I would like to pay tribute to Mr Barnier, who embodies this ambition through all the projects he wants to implement.
As rapporteur for the opinion of the parliamentary Committee on Rural Development, I welcome the ideas covered: the need for special action for regions with specific geographic characteristics, such as the outermost regions, the creation of a European patent for businesses and of a European statute for foundations, mutual societies and also associations, the issuing of bonds for financing specific projects and the need to encourage sustainable development within the internal market.
Mr President, we will not achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, neither will we make the economy more innovative and competitive, if we do not treat the Single Market holistically.
So I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his very comprehensive approach to the Single Market and Professor Mario Monti for that superb report.
I would like to draw attention to four important aspects.
Firstly, the European patent, which might be brought into use next year, in other words, on the 20th anniversary of the entry into force of the Single Market.
Secondly, the need to give serious treatment to the matter of copyright, because copyright represents a great hope and opportunity for the development of a creative market, and this aspect of the market should be regulated jointly.
I am thinking, here, principally of a common system for the management of copyright and serious treatment of orphan works, and also of reducing the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises.
This involves very specific steps, such as: simplification of accounting, protection of trademarks, a European Foundation Statute and, above all, the possibility of interconnecting business registers.
If we introduce measures in the areas I have listed, I hope that 20 million small enterprises will be able to function effectively and freely in the European Single Market.
Mr President, that means that I can cut a minute or two into Mr Lehne's speaking time.
I would like to thank the Commissioner and everyone else for the discussion we have been having here.
However, I have not noticed any mention of a couple of matters which are, in my view, extremely important and which I have included in the report.
I hope that the Commissioner will assist us in making these a reality.
We have been praising Professor Monti to the skies, but his conclusion was that the transposition of the directive is the major problem affecting the internal market.
He says that we need to work with regulations more.
My own take on this is that less is more; let us have less legislation from Europe.
Whatever we actually do, however, it must be done in a uniform fashion, because we need to prevent the 27 Member States becoming a hotch-potch of states which all transpose legislation in different ways, which creates a huge barrier for small and medium-sized enterprises in terms of working across borders.
Another thing which has been overlooked, Mr President - and which is perhaps our greatest failure of all - is the matter of marketing.
We have top lawyers here.
We are creating great laws.
We believe that it is incumbent on us to improve the market for our citizens.
However, the citizens themselves do not seem to be aware of that.
We actually have a problem in that we are unable to build a bridge between us and them.
We are adept at legal terminology, but we do not appear to be good at communicating directly with our citizens.
What is in danger of happening - and I hope that will not be the case - is that we, as the European Union, might drift further and further apart from the citizens of Europe.
I think that, over the coming years, we really need to focus on and invest in ways of seeking the support of individual citizens for the European Union and for what we are doing.
There is a lot to be done on that score, and I think that we need to invest in that and that we ought to consult our communication advisers on how we can best achieve that.
Finally, it has struck me that our citizens do not know the difference between the European Commission, Parliament and the Council.
In each Member State, we have three representatives whose hands are ultimately tied, because they work for official organisations.
If Member States express negative views of the European Union, there is no one to parry that.
I think that it would make sense to consider having a single EU representative in Member States - call it an ambassador, if you like - who could ultimately respond to any negative pronouncements about the European Union.
If we do that, it will prevent us from becoming like the Titanic.
On the Titanic, everyone thought that things were absolutely fine, but ultimately the real danger lay outside.
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and the Council for this morning's introduction.
I found writing the opinion on the internal market on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs extremely interesting.
I think that the internal market should receive widespread support in the European Parliament, especially in the Committee on Civil Liberties, because freedom of movement within the Union is important, particularly that of persons, of migrant workers and skilled migrants, whom we need in order to increase the internal market's labour force.
However, Mr President, we have so many aims, but have so far achieved so few results.
I am very happy with Commissioner Barnier's 12 levers and I hope that over the coming months, we will be able to speed things up, because the competition outside the EU is not going to wait for the EU's internal market to bridge the gap.
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe I can truly say that the work of the rapporteurs is excellent, as are the pleasing and comforting words of the Commission and Council.
These three reports retain the spirit and the far-sighted stimulus that characterise Professor Mario Monti's new strategy for the Single Market, and they succeed in representing the unity of purpose of reviving the European Single Market via 50 measures, which are then reproduced and synthesised or emphasised, by this Parliament, in 14 priorities.
Within these measures, 19 are devoted to centring the market on the interests of citizens.
I believe that in order to realise a Single Market truly and fully, it is important to reduce the gap between citizens and the Single Market by working to restore public confidence, by promoting the process of political and social integration before economic integration and, above all, through establishing a different perception of the Single Market for European citizens.
I believe that all these objectives are contained in the measures included in these three reports.
(The debate was interrupted for a few moments)
Following the advice of the committees, we move on to the speakers on behalf of the party groups.
Before giving the floor to the first speaker on the list, Mr Karas, I have two very short notices.
We learned that, early this morning, a boat with over two hundred migrants, spotted off Lampedusa, capsized because of poor sea conditions.
The Coast Guard has been doing its best to rescue the missing people.
The situation is very grave.
We wait anxiously for the commitments made by the Commission and governments in this House to materialise.
I turn now to the second statement.
Two years after the tragic earthquake that devastated the city of L'Aquila and the Abruzzo region, I wish to reiterate this House's care and solicitude for the earthquake victims, and to express our hope that the timetable for the restoration of the region's historical heritage and housing stock can be accelerated.
Governance and partnership in the Single Market - Single market for Europeans - Single market for enterprises and growth - Public procurement (continuation of debate)
Mr President, many thanks for the information you have given us, Mr Barnier.
The Treaty of Lisbon has now been in force for two years and, for the first time, we have a sustainable social market economy as the European social model.
This may enable us to make the quantum leap to economic and social union in Europe.
The concept of the internal market must be based on this principle.
The internal market has been in existence for 20 years, but it is not yet complete.
We have a Europe 2020 strategy, which we cannot put into practice without the backing of the internal market, and we are discussing the financial perspective until 2020, which, if it does not provide more funding for political initiatives on competitiveness, growth, employment and social solidarity, will not allow us to implement the Europe 2020 concept and to meet its targets in full.
The euro is making the internal market into a home market.
The internal market is essential for growth and employment.
Everything which strengthens the internal market also increases Europe's competitiveness and, therefore, its independence.
For this reason, I am very pleased that we are taking this initiative, because it is the most important move that the European Union can make.
This is all about allowing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) access to capital.
We must make sure that the financial support provided to SMEs does not only take the form of credit and the promotion of loans.
We also need to look at other approaches.
It is important for us to support venture capital funds, project bonds and e-commerce, combat piracy more effectively, create a common consolidated corporate tax base, regulate public procurement and put in place the four freedoms: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital.
We all have a lot to do.
Thank you for this initiative, Mr Barnier.
Mr President, I very much hope that it will be possible to rescue the 200 people who are in distress, because this is a very important matter.
Thank you for informing us about this.
Mr Barnier, Mrs Győri, ladies and gentlemen, Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which enshrines the social market economy, represents a new approach and a new political task for the future.
Of course, we now have to complete this task and we have been waiting to do so for the last two years.
I am pleased that the European Commission has made the first move in this direction.
I am also very pleased that we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have succeeded, after a hard struggle, in ensuring that the social clause is included in the European Parliament's position when we vote on this issue today.
This is a very important question, because it forms the basis for social cohesion and will enable us to ensure that the internal market is regarded by people in the European Union as a social component.
This is essential if we want the citizens of Europe to regain their trust in the political system in the European Union.
In particular, the Commission must finally acknowledge the decisive significance of social rights in the internal market and put the focus on the social impact of European legislation.
This is why it is important for Parliament to remind the Commission once again about the social clause which is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon.
I would like to thank Mr Barnier for assuring us that he will take this into consideration and will follow this route.
He can be sure of the full support of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
Mr Barnier, the social clause also means, of course, that the Posting of Workers Directive must be revised accordingly.
It means that the right to work and to strike must be respected in the Member States, together with the issues which really concern people, and that these rights must be incorporated into the internal market policy of the European Union without any ifs and buts and without restrictions.
That is what concerns us as Social Democrats.
If the internal market is developed on this basis, we will give you our support and our policy will be moving in the right direction.
Of course, other questions are also important in this context.
The recognition of professional qualifications, the European qualifications passport and the full transferability of pensions within the European Union are all issues which interest the citizens of Europe and which will ensure that the internal market is a market for the people.
This is exactly what we Social Democrats are always saying. The economy is there for the people and not vice versa.
If we follow this path, then we will be on the right track.
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation on these reports.
We worked well together, and I am also pleased that, in the end, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament agreed to go along with a compromise.
It would have looked strange if we had not succeeded in achieving a broad compromise with regard to these reports.
I would like to mention three things that I believe have been a success for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the report on which I worked, namely, the report on governance and partnership in the Single Market.
The first priority we have included is the fact that the EU's Heads of State or Government must take political leadership in this area.
This is an absolutely essential prerequisite for achieving results and for achieving the necessary prioritisation.
The second is that we have ensured that we focus on actually getting the legislation in this area implemented correctly and on time.
That was a major problem with the Services Directive that we obviously hope will not be repeated in the future.
Finally, we have an alternative form of dispute resolution, which is to be promoted at EU level, particularly for consumers who shop on the Internet.
All of the focus on e-commerce in general also represents a major step forward, and in this regard, it must be mentioned that we have also just adopted a directive on consumer rights that is also pointing in the same direction, which is clearly yet another major step in the right direction.
Finally, I would like to appeal strongly to Commissioner Barnier to ensure that, as this large package on the Single Market now goes further through the system, we also promote communication about it.
Our experience up to now with regard to communication about the Single Market - the Single Market for citizens - has left something to be desired.
All of us have a responsibility, but I would like to strongly urge the Commissioner, if I may, to put a great deal of effort into ensuring that we really promote communication and to give it a boost so that citizens and small businesses become more aware of the fact that this excellent package actually exists.
The fact that there is a lack of awareness about this seems to be the biggest problem at the moment.
I would therefore strongly recommend that we give communication a shot in the arm.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, back in the 1980s, the decade in which I was born, the President of the Commission at that time, Jacques Delors, said that the Single Market should have a social dimension.
Now, more than 20 years later, we have a situation where we have 23 million unemployed, there is pressure on wages and working conditions and on public services, there are nearly 18 million working poor and there is increasing inequality in Europe.
At the same time, we are losing jobs, and we do not really know how we are to support ourselves in the future.
We have to conclude that we still have a huge amount of work to do when it comes to establishing the European social dimension.
Mr Monti took this matter up last year in his splendid proposal for us all.
I believe that he made an absolutely key point when he said that there are some bottlenecks, in other words, some critical points, that we need to accept and that we need to deal with if we want to make progress, some of these being social and environmental in nature.
In actual fact, it is the central idea that, in my opinion, we should follow up on or pursue in the near future.
It has been a rather tough process debating this document in Parliament, but I am very pleased that we are able, as Parliament in session, to make our recommendation today with regard to how the Commission's and Mr Barnier's work should continue.
I would like to mention three points that are very important for us in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, and that constitute absolutely central messages.
The first message to take from this today is that we want a green Single Market.
This is to be achieved, among other things, through innovation and by using public invitations to tender and procurement in such a way as to actively promote the conversion to a green economy.
It is also to be achieved by introducing an environmental footprint for products and by finding financing instruments that can help to enable these green investments to be made, including Eurobonds, which are intended to cover our large requirement for investment in connection with the conversion to a green economy.
The second message from us today is that we want a social Single Market.
This means, among other things, that we want a fundamental and thorough social examination of legislation before it is tabled, and therefore also that we want a social policy reference - that is the term that we agreed on in the relevant Single Market legislation to remind us all of the obligations imposed on us by the Treaty of Lisbon as regards fundamental social rights.
Our third message is that we want the consumers' Single Market with, among other things, ambitious initiatives, market surveillance and passenger rights.
This is therefore an excellent document that we Greens are able to support today.
I would have liked it to have been a bit clearer in its messages and I would have liked this document to have made us dream that Europe could lead the world when it comes to social justice, new jobs and the switch to a green economy.
We probably still have a way to go in this regard, but I think that this is a good start.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, it gives me very great pleasure to be able to welcome the excellent reports from the three rapporteurs, and indeed to thank all the Members - not just those on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, but also those on the many other committees represented here, who have joined us in what has been a great enterprise.
We have seen already from the quality of the contributions across the political field how engaged we are with the topic.
We have had lively debates and lively arguments, but we have been united in a common goal of wanting to make the competitive Single Market economy work, a competitive social market economy work, and for those two things to be linked together.
We have achieved that in what we have done so far.
The history of this important project, referred to by a number of you, had its seeds first of all in Professor Monti's work, for which I pay him tribute, and in a desire by my committee - and I want to thank all the coordinators particularly for the support and energy they put behind this - to say that Parliament needed a response to this as well.
We had a feeling that the completion of the essential foundation of the EU 2020 strategy for smart growth and jobs and innovation - the Single Market - was not really reflected as a political priority.
We have been able to work with the Commissioner - and here I pay tribute to Michel Barnier who seized that opportunity to work with us - to express this as a political priority in the form of the Single Market Act.
That has been a real success for Parliament.
It is a lesson on how committees can use their power of political initiative by working together to take that movement forward, because if it were not for Parliament, we would not be here today.
I am delighted to see that Martin Schulz is here - the only group leader here - whom I warmly welcome.
I hope that this is a lesson he will absorb in the future work that he may do in this Parliament.
Thinking about what is in this report, a number of messages have come through.
First of all, a number of colleagues have said that in areas like goods and services, in particular, we have done a huge amount of work but that it is not well enough known; people are not taking advantage of it.
There are also areas which we really have to develop.
Some of them are in the EU 2020 strategy, in innovation and digital networks.
Green technologies are not reflected enough, though some are not fit for purpose.
I am very pleased at what you said about public procurement, and mutual recognition also needs to change.
We are going to work together on those, but today we have created the framework and the foundation in which to move those forward.
Again, I want to thank all of you who are engaged in that great effort on behalf of all European citizens.
Mr President, I would like to put a question to Mr Harbour, who is a fellow MEP for the West Midlands in the UK.
He talked a great deal about being in the European Union and the influence this gives; indeed, he is the Chair of one of the most influential committees here in the European Parliament - the Single Market Committee.
He is actually the only Conservative MEP who is a committee chair.
He recently brought forward a written declaration in support of small businesses, but only got just over 200 signatures.
Is that the level of his influence?
Or is he just a Europhile in Euro-sceptic clothing in a no-meaning ECR Group that deceives the British public over and over again?
Mr President, Mrs Sinclaire and I represent a region of the United Kingdom whose citizens depend on the Single Market for their jobs and for their future.
I work with small enterprises all the time, and I can tell her that small enterprises in the Midlands supplying the great companies in the car industry, just down the road from where she and I live, are working overtime at the moment because of new opportunities that we have created by giving them a framework to go and attack a market numbering 500 million people - that big an area.
I do not apologise at all for the work I do here.
I wish other people would be more constructive and do real work for their local citizens, instead of merely coming here to complain.
Mr President, Commissioner, I greatly enjoyed your speech today.
However, we are of the opinion that the Commission is sticking to the philosophy behind the Lisbon strategy which, according to the Commission's official position, failed to meet its targets.
The Single Market strategy must, firstly, clarify its visions and redefine its priorities, at both theoretical and practical level, so that it is sufficiently visible to the public.
We believe that the market is useful, that it has its virtues; however, it is not a social model per se.
The social dimension must be defined as the top priority and the new agenda for the Single Market must be configured so that it improves social justice.
In a free market society, not everything can be for sale.
Public utilities, public health services and services of economic interest should not be covered by competition law or Single Market legislation.
Universal access to viable and high quality public services is a vital political issue.
At the same time, fundamental rights, such as the right of trade union activity, cannot be set aside.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will not make yet another speech about the individual points.
I represent a coalition partner in the government of one of the founding countries of the European Union, namely the Northern League.
This is not a matter of better communications - I heard a colleague speak of an ambassador for communications in case the activities of the European Union come under attack - but rather a matter of involving territories.
We appreciate these three measures.
They have positive aspects and aspects that need refining, for which, as a group, we have tabled amendments.
The fundamental factor is involvement, because Italy is different from Finland, and is different from Portugal.
The important thing is that this should be an opportunity and not an imposition, as some directives have often become in the past.
We must be careful when considering as transgressors those countries which fail to follow guidelines, because if they are unable to follow them, it is obviously not just for the sake of it but probably because those directives cannot be homogeneously deployed over the 27 countries.
The Single Market is our goal.
It is not an end but a means and, as such, for small and medium-sized businesses and consumers, the important thing is that the process should primarily be concrete, not declarations of principle, but concrete actions starting with those specific twelve points, and secondly, there should be real involvement of governments and territories, because otherwise we risk setting up yet another framework that people and manufacturers do not welcome.
No ambassador of communications can determine whether a directive or a Single Market is suited to the social and productive fabric that needs to embrace it.
Mr President, on a point of order, first of all, the rule book states that if a Member of this House wishes to make a point of order, the President should give way, and it was a procedural point of order I wished to make.
These blue cards allow a Member to ask another Member a question.
Now if the Member disregards that question, I think it is up to you, Mr President, to ask the Member to answer that question.
My question was simple: how did Mr Harbour's influence help with adoption of his written declaration, which failed to get the requisite number of signatures?
Our honourable colleague, Mr Harbour, has replied.
Everyone is now free to interpret this answer as more or less complete.
You may consider it wanting, others may consider it complete. But here ends the debate.
We cannot turn such an important topic as this into a bilateral discussion between you and Mr Harbour.
(NL) Mr President, let me begin with the positives.
The reports in front of us include a number of good proposals, such as moving the Services Directive forward, the European patent and addressing excessive roaming charges.
These are things which will affect the core issue of the internal market and which will help individual citizens and companies to move forward.
Unfortunately, I also have to note that there are many other initiatives which go far beyond the objective of the internal market.
I will mention a few: the climate and CO2 targets, socio-economic equality, fair working conditions and, of course, greater solidarity: that is, a socio-economic redistribution scheme which will undoubtedly involve more money being spent on it.
Every one of these proposals is socialist in flavour and, as far as we can see, none of them comes within the scope of Europe's responsibilities and certainly none of them has anything to do with the internal market.
It is pie in the sky to think that differences in Europe can be erased with socio-economic interventions.
The internal market was never intended to create all-embracing equality in Europe.
Mr President, the delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) would prefer an internal market which focuses on the core issue, that is, on the promotion of freedom and economic cooperation.
Tackle the work on these two concerns that is overdue and get rid of any superfluous initiatives.
For the PVV, the vision of the internal market which is propagated here is a bridge too far.
Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that while we were working on the report on your rich document, we were, just like yourself, constantly conscious that the Single Market is there to serve Europeans.
Maybe this is exactly the reason why the negotiations between different political groups on the final form of the text were so difficult.
I do agree with them that even if we do not fall in love with the Single Market, we can be very emotional about it.
It is really good that the European Parliament sends a clear signal today to the Commission and to the Council in the form of 15 priority proposals, and I am personally satisfied that we underlined the importance of the mobility of our citizens.
Better access to banking services; easier recognition of professional qualifications; full portability of pensions: these are the fields in which citizens need solutions in order to study, work and invest in different Member States throughout their lives.
Europeans expect concrete actions from us for concrete needs, and we must deliver.
Take, for example, voice and data roaming charges.
It is high time these stop hindering the mobility of Europeans on this continent - our continent without internal borders.
This issue is also addressed in the document we are going to vote on today.
Finally, the European Parliament is proposing an idea to organise an annual Single Market forum, and this platform should enable a genuine discussion with citizens.
To me, this is a crucial way of involving European citizens in the reform of the Single Market for its 20th anniversary, and for that event I wish all of us much success.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one reason for the problems of the Single Market is poor governance.
At present, an inexcusably large number of directives are waiting too long to be implemented nationally. Far too many have also been implemented unsatisfactorily or incorrectly.
The Member States must themselves take responsibility for the viability of the Single Market.
Common rules that are not respected in any tangible way are of no value.
One danger lies in the inequality of EU citizens.
Rights and obligations must be the same for all EU citizens and companies.
In my opinion, Mrs Kalniete's report does not sufficiently stress the importance of the role of the European Parliament.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament's role as a legislator must be on a par with that of the Council.
I am convinced that the relaunch of the Single Market will rely on the equal participation and close cooperation of all the EU institutions.
Only by acting together can we achieve the objectives that were originally set for the Single Market. These are: the promotion of competitiveness, a social market economy and sustainable development.
In his speech in yesterday's plenary, Mr Schulz emphatically stated that neither the President of the Commission nor the President of the European Council has the right to play down the role of Parliament.
The credibility of EU policy and the future of the European Union ultimately depend on effective democracy.
The legitimacy of Parliament's work is assured by 500 million European voters in a direct national election.
It is they who are among Europe's most important people of influence, actors and decision makers.
The viability of the Single Market and the future of the European Union, too, depend on how they behave and the decisions that they take.
(SV) Mr President, the EU is certainly more than the Single Market, but without the Single Market, there is no EU.
The Single Market is our most important tool for getting the EU out of the economic crisis.
There is therefore no conflict between what is good for Europe's citizens and what is good for Europe's businesses.
Everyone will be a winner if we succeed in removing the remaining obstacles to free movement of people, goods, capital and services.
The Single Market is still far from complete and the services sector in particular needs to be revamped and improved.
This also applies to the digital market in order for us to be able to reap the benefits of the dynamic effects of free movement.
One of the cornerstones of the Single Market is the euro.
The common currency creates stability for businesses, which do not need to worry about exchange rates.
The euro simplifies trade across borders.
If the euro were to be introduced throughout the whole of the EU, including in my country, Sweden, it would obviously stimulate and strengthen Europe and give the Single Market additional force.
We would have more jobs and more prosperity.
By the way, Mr President, I fully support the remarks made by Malcolm Harbour.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I think that many of my fellow Members will have remembered that the background to this package for the Single Market comes from the Monti report, and the Monti report recommended a considerable compromise between those who advocate more competition, if you like, and those who advocate giving more weight to social, environmental and tax-related aspects.
I believe that, here in Parliament - and as long as the texts are not unpicked in the votes we shall be having in plenary in a few hours - we have succeeded in finding this compromise, including in the 14 proposals that emerge from the three reports as a whole.
I also know that you are having discussions, in the College of Commissioners, to determine which central themes you will be retaining, and we shall clearly be paying great attention to whether this balance found within Parliament and desired by Mr Monti is taken up and extended to the 12 central project themes to which you have referred.
I would like to highlight three items which seem particularly important to me, further to what Mrs Turunen said a little while ago on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
The first aspect concerns competition.
The issue of the Single Market is to ascertain where we can focus competition.
Do we focus competition on innovation, on products or do we focus competition on the rules, through environmental dumping or social dumping?
I believe we have indeed struck a balance here in Parliament - and I hope you can carry it over into the Commission - which is to say 'yes' to more competition through innovation, 'yes' to more capital investment, but 'yes' also to a social clause, 'yes' to environmental standards that ensure that competition does not lead to regulatory dumping.
Those are the two aspects that I believe are fundamental to our compromise.
The second item that I would like to highlight concerns the tax-related aspects.
When you proposed the consolidated corporate tax base for multinational companies in your first version of the Single Market Act, it was not an optional proposal: in other words, all companies had to be subject to this consolidated tax base.
In the proposal put out by the Commission 10 days or so ago, it is an optional measure: in other words, instead of building up an aspect of the Single Market, the Commission is tearing one down.
You will be adding a new system, you will be adding a layer of complexity, you will be adding regulatory arbitrage instead of creating tax harmonisation.
The proposal tabled by the Commission a fortnight ago runs totally counter to what we in Parliament want and to what you had proposed.
The last point I want to highlight very quickly is the notion of reciprocity, in exactly the same terms as you have done.
The Single Market accounts for 500 million people; it is an economic entity, but it is also a political entity which must afford us more influence in shaping globalisation.
(CS) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his 12 measures on the Single Market Act, and for being inspired by the Mario Monti report, but I would like to mention one name which is important here, and which can surely be agreed on by all of us who have worked on internal market activities in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee, and that is the name of Malcolm Harbour.
His is surely one of the most important names in today's session.
The Commissioner will not be offended, because he was sitting with us in the committee when Malcolm Harbour came up with the internal market initiative, an initiative which re-opened the whole debate on the internal market, and everyone - regardless of their political affiliations, whether socialist, green, liberal or from the European Conservatives and Reformists themselves - I would say almost everyone, supported this idea, which is why I want to mention the name of Malcolm Harbour.
In my opinion, we now have to fight against economic nationalism, and time is just one of our enemies in that fight.
In relation to the lack of time, I am pinning my hopes on Commissioner Barnier being able to turn these 12 measures into legislative measures.
(SV) Mr President, Mrs Győri began her speech by saying that we need a driving force for the economy.
That is true, we do need that, but I would like to add that we also need a driving force for social justice and for a sustainable society.
Social rights must never be seen as obstacles.
On the contrary, they are a prerequisite for a sustainable and social economy and for growth.
No one has mentioned the idea of a new value-added tax strategy.
I will do so, as we have different regulations on VAT in the various Member States.
Sweden, for example, finances a large part of its welfare system by means of its VAT rules.
We are already suffering as a result of EU legislation, as the EU will not let us exempt non-governmental organisations from VAT.
This affects all voluntary organisations, for example, those providing activities for children and young people.
We must have the right to decide on these VAT rules for ourselves.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the creation of a Single Market is one of the objectives of the European Commission in order to respond to the economic crisis.
There are positive and negative aspects to all three reports.
We agree with the use of new technologies, e-commerce and innovation to encourage business growth and increase competitiveness.
To encourage the creation of a market for Europeans, greater coordination of trading activity should be a priority in order to control goods from third countries.
The creation of a collaborative Single Market can only be an opportunity for economic growth, since it fulfils the criteria of transparency and greater involvement of regional realities.
There are still problems, such as the granting of a special mandate to the President of the Commission as supervisor of the Single Market and the lack of protection for small and medium-sized businesses and their employees.
If we want to support the European economy, we must stop businesses relocating.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is possible to agree with the report before us in essence.
The question, however, is how much purport we can really give it.
That is to say, the freedom of movement of people and the free movement of capital are essentially fine words, yet what have Hungarians seen of these until now?
They have seen that Western capital can come to Eastern Europe, but from Eastern Europe, only people can go west, and therefore, only the movement of people is free.
It is impossible, is it not, to imagine Hungarian or perhaps Czech or Polish entrepreneurs buying up, for instance, the German company which makes Volkswagen and then closing it in order to create their own market?
In contrast, German, French and British entrepreneurs have done this to Hungary when they did away with the sugar industry, the food industry, the canning industry and the textile industry in the country.
Indeed, in 2004, they even campaigned on the grounds that we should join the European Union because Hungarian entrepreneurs could then open patisseries in Vienna.
Far from being able to open patisseries in Vienna, Hungarian entrepreneurs are not even able to open patisseries in a small village.
For this reason, the food industry, the textile industry and the canning industry need to be rebuilt also in Eastern Europe in order that we may be members, respected members, of the European Union with equal rights.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to everyone in the European Parliament and in the European Commission who was involved in this joint report.
Almost 20 years ago, the internal market was created by means of the Single European Act.
A great deal has undoubtedly been achieved since then, but the process is like a 100-metre race. The last few metres are the most difficult and the most strenuous.
Therefore, the fact that Mr Barnier, in consultation with the other Commissioners, has presented us with an unbelievably coherent approach to the last few metres in the race towards the internal market is all the more welcome.
In the past, proper progress has not been made in one area or another, precisely because the strategy was not adequately checked by the various Directorates General and the Commission to ensure that it was coherent.
We must work together across all the groups in the European Parliament and with the Commission to ensure that this situation changes.
The key note of the last few metres of the internal market race, the final spurt, as I call it, is the guiding principle of the social market economy, which means taking seriously the rights of employees, companies, citizens and all those involved in the world of business and making sure that we achieve a fair balance between the various Member States and also between the differing interests of the stakeholders.
I believe that the compromises that we have reached across the different groups come very close to this principle.
Nevertheless, Mr Barnier, I would like to point out that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has agreed internally across all the committees a list of priorities for the next measures to be taken from the package that you are proposing.
The list consists of four key points.
We want to see a final effort being made to put the fundamental freedoms in place in the internal market.
For example, a quarter of the professional qualifications in the European Union only exist in one Member State.
This shows that there is still a great deal to do and that the market is not functioning properly in terms of openness.
In addition, we want to create a cross-border, digital internal market and to establish a global perspective on the internal market.
The proposals on public procurement policy are hugely important in this respect and Parliament will be drawing up a resolution on this subject during the next session.
(FR) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate all those MEPs who had a hand in drafting these reports.
I think that we have managed to produce three balanced texts, which send a strong signal from Parliament to the College of Commissioners about our priorities for a Single Market that operates effectively on behalf of our citizens, for growth and for enterprises.
As shadow rapporteurs for Mr Buşoi's report, we have created a clear road map for the Commission.
Firstly, and here we are all in agreement, Commissioner, there is a proposal for a legislative framework for public procurement, public/private partnerships and service concessions which should protect small operators, SMEs and awarding local authorities, and which will guarantee reciprocity between the EU, the industrialised countries and the major developing countries.
Then there is the need to ensure that we prioritise the common consolidated corporate tax base and a clear VAT framework.
That is crucial if we want our SMEs to flourish within a healthy competitive environment.
Finally, we must ensure that innovation is funded, in order to stimulate strong and sustainable growth in major European infrastructure projects, through the creation of Eurobonds.
I should like to finish by stressing how important it is, to my mind, that we have reached a satisfactory compromise on the key issues of being able to guarantee social rights in the different legislations of the Single Market and of protecting services of general interest within the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Commissioner, we are sending you a very clear message: the economy must be at the service of the citizens, and not the other way round.
You need our help.
Today, we give you this help, along with a major challenge: that of reconciling our citizens with the European project.
So do not let us down and give them the confidence they need!
Mr President, as a Liberal, I welcome the launch of the Single Market Act.
Removing national barriers should create an effective Single Market, but is this really applicable in all sectors?
It seems obvious to me in the energy sector, and even more in terms of scarcity of resources and international tensions.
I strongly believe that Europe has to throw its weight to push Member States to interconnect and invest in their infrastructure as a precondition for a common energy market and security of supply.
However, this new Brussels mantra is only desirable so long as it reinforces competitiveness and lower prices for consumers, and there are sectors where it might not be possible.
I doubt whether creating European telecom champions, establishing pan-European licensing in the audiovisual sector or a Single Market for on-line content will bring more competitiveness in the long run or stimulate creativity, culture and growth.
So maybe we should take time to sit down and think, and should not charge like bulls into an easy-market concept.
Mr President, I shall start by thanking all the rapporteurs for their efforts, but especially Mrs Kalniete for all her hard work, and for the leadership of our chair, Malcolm Harbour.
The UK Government estimates that the value of a true Single Market would add up to EUR 800 billion of the EU's GDP - a truly astonishing figure.
There is still much to do to deliver this.
Improving governance of the Single Market must be a key strategic priority for the EU.
It is vital that in these difficult economic times, we look to enhance our competitiveness, increase growth, create jobs and drive innovation.
I am pleased with the outcome of this report, which stresses the importance of a clear commitment and ownership by Member States to relaunch the Single Market, which is vital for its success.
By carrying out a rigorous monitoring process, and by reducing the time it takes to transpose directives, Member States will be able to increase trade and ensure a well-functioning Single Market.
I am also very supportive of the priority action highlighted in Mr Correia de Campos' report in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, for which I will be the rapporteur.
We must urgently identify the obstacles faced by Member States in implementing this directive and by the professionals themselves.
(NL) Mr President, as we were debating Mr Louis Grech's excellent report, I gained the impression that both Parliament and the Commission were aware of the need to make the internal market more socially oriented.
We all agreed that the explanation of the partial failure of the internal market lies in the fact that it has won the hearts of large companies, but not those of ordinary people.
However, no proposals have yet come through for a social chapter for the protection of trade union rights and collective agreements.
On the other hand, we have had Heads of Government and the Commission going on about pay restraint, with some even calling for the abolition of collective agreements.
Even the existence of the trade union movement itself is now in question.
Commissioner Barnier, do not let this throw you.
Follow your social heart and ensure that the internal market becomes a market for everyone, not just the plaything of large companies.
I therefore urge you to put forward a proposal which will make it quite clear that social rights should not be subordinated to the principle of unbridled competition.
Just one word to my fellow Member, Mrs Sinclaire.
It was a pleasure to work with Malcolm Harbour on a written declaration on SMEs.
We received no support from you and I find your criticism of the declaration totally unjustified.
(SK) Mr President, the attempt to create a Single Market for companies and for growth is coming up against many administrative barriers, which are a natural consequence of the fact that the business environment has developed independently in the different Member States, in different stages and under different conditions.
The effort to synchronise the business environment of all 27 Member States seems to me a highly demanding ambition.
I would therefore like to point out the option of an alternative approach, which does not require the full cooperation of all Member States from the outset.
The procedure under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) has already enabled us to achieve substantial progress over the long-intractable problem of the European patent, through so-called enhanced cooperation in the establishment of uniform patent protection.
I firmly believe that, if the group of economically stronger Member States, such as France and Germany, in particular, found the will to unify accounting rules and to create a common accounting and taxation system, it would be possible, through enhanced cooperation under Article 20 TEU, to lay the foundations for a common accounting system, which other Member States could gradually join.
I firmly believe that, through a good choice of measured, gradual steps, it is possible to help the functioning of the EU Single Market substantially.
Mr President, Mrs Kalniete wants to relaunch the Single Market and makes it sound like a V-2 rocket: extremely dangerous but never on target.
Mr Correia de Campos is concerned about movement of workers. Well, so am I.
The EU has swamped the United Kingdom with extra workers.
The United Kingdom sees the world as the market.
The straightjacket of the EU regulation is closing our industry, stopping innovation when it is ahead of the regulations and closing traditional industry, where the product is good but different from the approved continental version.
Small business is the victim here.
The United Kingdom is amongst those which do comply, yet it suffers because it does: for example, expensive compliance in the pig and egg industries with regulations that the Commission will not enforce, making our product uncompetitive.
I have many more examples, but have been allocated just one minute to save small businesses.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is now important to unite our voices in thanking Mr Barnier for his work and also for the outstanding work of Mr Harbour.
The initiative that was brought forward by the Commission is the result of many years of work, including that of fellow Members who have preceded Mr Barnier.
With its publication, we can, at last, at this point, better highlight and give priority to the issue of the Single Market which, for unavoidable reasons, and which are difficult for the public to understand, has not, in my opinion, received enough attention within the 2020 programme.
I think the Single Market is the European Union's great challenge.
On one hand, it can get us out of a difficult crisis situation and, on the other, it can make us even stronger and more influential regarding policies which are being implemented in the rest of the world.
But nevertheless, we always have to fight resistance from Member States and I think the guidance given in this report will require a common effort from all.
As for my group, may I borrow a phrase used by Mr Schwab, with which I fully agree, who said that we are in the final sprint.
In this final sprint, things are more exciting but also more difficult.
I believe that what we are asking of the Commission, for which we have Mr Barnier to thank, is a focus on the uniformity of professional qualifications, on the digital Single Market, on a Single Market for public procurement and special attention for SMEs.
To this I add my usual motto: we must simplify, simplify, simplify.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteurs and Mr Barnier for their generous contribution to Parliament.
We support the idea of an internal market which is able to understand and meet the social expectations and the implications that the social dimension requires.
It is not a pipe dream; it is realistic and also modern.
It is this vision that makes the market stronger, because focusing only on the economic element, essentially reducing the market to a question of economics, has shown that it will solve neither problems of growth nor of cohesion.
This means, in short, that we must now fully realise the ideal of a European social market economy.
In today's texts, we have this.
There is recognition of the social enterprises, cooperatives and their role, of mutual insurance companies and of foundations, which represent 10% of European companies and many of our jobs.
These are a reality with real businesses demonstrating economic pluralism and the pluralism of business.
They work with capital but not for capital and want to create work, welfare, quality of life and innovation, and to demonstrate that these values should and can be part of the internal market in Europe.
Mr President, the European Union's greatest achievement is the establishment of the Single Market.
The free movement of goods, services, labour and capital drives innovation and increases the prosperity of the 500 million people who live in Europe.
The common market was the reason my country joined the EEC, and the Single Market is the reason we remain part of the EU, but in recent years, the EU's focus has strayed from completing the Single Market.
Too much time and money has been wasted on grandiose projects that do not benefit the people we represent.
I believe it is time to refocus our attention on the Single Market.
Its expansion and success is crucial for our economies.
It is one of the few areas where the EU can deliver growth rather than impede it.
I would ask the Commissioner to be bold.
Rather than creating more regulations that drive jobs away from the City of London, I would ask him to focus on creating a competitive and job-creating Single Market for Europe.
(DE) Mr President, public procurement law and the awarding of public contracts are an essential part of the internal market.
Mr Barnier, my response to your remarks about wanting to promote social integration in this context is that I have heard very little about protecting social rights or about protecting collective agreements.
These are some of the fundamental rules which you, as you have said, do not want to call into question.
If we want to protect the fundamental rules, we must ensure in future, during the process of awarding public contracts, that basic social standards are maintained, that collective agreements are not undermined, and that the use of cheap labour is prevented.
All of this forms part of modern public procurement law.
I would like to make it clear that we must no longer put greater emphasis on economic freedoms and free competition than on fundamental social rights.
Either we want a social Europe or we want permanent conflict with the people who are turning away from Europe because it does not protect their interests.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, economic and social crises always cause our citizens pain and create doubt for the public and our economies.
For three years now, there is considerable evidence that, when faced with difficulties, nations are tempted to turn in on themselves.
One minute, we hear of a profusion of penny-pinching measures, the next of difficulties in competing for public procurement, and, now and again, this is something we heard in this House just now, doubts about the very usefulness of Europe.
Europe is fingered as being responsible for the crisis.
However, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis is what is responsible for the doubts.
Your message, Commissioner, is to tell the European citizens that Europe is back again and that its role is to protect them.
In the past, Europe has been ingenuous in matters of external trade.
This must stop.
Europe is frequently hard to comprehend.
It should become easy to comprehend.
We are all responsible for the regulatory nit-picking which gives Europe the reputation for being a factory churning out complex detail.
Europe must embody a constant striving for simplification.
Too frequently, Europe is a collection of 27 rules which, too often, are mutually contradictory.
Europe must continue to harmonise.
Then the time will come to talk of social dumping and tax dumping between Member States, because how do we think that we can ever achieve our Single Market if regulations continue to differ so greatly from one State to another?
Lastly, Europe is often seen to be a source of constraints. It should henceforth be seen as a source of enablement.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, what indeed you want - and I applaud this - is to give the Single Market back to the citizens.
That will assuage their fears and provide them with new reasons to live together.
Commissioner, in building the Single Market, you want political and not merely economic foundations.
Parliament, I am sure, will support you in this matter.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Single Market, when it was set up, was a source of hope for European consumers.
However, over time, they have entertained serious doubts about the benefits it might bring to their daily lives.
I am thinking, in particular, of e-commerce, which is still insufficiently used due to a lack of confidence.
I am also thinking about the lack of passenger protection and the non-compliance, by Member States, with regulations in this area.
I am thinking of the fact that we still need a European statute for mutual companies and consumer associations.
I am also thinking of the total lack of transparency in the financial services sector, but I am aware, Commissioner, that you are working tirelessly on these issues.
In order to restore the confidence of our citizens and finally to ensure that this Single Market operates effectively, we must take ambitious and targeted measures.
That is what we propose in the three reports that we are debating today.
I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of the horizontal social clause and the services of general economic interest clause which allow us to take a first step towards a more social Europe.
It is our duty, the duty of all of us here, of the institutions -and I have confidence in you, Commissioner - to swiftly put into effect our proposals for a Single Market operating on behalf of its citizens.
(CS) Mr President, if we want to revitalise the European economy and boost competitiveness in the global environment, our core objective must be, finally, after 20 years, to remove all barriers preventing small and medium-sized enterprises in particular from developing their business activities.
It is therefore necessary to complete the harmonisation of technical and accounting standards, to promote electronic commerce, to link commercial registers, to implement the interoperability of on-line identification systems and the recognition of qualifications, to eliminate on a consistent basis discrimination against business on the grounds of their place of origin, and to streamline the conditions for participating in public tenders.
The 50 points which the Single Market Act currently contains are of absolutely key importance, and we must bring them to life.
Differences in national legal systems create bureaucratic barriers for companies, slow down investment and limit efficiencies of scale and the benefits of synergy, but these differences exist even in areas that have already been harmonised by directives, but the directives have been implemented inconsistently in the Member States, and therefore the barriers to doing business on the Single Market persist.
Would it not be better to adopt measures which allow uniform legal interpretation and uniform implementation in all countries, and to limit directives which allow variations in national law?
I very much appreciate the fact that Commissioner Barnier has made it his top priority to complete the Single Market, and he has our full support.
I would like to thank all MEPs who participated and cooperated in this objective.
Mr President, in May 2010, Parliament voted for the Single Market to be perceived as a holistic, unified project, finding an equilibrium between an open SME-friendly economy and a citizen's social and basic rights.
This should be factored into all Single Market legislation, regaining, in the process, citizens' trust.
However, implementing and adopting the many excellent proposals found in the various reports and in the Act itself is a difficult task.
We have to ensure that a revitalised, redefined Single Market does happen and does not get sidelined.
Ultimately, it is up to the institutions to politically support the Single Market and give it the necessary momentum and leadership, which is sadly lacking at times.
In this respect, therefore, I am proposing that one of the permanent features of the Single Market forum should be to carry out an annual appraisal and audit to gauge the state of play of the Single Market, primarily, whether the objectives and aims set out in the Act have been achieved or not, thus convincing European citizens that the Single Market truly represents their interests and aspirations.
(PL) Mr President, the Single Market may have seemed a pipe dream 60 years ago, but today it is a fact and a reality in the everyday lives of nearly 500 million Europeans.
Of course, on the one hand, we can be proud that the idea of the European Union has been put into effect with such excellent results but, on the other, we have to be aware that this project will, in fact, never end, because the world is moving forward, Europe continues to develop, and the citizens of the European Union are going to continue, to an ever greater degree, to use the opportunities the Single Market offers them.
The Single Market Act which we are debating, today, and the results of the social consultations show unequivocally that harmonisation of the EU market involves not just economic processes in the broad sense of the word, but also legislative solutions which are intended to help ordinary citizens in making full use of the opportunity presented by the EU's internal market.
Therefore, I greatly welcome Commissioner Barnier's proposals, which are closely related to improving legal certainty and the functioning of the principles of international private law, because they produce practical solutions to problems which arise from the mobility of citizens.
They are matters which perhaps, at first sight, are not directly related to improving the functioning of the free market, but which are becoming increasingly problematic for ordinary citizens and business people operating beyond national borders.
More efficient functioning of the Single Market will, to some extent, force the whole European Union to develop cooperation, too, in the areas of civil law and administrative law.
The European market must adapt to the latest methods, and this will always present us with new challenges related to its modernisation.
Therefore, I am going to expect fulfilment of the principles enshrined in the Single Market Act with great hope and enthusiasm.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr Barnier, the internal market lies right at the heart of the European Union and, following several years of chaos, we must establish a new regulatory framework for citizens, workers, consumers and businesses.
The magic word in all these measures is inclusion - the inclusion of civil society, social dialogue and the active application of the horizontal social clause in accordance with the principles of the social market economy.
What I believe is missing, which represents a genuine shortcoming of the internal market, is a proposal for the cross-border transfer of the place of business of public limited companies.
The current situation leads to negative competition between the systems. That is not a good thing for businesses or for their employees.
Mr Barnier, we have seen that you are very hard-working and that you are prepared to present a wide range of proposals.
Please come to grips with this subject as well.
(PT) Mr President, the reports that we are debating - and I congratulate their rapporteurs - reinforce a series of initiatives for revitalising the internal market.
I would like to highlight the commitment shown by the Commission, particularly Commissioner Barnier, whom I thank, and this Parliament's positive response, through the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, to prioritising competitiveness and market dynamism, a fundamental pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Europeans and businesses are hoping for effective stimulus measures so that Europe's economy can start growing again.
They are hoping for higher employment and look forward to the creation of greater prosperity.
As the Commissioner pointed out, opening up markets to our businesses by removing obstacles and difficulties will provide very special relief and an unparalleled opportunity for them to pursue their mission as the driving force of our economy.
The measures aimed at cutting the administrative and bureaucratic burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, facilitating their access to credit and to the services market, and promoting the European patent and the recognition of qualifications, are essential.
The development of e-commerce is important for improving confidence among consumers and businesses in this kind of trade; the focus on innovation is vital for strong, lasting growth; and the social business initiative is essential for creating innovative entrepreneurial projects for social inclusion.
These are a few measures that will guarantee this ambitious project for completing, deepening and making full use of the Single Market for the benefit of the European people.
Lastly, there is the important recommendation for the Member States to redouble their efforts to improve their transposition and implementation of internal market legislation.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, you are doubtless aware that the exhaustive discussions that we have had in this House on the subject of your communication have revolved around the role of public services, of services of general interest in the Single Market and how they are embodied in legislation.
We have managed to formulate a compromise, which invites you to move beyond your proposal 25, and we invite you to move beyond a mere communication, which would not meet the expectations and needs of stakeholders, users and all parties concerned in the public services, and nor would it meet the objectives which, moreover, you are setting.
The European Union must send a clear and unequivocal message about public services.
In order to do so, we must set up a proper legal framework, whether that consists of a regulation or a directive.
The Treaty of Lisbon provides us with the legal foundations to do so.
It is now up to you to turn them into a legislative proposal.
Parliament, I am sure, is ready to follow you in this matter.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I first want to congratulate the rapporteurs on a job very well done.
We all agree with the statement that the European Union needs a Single Market which works better, so I welcomed the proposals on deepening and improving it.
I would not like discussion on deepening the internal market to lack reference to the biggest and most ambitious plan - a plan which, despite many years of work, is not, however, a reality - the plan to create a Single Market for services.
The European Commission has put forward many ambitious and new ideas for deepening this market.
They are valuable and necessary for it to function efficiently, but I would also like to appeal for a continuation and strengthening of plans which are still not serving citizens and businesses fully.
The Services Directive is one of the first stages of opening up the services sector, but we should not stop at that.
We should use the experience gained working on the Services Directive to remove other obstacles and to simplify existing regulations.
Many sectors still remain closed, many practices in our Member States hinder the free flow of services, and the flagship idea of the Services Directive - the points of single contact - is not fully working.
Commissioner, in my opinion, many of the initiatives of the Single Market Act will not bring the expected benefits if we do not improve the Single Market for services.
Effective accomplishment of the Act's numerous initiatives depends on the efficient functioning of the market for services.
It is enough to mention here the recognition of professional qualifications, e-commerce and better conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, although the list is, of course, much longer.
So I appeal to the European Commission to be consistent in opening up the services sector as a foundation for the success of the other initiatives of the Single Market Act.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Professor Mario Monti, a man whose liberal culture is appreciated and never questioned, says in his report on the domestic market that it is necessary to strike a balance between the market, its rules and the rights of people who live and work within that market.
He says so because he is convinced that social cohesion is an important factor in competition and because he, like us, thinks that people's dignity should never be questioned, neither as citizens, nor, of course, as employees.
For this reason, the social clause is important.
It is an instrument which is supported by the overwhelming majority in this Parliament, and this is why we ask you and President Barroso to include it in all legislative acts governing the internal market.
Only in this way, through the enhancement of the role and contribution of individual workers, will the market achieve its potential.
(RO) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs for the quality of their work, particularly Mr Campos, and for drafting the ambitious proposals for responding to the challenge of reconciling two seemingly contradictory objectives: relaunching the Single Market and restoring European citizens' confidence in the proper functioning of the market.
As I see it, the Single Market Act must comprise a coherent, balanced package of measures, in keeping with the Grech report and the Monti report, which will lay the foundations for a Europe of Added Value for both citizens and businesses.
Citizens' concerns and rights must be at the heart of the measures for relaunching and strengthening the internal market.
In this respect, I welcome the proposal for a citizens' charter at EU level, which will provide multilingual information about the right to live and work in any Member State.
We now come to the catch-the-eye procedure.
Unfortunately, I have about 18 names on my list, so not everybody will get the floor because we do not have enough time.
However, I will try to divide that time fairly and evenly.
(HU) Mr President, numerous factors of equal importance guide the internal market.
The problem at EU level is caused by the absence of a comprehensive platform, yet this also creates the opportunity for growth.
The three reports took account of these shortcomings and also defined them excellently.
However, simply describing these will not, in itself, encourage the stakeholders.
I proposed numerous amendments to the draft report, one area of which was the resolution of certain pending issues related to the free movement of employees.
Moreover, the Single Market should benefit all enterprises equally.
Here, I have in mind small and medium-sized enterprises in particular.
More intensive economic growth in the EU can only be achieved by removing the obstacles of the internal market.
In other words, an extensive, integrated market itself can be the engine of innovation in the future.
I congratulate the rapporteurs, I thank Commissioner Barnier for his work, and I congratulate the Hungarian Presidency.
(SK) Mr President, it is often the case that the effort to maintain the Single Market takes place at the expense of social rights and compliance with certain national traditions on the labour market.
At present, moreover, the Single Market also faces another problem, as the economic crisis casts a shadow over the prospects for its further successful development.
However, I consider it necessary to include a social element in the laws applying to the Single Market in order to direct policy genuinely towards citizens, and in order to ensure cohesion through compliance with social rights and workers' rights.
Our common endeavour must be to ensure that the Single Market and its functioning are of benefit both to citizens and companies, thereby contributing to the overall growth of European competitiveness.
We must also direct the adopted legal measures towards the fulfilment of objectives such as a stable and responsible policy on pay and the adequate representation of women in managerial positions.
Mr President, when dealing with European Union reports, never trust the label and always look at the contents of the packet.
These reports appear to be about the Single Market, trade and the transfer of jobs from higher-wage economies to lower-wage economies.
However, one rapporteur has not lost the opportunity to look for yet another pretext for yet further immigration - not just within Europe, but by clear implication from outside Europe.
The Correia de Campos report refers to an influx of highly-qualified workers and seasonal workers - not usually known for their surfeit of qualifications - as being beneficial to the European economy.
People are seen not as human beings, but as mobile factors of production.
Bringing skilled workers from the Third World robs poor countries of people they can ill afford to lose.
Furthermore, bring Third World people to Europe and you bring part of the Third World with them.
You cannot turn them into new Europeans by the application of a little cultural stardust.
People are not the product of distinctive cultures; distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the guidelines laid down by this important communication prepared by the European Commission in response to Professor Monti's report of last May.
Governance and partnership are two aspects essential to reviving the market.
Indeed, to enable it to become ever more efficient and competitive, it needs strong political guidance and high-level leadership.
This is also achieved by making the whole European system more democratic.
The positions, decisions and acts we adopt must be the result of highly coordinated collaboration between the various European institutions.
In addition, Parliament's role in drawing up legislation on the Single Market can be strengthened further.
The Treaty of Lisbon has already made a great contribution in this direction; that is, it has established new rules to ensure greater power for Parliament, but this alone is not enough.
I am thinking especially of those files on which Parliament expressed a position which is strong and clear but divergent from that of the Council and governments of the Member States.
Mr President, the debate is essential because by making the Single Market work more effectively, we have the potential to create economic growth, which fundamentally results in the creation of jobs.
I was pleased that a compromise has been reached on the subject of the social clause.
The balance between the market and our social values is vitally important; to have lost this principle would have been deeply damaging.
On the digital agenda, although many Member States are making progress, it is sadly also seen by many as non-essential.
If Member States do not deliver on this agenda, the competitiveness of the whole EU suffers.
What pressure can be brought to bear to ensure that no EU citizen, wherever he or she lives, is left behind in this digital revolution which surrounds us?
Finally, on public procurement, I welcome the Commission's proposals.
However, how do we ensure that innovative public procurement is at the heart of our agenda?
(SK) Mr President, the idea that Europeans must create more employment, or more jobs, is fundamental for us.
It is necessary, above all, to understand that the citizen must be at the actual heart of the initiative, whether from the perspective of consumer rights or at the level of communications strategies or copyright, or improving the environment for cross-border operations of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of every economy.
We must speed up the process of recognising professional qualifications in order to boost mobility, while taking account of collective agreements.
I also attach key importance to the implementation of the same laws in all Member States, adequate social protection - I repeat, social protection - and the fight against social exclusion.
Mr President, I would finally like to say that the incorporation of these elements into the European qualifications framework will be of real profit to citizens, as well as an effective mechanism for workforce mobility.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your words, and I agree with you that we must listen to our citizens and restore their faith in the European project.
Today could, therefore, be a great day for Europe and European social integration.
This is because, with the adoption of these reports, we are not only moving towards the revival of the Single Market, a key element in tackling the current economic crisis, but also responding to the demands of citizens who wish to move towards a larger Europe and strengthen social rights.
Europe must respond to new global challenges, turning the European economy into a highly competitive social market economy and stimulating noticeable growth, with more and better jobs.
However, this goal should be based on the insertion of a social clause in all legislation related to the internal market, making citizens the focal point of our attention and priority, thereby strengthening their social rights.
Finally, I would ask the Commission to present these proposals as soon as possible.
(GA) Mr President, without a doubt, the Single Market has been very important for Member States in the progress they have made in economic affairs.
It will be more important in the future, especially for countries such as my own, which are trying to emerge from the economic downturn.
The Single Market requires two things, as I see it: one, a greater awareness amongst the public and particularly SMEs as regards its potential and two, we need to unlock the barriers to its progress.
Firstly, for the development of e-commerce, high-speed broadband is an absolute prerequisite.
Secondly, for energy as a Single Market in Europe, the European super grid, which is a long-term project, is absolutely vital.
Thirdly, in the area of innovation, we will need the European patent, which Mrs Győri referred to, under enhanced cooperation, and also centres of excellence at universities that are independently assessed.
(PT) Mr President, experience has shown that there is no balance between competition and the defence of social and workers' rights.
What we have today in the name of the liberalisation of the Single Market is a rise in privatisations, the rise in unemployment that that has created, more precarious work and, in many cases, poorer services for consumers.
There are huge examples, including in my own country, Portugal, with the spread of liberalisations in transport, the post office and communications, where services are now worse, fewer people are employed and jobs are more precarious.
That is why we say it is important to defend the social clause in all these processes.
The main problem is that it is not complied with either by governments or by the Commission itself or by the Council, as the Council deliberations on 25 March made very clear.
(CS) Mr President, I firmly believe that the awareness and confidence of citizens are of key importance to the success of the single internal market.
Of course, this presupposes, among other things, communications that are accessible and comprehensible to citizens.
I would like to call again on the Commission to think seriously about how it will explain its plans to citizens.
The public consultation over the single internal market document itself showed what people are asking for and what they see as the main weak points of European integration.
Most people identified proposal number 48 as the main priority, under which the Commission makes a commitment to strengthen consultation and dialogue with civil society.
It will then pay particular attention to the views of consumers when drafting legislation.
I trust that the results of the public consultations will be brought into the equation in this case.
I would like to end by thanking and congratulating all of the rapporteurs, and I wish you, Commissioner, all the best for the continuing work.
Mr President, it is time to put back the real economy at the heart of the European agenda and to restore citizens' confidence in our common market.
The relaunching of the Single Market is a historic chance for Europe to get back to business.
Let us take it.
The best way to pursue social Europe is to create jobs and that is what the Single Market Act is about.
That is why I have been engaged in trying to avoid watering down this important act and to boost European capability to compete on the global market and generate jobs.
I have resisted attempts to introduce unnecessary regulation and additional bureaucracy or issues such as the social clause.
I have supported the consensus reached to give the Commission a broad mandate to move forward.
Now is the time for action.
All EU institutions, stakeholders and the Council should take their shared responsibility in moving forward to implement issues such as the goods package, the Services Directive and the Small Business Act, and to boost confidence in e-commerce.
Last but not least, I hope that retail, which is a pillar of the European economy, would also be high on the political agenda.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, do you realise that you hold the future of Europe in your hands?
I think that today's debate is hugely important to the future of the European Union, to the future of European citizens, and to the future of the euro.
It is extremely hard for European citizens in the 27 Member States to withstand and understand the austerity measures imposed on them if they do not understand the value and importance of the internal market.
Thus, today, I consider that this debate will decide if the 20th anniversary of the Single Market next year is a celebration or a memorial service.
I believe that there is a triangle formed by citizens, undertakings and governance. This triangle needs to be an isosceles triangle.
At the present stage, the citizens' side is extremely weak. This can only be corrected by a horizontal social clause, which is why we have asked for one, which is why we are trying to achieve a compromise.
To close, Mr Delors said that no one can fall in love with the internal market.
You should make it lovable.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very grateful to every one of you for the quality of your speeches across a whole range of views.
I listened with great attention to everything you had to say, the expression of your vigilance, and also, in general - and I am very conscious of this as it is something we need - the expression of your encouragement and your support for our approach.
I should like to reiterate my thanks to your three rapporteurs, Mrs Kalniete, Mr Buşoi and Mr Correia de Campos, and to tell Mr Kožušník that he was right to emphasise the central role in this debate of Mr Harbour, because it was not a foregone conclusion that 11 committees, and I should like to thank the rapporteurs who have spoken, would be able to work together.
This holistic or global approach had been recommended by Mr Grech and by Mr Monti, and, in parallel, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission under the authority of President Barroso carried out the same work.
We have, with 12 other Commissioners, worked to formulate these 50 proposals and, finally next week, to identify the 12 levers for the modernisation of the Single Market and the 12 symbolic proposals for these levers.
Just now, Mr Zwiefka spoke of utopia, recalling the founding fathers.
I remember something that one of these founding fathers, Mr Jean Monnet, said when the very first step towards the Single Market was taken and coal and steel were first brought together in 1950.
He said: 'I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic, I am merely determined'.
I believe, ladies and gentlemen that at present - and I am repeating myself here - when you listen closely to the public and hear their anger, their concern, when you see how many of them are suffering, when you see the lack of jobs and of growth, it is time for renewed determination, particularly in the areas of the economy and growth.
Moreover, Mrs Thun referred to this European determination just now.
I feel that it is very important, thanks to the extremely constructive work you have done jointly with the different committees and different groups, that you are able to arrive shortly - at least I hope you are - at a vote which expresses this determination and which the Council and, for its part too, the Commission will have to take into account.
In any case, this supportive work you have carried out jointly makes me feel secure in my own determination, and I have felt reassured by the success of the public debate which we held for four months on the Single Market Act, since we received, as I recall, 850 contributions, and also by the fact that the European Council itself has signalled its support for our approach.
That is how the Commission will identify the proposals for which it is committed to provide the texts over the next 12 months, and I hope that we, the Council, Parliament and the Commission, are able to implement these texts in 2011 and 2012.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, we, the Commission, through your legislation, produce a great deal of regulations.
Those that I am currently drafting on the lessons to be learnt from the financial crisis are reactive or preventive regulations.
Here, with the Single Market Act, our ambition is to construct a proactive and dynamic regulation, and to turn, as Mr Juvin and Mrs Auconie have recommended, this internal market into what it should be: a space of opportunity, much more than a space of constraints, which is the view that small and medium-sized enterprises and the citizens have of it.
Citizens are consumers, and we are going to work to guarantee the safety of the products that they consume and to lift all discriminatory barriers.
Citizens are workers, and we are going to work on the recognition of professional qualifications and the respect of social rights for those who work in another country.
That is what Mrs Jaakonsaari and Mrs Gebhardt have recommended.
Citizens use public services.
That is a concern that many of you have voiced, in particular, Mr Triantaphyllides, and, moreover, I recommend that Mrs Castex, who spoke just now, read carefully - which she no doubt has already done - my colleague, Mr Almunia's proposal on the revision of the Monti-Kroes package.
It contains, to my mind, new and open responses regarding the quality of and access to public services.
In addition, citizens are savers and borrowers and I have just outlined provisions regarding a single integrated mortgage market.
Then there are, in addition to the citizens, the businesses that create the jobs.
Mr Creutzmann, Mr Karas, just now, and Mrs Corazza Bildt have spoken of the need for competitiveness, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises.
We shall work on more favourable accounting and fiscal conditions, on progress in innovation, patents and copyright, which Mr Manders mentioned, on access to investment and also, I believe, on public/private partnerships.
I would like to thank Mrs Vergnaud for the support she has shown for our project on concessions.
We must improve the governance of the internal market.
Mr Schwab said something very important just now on de-compartmentalisation and I have tried to work on this with my colleagues inside the Commission.
This de-compartmentalisation applies to the assessment of the different directives.
I am currently carrying out an assessment, as you already know, country by country and service by service, on the Services Directive that Mrs Handzlik and Mrs Roithová mentioned just now, and I can see clear evidence of compartmentalisation.
There is sometimes a concertina effect, for a particular worker or a particular engineer or architect, in the use of the Services Directive, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the E-commerce Directive.
I wish to work, Mr Schwab, towards the de-compartmentalisation needed.
Mr Løkkegard and Mr Grech also mentioned communication.
Before you communicate, you have to do something and when you do something, you need to explain it in such a way that citizens grasp what has been done.
That is why I attach a great deal of importance, in the entire system of the internal market, to those tools that bring Europe closer to its citizens: the Solvit system, which is starting to work well, the Internal Market Information System (IMI), points of single contact, Your Europe and the forum, which Mr Grech mentioned, to improve dialogue between all stakeholders and civil society.
In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to remind everyone of some of the beliefs that have guided what I have done throughout the mandate that was entrusted to me with your support.
Let me start with my principal belief, since we are talking about the economy and employment.
Ladies and gentlemen, the rest of the world does not stand by waiting for us.
It is going much faster than us in certain areas.
We must not let ourselves stand by and be spectators of our own future.
We, Europeans, must be the driving force behind our own future.
Moreover, the main argument, the driving force impelling us to be the agents of our own future, is the Single Market.
I was in China a few days ago.
We are respected there because we represent a market of 500 million consumers and citizens.
Let us continue to strive to pool our resources and let us strengthen our core - the Single Market.
The Single Market is the keystone, the platform of our economy.
If it operates effectively, everything that we build on it in terms of private initiatives for businesses or local, national and European public and private initiatives will work better.
Why, for example, are we fighting to re-launch the patents issue which has remained deadlocked for the last 30 years?
The reason is that all public and private initiatives in the areas of innovation and creation have been weakened, seriously weakened, because we do not have a European patent or because our patents cost 10 times more than in the US So the platform must operate effectively.
That is the nub of the issue and, once that happens, we shall be able to build more effectively a great number of initiatives on its foundations.
My second main belief is that the time has come to work towards renewed growth.
Here, I should like to signal my agreement with Mrs Turunen who, just now, called for a different kind of growth.
The growth that will emerge from this crisis, and here Mrs Turunen is correct, must be different from previous growth, must pay more respect to natural resources, natural spaces, which are neither free nor inexhaustible, and we shall incorporate these objectives in particular into the new code or new regulations for public procurement, as well as for taxation, which must play a role in achieving a more ecological growth.
My third belief, ladies and gentlemen, is that there cannot be sustainable economic performance without innovation or social cohesion.
That is the dynamic compromise to which Mr Canfin referred and that Mr Monti had recommended, including in the area of taxation.
Mr Canfin and Mr Cofferati both mentioned this subject and Mrs Toia mentioned just now a subject that will feature in the proposals for a Single Market Act, namely, the development of a sector in which I believe, that of social business.
My fourth belief, and I repeat it here, is that if we are to win the fight for competitiveness, each of our territories, no matter how weak or how distant from Brussels it may be, has a role to play.
Each business is able to win its own battle, even the smallest amongst them, and we must help them do so.
Finally, all our citizens, even the weakest, those who are sometimes excluded through handicaps, can win their own battles for competitiveness, providing that they receive encouragement and support.
My fifth belief is that, in relation to what is happening in the rest of the world, our ambition must, I insist, be one of being agents and not spectators.
Furthermore, we must not merely be happy for Europe to be a continent of consumption.
Europe must continue to be a continent of production, not only of services, but an area in which we maintain a productive base, and that is also the objective of a number of the proposals that we shall make about long-term investments.
Honourable Members, I outlined to you what my dual ambition was upon becoming Commissioner.
It has not changed and will remain the same until the end of my mandate.
We are going to put the financial markets, which we need, back in the service of the real economy, and not the other way around as it has been over the last 15 years.
It is not the role of business to work for the markets, but of regulated financial markets, that are better governed and supervised, to be at the service of the real economy.
Our aim is to place the real economy, namely the large Single Market, back at the service of growth and at the service of human progress.
You should read next week - it may not be perfect and can doubtless be improved - the draft Single Market Act proposed by the European Commission in the light of your debates, and also in the light of this dual ambition: that of placing the market back at the service of the economy and of placing the economy back at the service of growth and human progress.
Mr President, I wish to thank everyone who participated in this debate today.
For me, this is extremely important from two aspects.
On the one hand, you have confirmed the Hungarian Presidency's conviction that the internal market plays a huge role in stimulating, at long last, economic growth in the European Union, and in ensuring that finally we can create new jobs again.
The other great benefit of this debate is that very many thoughts and ideas have been voiced which we will be able to incorporate into the Council's work as well.
The Commission has already completed a good part of the job. Naturally, however, they, too, still have much to do.
The Council wishes to cooperate extremely closely with this House later in the adoption of specific legislation.
Thanks are therefore due to everyone who has assisted in this process up to now, either as a rapporteur or member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and whose involvement we are counting on in the future as well.
As has been mentioned many times already, the Hungarian Presidency has advocated the goal of a strong Europe. This is the Hungarian Presidency's motto as well.
What is more, we always say that we are thinking of a strong Europe which places the citizen, the people, at the centre of its policies, and this is what we must not lose sight of either when we consider the Single Market.
I would like to address separately some of the most widely discussed issues in the debate.
The first is the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
They are, indeed, the key players in the internal market, and in consequence of this, we intend to do everything to put them on the map.
This partly means making access to finance easier for SMEs, reducing administrative burdens and ensuring simplified access to public procurements.
We attribute great importance to reviewing the Small Business Act, which will be on the Competitiveness Council's agenda in May.
We intend to adopt conclusions on the subject as well.
The other such topic is the digital agenda.
A very great deal has been said about this, too, here in today's debate. We all know that there is enormous unexploited potential in this area.
We need to improve the options and conditions of paperless administration and business transactions.
The e-commerce and e-government initiatives serve this purpose, but in a broader sense, I believe that the aim of the Consumer Rights Directive is also to encourage cross-border transactions based on a single set of European rules.
Here, I could also mention the implementation of the Services Directive, which affects a significant part of the internal market, a major element of which is simplified electronic administration.
A third point I would like to raise is that the completion of the internal market is, in my view, inconceivable without building and completing the energy and transport infrastructure.
The Hungarian Presidency has already devoted special attention to the realisation of the single energy market in the first three months.
Several Members mentioned infrastructure bonds as well in the debate.
We look forward with interest to the outcome of the public consultation in relation to this.
Protecting intellectual rights is also an issue to which we have devoted much attention to date.
I mentioned the European patent system in my introduction as well, and I trust that, after enhanced cooperation has begun, we will be able to formulate its content together and that, as regards implementing rules, we will be able to achieve the greatest progress possible at the Competitiveness Council in May.
Moreover, I also hope that there is even a possibility that we will be able to reach an agreement.
Lastly, I would like to address social aspects.
This is the issue which generated the greatest interest in today's debate, too, and aroused the most emotion in the Chamber as well.
I believe that there has been a very lively debate about this in the Commission as well as in this House, and I am certain that this will be the case in the Council, too.
As I have said before, we need a strong Europe with a human factor at its centre.
I think that this clearly indicates the Hungarian Presidency's approach to this issue, yet we can only do this in a balanced way and by considering all aspects.
That is to say, if we place the human factor centre stage, creating jobs certainly is the most important task, because if we can guarantee that everyone who wants to work can do so, I believe that we cannot offer more than this to our citizens.
The other thing is that, as we are all aware, the European social model, the European social market economy, has been put to the test.
It is our common interest to protect this.
Of course, there is no single model in all the 27 Member States, as we all implement this differently.
We must also be realistic.
This model has been put to the test: the EU's competitiveness, the Member States' competitiveness, depends on whether we can adapt this social model to the challenges of the 21st century.
For this reason, we must not treat this as sacrosanct but as something that we defend through joint efforts while adapting it to the 21st century.
Finally, mobility has also been mentioned frequently.
I believe that this is the area where we may be able to make progress most urgently and most easily, and we would like to adopt conclusions about this in the Competitiveness Council in May by all means.
Finally, it is the Hungarian Presidency's intention to ensure the greatest possible visibility for the Single Market, and we are prepared to make commitments at the highest level.
In this, we are counting on the Members and President of the Commission as well as the Members and President of the European Parliament.
Mr President, in concluding this most fruitful discussion, I should like to underline that this discussion has shown that we, the Members of the European Parliament, recognise our responsibility towards the people of Europe for reviving the economy and creating new jobs.
Consolidation of the Single Market is just as significant for reviving the economy as the other two initiatives: the reinforcement of economic management and the 2020 strategy.
We must raise the political profile of the Single Market.
Both politicians and society as a whole must understand its significance, so communication is a very important element in the revival of the Single Market: communication with business, communications with Europeans and also communication between the three institutions.
I am delighted that we are united in our aim to revive, unify and strengthen the European market.
rapporteur. - (PT) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking everyone for this debate, which has been very worthwhile.
Just now, however, I did not have time to read the last part of my speech, which was basically to thank Commissioner Barnier.
There is no better way for me to thank him than by recalling the first sentence in his speech.
He said that it is time for Europe to raise the bar, and not just to give people bad news.
I could not agree with you more, Commissioner, and I would like to tell you that in this respect, Parliament has done its job in good time and is ready to give the people good news.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank you all for your contributions to this debate and for your positive remarks.
I would also like to congratulate my colleagues, Mrs Kalniete and Mr Correia De Campos, for their good work.
We now have on the table three reports which are the result of a couple of months of hard work.
Despite the difficulties we have encountered, I am pleased with the results we have achieved.
We have identified the right challenges and a set of viable solutions.
They are also a clear expression of the European Parliament's commitment to deepen and strengthen the Single Market.
I strongly believe that the three reports will be a useful complement to the broad public consultation organised by the Commission, which generated almost 750 responses.
I welcome the interest that enterprises, individuals, NGOs and public authorities have shown in the Single Market Act, since it is crucial that we have a broad consensus on measures to tailor the Single Market according to the expectations of our citizens and enterprises.
I am pleased to see that the Commission is really active and that some of the initiatives are already under way.
I have no doubt that the Commission will take due account of the views of the European Parliament, because in the end, the most important question is: can we make a significant difference with our actions and our efforts?
My answer is, yes we can, but to do so we need courage and not shyness.
We need to take action immediately and not after some years.
We need to all act together in our efforts and not separately with some isolated actions.
It is time to act.
Mr President, earlier in this debate, my colleague, Mr de Jong, said I was out of order in the comments I made in my question to a colleague.
I do not think it is out of order to request a question on the balance of influence of a Member of this House on that institution.
Can I respectfully ask that I have some silence so I can actually make a speech?
It is not fair that a person can be criticised for asking a question in this Parliament.
The question was not answered and should be answered.
Instead, my colleague answered the question about jobs in the West Midlands.
Would he then be reminded how the EU subsidised jobs out of the Ryton Plant in Coventry?
Vote: 6 April 2011.
The vote on the Commission statement on public procurement will take place at the next part-session.
This proposal simplifies legislation by gathering together several directives.
In fact, it clarifies laws and makes them easier for businesses and consumers to understand and adopt.
I believe this will be a way to give new impetus to the internal market and, I hope, to those regions with weaker economies due to their scale, remoteness and economic dependence on a small number of products, as is the case of the outermost regions.
In general, measures are needed to address the fall in demand resulting from cross-border purchasing, and it is important to ensure that this legislation is beneficial for regions such as the Azores.
More isolated areas have a greater interest in seeing many of their products shipped out.
Their businesses need access to clear legislation and their consumers need to have access to a wider range of goods at more competitive prices.
In situations where there is harmonised legislation in areas such as that of precontractual information, which this new proposal enshrines, one way of further raising levels of confidence in products from outermost regions - and thereby increasing their availability and consumption in the internal market - will be to enhance their image through quality certification, by introducing specific measures to that effect.
The economic and financial crisis which we are still enduring has shown us that, if we move away from the economy's essential objective, which is to ensure citizens' welfare, we risk pushing the whole of society towards collapse.
This also applies to the Single Market.
We must not forget that its role is to allow every European citizen to enjoy equivalent economic and social rights ensuring their welfare, across the whole European Union.
The Single Market must be deepened and geared again towards citizens and their interests.
I believe that during this crisis period, it is important for us to gain the maximum possible benefit from something that Europe has which is more precious, namely, human capital.
Worker mobility within the EU is the key to economic recovery and the Single Market's development.
We must encourage this mobility, and the first step it is worth taking is to remove any barriers preventing the movement of labour inside the EU.
The restrictions imposed on workers from the new Member States are hindering the healthy development of the Single Market and must be lifted immediately.
For the revival of the Single Market, our European policies must operate in a business friendly environment which aims at encouraging innovation and growth and a strategic repositioning of the European economy.
Europe needs strong political leadership to establish and implement economic priorities of this magnitude.
The new European strategy, inspired by the guidelines of the Monti report, has the merit of indicating concrete measures for getting out of this period of economic crisis by restoring productivity and employment levels.
Of the 50 proposals presented by the Commission, I would like especially to highlight the steps taken to ensure increased competitiveness of SMEs, easier access to credit and to internationalisation, so that they can seize the new investment opportunities offered by the global market.
I should take this opportunity to remind you once again that SMEs are the most authentic representatives of the European economic fabric and provide numerous examples of excellence that should be encouraged and supported.
The Digital Agenda, combating counterfeiting, strengthening e-commerce and streamlining the contract procurement system are other widely supported priorities to ensure the concrete realisation of economic benefits which favour monetary stability and cohesion.
The expression 'Single Market Act' has been on everyone's lips since Professor Mario Monti wrote his report.
I eagerly await the 12 measures which the European Commission will identify as being crucial for the future of the Single Market.
At the same time, I can imagine what they will include.
So today, I would like to refer not so much to specific ideas, such as the EU patent, copyright or public contracts, but to concentrate on the principles by which, in my opinion, we should be guided.
I think future regulation of the Single Market should, on the one hand, reflect the philosophy of the Single Market which has been developed over the years but, on the other, it must be adapted to 21st century reality.
As an example, I will refer to a principle which guided the European Community from its inception - defence of what is known as parallel trade, or trade in legal products outside official channels of distribution, for example, the sale in Germany of Grundig televisions which have been purchased legally in France.
Today, parallel trade very often takes place on the Internet on a variety of sites.
This right should be defended by supporting development of the Single Market on the Internet and development of e-commerce in general, and by ensuring greater access to cultural goods in legal Internet shops.
We have much to do in this area, both in terms of making it easier for enterprises to operate in the virtual world and also in terms of increasing consumer confidence in Internet transactions.
The Single Market is the main driving force behind the development of the European Union, and besides improving competitiveness, it also creates a framework for social inclusion and job creation.
Proposals for deepening the Single Market, whether they are about removing the administrative barriers faced by small enterprises or stimulating e-commerce, must be for the benefit of the citizens.
The realisation of the strategy must be without prejudice to social rights and must not erode welfare achievements.
There are still too many barriers to employees', buyers' and consumers' rights being enforced without internal borders.
The implementation of the Free Movement Directive is also incomplete, despite the fact that the employment of as many people as possible and the best possible management of the European workforce are particularly important from the perspective of recovering from the crisis.
The smooth operation of the internal market is assisted by the common European action against corruption and organised crime, and by the implementation of the Stockholm Programme aimed at creating an area of freedom, security and justice.
We must take steps to ensure the recognition of professional qualifications within the EU, the transferability of pension rights, and access to basic banking services.
We also have further tasks ahead of us in ensuring the free movement of services and respect for the rights of posted workers.
Given the importance of this issue and the strict time constraints to which Parliament has had to work, we can all be pleased with what we have accomplished.
In general, I agree with the priorities identified by the various reports, particularly the recognition of professional qualifications, the portability of pension rights, the rationalisation of procurement procedures, initiatives for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and access for all to certain basic banking services
Certainly, in my opinion, other measures deserved to be highlighted, such as the issue of collective resources, but I am well aware that it was difficult to decide between these 50 proposals.
I am also pleased that we were able to reach a compromise on the social clause, which states that any legislation on the Single Market should be subject to a social impact assessment and, if justified by the findings, should contain a reference to political and social rights.
Finally, another reason for us to be satisfied is the fact that Parliament calls for guaranteed access, quality and affordability of services of general economic interest (SGEIs) and social services of general interest (SSGIs), and invites the Commission to take sectoral legislative initiatives in this area.
I would first like to thank the rapporteurs for the amount of work they have put in to preparing the reports on the Single Market, and also to congratulate them on the end result.
I am pleased that on the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Single Market, we have before us a resolution which will help Europeans make full use of the Single Market's potential.
I am certain that its entry into force will allow the competitiveness of European markets to be strengthened and will bring us closer to achieving the goals set by the Europe 2020 strategy.
I consider the TEN-T networks to be an important factor in achieving an efficiently functioning Single Market. I am pleased, therefore, that in the reports, attention has been drawn to their particular significance.
The TEN-T networks are one of the mainstays of an efficiently functioning market economy, creating the conditions for fair competition on the scale of the entire European Union.
In the context of decisions awaiting us on the future form of the TEN-T networks, I would like to draw attention to the need for better connection of the 'old 15' with the new Member States, and to the fact that greater internal transportation cohesion of the enlarged European Union is an important factor for the EU's competitiveness.
The Single Market is crucial for the future growth of the EU economy.
Special attention must be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, as it is these that hold the greatest potential for growth and job creation.
The Single Market must offer advantages to small enterprises, because it is they who provide the majority of jobs but which, at the same time, have greater difficulty in making use of the opportunities presented by the Single Market.
The financing of development and innovation represents a problem for them.
Similarly, we must pay attention to local enterprises in disadvantaged, sparsely populated areas and in urban districts facing difficulties.
Competition policy is a fundamental means of enabling the EU to have a dynamic, effective and innovative internal market, and to be competitive at the global level, too.
The EU must take important measures to ensure the improvement of SMEs' access to information in order for them to be aware of the opportunities offered by the Single Market and the financial measures provided by the EU.
I, too, believe that the incorporation of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and elements of the Small Business Act into all EU policies concerning the Single Market is important.
This is crucial for overcoming existing barriers at the national and EU level.
in writing. - In my opinion, a Single Market for Europeans should also mean a Single Market of quality.
Unfortunately, this report does not make any kind of reference to this issue.
In the European Union, products are sometimes offered under the same brand names, but with a different product formulation, in different countries.
Products reportedly have the same brand name but are available in different concentrations or strengths.
Situations have been reported where products of four different quality categories were sold under the same brand, depending on the destination country.
As a result, the - apparently - same product is of different quality depending on the country of purchase.
As a brand name is associated with perceived quality, this practice could result in misleading the public.
Businesses must avoid misleading consumers about the advantages related to the brand of goods.
If producers want to reduce the quality of the goods they offer, they should use a different brand name.
Our citizens believe that the quality of brand goods should be identical on every market, based on the principle that one brand equals one level of quality.
As my constituents are preoccupied by this issue, I would like to see it raised in our discussions in this House.
I am pleased that the report by former Commissioner Monti, which has been generally praised, in which he argues for further development and completion of the internal market as 'a prerequisite for a highly competitive social market economy' has met with a ready response from the European Parliament.
After all, it is undeniable that the financial and economic crises have dealt Europe a heavy blow.
Further development of the internal market, which is the largest market in the world, will be one of our most important assets in this respect.
We need to take targeted action for our SMEs, which make up the economic hub of Europe: sufficient access to capital markets, facilitating online trading and a first step towards a common consolidated corporate tax base.
Our citizens stand to benefit from this as well: for example, from opportunities to study abroad, more stringent toy safety, cheaper roaming rates.
As European policy makers, we cannot emphasise this enough.
The challenges are considerable, which is why we need to do our best to create a fully fledged framework for an internal market for online services.
With these three reports, the European Parliament is sending out a clear signal that we are serious about reforming the internal market.
Let us now be consistent in getting down to this work.
If Europe is to overcome today's difficult conditions and compete with rapidly emerging economies, it needs to invest in sectors which will give it a competitive advantage.
The common market is Europe's biggest competitive advantage and it should be exploited accordingly.
Moreover, the recession is taking the EU Member States into deeper economic unification and we must take advantage of this to consolidate the European economy so that it is more competitive at both domestic and international level.
Consequently, we must aim in our official documents to foster a more ambitious deepening of the common European market, especially in services.
Also, the role of undertakings in creating a functioning Single Market should be acknowledged.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before the vote, I should like to take a few moments to remind the House, the Council and the European Commission that two years ago, there was an earthquake in L'Aquila in which 309 people died and over 1 650 people were injured.
Now I have raised the matter, I will send all MEPs today a video that was filmed in L'Aquila on 13 January.
I urge all colleagues to look at it because the citizens of L'Aquila are waiting for a strong response from Europe.
Thank you, Mrs Alfano.
I, too, during this morning's debate, mentioned this terrible anniversary. You were quite right to remind this packed House of it.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last night, there was another tragedy in the Mediterranean.
Immigrants from north Africa died trying to reach Italy and Europe.
There are 130 missing and 20 bodies have already been found.
When it comes to immigration, we must never forget that we are talking about men, women and children, not just numbers.
There must be no more reticence; the Council and governments must act.
Civil and democratic Europe must show its sorrow and, for this reason, Mr President, I ask you to invite the House to observe a minute's silence in memory of the victims of immigration.
Thank you, Mr Sassoli. - Of course, I will grant your request.
Before asking the House to observe a minute's silence, to reflect on the memory of these victims, I would like to give the floor to Mr Tavares who has asked to speak on the same subject.
Mr President, we have received information that a boat from Libya carrying refugees has capsized in the Mediterranean.
We know that there are dead bodies and 150 people are missing.
Almost a year ago, this Parliament approved a codecision instrument providing for an emergency mechanism in order to resettle refugees who were under armed attack or in crisis situations, such as is the case with the civil war in Libya.
That instrument has now been sitting on the Council's table for a year.
Last month, we addressed an oral question to the Council saying that this concerned people's lives and was important.
And now, sadly, that goes without saying.
Following Mr Sassoli's request, which I believe will be shared by everyone, we will now observe a minute's silence in memory of those who died last night.
(FR) Mr President, 20 seconds just to make a voice of dissent heard in this chorus of political correctness.
You alone are responsible for these deaths on account of the false hopes you are creating across Europe and the world that we are ready to welcome all of those people.
They are entirely your responsibility.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to ask how many more minutes' silence we will have to observe before we get a common European policy on immigration.
This is not the time to open a debate on an issue we discussed just yesterday.
Draft amending budget No 1/2011 - Section III - Commission (
Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund - Floods in 2010 in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania (
EC-Comoros fisheries agreement (
Dispute settlement mechanism under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Jordan (
EU-Morocco agreement establishing a dispute settlement mechanism (
Dispute settlement mechanism under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the EC and Egypt (
Participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (
Imports from Greenland of fishery products (
Granting and withdrawing international protection (
European statistics on tourism (
Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (
Fisheries - transitional technical measures (
Estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2012 - Section I - Parliament (
Before the vote
Mr President, I would like to make a simple technical correction that does not alter this report in any way.
There is a transcription error in Article 400 on own revenue; this article concerns proceeds from taxation on the salaries, wages and allowances of Members of the institutions, officials, other servants and recipients of pensions.
The figure given is 48 103 216, whereas the correct figure is 63 103 216.
This is merely a technical amendment or correction that does not alter the report in any way or have any other implication.
Authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health (
Mr President, MEPs have an important role to play in scrutinising decisions on health claims.
I have received many letters and emails of concern from parents, major health and consumer organisations, midwives, nurses and doctors' organisations, as well as Unicef and the WHO.
Until there is real consensus in the scientific community about the validity of this claim, we must not allow it.
The evidence we currently have is not conclusive and no evidence exists to support the use of such a claim on follow-on formulas.
If, in the future, synthesised DHA is proven to be truly beneficial to babies, we should make it an essential ingredient in all formulas, and not allow it to be used as a marketing ploy by a specific brand.
I would urge you to support this resolution.
Mr President, I definitely do not want to reopen the debate, but we really should think twice about giving the floor to people who can put their personal opinion forward under the disguise of scientific evidence.
Let us just vote.
We have made up our minds.
European international investment policy (
Protection of Communities' financial interests - fight against fraud (
Political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding (
Governance and partnership in the Single Market (
Single market for Europeans (
- Before the vote on Amendment 2
Mr President, on behalf of the ALDE Group, I wish to propose an oral amendment to Amendment 2.
It takes the following words out of Amendment 2: 'by providing public authorities with a 'tool-kit' to evaluate the quality of such services'.
Single market for enterprises and growth (
The next item on the agenda is the vote.
(DE) Mr President, the aim of the proposal is to establish a new protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros.
The proposed resolution will determine the fishing opportunities for European Union fishing vessels, depending on the surplus fish stocks available, and the financial contribution required in return for the access rights and the support for the fishery sector.
In principle, I welcome this agreement.
Controlled fishing is always better than uncontrolled fishing.
However, we must make proper use of this agreement and constantly assess its performance.
For me, the simple, naïve question is that even if there are currently surplus fish stocks, we must ensure that this situation remains unchanged in the years to come.
Mr President, reading our voting list today, I have the feeling that I am reading a long and expensive bill of fare.
Each of these items comes down to a reallocation of resources from European taxpayers either to some fishing fund, or the solidarity fund, or rescuing flood-stricken areas, or whatever it is.
I would like to focus on one particular abuse of this process, which is the use of Article 122(2) to mobilise money for bail-outs of stricken economies, specifically that of Portugal.
This fund was designed for natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.
It has been reinterpreted to mean an economy that has run out of money.
It is patently illegal.
Not only is it not provided for in the Treaties; it is expressly forbidden under the 'no bail-out clause'.
This Chamber is in plain violation of its own regulations.
In bailing out these countries, we are hurting them - because you do not help an indebted friend by pressing more loans on them - and, of course, we are hurting our own taxpayers as well as violating the law.
It is absurd that Ireland and Greece will be joining the bail-out of Portugal.
You cannot carry on forever getting deeper and deeper in debt.
The day of reckoning is coming.
Mr President, in yesterday's votes, we discussed the issue of migration.
One of the issues that should have been discussed concerning migration is how do we make it less attractive for people to leave their own country, or more attractive to stay in their own country, and why do they seek to leave their country, often breaking family and other local emotional ties?
One of the things we have to look at is the impact of our policies in the EU.
When we sign these fishing agreements - often with governments of countries and they benefit from this - do these agreements really benefit local fishermen?
Surely we should be re-examining all these fisheries agreements, and instead of signing fisheries agreements, we should perhaps be increasing the fishing capacity of local fishermen to spread wealth and create more jobs locally so that people want to stay in their own countries rather than seek to leave.
If we do not think carefully about the implications of some of these agreements, we will see more demand for migration and will end up debating migration rather than the issues we are debating here.
(ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of this agreement because Greenland's exports of fishery products represent 82% of their exports.
Eighty-seven per cent of those are sent to the European Union, mainly to Denmark, that is, 97%.
There is disagreement with the Commission over the legal basis, but I share the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which unanimously adopted the application of Article 43(2), and Article 204 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Sole Article of Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements with Greenland.
The position is also supported by the European Parliament's Legal Service.
Therefore, in accordance with the legislative process, it should be understood that this is the first reading in Parliament.
Finally, I appreciate the Commissioner's position in accepting the legal basis and showing her willingness to facilitate an agreement with the Council and not to further delay such an important agreement.
Mr President, my group voted in favour of this report.
I take note that the discussion in Parliament on the issue of asylum seekers did not have the inflammatory tone frequently used in several EU Member States.
This is probably due to the fact that, contrary to widespread perceptions, the overall number of people claiming asylum in the west has dropped by more than 40% over the past decade, according to data just released by the United Nations.
A total of 358 000 asylum applications were made in industrialised countries in 2010, compared with 620 000 applications filed in 2001.
The drop is mainly due to push factors in the areas of origin.
This means that the picture is much more encouraging than is usually thought.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, naturally, I wish to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur on this report which really signals a significant step forward in EU policies, in its invitation to the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive on the procedures to be adopted by Member States to recognise, and possibly revoke, international protection.
I believe that the events of recent days between the African and European coasts indicate that we need the 'asylum package' - as it is to be called - to become a binding rule.
In particular, I think of the positive amendments that were approved; for example, the whole question of greater safeguards with regard to minors, since I believe that children must not be detained under any circumstance (which is exactly what has been happening in Lampedusa, where children have been treated in exactly the same way as adults, together with adults, often in totally unacceptable conditions).
It would have been better to have this directive in place before these dramatic events took place in Europe and Africa.
Another very important issue is that of vulnerable people and their issues, especially women, and problems relating to family matters and reunions.
Congratulations also to the rapporteur.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that perhaps, before making judgments about how children are treated in Lampedusa, Mr Costa should go there himself.
I have been to Lampedusa and have seen that all the children were treated according to Italian and, above all, international rules.
Now back to the subject which, as everyone has said, is very current.
I believe that all Member States should be obliged fully to respect the principle of non-refusal and the right to asylum.
Responsibility must, therefore, be shared, using the resources of the European Fund for Refugees and asking the European Office for strong support to implement the right of asylum, including provision for support in terms of border staff training and improving European asylum mechanisms.
(DA) Mr President, the report that we have adopted today states that the Commission's proposal is pragmatic.
I find it very difficult to see what is pragmatic about taking away the opportunity for people in the 27 Member States to decide for themselves the population makeup of their own countries.
Asylum policy and policy relating to foreigners are so closely linked to a country's existence that it is appalling that the EU is starting to interfere in these matters.
It is also precisely why Denmark has retained its opt-out on justice and home affairs so that in the Danish Parliament, we have the chance to decide for ourselves on these matters and so that these are not issues which the European Parliament and the other EU institutions are to concern themselves with.
It is therefore shocking to see how the European Court of Justice is now trying to undermine the Danish justice and home affairs opt-out, and even more shocking is the fact that this Parliament can adopt a report - never mind that it is in contravention of my vote and that of the Danish People's Party - without even dealing with this matter - the matter that entails removing people's right to determine their own policy relating to foreigners and, in particular, in cheating and deceiving with regard to the promises that were originally given to a country like Denmark.
Mr President, I and my UKIP colleagues abstained on the amendments to the Guillaume report on granting and withdrawing international protection, but one should not take this as indifference.
This report is a development of the common immigration and asylum policy under the Lisbon Treaty.
I do not want the Lisbon Treaty, or a common immigration and asylum policy.
The peoples of Europe do not want a common immigration and asylum policy, and that is why they were denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
I abstained on the amendments because it would have involved endorsing existing EU law and a nit-picking exercise to decide which bits were worse than others.
I leave it to the quisling MEPs of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democratic and Green parties to haggle about the terms of surrender of their country.
I and my UKIP colleagues voted 'no' to this report and 'no' to a common immigration and asylum policy.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I worked as shadow rapporteur on this dossier and so could not but vote in favour, together with my group.
I did so believing it to be a very useful tool for the development of a sector that will be a driving force for the European economy.
Industry is moving away from Europe; agriculture suffers from serious deficiencies; meanwhile, tourism is one area that can certainly offer prospects for employment, economic development and intelligent, inclusive and compatible growth.
To this end, the instrument we have approved today, which allows for more modern data gathering, processing, treatment and transmission than the previous situation, will surely give impetus to this activity.
This is why the ALDE Group and I have voted in favour.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since December 2009, tourism has been recognised in the Treaty and so at last has a legal basis for development and support at European level.
Moreover, tourism represents a strong growth engine for Europe.
We have already noted that the tourism industry generates more than 5% of GDP in the European Union, involving nearly two million small and medium-sized enterprises and contributes an employment rate that exceeds 12%.
We need more studies and more comparable statistics, because these are useful for monitoring activities, making comparisons between Member States, showing how EU funds are used, helping develop best practice, and also for assessing and developing tourism programmes for those categories of people on low budgets.
(ES) Mr President, with 40% of all arrivals, the European Union continues to be the world's number one tourist destination.
It is therefore an economic force for employment that also promotes the integration of rural areas.
However, tourism demand has changed in recent years.
That is why I supported the objective of creating a common framework for the systematic production of harmonised European statistics on supply and demand in Member States, and of adapting, as is necessary, the legal framework to reflect recent trends, such as same-day visits.
The systematic collection of information is a necessary tool for defining effective policies and facilitating decision making in the private sector.
I also supported the introduction of satellite accounts, because they would be better able to show the effects of tourism on the economy and on jobs, and would have enabled us to more accurately define policies for the future.
(GA) Mr President, the tourism industry has been very important for Europe and will be more important in the future, especially if we are to create jobs, particularly in remote and rural areas.
However, it must be based on planning, especially planning based on the statistics we have.
So if we want to have proper planning and develop tourism, it has to be based on statistics that show trends regarding rented accommodation, one-day tourists, etc.
Based on that we can develop tourism, particularly to end seasonality, to encourage an ageing population to holiday more and, indeed, also to encourage young people to do so.
Any football team now has at least one statistician and bases its plans on that, and that applies also to the tourist industry.
(GA) I am pleased to vote for this report.
(ES) Mr President, Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 extends the transitional technical measures so that they can be applied until the adoption of permanent measures.
It is preferable for everyone if these measures are adopted definitively and as quickly as possible.
Nevertheless, in view of the forthcoming reform of the common fisheries policy, the measures need to be adopted after a new legislative framework is in place.
That new framework is planned for 2013, and it is therefore necessary to extend the validity of the transitional technical measures until 31 December 2012, bearing in mind that the current regulation will cease to be in force in 2011.
That is why I voted in favour of this initiative.
Mr President, I voted for the Grelier report but I voted against my group on four amendments - amendment 4, amendment 5CP, amendment 6 and amendment 3.
Amendment 4 is an amendment by my colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, to allow the use of tangle nets, which Irish fishermen use inshore.
Otherwise, we risk forcing the fishermen further out to sea in the North Atlantic, which is not practical and is very unsafe.
A 50 metre boat on the Atlantic is very different to a 50 metre boat in the Mediterranean.
I voted for amendment 5CP in relation to mesh sizes.
Again, this causes a major problem for our own fishermen on the west coast who are working in mixed fisheries with megrim, monkfish and hake.
This will not have adverse impacts on cod stocks, as there is very little low bycatch of cod at present.
I also voted for amendment 6 by Mr Struan Stevenson in relation to doing away with the scandalous business of the discarding of haddock.
Last, and by no means least, I supported amendment 3, which was proposed by my Portuguese colleague, Mrs Patrão Neves, which supports Portuguese fishermen.
I have no problem with that.
(ES) Mr President, I made a mistake in my previous speech: I spoke about the wrong subject because of a translation problem, so I will reverse my speeches and say now what I should have read out before.
I voted in favour of the financial measures because it was necessary to amend the regulation in order to adapt it to current demands and to the functioning of the Union.
I would also emphasise that the regulation envisages expanding the list of organisations eligible for financial aid and updating the list of advisory bodies.
It also guarantees uniform conditions for implementing measures concerning control and enforcement, and for the expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the control system and enforcement applicable to the common fisheries policy, and in the area of the collection, management and use of basic data.
The financial measures also include the economic aspects of fisheries and aquaculture and a reference to data collection relating to environmental measures.
That is why I voted in favour of the initiative.
(FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report, but we have to set an example and be very meticulous, especially as far as budgetary discipline is concerned.
I would like to say why I voted against the group with regard to Amendment 8, which the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament had tabled.
In it, the rapporteur mentions the use of unspent appropriations for construction projects.
This has been a custom here for many years now, but financing construction projects in this way is not open or transparent.
We have to state what construction projects we have right at the stage when the budget is being planned, and we should not engage in a transfer of appropriations in this way, which is contrary to budgetary discipline.
That is why on this point, I voted against the group's proposal on behalf of the S&D Group regarding Amendment 8.
(DA) Mr President, I voted against this budget report, but I would actually like to thank the many fellow Members - a few too many, unfortunately - who voted in favour, because it gave a wonderful picture of the shift in the perception of reality here in the European Parliament and here in the EU's institutions in relation to the outside world where the people who we are actually creating regulations for are to be found.
Despite the fact that we have asked the Member States and other institutions to make cuts, we have doubled the expenditure in a number of areas for the European Parliament itself and for the EU institutions in general.
This has happened, for example, by introducing the intention now to build a completely new museum for glorifying European history and the European institutions, etc.
I believe that an incredible number of people out there in the Member States, where they are experiencing cuts at national level, are wondering how their representatives in the European Parliament can so casually play fast and loose with money, even in the middle of a financial crisis.
(ES) Mr President, if you do not mind, I would like to mention something before I finish.
In my previous point I said, 'because of a translation problem', not meaning the excellent translators here, but an error I made when reading the text.
I am the one who made the translation error, and I wanted to make that clear because the translators always seem to get the blame.
Indeed, the interpreters merit our appreciation for the excellent work they do both in the House and in the Committees.
(FI) Mr President, I would like to say a few words about this budget, revenue and expenditure.
We must definitely ensure in this economic situation and, furthermore, here in the European Parliament, that expenditure is kept under control.
For that reason, I voted differently from what had been recommended with regard to some aspects of the matter.
In my view, we should be prepared to cut down on travel costs, for example, but if we cut the number of flights, the airline tickets of Members of the European Parliament should be exchangeable.
Sometimes, the problem is that these cheap airline tickets cannot be exchanged.
I myself have to take several flights to get here; for example, to get to Strasbourg, you have to take three different flights.
It is therefore important that airline tickets should be exchangeable.
Occasionally, proposals to make savings such as these can end up costing more, simply because there is no flexibility with them.
We have to cut costs, however; that is absolutely clear.
Some costs are to be seen as investments, and I think that this European House may be a good investment and one which, in the future, will produce added value, even in economic terms, for the European Union and its institutions.
Mr President, it is spend, spend, spend, isn't it?
We keep hearing about the 500 million citizens in this Chamber, but this Chamber separates itself from them as much as possible.
Amendment 15 insisted that the salaries and allowances of MEPs should not be updated in 2012 to set an example, but 391 of our colleagues voted against it because they obviously do not care about the average EU citizen, do they?
The average EU wage is EUR 368 a week, but some of our colleagues - 60 to 70 of our colleagues - continually sign in on a Friday here in Strasbourg, when there is no business, to claim EUR 304.
What example is that giving?
Another waste of money: how many billions is this House of History going to cost, to sell propaganda and tell how the European Union 'saved the world'?
(SK) Mr President, the consolidation of democracy in the EU requires a constant effort towards building a fair and transparent environment both for the running and the funding of political parties at the European level.
EU citizens should be more involved in political life at the EU level, and it is therefore necessary to create favourable motivational conditions for the operation of political parties.
This is in order to avoid situations where, for example, less than 20% of registered voters participate in European Parliament elections, as happened in my own country.
I agree with the idea that these political parties should have a common and single legal statute, as well as their own legal personality based directly on the laws and treaties of the EU.
As far as the funding system is concerned, transparency forms an inseparable part of the implementation of values, and the first priority must therefore be to have unambiguous funding conditions.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Article 325 obliges the Commission and Member States to protect the financial interests of the European Union and to combat fraud in areas where this responsibility is shared between the Union and the Member States.
According to Article 325(5), the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an annual report on measures taken for the implementation of this Article.
I agree that we need to quantify in greater detail the recovery levels of funds unduly paid to the EU Member States by gathering specific data.
Another important point, rightly highlighted by Mrs Ivan in her report, is the use of better investigative methods regarding fraud carried out by Member States.
In this way, we can standardise counter measures throughout the European Union and determine whether similar types of fraud have been committed in other countries.
This is why I have supported this report.
Mr President, I voted against Amendment 1, which stresses the need for zero tolerance for error.
I think it is extremely important to distinguish between fraud and error.
Yes, there should be zero tolerance for fraud, and indeed criminal prosecution, but in many cases, the error is inadvertent.
While we need to uncover all errors and ensure the recovery of such monies, I cannot agree with zero tolerance for one very simple reason.
This is that I have worked with many community groups, voluntary groups, leader companies and partnership companies, and seen the level of sheer and utter frustration at the myriad of rules, the revision of the rules half-way or three-quarters of the way through the programme and the different interpretation of rules at local, at regional, at national and at European level - with any infringement considered an error.
Therefore, while we do need to remain vigilant about fraud, we also need to simply, simplify and simplify again the rules.
(FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal, which is a very worthy one, as it concerns whether we should fund parties using taxpayers' money.
In a case such as this, there obviously need to be clear rules that are the same for everyone.
In my opinion, the parties must also have their own system of fund raising, even if it is on a small scale.
In Amendment 2, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament suggested that this share of selffunding should be just 5%.
I think that it should be at least 10%.
That is a very small amount when we consider that this is a matter of taxpayers' money, and we should be very meticulous in these matters.
(PL) Mr President, the Giannakou report paves the way to fulfilment of the provisions of Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 244 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Parliament and the Council should work together to define the status of a party at European level and their foundations, and should establish rules for funding both parties and foundations.
However, it is necessary to call attention to the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report, which concern the future of transnational lists in elections to Parliament.
It is, admittedly, only a proposal for the future, but at the present time, it does not have the approval of the citizens.
This concerns, in particular, Member States which have had experience of national lists and have abolished them.
Another important matter is the timing of these proposals - the crisis and the proposed savings are also a cause of reluctance to increasing the size of European institutions.
From our point of view, I think a more important matter is the possibility of increasing the size of the European Parliament in connection with enlargement of the European Union by the accession of new Member States rather than the possibility of increasing its size on the basis of new lists.
(DA) Mr President, I, too, would like to see clear rules for the European parties, but I must essentially question what the point of the European parties actually is.
The report states that they will create a greater understanding among European citizens for the EU's institutions and cooperation across borders.
However, what we actually see is that, as the European parties grow larger, as more money is continually used both within the parties and in the funds and all manner of other institutions relating to these, in line with these things, the European people's support for and understanding of the EU's institutions falls.
The latest Eurobarometer survey showed support for the EU among the European people to be at an all-time low, so this is not working.
I would therefore ask the fundamental question of whether there really is any point continuing to waste billions of euro on these European parties.
I do not believe that there is, and therefore I voted against this report.
Mr President, I voted against this report.
You can keep your 30 pieces of silver.
I will not be joining any pan-European party.
I will not be selling out my principles as some in this Chamber are willing to do.
It is not fair that the public, once again, have to use their resources to fund politicians.
Politicians should be privately funded through donations, etc., and that should be heavily regulated.
This Chamber found out only recently how politicians do need to be regulated, but the funding of political parties for a European ideal can never be right.
I will never join a pan-European party.
I will stand up for my principles and to hell with the lot of you.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have voted on three own-initiative reports on the Single Market Act, which is an important mechanism for growth in the European economy, and obviously for the creation of jobs, with concrete and direct results both for European citizens and for small and medium-sized enterprises.
There are many proposals made by the European Commission which tend towards the integration and liberalisation of European markets, resulting in measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to have an effect on innovation and the protection of creativity, improving the efficiency and sustainability of both material and non-material networks and infrastructure.
I hope that we will confront some obstacles in this structural context of support to small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the diversity of national laws, including rules and tax systems that fragment the market resulting in higher compliance costs for businesses to shoulder.
Mr President, today, we have voted on the three Single Market Act reports and their key priorities;
I hope the Commission and Council have taken note of these. We need to make sure that we deliver on this for all citizens in order to allow the European economy to grow, provide jobs and compete globally.
We need to make sure that EU legislation is implemented across the board to reduce the barriers to trade, but also that we do not make EU legislation that increases the burden on our businesses.
(FI) Mr President, this was a very important report for taking the Single Market forward.
When we talk of consumer protection, however, Amendment 3 was important in that connection.
It dealt with the fact that minimum harmonisation in the area of consumer legislation must be given priority over complete harmonisation.
I voted in favour of this amendment and against the recommendations of my group, because I believe that levels of consumer protection in my country, for example, are extremely high.
If we now quickly move to a position where we have fully harmonised consumer protection throughout the EU, I know that standards in my country will fall.
That is why I think that we can approach this harmonised standard of consumer protection only by first establishing certain minimum standards, and then, on that basis, taking the path to a completely harmonised standard.
(SK) Mr President, the volume of the EU internal market in goods represents 17% of the global market in goods.
The volume of the EU internal market in services represents 28% of the global trade in services.
If this mass is set in motion in the right direction, it should achieve results in the form of economic growth based on the dynamic of our own resources.
This will hold true, however, only on the assumption that the implementation of the proposed measures, which I supported, results in the elimination of bottlenecks in the movement of people, capital, goods and services between the individual countries of the Union, increasing the availability and reliability of loans and banking services, as well as Internet commerce.
It will hold true only if a more functional Single Market unlocks new potential for the implementation of products and activities originating from the EU, and on the markets of the EU.
If that happens, a 4% contribution to economic growth over the coming decades might not be unrealistic.
(DA) Mr President, I share the view that the Single Market is essentially a good idea and that better governance of the Single Market is sensible and in the interest of consumers.
However, I am surprised that the six amendments I tabled for this report were voted against by such an overwhelming majority.
What does it boil down to in essence?
Well, it came down to the fact that we should apply minimum harmonisation instead of total harmonisation and thereby ensure that the countries that already have good regulations for consumers are not forced to lower their level of consumer protection.
It was also about the totally unique labour market model that we know from the Nordic countries, where it is not legislators but the social partners who decide on wage conditions and conditions for the labour market, the fact that it is they who set the rules and that we should retain and protect the Nordic labour model rather than undermine it; two completely harmless proposals that I am convinced would receive a significant majority in a vote amongst European citizens are voted down in this House.
This reveals the shift in the perception of reality that is characteristic of the Members here in the European Parliament.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Single Market is a valuable tool for economic recovery in the European Union, particularly for the creation of new jobs.
The reports regarding the Act for the Single Market are, generally speaking, contributions made by the European Parliament in the consultation process begun by the Commission with its announcement 'Towards a Single Market Act.
Fifty Proposals for improving our work, enterprises and dealings together for a highly competitive social market economy'.
I think we should have put more emphasis on the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, and the stimulation of innovation and competitiveness by the lifting of bureaucratic, administrative and regulatory burdens.
However, I agree with the general structure of the report and, in particular, with the measures mentioned which aim to strengthen e-commerce and the simplification of the procurement system.
For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe it represents a further step forward towards the creation of a well-functioning, integrated single European market.
Today, Europe is one of the major economies of the world but its potential is still huge, especially with regard to economic and employment growth.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine and the main players in the current economic recovery.
Europe needs to offer them greater protection, facilitating their access to credit, reducing bureaucracy and promoting the development of electronic commerce.
Only in this way will we be able to create a social economy based on growth, competitiveness and sustainability.
Giving the EU an efficient and innovative Single Market in today's globalised world means making it the undisputed protagonist of the global economic scene.
(FR) Mr President, I wanted to clarify why we voted in favour of this Single Market Act.
I think it is a step forward.
Parliament managed to find the right compromises that do not flush the text of its content but, instead, put real pressure on those who, in the Commission, want the Single Market to continue to adopt a purely free market approach, without including social issues, tax issues or environmental issues.
I also merely wanted to clarify that paragraph 54, which deals with public services, services of general interest, is problematic, and we therefore voted against part of this paragraph, which continues to call, ideologically but in veiled terms, for further liberalisation.
We argue instead in favour of European public services and securing the European framework, leaving each Member State the option to continue organising public services as they wish, especially at territorial level.
(PL) Mr President, a Single Market without exclusions, either of citizens or of businesses - that, in a word, is how I could describe the main thrust of today's debate on the now endorsed package of reports on the Single Market Act.
It is with great interest, and also with pleasure, that I would like to emphasise the proposals which are intended to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to operate.
It is very important for SMEs to have access to public procurement procedures.
The announcement that these procedures are to be simplified, and, in particular, that the financial barriers in public procurement which exclude SMPs are to be reduced, and also that specific features of the local market are to be taken into account in procurement, is deserving of particular support.
Similarly, it should be recognised that SMEs expect help in gaining access to the market, they expect administrative measures which will make it easier for them to operate and they also expect a solution in the area of patents.
It is with great interest that I, personally, await the presentation announced by Mr Barnier of the 12 levers for stimulating the Single Market.
Greatly encouraging is the announcement that the period in which it will be possible to evaluate innovative solutions in particular which are related to these levers will also be relatively short.
I am in favour of this report, since I agree with the amount recommended for repairing the damage caused by flooding in the countries of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania, totalling EUR 182 388 893.
I agreed with this report which approves without amendment the Council's position on Draft amending budget 1/2011.
This Draft amending budget aims at mobilising the EU Solidarity Fund for an amount of EUR 182.4 million in commitment and payment appropriations in order to mitigate the effects of flooding resulting from heavy rainfalls in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
I believe that in general, the EU Solidarity Fund should be mobilised as swiftly as possible following a natural catastrophe, and that applications for financial assistance should be dealt with in an effective and fast-acting manner, so that it is possible to provide urgent financial assistance to countries that have suffered natural disasters.
I supported the report because the Member States which were affected by the flooding caused by torrential rain expect the sum of EUR 182.4 million to be included.
These are Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
Like the rapporteur, I believe that it should be possible to mobilise the contributions from the Solidarity Fund much more quickly and efficiently than happens at present.
I agree with the adjusted amount for mobilisation from the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), given that in several countries, namely Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, the direct damage caused by natural disasters exceeds the normal threshold of 0.6% of Gross National Income required for mobilising the EUSF.
I also consider it important that the EUSF should be mobilised as swiftly as possible following a natural disaster, and that all related organisational, legislative and executive procedures should be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
I therefore agree with the Council's common position on the Draft amending budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011.
The Commission proposes to amend the Commission budget for 2011 so as to cater for the need to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to the sum of EUR 182.4 million in commitment and payment appropriations in order to mitigate the effects of flooding resulting from heavy rainfall in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
This proposal should be approved by Parliament on the terms proposed by the rapporteur.
The report under discussion deals with the Council's position on Draft amending budget No 1/2011 of the European Union for the current year.
The Commission is empowered to present draft amending budgets whenever there are 'unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances'.
Certain EU Member States have suffered natural disasters that have destroyed various infrastructures, the damage amounting to some EUR 5.5 billion and exceeding the threshold of 0.6% of Gross National Income in some cases.
This situation constitutes justification and grounds for mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), the objective of which is solely to repair infrastructure.
Since existing budget appropriations are insufficient to cover the applications, I agree with this amending budget - the first proposal for mobilisation of the EUSF presented by the Commission - which proposes a reinforcement of EUR 182 388 893 in commitment and payment appropriations.
This amending budget aims to respond to the request for mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to repair the damage caused by disasters that affected five Member States as well as Croatia in May and June 2010.
These were 'unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances', as defined in the Financial Regulation, and therefore, in our view, this procedure is both justified and necessary.
The amount mobilised in support of these countries - EUR 182.4 million - represents only about 3% of the total damage, which is estimated at about EUR 5 512.7 million.
The Member States of the EU have been hard hit by a considerable number of disasters in recent years.
In the first six years of the EUSF, the Commission received 62 requests for financial support from 21 different countries.
About a third of these qualified as 'major natural disasters', as do four of the cases that we are considering here today.
The EUSF is an important instrument for helping to remedy the almost always considerable and often long-lasting impact of disasters on people, the environment and the economy.
However, there must also be a corresponding commitment to disaster prevention, putting into practice the recommendations recently approved by Parliament to that effect.
This is a report on the Draft amending budget that aims to respond to the request for mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to repair the damage caused by disasters that affected five Member States, as well as Croatia, in May and June 2010.
These were 'unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances', as defined in the Financial Regulation, and therefore, in our view, this procedure is both justified and necessary.
A commitment to prevention is also important.
I agreed with the report and the rapporteur's proposal to accept without amendment the Council's position on Draft amending budget 1/2011, because financial assistance to these countries, i.e. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Romania, has to be delivered and cannot be delayed further.
in writing. - I voted for this Commission proposal for mobilisation of the EUSF which is based on point 26 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management that allows for such mobilisation within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.
The conditions of eligibility to the Fund are detailed in Council Regulation No 2012/2002 establishing the EUSF.
It should be recalled that the objective of the Fund is to repair infrastructure and act as a refinancing tool, and not to compensate private damages.
This proposal for mobilisation of the EUSF is the first to be presented by the Commission for the year 2011.
This Draft amending budget makes sense, considering the purpose of the funds mobilised through the Solidarity Fund to address the effects of the landslides and severe flooding resulting from heavy rainfall in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
After verifying that the requests meet the eligibility criteria of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, the Commission proposed the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund for the sum of EUR 182.4 million in order to deal with the events in those countries.
However, I would like to highlight the delay in the mobilisation of this type of support.
The procedure needs to be made less bureaucratic and more streamlined in order to respond to future disaster situations in a timely manner.
in writing. - Taking into account the fact that Draft amending budget No 1/2011 to the general budget 2011 aims at mobilising the EU Solidarity Fund for an amount of EUR 182.4 million in commitment and payment appropriations in order to mitigate the effects of flooding resulting from heavy rainfall in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania, I voted 'for'.
Natural disasters are no longer a rarity in Europe.
The most recent events, such as the floods in 2010 in Poland, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech Republic and Hungary, show that the Solidarity Fund is essential.
This fund is not used to compensate private individuals for damage to property, but primarily to rebuild infrastructure.
Therefore, it can be regarded as an appropriate refinancing instrument.
In particular, in countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, there have been large-scale disasters and the direct damages exceed the usual threshold of 0.6% of Gross National Income.
For this reason, I have voted in favour of this proposal.
This report refers to Draft amending budget No 1/2011 to the general budget for 2011, the aim of which is to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to the sum of EUR 182.4 million in commitment and payment appropriations in order to mitigate the effects of flooding resulting from heavy rainfall in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
The only purpose of Draft amending budget No 1/2011 is to formally incorporate this budgetary amendment into the budget for 2011.
The reasons given fully justify this amending budget, and I therefore voted in favour of this report.
I voted in favour of this Draft amending budget, the aim of which is to respond to the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the sum of EUR 182.4 million in commitment and payment appropriations in order to mitigate the effects of flooding resulting from heavy rainfall in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania.
in writing. - We have abstained.
The report concerns a transfer in payments for mobilising the EU Solidarity Fund for floods in 2011 in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
We agree with the urgent need to mobilise the funds, but not with the proposed financing method (via a 'negative reserve').
I am in favour of this report, which aims to provide EU aid from the European Union Solidarity Fund for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania, following the flooding in May and June 2010 that affected these areas and their populations.
The EU must continue to be an organisation that shows solidarity.
I agreed with this report on allocating financial assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
The interinstitutional agreement allows a mobilisation within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.
I believe that in general, the EU Solidarity Fund should be mobilised as swiftly as possible following a natural catastrophe, and that applications for financial assistance should be dealt with in an effective and fast-acting manner, so that it is possible to provide urgent financial assistance to countries that have suffered natural catastrophes.
The aim of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is to provide swift, effective and flexible assistance to the population of a Member State, or a country negotiating accession, in the event of a major natural disaster.
This fund supplements the Member States' public funds in emergency situations, specifically for urgent infrastructure repairs, temporary shelter and emergency services to cater for the people's immediate needs, as well as clearing up in the areas affected by the disaster.
Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania were affected by torrential rains in 2010, which caused serious flooding resulting in huge losses in those countries.
Following the disasters, the countries in question requested assistance from the EUSF.
Since the eligibility criteria laid down in the relevant regulation were met, mobilisation of the EUSF was approved with a view to mitigating the pain, suffering and losses of the people affected by the abovementioned disasters.
For the above reasons, I supported this report.
The floods which hit the countries in the east of the European Union last year caused huge material damage in practically every region.
Many of them continue to struggle with the flood's tragic effects.
Many people are still waiting for the financial assistance promised by the authorities.
The serious damage primarily concerns agriculture, infrastructure, the transport network and cultural heritage sites.
Many people have suffered, often losing everything they owned.
In Poland alone, direct losses have been estimated at nearly EUR 3 billion.
This, therefore, significantly exceeds the threshold for mobilising the Solidarity Fund.
A similar situation exists in the case of the other countries which are applying for support from the fund.
Finding the European funds foreseen in the interinstitutional agreement will bring significant relief to the regions worst affected by the catastrophe by allowing work to be carried out to mitigate the effects of the natural disaster.
I am strongly in favour of mobilising the Solidarity Fund.
I welcome the decision of the European Parliament to release funds from the EU Solidarity Fund for the Central European states affected by last year's floods.
In the case of the Czech Republic, there is a sum of CZK 125 million to cover some of the damages caused by the floods in Northern Moravia last May and June.
As the overall level of damage was estimated at CZK 5 billion, which represents less than 0.6% of Czech GDP, it did not constitute a 'serious natural disaster' under European law, in the case of which assistance from the Solidarity Fund is virtually assured.
It was therefore necessary to request an exemption for the Czech Republic, based on the fact that our land was affected by the same natural disaster as neighbouring Poland, where the consequences were more destructive.
In the original draft resolution of the European Parliament, only Poland was mentioned as an affected country, and it was only after I pointed out that the floods had also affected other states that its scope was extended to the entire region of Central Europe.
I am pleased that the Czech Government, after its initial laxity and hesitation, swung into action and managed, within the set deadline, to submit an application for financial assistance from the Solidarity Fund, which will now undoubtedly prove very useful.
In light of the significant damage caused by the major natural disasters that have occurred, particularly with regard to private property, transport networks and cultural heritage sites, and also since the estimated total direct damage in all these countries exceeds the normal threshold for mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund, which stands at 0.6% of Gross National Income, I agree with the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania following the severe flooding that affected these countries in May and June 2010.
I should like to reiterate that the Council must urgently continue to revise the new Solidarity Fund regulation approved by Parliament, so as to make it swifter and more effective.
Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania is justified in view of the heavy rain and flooding that affected these countries and the serious damage which resulted.
The support that this decision received from a large majority in the relevant parliamentary committee shows the breadth of support that it enjoys.
I regret the suffering that people have endured, and I hope that mobilisation of the fund will mitigate it and help provide swifter and more effective reconstruction in the worst-affected areas.
In May and June 2010, Central and Eastern Europe was lashed by a severe storm which caused enormous damage in certain Member States, particularly through the destruction of public infrastructure, farms, road and rail networks, and public and private assets.
Flooding in Poland affected almost the whole country, causing damage exceeding 0.85% of Gross National Income (GNI); in Slovakia, the storm left some areas under water, caused landslides and flooding, and led to damage in the order of 0.89% of GNI; in Hungary, the damage amounts to 0.73% of GNI; in Romania, it is estimated at over EUR 875 million, or 0.67% of GNI; in Croatia, it exceeds EUR 153 million (0.6% of GNI); and in the Czech Republic, the amount is EUR 204 million (0.6% of GNI).
This situation justifies the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund and has led to the approval of the first amending budget for 2011.
Thus, since it is covered by the Draft amending budget that has already been approved, and in view of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, I agree with the rapporteur's position on the mobilisation of EUR 182 388 893 to help with the repair of public infrastructure damaged by the storms in the abovementioned Member States.
The report endorses the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to assist six countries: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
These countries were affected by torrential rainfall, in some cases, without precedent, extensive flooding, landslips and mudslides.
In four countries - Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania - the disasters qualify as 'major natural disasters' according to the definition given in the EUSF Regulation; in other words, the damage is estimated to exceed 0.6% of their Gross National Incomes.
We consider the mobilisation of this support to be important and necessary, and we therefore voted in favour of the report.
Once again, we must draw attention to the excessive delays between the occurrence of the disaster, the decision to mobilise the EUSF and the actual delivery of EU support to the Member States and regions affected.
In this case, the disasters occurred in May and June 2010.
Parliament has only just approved mobilisation of the EUSF, almost a year later.
Now, other procedural requirements will delay the money's arrival at its destination even more.
That is why we have been advocating the need to adapt the rules for mobilising this fund, so as to make its mobilisation more flexible and timely.
We voted in favour of this report, which endorses the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to assist six countries: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
In four countries - Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania - the disasters qualify as 'major natural disasters' according to the definition given in the EUSF Regulation; in other words, the damage is estimated to exceed 0.6% of their Gross National Incomes.
We must, however, draw attention to the excessive delays between the occurrence of the disaster, the decision to mobilise the EUSF and the actual delivery of EU support to the Member States and regions affected.
It should be noted that the disasters occurred in May and June 2010.
That is why we advocate the need to adapt the rules for mobilising this fund, so as to make its mobilisation more flexible and timely.
The floods of 2010 affected extensive areas across several Central European countries.
The natural disaster mainly affected Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
The people living in these areas cannot cope with the consequences of the floods on their own.
They cannot resolve the consequences from their own resources, because the budgets of the individual states are burdened with the economic and financial crisis.
However, the Commission is proposing to mobilise the EU's Solidarity Fund for the benefit of the affected countries.
All of the countries mentioned requested assistance from the fund after they were struck and paralysed, in the spring and summer months of last year, by landslides, flood waves and almost continuous rainfall.
The natural elements consequently did extensive damage in the affected areas to both public and private infrastructure, as well as road and rail transport, while agriculture was also affected.
There was also serious damage to property, residential buildings and cultural monuments.
It is therefore appropriate to provide the affected European states with the necessary financial assistance, so that they can tackle the consequences of the natural disaster and be able to return to normal life as soon as possible.
I agreed with this document, because the Commission has informed Parliament in its proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (COM (2011)0010) that, on the basis of applications for assistance by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and candidate country Croatia relating to the flooding disasters of May, June and July 2010, it proposes the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund.
In order to avoid undue delay in approving this measure, which the Committee on Budgets intends to adopt as soon as possible, it should be noted that the Committee on Regional Development has no objection to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund to provide the sum of EUR 182 388 893 to the countries concerned as proposed by the Commission, and in accordance with the rules laid down in the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002.
The Solidarity Fund is an instrument of paramount importance to the EU.
Apart from its financial impact, it also conveys an expression of European solidarity.
However, the Council has just shown us that this solidarity is starting steadily to diminish.
At the moment, in order to help citizens who have already suffered so much following last year's floods, the Council is forcing us to slash funds from very important programmes.
Furthermore, if we look at which Member States are currently blocking in Council the notion of 'new money' to cover the fund's needs, we will notice that it is those which, in their turn, have benefited from receiving large sums of money in previous years.
The Union is based on the concept of solidarity.
Without it, we could not have shaped the Europe we have today, nor will we be able to shape the Europe of tomorrow.
In contrast to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, I consider the Solidarity Fund, the resources of which are intended for covering damage caused by natural disasters, as a genuine manifestation of European solidarity.
I very much appreciate the fact that this report also proposes the allocation of resources to cover flood damage to public property in the Czech Republic.
This is specifically in Northern Moravia, which was affected in May last year by the same flood wave that caused damage throughout the region of Central Europe.
I appreciate the fact that the Czech Republic has obtained resources from the Solidarity Fund to cover damages all the more for the fact that the surrounding countries were affected by the flood wave more than the Czech Republic.
Compensation for the Czech Republic was nonetheless not forgotten within the framework of European solidarity.
I would also like to thank Mr Březina and Mr Tošenovský, with whom I successfully pushed for the inclusion of the Czech Republic in the group of countries to receive compensation from the Solidarity Fund in connection with this flood wave.
Special thanks are also due to the President of Parliament, Mr Buzek, for visiting the affected areas of Moravia together with us, and personally backing support for the Czech Republic.
The year 2010 was marked by disastrous flooding in many countries of Europe, with Poland suffering two floods.
We should welcome the expressions of solidarity of the European Union in mitigating the effects of the flooding and the action taken to relieve the terrible plight of those affected - people who have lost a large part and, in many cases, all of their material possessions, suffered damage to their health and even lost their loved ones.
As part of support for the idea of solidarity in times of need and suffering, reflection is needed on how to prevent floods.
The way to do this is to undertake water management: regulation of rivers, construction of reservoirs, etc.
We should direct much more of the money allocated to environmental purposes in the Cohesion Fund to the purpose of flood prevention.
In endorsing the Böge report, I call for support for the proposal for greater funds in the budget after 2013.
I am very pleased that such constructive decisions are made in the European Parliament.
The Members who come from regions affected by the floods tried very hard for Union assistance to be granted and, as we know, the route to this success has not been easy.
The provision of EUR 182.4 million as compensation for the effects of last year's floods is extremely important, not only for the regions affected by the natural disaster, but also for the people who live there.
Poland and the Podkarpacie region is an area which has particularly suffered as a result of the disaster, and it is my hope that the financial resources made available for the reconstruction of infrastructure will be used effectively.
Today's decision of Parliament is final and begins the procedure for the provision of EU money, and this is why I voted in favour of the resolution on mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund - floods in 2010 in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
in writing. - I support this Commission proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund.
On the basis of applications for assistance by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and candidate country Croatia relating to the flooding disasters of May, June and July 2010, it proposes the application of the EU Solidarity Fund.
I would like to express my satisfaction at today's vote in favour of approving mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund in order to provide aid to Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Croatia for the floods there last year.
Although there remains disagreement between Parliament and the Council on the technical procedure for the procurement of EUR 182.4 million needed to compensate Member States for damages, Europe has once again demonstrated its solidarity with its citizens.
I agree with the use of the 2010 budget surplus to cover the 'negative reserves' used to find the necessary funds.
Indeed, this reserve is an 'accounting' method which should be used for any emergency contingencies that may arise during the current financial year.
Solidarity is the main feature of the European Union.
Based on this solidarity, I consider timely and necessary the report on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund for the floods which affected Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania in 2010.
This solidarity will be all the more necessary as climate change continues to trigger disasters throughout the whole of Europe.
In this respect, strategies need to be devised which will also help reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Union's efforts must be channelled towards consolidating the actions taken by Member States to prevent and reduce the impact of major floods in Europe, which have become increasingly frequent.
One priority on this point must be for Member States to assess the activities which raise the risk of flooding and increase the speed of response, mobility and flexibility of the interventions made.
Last but not least, I would like to stress how important it is for citizens to be informed about and participate in the actions and plans for flood management.
This solidarity instrument has been used in the past - specifically in my country, with the support sent to Madeira following the heavy rains there in February 2010 - and now it makes every sense to mobilise it in an attempt to mitigate the effects that natural disasters always have on the populations of the countries they affect.
Last year's intense rainfalls resulted in a disastrous situation in Central European countries.
Overflowing rivers flooded streets and homes.
People became destitute, and many of them lost almost everything they had.
This is why a rapid assessment of the situation and quick assistance were crucial at that time.
Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania all requested assistance from the European Union in order to be able to help those in need by drawing on the Solidarity Fund.
I am very pleased to note that the European Parliament, too, recognised this situation, and it, too, intended to help these countries.
This is why I consider supporting this proposal for a decision very important, and I would like to use this opportunity to extend my gratitude to all who expressed their solidarity with my fellow Central European citizens at that time.
Following the heavy rainfall in August 2010, which caused rivers to burst their banks and forced people to leave their homes, the Czech Republic applied for assistance from the Solidarity Fund in October 2010.
The threshold of 0.6% of Gross National Income was not exceeded, but the majority of the population suffered as a result and the economy of the region was on the brink of collapse.
Important areas such as tourism and industry were severely damaged.
This assistance will cover part of the cost of the immediate measures needed to rebuild damaged infrastructure.
Therefore, I support this proposal.
Last summer, most of Romania's territory was hit by severe flooding and landslides.
The damage was estimated at almost EUR 900 million, which is nearly 0.7% of Romania's GDP.
I welcome the assistance from the Solidarity Fund and it will help both to mitigate the impact of the disaster and prevent other incidents of the same nature occurring.
The Solidarity Fund is one of the specific examples which can be offered to our citizens showing the importance of joint actions at EU level.
The Commission is proposing to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania, in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (IIA).
The IIA allows for the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.
Alongside this proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania, the Commission also presented a Draft amending budget.
It is clear from the report that all the applications meet the eligibility criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002.
I therefore voted in favour of the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for the amounts of EUR 105 567 155 for Poland, EUR 20 430 841 for Slovakia, EUR 22 485 772 for Hungary, EUR 5 111 401 for the Czech Republic, EUR 3 825 983 for Croatia and EUR 24 967 741 for Romania, making a total of EUR 182 388 893 in commitment and payment appropriations.
The direct costs of the floods which hit Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Romania in 2010 amount to EUR 5 512 719 662.
I voted for this report so that the mobilisation of EUR 182.4 million from the EU Solidarity Fund intended for these floods is approved.
I disagreed with the source of funding, a 'negative reserve' proposed by the Council.
However, I voted for the Council's proposal as I think that citizens who were victims of the flooding cannot become victims of an interinstitutional battle between Member States and the European Parliament.
The issue at hand is the requests for assistance submitted by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Croatia (as a candidate country) in order to deal with the substantial damage caused by the disastrous floods in these countries in May, June and July 2010.
Since all these requests meet the eligibility criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, I voted in favour of this proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to allocate the sum of EUR 182 388 893 to the countries in question, in the expectation that this support may help to speed up the reconstruction of the areas affected and mitigate the suffering of their populations.
I was delighted to vote for the draft decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the release of funds from the EU Solidarity Fund to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania.
All of these states were affected last year by powerful floods, as a result of torrential rain which caused landslides and substantial loss of human life, as well as damage to residential buildings, businesses, farming areas, the road and rail networks and other infrastructure.
Although the amount of the proposed assistance represents only a few percent of the total quantified damage for most countries, it is still significant assistance, amounting in total to EUR 182 million.
I would like to point out that the EU established the Solidarity Fund in order to assist the inhabitants of regions hit by natural disasters.
I would like to thank Members for supporting this report.
in writing. - In favour.
The Commission proposes to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania on the basis of point 26 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (IIA).
The IIA allows for mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.
In parallel to the proposal to mobilise the Solidarity Fund for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania, the Commission has presented a Draft amending budget (DAB No 1/2011 of 14 January 2011) in order to enter the corresponding commitment and payment appropriations in the 2011 budget, as foreseen in point 26 of the IIA.
I voted in favour of this text because we need to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund on behalf of those countries in Central and Eastern Europe which suffered damage due to flooding in 2010.
Countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania incurred huge costs following the heavy rains of that period, which caused massive damage to their infrastructure.
Poland alone, for example, suffered two consecutive floods of its major rivers in May and June 2010, which caused serious damage to agriculture, transport networks and sites of cultural heritage, resulting in total damage of almost EUR 3 billion.
The priority now is to rebuild the regions most affected by the tragic events of last year, allowing them to restart their systems of production without further delay.
The floods of 2010 affected several European countries, to varying degrees.
For example, in the Czech Republic, the flood was smaller in terms of the area of land, but the consequences were truly destructive for this country, just as in Poland.
I therefore supported the release of funds on the basis of the option provided under Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 for such exceptional situations.
I voted for the adoption of the report, including the release of funds for the Czech Republic and for Croatia, which presents a similar case.
I endorsed the report on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management.
It is extremely important for the EU to support those countries which have suffered as a result of natural disasters.
The losses caused by this disaster exceed EUR 2.9 billion.
EU financial support will help in the reconstruction of public infrastructure which was damaged by the disaster: water mains, sewage systems, roads and bridges.
Almost a year has already passed since the floods.
Help is still imperative.
It should be mobilised faster.
To do this, procedures for granting financial aid from the Solidarity Fund should be shortened.
I am in favour of this report since it advocates responsible fishing in the Comoros fishing zone based on a policy of non-discrimination between the various fleets in the zone, while launching a dialogue on necessary reforms.
I am also in favour of this report because it represents an advance on the previous agreement, in that it provides for implementation of the protocol to be suspended in the event of human rights violations.
However, since the aim of this protocol is to strengthen partnership and cooperation in the fisheries sector through the use of all available financial instruments, I would draw attention to the immediate need for a framework favouring increased investment in the sector and optimisation of small-scale fishery production in the sector.
I supported this report as it marks a commitment to promoting responsible and sustainable fishing wherever EU vessels might be operating, based on a thorough assessment of the resources available and making sure that the fishing opportunities to be used have been vouched for by credible scientific opinions and ruling out any risk of depleting local stocks.
The Union of the Comoros is regarded as one of the least developed countries, with an economy which depends, to a huge extent, on foreign subsidies and technical assistance.
While exploitable stocks in the Union of the Comoros, mostly large pelagic fish, are estimated at 33 000 tonnes per year, annual catches by local fishermen amount to approximately 16 000 tonnes, which are completely absorbed by the local market.
The main objective of the new protocol is to define the fishing opportunities offered to EU vessels for access rights and sectoral support and to continue the cooperation between the EU and the UoC, with a view to expanding the partnership framework within which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and responsible exploitation of fisheries resources in the Comorian fishing zone in the interests of both parties.
The conclusion of bilateral agreements in the fisheries sector between the European Union and countries outside it, termed 'Fisheries Partnership Agreements', is standard practice under the common fisheries policy.
I voted in favour because I think that the new protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Union of the Comoros also serves the interests of both parties.
On the one hand, it improves the fishing opportunities offered to EU vessels in the Comorian fishing zone as any opportunities for depleting the local stocks in the area are excluded.
On the other hand, the EU allocates funds for the development of the sectoral fisheries policy in the Comoros.
I agree with the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros.
I consider said protocol to be positive since it promotes responsible and sustainable fishing in Comorian territorial waters and serves the interests of both parties, as it offers EU vessels fishing opportunities in exchange for important sectoral support for the community in the archipelago of the Comoros.
I voted in favour of the recommendation on the EC-Comoros fishing agreement, since the parties undertake to promote sustainable and responsible fishing in the Comorian fishing zone and since it provides for a suspension clause in the event of human rights violations in the Union of the Comoros.
The current protocol to the Fisheries Agreement in force between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros, one of many fisheries partnership agreements of which the European Union is a co-signatory, expired on 31 December 2010.
The new protocol will be concluded for a three-year period (2011-2013), starting with the entry into force of the Council decision on the provisional application of said protocol and following the expiry of the protocol in force.
The aim of the proposal for a decision is to set out the fishing opportunities for European Union vessels on the basis of the excess stock available, as well as the financial contribution separately due for access rights and sectoral support.
The new protocol serves the interests of both parties and aims to reinforce fisheries cooperation through the use of the financial instruments that are available.
The need has been felt to create a framework favouring the development of investment in this sector and to optimise small-scale fishery production.
Like the rapporteur, I believe Parliament should be allowed to closely monitor the way in which the agreement develops and is complied with, and it is up to the Commission to ensure that it can do so.
This report focuses on a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol setting out the terms on which European Union (EU) fishing vessels can carry out fishing operations in the waters of the Union of the Comoros.
Over the years, the EU has established fisheries partnership agreements with a number of countries and, in exchange, has made a certain financial contribution intended essentially to support national fisheries policies, particularly to protect stocks.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has taken on increased responsibilities in this sector, and we now have to give our consent to new fisheries agreements.
As the EU/Union of the Comoros protocol expired on 31 December 2010, it urgently needs to be renewed.
The proposal in question serves the interests of both parties, as the rapporteur explains very well, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.
It is just a pity that it is overdue.
This report supports the new protocol of the partnership agreement in the fisheries sector between the EU and the Comoros, which will be in force for three years, and whose main objective is to define the fishing opportunities offered to EU vessels, the financial contribution owed for access rights and sectoral support.
This is an agreement concerning access rights to Comorian waters for 70 European boats in exchange for a financial contribution of around EUR 600 000 per year, with around half of this amount being intended for the development of the country's fisheries sector.
This country has practically no other resources; 30 000 of the country's 800 000 inhabitants depend on this sector.
It is here that the so-called partnership agreements in this area have failed most visibly, which should be cause for reflection and for policy changes.
Authorisation to fish will be given to 45 tuna seiners - 22 of which are French and 22 Spanish - and 25 surface longliners: this is more than the protocol currently in force, which authorises 40 seiners and 17 longliners.
Portugal still has the five longliners it had before.
France and Spain are still the major beneficiaries.
I agree with this document, because the conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements between the European Community and non-member countries, termed 'Fisheries Partnership Agreements' (FPA) since 2004, has been standard practice under the common fisheries policy (CFP) and is central to the policy's external dimension.
Under the agreements with African and Pacific countries, the EU's financial contribution is, to a large extent, expressly intended to support national fisheries policies based on the principle of sustainability and sound management of fishery resources.
The partnership agreements therefore amount to a commitment to promoting responsible and sustainable fishing wherever EU vessels might be operating, based on a thorough assessment of the resources available and making sure that the fishing opportunities to be used have been vouched for by credible scientific opinions and rule out any risk of depleting local stocks.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, increased powers have been conferred on Parliament regarding fisheries partnership agreements: under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU, the EP now has to give its prior consent to the conclusion of an agreement, a requirement that replaces the earlier ordinary consultation procedure.
I believe that the proposed new protocol for the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Union of the Comoros serves the interests of both parties.
The fisheries sector in the region of the Comoros is very specific.
The catches made by local fishermen hardly ever suffice to meet the needs of the local community.
This is caused by poorly developed and, frankly, non-existent port and fishing fleet infrastructure.
The people who live on the islands in this part of the Indian Ocean are very poor, face the problem of unemployment and, as the rapporteur himself writes, are, in practice, dependent on financial help from abroad.
The partnership agreement, which allows vessels from the EU to fish in Comorian territory in exchange for financial support, will undoubtedly contribute to a strengthening of the region's economy.
We should, however, monitor the way in which these funds are spent, and whether they do, in fact, contribute to an improvement in the situation in the sector.
The aim of the new protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the partnership agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros is to strengthen the partnership and cooperation in the fisheries sector using all the available financial instruments.
The protocol will create a framework which is conducive to the growth of investment in this sector and which will help to increase the value of the products of small-scale fisheries.
I welcome the proposal to establish this new protocol.
The Council's draft recommendation regarding the establishment of a protocol which stipulates fishing quotas and financial contribution as set out by the partnership with the fisheries sector of the Union of the Comoros is intended to outline the role that the European Parliament should play in the procedure of reviewing this agreement.
Europe has always pursued partnership agreements in the fisheries sector and the partnership with the Union of the Comoros has been in force since 1988.
The objective of this new protocol is to set out the fishing quotas to be offered to fishing vessels of the Union of the Comoros, providing a sustainable and responsible use of fishery resources, increasing investment in small-scale fisheries and enhancing their activity.
The draft Council decision on the project ensures that both partners, Europe and the Union of the Comoros, will benefit from the renewal of the agreement but, since, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has gained a specific role in the implementation of the agreements, it seems inevitable that, at each step until the final approval of the agreement, we must identify the measures that will involve Parliament.
The conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements between the European Community and non-member countries, termed 'Fisheries Partnership Agreements' (FPA) since 2004, has been standard practice under the common fisheries policy (CFP) and is central to the policy's external dimension.
The partnership agreements therefore amount to a commitment to promoting responsible and sustainable fishing wherever EU vessels might be operating, based on a thorough assessment of the resources available, making sure that the fishing opportunities to be used have been vouched for by credible scientific opinions and ruling out any risk of depleting local stocks.
This new agreement replaces the one previously in force, which expired on 31 December 2010.
This kind of agreement makes it possible for EU fishing vessels to access the fishing zones of the Comoros islands in exchange for a financial contribution.
The great advantage of this kind of protocol is that the European Union can help with these countries' development.
In this case, it will give more help to the fisheries sector, since this sector will absorb about 50% of the funds contributed.
We should bear in mind that about 30 000 people in the Comoros depend directly on the fisheries sector, hence the importance of this support.
in writing. - The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Comoros expired in December 2010.
The new protocol is valid from 2011 to 2013 and should be provisionally applied while the European Parliament's consent procedure is not closed.
Under the draft agreement, the parties undertake to promote responsible fishing in the Comoros fishing zone based on the principle of non-discrimination between the different fleets fishing in this fishing zone.
With regard to fishing opportunities, 45 tuna seiners and 25 surface longliners will be authorised to fish.
The new agreement in comparison with the former one contains a clause to interrupt the implementation of the protocol in case of human rights violations.
I believe that it is necessary to strengthen partnership and cooperation in the fisheries sector using all financial instruments available.
Therefore, I voted 'for'.
The conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements between the European Community and non-member countries, termed 'Fisheries Partnership Agreements' (FPA), has been standard practice under the common fisheries policy (CFP) and is central to the policy's external dimension.
This proposal for a new protocol to the FPA between the European Union and the Comoros islands is an integral part of the CFP's external dimension and serves the interests of both parties.
This report makes the following recommendations, which are considered relevant:
• The Commission should send Parliament the conclusions of the meetings and proceedings of the Joint Committee provided for in Article 9 of the agreement, as well as the multiannual sectoral programme referred to in Article 7(c) of the protocol and the findings of the annual assessments;
• Representatives of the European Parliament, acting as observers, should be allowed to attend Joint Committee meetings and proceedings;
• The Commission should submit an implementation review of the agreement to Parliament and the Council before the agreement is renegotiated;
• Parliament and the Council should be treated fairly both as regards the right to be immediately and fully informed and in connection with the monitoring and assessment of the implementation of international fisheries agreements and with negotiations on their revision.
For the above reasons, I voted in favour of this report.
The purpose of this protocol is to replace the protocol annexed to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Comoros islands, which expired on 31 December 2010.
The main objective of the new protocol is to define the fishing opportunities offered to EU vessels for access rights and for sectoral support and to continue the cooperation between the European Union and the Union of the Comoros, so as to encourage the establishment of a partnership framework within which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and sound exploitation of fisheries resources in the Comorian fishing zone.
Based on the new protocol, the overall annual financial contribution by the EU will be EUR 1 845 750 over the whole three-year period.
The development of investments in the fisheries sector in order to optimise small-scale fisheries operations is also envisaged.
Since I believe this proposal for a new protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Comoros islands serves the interests of both parties, I voted in favour of it.
in writing. - I voted against.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, increased powers have been conferred on Parliament regarding Fisheries Partnership Agreements: under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU, the EP now has to give its prior consent to conclusion of an agreement, a requirement that replaces the earlier ordinary consultation procedure.
We, as Greens, are very critical of how these types of agreements have been implemented so far.
The signing of bilateral fisheries agreements between the European Community and third countries has always been a practice of the common fisheries policy and, hence, a central aspect of its foreign policy dimension.
The agreements with African and Pacific countries provide that a substantial share of the EU reciprocal financial arrangements be designated to support the national fishery policies based on principles of sustainability and good resources management.
Bilateral relations in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros date back to 1988.
The resolution adopted today emphasises the fact that better information for and greater control by the European Parliament at all stages of negotiations would strengthen the partnership and would have a positive impact on the development of fisheries.
It is necessary that both the European Parliament and the Council be placed on an equal footing, whether regarding the right to be fully and immediately informed, or relating to the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of international agreements in fisheries and also to any negotiation of revisions to those agreements.
The EU fishing fleet is in operation throughout the world.
A bilateral relationship has been in place between what is now known as the EU and the Union of the Comoros since 1988.
The current revision of the 2006 Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector as part of the process of extending it has also resulted in the basic principles of a sustainable fisheries policy and the responsible use of fishery resources in the Comoros fishing zone being included in the agreement.
This is not only a welcome development, but also a necessity, if the EU and its common fisheries policy are to remain credible.
In this context, the rapporteur's call for more information and more control on the part of Parliament must be strongly supported.
For this reason, I have voted in favour of the report.
Improving the Euromed trade agreement may contribute towards economic and political stability in this region with a view to consolidating a single space governed by values such as peace, justice, equality, freedom and democracy.
The creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism is intended to provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within fixed time limits, which could increase the security and the predictability of bilateral trade relations, thereby improving the functioning of the Euromed Free Trade Area.
I voted in favour of this draft resolution.
in writing. - (BG) I voted for this resolution because an effective mechanism needs to be established for settling trade disputes between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The proposed mechanism is modelled on the dispute settlement mechanisms from the most recent agreements concluded by the European Union, which comply with the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules and procedures.
This mechanism will support the functioning of the Euromed Free Trade Area, but will mainly bring stability to bilateral trade relations between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
All improvements to the Euro-Mediterranean agreements have an important impact on the countries' economic and political stability, contributing to the innumerable social and democratic gains that result from them.
I therefore welcome any efforts in that direction.
Given the incomplete resolution of certain disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, I acknowledge that the diplomatic approach has been ineffective in this context.
I therefore accept the need for a mechanism to apply resources simply and effectively, so I agree with the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement in the form of a protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The aim of this protocol is to establish a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement.
The Euro-Mediterranean agreements contain provisions to liberalise the trade in goods, but the rules for settling disputes arising from them relied primarily on diplomacy and could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
The Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with its partners from the Mediterranean in 2006 with a view to establishing trade dispute settlement mechanisms, modelled on the dispute settlement mechanisms of the most recent agreements concluded by the European Union within the World Trade Organisation.
A draft agreement was initialled with Jordan on 9 December 2009.
I support the dispute settlement mechanism and hope that it will have a deterrent rather than repressive function.
I also hope that Jordan can withstand the instability affecting the region and remain the moderate and responsible partner that it has been during the reigns of King Hussein and King Abdullah II.
This recommendation is based on a draft Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol between the European Union and Jordan, the aim of which is to implement a dispute settlement mechanism as part of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement.
In general, resolving trade conflicts between countries by diplomatic means has not always had the desired effect. Therefore, in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean region, negotiations were started between the EU and its Mediterranean partners, specifically Jordan.
The draft agreement was signed on 9 December 2009 at the conference of Euro-Mediterranean Trade Ministers held in Brussels.
I am voting for this draft legislative resolution of the European Parliament, as I am aware that it will significantly improve relations between the states in terms of free trade and contribute to the political and economic stability of this region.
I therefore welcome the new agreement and hope that, after it comes into force, no conflict of any kind will arise between the EU or its Member States and Jordan.
As is mentioned in this report's explanatory statement, to date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for a resolution.
The 'alternative' model being proposed to us fits into the logic promoted within the World Trade Organisation which, in search of supposed efficiency, seeks to bypass national sovereignty, the resolution of disputes through respect for each country's particularities, and the right of these countries to defend their interests and those of their peoples.
Resolving disputes by diplomatic means guarantees equality of treatment between countries.
This mechanism, by contrast, subverts this principle, encouraging the movement of capital and putting economic power before political power, and the interests of capital before the interests of countries and their peoples.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of an agreement between the EU, whose legitimacy resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is questionable (and in any case deplorable), and the regime of King Abdullah, which continues to violently repress the emerging, peaceful youth movement demanding reforms and democratic freedoms.
To date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for resolution.
By contrast, the mechanism now proposed subverts this principle, encouraging the movement of capital and putting economic power before political power, and the interests of capital before the interests of countries and their peoples.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of an agreement between the EU, whose legitimacy resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is questionable, and the regime of King Abdullah, which continues to violently repress the emerging, peaceful youth movement demanding reforms and democratic freedoms.
The creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism is welcomed, as it should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits.
The rapporteur believes that these upgrades to the Euromed free trade agreements can contribute towards economic and political stability in this key region with a view to consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
Furthermore, the proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and the predictability of our bilateral trade relations and could represent a further step towards the setting up and proper functioning of the Euromed Free Trade Area.
The past shows us that diplomacy has not managed to be effective at resolving the various disputes that exist.
I therefore welcome the creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism, which should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits.
I agree with the rapporteur that these improvements to the Euro-Mediterranean free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this region, which is key to the consolidation of a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
In addition, the proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and predictability of our bilateral trade relations, and represents a further step towards the creation and proper functioning of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area.
in writing. - I know that the proposed mechanism is modelled on the dispute settlement mechanisms of the most recent agreements concluded by the European Union and on the WTO.
Bilateral trade agreements should always be fully compatible with the multilateral trading system.
The Commission needs to ensure that the implementation is effective.
Lingering disputes have a negative effect on the business community.
Therefore, I voted 'for'.
With this report, the European Parliament is agreeing to the creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism, which will provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits when there is a need to settle conflicts between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, resulting from the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement.
To date, the settlement of disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic means.
In practice, such an approach proved ineffective and led to situations in which certain disputes remained unresolved, as they could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
These upgrades to the Euro-Mediterranean free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this key region, consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
The proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and the predictability of our bilateral trade relations, and could represent a further step towards the creation and proper functioning of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area.
My vote in favour was motivated by each of these facts.
I voted in favour of concluding this EU-Jordan agreement whose goal is establishing a mechanism for settling disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements.
To date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for a resolution.
In practice, this approach is not effective and has led to situations where disputes remained unresolved or were blocked.
I hope that the application of this standard dispute settlement mechanism will increase the security and the predictability of EU-Jordan trade relations.
Within the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean association agreements, trade disputes that may arise between two parties, the European Union on the one hand, and Jordan on the other, are still settled through diplomatic channels.
This solution is neither efficient nor transparent, which is why I voted in favour of establishing a standard dispute settlement mechanism, as this will enable players on both sides of the Mediterranean to trade in a safer and more predictable environment.
This standard mechanism is based on solutions advocated by the World Trade Organisation in its memorandum of understanding on dispute settlement, as well as mechanisms incorporated into bilateral trade agreements recently concluded by the EU.
Ultimately, therefore, adding such mechanisms to an increasing number of agreements will create a level playing field not only for European economic players, but also for their partners in third countries.
These negotiations originate from what was, in fact, an area ungoverned by legislation, which meant that no procedures were available for resolving disputes between the EU and the Mediterranean countries.
The dispute settlement mechanism is modelled on standard international procedures.
As the existing approach has led to insoluble problems in the past, I have followed the rapporteur's recommendation.
I voted for this resolution because an effective mechanism needs to be established for settling trade disputes between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco.
This mechanism will bring stability to bilateral trade relations between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco.
Given the incomplete resolution of certain disputes relating to the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and the Kingdom of Morocco, I acknowledge the inefficiency of the system created in relation to this area using diplomatic means.
I therefore accept the need for a mechanism that will enable the application of resources in a simple and efficient way, so I agree with the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism.
in writing. - (RO) Given that the current regulations for settling disputes rely on a diplomatic approach and can easily be blocked by the party which is failing to fulfil its obligations, I think that adopting this agreement will improve the security and predictability of trade relations between the European Union and Morocco, making it beneficial to both companies and consumers.
The adoption of the agreement follows the Euro-Mediterranean road map for trade after 2010.
Like the others, the agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lacked conflict resolution measures which, naturally, contributed to making it less reliable and to reducing the expectations of the parties as regards obtaining fair solutions in cases of dispute.
I hope that the envisaged mechanism will come into force and that it will contribute to reinforcing the parties' trust, as well as that the Kingdom of Morocco will be able to continue with the reforms already started by Hassan II and carried forward by Mohammed VI.
This recommendation is based on a draft Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol between the European Union and Morocco, whose goal is to implement a dispute settlement mechanism as part of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement.
In general, resolving trade conflicts between countries using diplomatic means has not always had the desired effect. Therefore, in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean region, negotiations were started between the EU and its Mediterranean partners, specifically Morocco.
The draft agreement was signed on 9 December 2009 at the conference of Euro-Mediterranean Trade Ministers held in Brussels, and was confirmed on 7 March 2010 during the EU-Morocco Summit.
I am voting in favour of this draft legislative resolution of the European Parliament as I am aware that it will significantly improve relations between the states in terms of free trade and contribute to the political and economic stability of this region.
I therefore welcome the new agreement and hope that, after it comes into force, no conflict of any kind will arise between the EU or its Member States and Morocco.
The 'alternative' model being proposed to us fits into the logic promoted within the World Trade Organisation which, in search of supposed efficiency, seeks to bypass national sovereignty, seeks to bypass the resolution of disputes through respect for each country's particularities, and seeks to bypass their right to defend their interests and those of their peoples.
This mechanism, by contrast, subverts this principle, encouraging the movement of capital and putting economic power before political power and the interests of capital before the interests of countries and their peoples.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Morocco, a country that continues to occupy Western Sahara, and to make use of and profit from resources that do not belong to it: it is violating international law and denying the Sahrawi people their right to self-determination.
This report is about changing the current situation by creating a mechanism for conflict resolution.
As is mentioned in this report's explanatory statement, to date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for a resolution.
However, the Commission is now proposing an 'alternative' model that fits into the logic promoted within the World Trade Organisation which, in search of supposed efficiency, seeks to bypass national sovereignty, seeks to bypass the resolution of disputes through respect for each country's particularities, and seeks to bypass their right to defend their interests and those of their peoples.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Morocco, a country that continues to occupy Western Sahara, and to make use of and profit from resources that do not belong to it: it is violating the Sahrawi people's rights and denying their right to self-determination.
For this reason, we voted against.
in writing. - I support the rapporteur who proposes that Parliament gives its consent to this agreement.
Lingering disputes have a negative effect on the business community and on end consumers on both shores of the Mediterranean.
Civil rebellions against Arab despots have set the other side of the Mediterranean alight.
This is clearly not a sufficient reason for the EU to stop advancing towards the establishment of the free trade area it agreed to with those same despots.
We have sent a clear signal: the EU does not want to negotiate with the Arab democracies that might emerge.
I shall vote against.
The past shows us that diplomacy has not managed to be efficient in resolving a number of existing disputes.
I agree with the rapporteur's opinion that these upgrades to the EU-Morocco free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this key region, with a view to consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
Moreover, the proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and the predictability of our bilateral trade relations, and represents a further step towards the setting up and the proper functioning of the EU-Morocco Free Trade Area.
Until now, one of the tasks of diplomatic services has been to arbitrate in disputes relating to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement.
Now, the plan is to introduce mechanisms at an EU level to settle disputes and to support politically unstable regions, such as Morocco, in establishing a homogeneous state characterised by peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
I have abstained from voting because the rapporteur has not described in detail how we can guarantee that these mechanisms are complied with.
The liberalisation agreement between the EU and Morocco should be an emblem for the development, the stability and the economic recovery of the entire North African region.
The Union cannot and must not lose the opportunity to play a part in creating a renewed trade policy, able to assist those countries which have been overwhelmed by social and political turmoil with dramatic consequences for national economies and, consequently, our investments in those areas.
With today's vote on creating a standard mechanism for appropriate and efficient dispute resolution, we have a greater guarantee in support of European investments in Morocco, investments which are key to economic wellbeing in the entire region, covering almost all sectors.
Today's vote also highlights the Union's desire to avoid having a negative effect on the economies and end consumers on both sides of the Mediterranean by opting for protectionist policies which continue to prioritise special interests, delaying the ratification of agreements which are fundamental to rebalancing and stabilising the economic choices of an area that is beginning to be of interest to our trade competitors like China and the countries of the Middle East.
With this report, the European Parliament is approving the creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism which should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits in disputes resulting from Euro-Mediterranean agreements between the EU and Morocco.
Dispute resolution through diplomacy was not effective and led to situations in which certain disputes remained unresolved, as they could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
Delays that occur in dispute resolution have a negative impact on companies and end consumers on both sides of the Mediterranean.
These upgrades to the Euro-Mediterranean free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this key region, with a view to consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
The model for the proposed mechanism is the dispute settlement mechanisms included in the latest agreements concluded by the European Union and the World Trade Organisation's Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes.
The Commission must ensure that the mechanism is effectively and efficiently implemented.
For the above reasons, I voted in favour of this resolution approving the conclusion of the agreement.
I voted in favour of concluding this agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco, whose goal is establishing a mechanism for settling disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements.
I hope that the application of this standard dispute settlement mechanism will increase the security and the predictability of trade relations between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco.
in writing. - In favour.
To date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for a resolution.
In practice, this is not efficient and has led to situations were disputes remained unresolved, as they could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
The Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with its partners from the Mediterranean in 2006 with a view to negotiating a proper dispute settlement mechanism.
A draft agreement was initialled with Morocco at the Euro-Mediterranean Trade Ministerial conference in Brussels on 9 December 2009, and confirmed during the EU-Morocco Summit on 7 March 2010.
The creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism is welcomed, as it should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits.
I support the creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism with Egypt, enabling inefficiencies and deadlocks to be resolved and concluding the draft agreement with that country.
This agreement can help contribute to economic and political stability in the Euro-Mediterranean area, which will allow a future based on peace, justice, freedom, plurality and democracy.
I voted for this resolution because an effective mechanism needs to be established for settling trade disputes between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
This mechanism will support the functioning of the Euromed Free Trade Area, but will mainly bring stability to bilateral trade relations between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
I voted in favour of the dispute settlement mechanism as proposed by Mr Susta.
I completely agree that proper application of a standard mechanism for the settlement of disputes could be a further step towards the establishment and effective functioning of Euro-Mediterranean free trade.
Until now, disputes arising from Euro-Mediterranean agreements have only been resolved, where possible, through diplomatic channels.
Instead, we need a firm procedure because dragging out commercial disputes can result in adverse effects on final consumers on both sides of the Mediterranean.
In the light of what is happening in some North African countries, there is no doubt that the path towards economic and political stability in those territories passes through, among other things, well-functioning free trade agreements in the Mediterranean.
Given the incomplete resolution of certain disputes relating to the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and the Arab Republic of Egypt, I acknowledge the inefficiency of the system created in relation to this area using diplomatic means.
I therefore accept the need for a mechanism that will enable the application of resources in a simple and efficient way, so I agree with the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a Dispute Settlement Mechanism.
The present situation in Egypt perhaps eclipses the need to press ahead with adopting agreements like this.
Nonetheless, with the turbulence and uncertainty characteristic of times like those recently experienced in Cairo now over, the Egyptian State should be careful to take up once again its functions in their entirety.
Amongst those is foreign relations, specifically with the European Union, which is its partner in a Euro-Mediterranean agreement.
While putative future disputes with the EU are probably the least of Egypt's concerns for the moment, I believe that there can be no disadvantage in adopting mechanisms that enable these to be resolved easily, for the good of both parties.
Egypt is inseparably bound up in the history of Europe and the world.
I hope that it will have a future as great as its past.
This recommendation is based on a draft Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol between the European Union and the People's Republic of Egypt, whose goal is to implement a dispute settlement mechanism.
This protocol takes on a very special meaning at a time when Egypt is taking the first steps towards implementing a democratic regime.
In general, resolving trade conflicts between countries using diplomatic means has not always had the desired effect. Therefore, in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean region, negotiations were started between the EU and its Mediterranean partners, specifically Egypt.
The draft agreement was signed on 27 April 2010 at the EU-Egypt Association Council held in Luxembourg.
I am voting for this draft legislative resolution of the European Parliament as I am aware that it will significantly improve relations between the states in terms of free trade and contribute to the political and economic stability of this region.
I therefore welcome the new agreement and hope that, after it comes into force, no conflict of any kind will arise between the EU or its Member States and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and the regime of the dictator Mubarak.
The Egyptian people's uprising in favour of democratic changes, defending its sovereignty against foreign interference, and the regime's collusion with the interests of imperialism in the region is a positive sign, which we hope will end up having practical expression in relation to this agreement and others.
Our opposition to this mechanism and its implications is all the more justified because it results from the conclusion of an agreement between the EU, whose legitimacy resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is questionable, and the regime of the dictator Mubarak.
in writing. - Notwithstanding the uncertain situation in Egypt, I think Parliament is right to press ahead with the approval of this agreement which should make life easier for businesses without making any political comment on the current Egyptian Government.
I agree with the rapporteur's opinion that these upgrades to the EU-Egypt free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this key region, with a view to consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
Moreover, the proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and the predictability of our bilateral trade relations, and represents a further step towards the setting up and the proper functioning of the EU-Egypt Free Trade Area.
in writing. - I voted against this report as I have serious concerns in relation to the EU's economic and political approach towards the countries that are covered by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement.
The establishment of a free trade area would have dramatic consequences for working people in the region.
On the basis of the EU's own figures, Egypt is expected to lose 1.5 million jobs.
The dire economic prospects for young people and the anger against corruption and excesses of the tiny dictatorial elite lie at the heart of the revolutionary movements and the aspirations of the Egyptian people.
A continuation of the free trade doctrine in the interest of European big business and the rich elites mean more of the same and therefore needs to be rejected.
The negotiations on this deal were led by representatives of the dictatorial Mubarak regime which has been ousted by the revolutionary upheaval.
The top tier of the army, however, is deeply tied to the economic interests of the former regime and does not represent the legitimate demands and aspirations of the working people.
Trade relations must be based on the needs of the majority of the population, not the greed of tiny elites and corporations.
With this report, the European Parliament is approving the creation of a standard dispute settlement mechanism which should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits in disputes resulting from Euro-Mediterranean agreements between the EU and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Dispute resolution through diplomacy was not effective and led to situations in which certain disputes remained unresolved, as they could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
The model for the proposed mechanism is the dispute resolution mechanisms included in the latest agreements concluded by the EU and the World Trade Organisation's Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes.
The Commission must ensure that the mechanism is effectively and efficiently implemented.
I voted in favour of concluding this EU-Egypt agreement whose goal is establishing a mechanism for settling disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements.
I hope that the application of this standard dispute settlement mechanism will increase the security and the predictability of EU-Egypt trade relations.
I am voting for this recommendation and welcome the creation of a dispute settlement mechanism, which should provide streamlined and effective redress procedures within firm time limits.
I also agree with the rapporteur's position that upgrades to the Euro-Mediterranean free trade agreements can contribute to economic and political stability in this region that is key to consolidating a single area of peace.
I agreed with this document because to date, disputes arising from the Euro-Mediterranean agreements relied solely on diplomatic approaches for a resolution.
In practice, this is not efficient and has led to situations where disputes remained unresolved, as they could easily be blocked by the 'injuring' party.
The upgrades to the Euromed free trade agreements can contribute towards economic and political stability in this key region with a view to consolidating a single area of peace, development, justice, equality, freedom, plurality, democracy and respect.
Furthermore, the proper application of such a mechanism could increase the security and the predictability of our bilateral trade relations and could represent a further step towards the setting up and the proper functioning of the Euromed free trade area.
Lingering disputes have a negative effect on the business community and on end consumers on both shores of the Mediterranean.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, foreign direct investment became part of EU trade policy, and thus part of the Union's exclusive competence.
In an era where foreign direct investment plays an important role in the economic welfare of countries and regions, a well functioning and effective dispute settlement mechanism will also serve to solve disputes in this area.
As the rules for resolving disputes are based on a diplomatic approach and have led to a situation where disputes can easily be blocked, the new settlement mechanism for trade disputes deserves our support.
This mechanism is modelled on the most recent agreements concluded by the EU and on the World Trade Organisation understanding.
Draft agreements with Jordan, Morocco and Egypt are already in place, which also cover trade in agricultural products.
I welcome the decision by the European Parliament to support these agreements.
I am voting in favour of this resolution because I consider it essential that the EU provide a suitable mechanism for resolving disputes arising from the implementation of Euro-Mediterranean agreements.
In 2006, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region and only in 2009 was that agreement signed.
The creation of a standard method for resolving disputes should ultimately introduce simplified and effective resolution procedures within specific time limits.
I agree with the opinion of the rapporteur who considers it essential that revisions of the Euromed free trade agreements be made in order to contribute to economic and political stability in this region and to consolidate an area of peace and development.
The proposed method is modelled on the most up-to-date mechanisms for dispute resolution in partnership agreements as agreed by the European Union and the WTO.
At a time when foreign direct investment has a crucial role in the economic wellbeing of European Member States, I hope that an effective dispute settlement mechanism will help to resolve disputes in this area also.
I am voting for this report, and would stress that it is an important step in the pursuit of negotiations between the EU and Ukraine towards establishing a path that may enable its full accession to the EU in the future.
I voted in favour of this report.
With the implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy, partner countries are gradually being given the opportunity to participate in certain Union programmes and agency activities.
This is one of many measures aimed at promoting reforms, modernisation and transition in countries neighbouring the European Union.
In June 2007, the Council of the European Union once again stressed the huge importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and therefore this protocol will create the conditions for Ukraine to participate in important EU programmes and benefit from EU best practices contributing to the development of democratic processes.
I voted for our rapporteur's proposal.
I believe that both parties will stand to gain if the obligations assumed under this protocol are fulfilled.
The European Union will gain a sound, stable, democratic partner at its eastern border, while Ukraine's citizens will gain a somewhat clearer European perspective.
From the very outset of my work in the European Parliament, I have strongly supported the pro-EU aspirations of Ukraine.
Ukraine is one of the most important partners in Poland's Eastern policy.
In addition, together with Ukraine, my country is preparing to host next year's European football championship.
In order to achieve the objectives of Union foreign policy, and also for reasons of security, it is extremely important for the whole of the EU to step up cooperation with Ukraine.
I consider supporting the fledgling democracy in Ukraine to be one of our most important obligations.
I support, therefore, acceleration of negotiations concerning the free trade zone, and the broadest possible participation of Ukraine in Union programmes.
I voted in favour of the resolution, and in so doing expressed my consent to the conclusion of the protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine.
This protocol contains the framework agreement on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes.
It includes standard clauses which are intended to be applied to all European Neighbourhood Policy partnership countries with which such protocols are due to be concluded.
In my view, Ukraine is making the necessary efforts, and I support the conclusion of this agreement.
I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on the consent of the European Parliament to the draft Council decision, on the basis of which there will be a supplementary protocol to the EU-Ukraine Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
On the basis of this protocol, Ukraine will be given the opportunity to participate in EU programmes concerning businesses and entrepreneurship, energy and information and communication technologies.
According to this agreement, Ukraine will have to make a financial contribution to the EU's general budget depending on the programmes it wishes to participate in, and the EU will, in turn, guarantee that these programmes are controlled and audited by the EU institutions.
I am the Vice-President of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, and I am convinced that the conclusion of this protocol will give Ukraine more opportunities for the convergence of its policies with policies, standards and norms pursued by the EU in the areas mentioned.
The relationship between the European Union and Ukraine has experienced progress and setbacks which have, at times, resulted from the country's decreased or increased strategic closeness to its neighbour Russia.
On 18 June 2007, the Council issued guidelines to the Commission on negotiating framework agreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine on the general principles governing these countries' participation in EU programmes.
I believe that the conclusion of the aforementioned agreement is positive, because of the need to stipulate clearly the framework in which Ukraine will participate in European programmes, thereby contributing to improving its relations with the Union.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) provides for the gradual opening up of European Union programmes to the participation of neighbouring countries, with the goals of promoting reform, of modernisation and, often, of their democratisation.
As such, on 5 March 2007, the Council adopted a general approach intended 'to enable ENP partners to participate in Community agencies and Community programmes'.
As a result of this approach, the Commission started negotiating framework agreements with neighbouring countries, including Ukraine, whose documentation is complete and ready to be submitted for the European Parliament's approval, under the terms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I am voting for this Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes, and I welcome it because it is another step in pursuing the objectives that guided the creation of the common market.
For us, the conclusion of this agreement poses a number of questions, given the extremely vague nature of the proposal tabled.
Mention is made of programmes, but we have not been told which programmes Ukraine will be able to participate in, what form such participation will take, or what the financial conditions and implications of this will be.
Benefits are announced, without making it clear where they will come from.
We believe that the establishment of agreements with objectives such as those announced should be based on respect for the sovereignty of countries and their peoples, on mutual interest, on reciprocity, and on cooperation, taking into account each country's particularities; that they should evaluate what each may bring to the agreement from the economic, social and cultural points of view.
There is little else that we can say about this report, other than that it is regrettable that it agrees to the establishment of a protocol whose exact content and implications we are not allowed to know.
The establishment of this agreement poses a number of questions, given the extremely vague nature of the proposal before us.
Mention is made of programmes, but we have not been told which programmes Ukraine will be able to participate in, what form such participation will take, or what the financial implications of this will be.
Mention is made of the general principles governing participation, but these are not specified.
Benefits are mentioned without this report making it clear where they could come from.
We believe that it is still essential to refer to the following when establishing agreements between sovereign countries: respect for the sovereignty of the country and its peoples, mutual interest, reciprocity and cooperation, taking into account each country's particularities; evaluation of what each may bring to the agreement from the economic, social and cultural points of view.
It is regrettable that we have voted for a report that agrees to the establishment of a protocol, having been given almost no information about its content and implications.
I voted in favour of this resolution on the consent of the European Parliament to the draft Council decision, on the basis of which there will be a supplementary protocol to the EU-Ukraine Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
Ukraine will be given the opportunity to participate in EU programmes concerning businesses and entrepreneurship, energy and information and communication technologies.
Ukraine will have to make a financial contribution to the EU's general budget depending on the programmes it wishes to participate in, and the EU will, in turn, guarantee that these programmes are controlled and audited by the EU institutions.
This partnership and cooperation policy will give Ukraine more opportunities for the convergence of its policies with policies pursued by the EU in these areas.
in writing. - I voted for this technical report giving approval for the Ukraine to participate in European Union programmes.
in writing. - (RO) I voted for the draft resolution on the Council's decision on a framework agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles concerning this country's participation in Union programmes.
This document is part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, but also meets Ukraine's desire to participate in more current and future EU programmes.
Furthermore, Ukraine will be able to request assistance from the Union to participate in a particular programme in accordance with the general provisions on setting up a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument or based on any other similar regulation which provides for external assistance.
This may also give a new lease of life to Romania's relations with Ukraine.
We must develop these ties in a pragmatic way so that citizens benefit directly from our political decisions.
For a long time, EU-Ukraine relations have been going through their good and bad moments.
The majority of the time, these moods are dictated by Ukraine's increased or decreased closeness to its neighbour Russia.
This protocol will contribute to the creation of a clear framework for Ukraine's participation in the various European programmes so that in the future, EU-Ukraine relations do not have the highs and lows they have had to endure hitherto.
The participation of Ukraine in European Union programmes represents an important step both for Ukraine and for the EU.
This will help to promote the exchange of scientific knowledge and research.
The student programmes will be expanded and there will be financial, economic and social benefits for both sides.
The geographical position of Ukraine is an important factor and also represents a major advantage for the EU, because it will enable the EU to improve its contacts with other Eastern European states.
For this reason, I am in favour of this project.
I voted in favour of the recommendation to allow Ukraine to participate in current EU programmes and those established in the future, in areas such as enterprise, energy, technologies and communications.
This agreement will accelerate the reform of public administration in Ukraine and the convergence of various areas of the country's economy with EU legislation, standards and examples of good practice.
In exchange for its financial contribution to programmes, Ukraine will have the right to participate as an observer in committees coordinating EU programmes.
The programme initiatives proposed by Ukraine will be taken into account like those proposed by EU Member States.
This will enable Ukraine to gradually come closer to the EU.
Relations between the European Union and Ukraine have been up and down.
On 18 June 2007, the Council mandated the Commission to negotiate framework agreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine on the general principles governing these countries' participation in EU programmes.
It is essential to establish a clear and precise legal framework for Ukraine's participation in European programmes, thereby contributing to improving its relations with the Union.
I therefore voted for the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes.
in writing. - Having regard to the draft Council decision (13604/2010), having regard to the draft protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, concluded on 14 June 1994, on a framework agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (13962/2010), having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0401/2010), having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, and having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we consent to conclusion of the protocol.
Participation in EU programmes and agencies by countries which are included in the Neighbourhood Policy is one of the most specific forms of those countries' cooperation with the Union.
We should endeavour to ensure that the programmes which are offered give the greatest possible support to the reforms being undertaken in these countries to bring them closer to the Union.
The 18th round of Ukraine-EU negotiations on the signing of the association agreement is taking place this week in Brussels.
The process has taken too long.
It is time to sign the agreement, because it is in the interests of both the EU and Ukraine.
With a population of 46 million, Ukraine needs stability in the region.
In recent years, Ukraine has turned into a political football pitch: it must not be forced to choose between Russia and the West.
It is important for EU Member States, in particular, Lithuania, to actively seek closer cooperation with their Eastern neighbours, even if some differences remain.
The conclusion of a successful association agreement would encourage modernisation and reforms in Ukraine and help it to come closer to EU standards.
As for negotiations on the free trade area, we must seek agreements on tariff proposals, energy taxation procedures and sustainable development.
Liberalising the movement of people is also crucial.
Lithuanians still remember the travel restrictions they experienced.
We know what it means to live on Europe's external border.
It is important for the issue of visa-free travel to be the number one priority.
I am voting for this report, since it is in the interests of the affected regions to establish a legal basis for trade between the EU and Greenland, in this case, coming under the umbrella of the rules of the EU's internal market.
In 2010, the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for EU rules on the importation of fishery products, using Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as its legal basis.
I agree with the interpretation that this activity should be regulated on the legislative basis of Article 43, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 204, thus allowing revisions to be made through the ordinary legislative procedure.
In 2007 alone, almost 87% of fishery products exported from Greenland came to the EU.
For this reason, establishing general rules for trade and the importation of fishery products originating from Greenland cannot be left entirely to the Commission and the Council because this would contradict the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.
This is why I believe that Parliament should make its voice heard in such an important sector.
I voted for the report on imports from Greenland of fishery products, which aims to apply internal market rules to these imports once Greenland undertakes to transpose European legislation, notably, legislation on animal health and food safety.
However, I believe that the proposal's legal basis should be adapted so that the text takes the form of a regulation rather than a Council decision.
This proposal sets out general rules for EU-Greenland trade in, inter alia, fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and their by-products.
The Member States should authorise the importing of products originating in Greenland, in line with Union legislation on internal trade.
The importing of products to the Union will be subject to a number of conditions, including the effective transposition and application of applicable rules established in Union legislation regarding animal health and food safety.
Like the rapporteur, I believe that the proposed text should be adopted using the ordinary legislative procedure, and that Parliament should exercise its legislative rights in similar cases in the future.
Exports of fishery products from Greenland represent around 82% of its total exports, totalling EUR 255 million in 2007.
The majority - 87% - were directed to the EU, notably to Denmark, at 97%.
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted unanimously an opinion supporting the request that Articles 43(2) and 204 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Sole Article of the Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements for Greenland must form the legal basis for the proposed legislative text, instead of the legal basis chosen by the Commission: that is, Article 203 of the TFEU.
Therefore, given that it is a legal issue that is in question and not the content of the proposal for a resolution, and given the consensus obtained, I agree with its adoption.
The great debate surrounding this report is a side issue to its motivation.
Specifically, the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries expressed its disagreement with the legal basis chosen by the Commission for tabling this proposal: Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which provides for the Council examining 'provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Union' after consulting the European Parliament.
The Committee on Fisheries believed that Articles 43(2) - referring to the ordinary legislative procedure, or colegislation - and 204 of the TFEU should be adopted as its legal basis, along with the Sole Article of the Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements for Greenland.
This position was supported by the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The important issue that should, at its base, constitute the substance of the report remains on its margins: the defining of rules applicable to imports of fishery products from Greenland to the EU.
Key fisheries exports from Greenland include prawn (59%), Greenland halibut (23%), cod (9.5%), crabs (1.9%), scallops (1.4%) and spawn (1.3%).
in writing. - I voted in favour of Ms Fraga's report, which allows Greenland to export fishery products to the EU despite not being a member.
When Greenland won significant home-rule and decided to opt out of the EC, they had to negotiate their exit.
This precedent gives the lie to false claims that internal enlargement of the EU would require newly independent EU states to reapply for membership.
I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a Council decision laying down rules for imports into the European Union from Greenland of fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and by-products thereof.
Greenland's exports of fishery products, approximately 82% of its total exports, totalled EUR 255 million in 2007, the largest part of which (87%) were directed to the EU, notably (97%) to Denmark.
This decision includes an amendment to the legal framework, from a Council decision to a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
in writing. - (DE) The trade in fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and their by-products between Greenland and the European Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Union legislation and other conditions is perfectly acceptable.
Therefore, there is no reason to object to the content of the agreement.
The import of these products makes a welcome contribution to trade within the Union.
Commercial relations between the EU and Greenland have been significant in nature for some years.
Indeed, since 2007, Greenland has exported 82% of its fishery products, of which 87% comes to the European market.
We can therefore say that this is an important resource for Greenland, in addition to what Europe offers in terms of financial support in exchange for maintaining their fishing rights in Greenland's waters.
On 26 April 2010, the European Parliament asked the Committee on Legal Affairs to give an opinion so as to determine a legal basis on which to establish agreements with Greenland.
The Committee on Legal Affairs recently supported Parliament and confirmed that the legal basis of the agreements can be found, as upheld, in Article 43(2) and in Article 204 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
in writing. - I voted for this proposal which lays down rules regarding imports into the EU from Greenland of fishery products and other marine products.
Greenland and the EU intend to enter into a sanitary arrangement on these products, with the objective being that Greenland can trade these commodities with the EU on the basis of internal market rules, provided that Greenland transposes EU sanitary and animal health rules on fishery products.
With the laying down of rules on EU-Greenland trade in fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates, marine gastropods and their by-products, imports from Greenland are in compliance with EU legislation.
Imports of products to the Union have to be subject to applicable rules established in Union legislation regarding the issues of animal health and food safety.
That is why the adoption of this report is important.
in writing. - It is known that Greenland and the European Union intend to sign a sanitary arrangement concerning fish and fishery products for human consumption.
The objective of such an arrangement would be that Greenland can trade these commodities with the Union on the basis of internal market rules, provided that Greenland transposes EU sanitary and, where appropriate, animal health rules on its fishery products.
I support that arrangement and I voted 'for'.
On 26 April 2010, the European Parliament was consulted on this proposal by the Council under the consultation procedure provided for in Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The Committee on Fisheries and Parliament's legal service expressed serious doubts as to the Commission's choice of Article 203 of the TFEU as the legal basis, suggesting instead as its correct legal basis Articles 43(2) and 204 of the TFEU and the Sole Article of the Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements for Greenland.
The Commission's draft was amended in line with the report that is currently being voted on, following the recommendations of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
This report deserves my vote in favour as it is absolutely desirable that it be adopted now, at first reading.
in writing. - In favour.
Greenland's exports of fishery products, approximately 82% of its total exports, totalled DKK 1.9 billion (EUR 255 million) in 2007, the largest part of which (87%) went to the EU, notably (97%) to Denmark.
On 26 April 2010, the European Parliament was consulted on this proposal by the Council under the consultation procedure provided for in Article 203 TFEU.
The Committee on Fisheries and the Legal Service of the European Parliament expressed serious doubts as to the choice of the legal basis by the Commission, i.e. Article 203 TFEU, suggesting instead Articles 43(2) and 204 TFEU and the Sole Article of the Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements for Greenland as the correct legal basis.
Accordingly, the Committee on Fisheries asked the Committee on Legal Affairs for an opinion on the proposed legal basis.
At its meeting of 28 October 2010, the Committee on Legal Affairs adopted unanimously an opinion entirely supporting the request that Articles 43(2) and 204 TFEU and the Sole Article of the Protocol (No 34) on Special Arrangements for Greenland form the legal basis for the proposed legislative act.
At the moment, a special agreement exists between the EU and Greenland by which the European Union maintains its fishing rights in the waters of Greenland in exchange for financial support.
Greenland, a former Danish colony, attained full independence in 1985, while maintaining ties with the European Union as one of its overseas territories.
In 2007 alone, 82% of Greenland's exports were fishery products, and of those, 87% came to the EU.
On 26 April 2010, the Committee on Fisheries and the Legal Service of the European Parliament expressed serious doubts about the legal basis chosen by the Commission to draw up the agreement.
I hope that the agreement voted on will produce an extension of the application of internal EU rules relating to fishery products including those from Greenland.
At the same time, existing European rules on animal health and food safety in the fishing industry must always be respected.
I agree with the position set out in this report, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and because this is, therefore, a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.
I voted in favour of this resolution on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection.
Work on the creation of a common European asylum system (CEAS) started immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, but despite the efforts made over the last ten years to achieve harmonisation in the asylum sector, major discrepancies still remain between national provisions and the way they are applied.
I agree with the opinion that in whichever Member State applicants lodge an asylum request, they must enjoy a high standard of treatment that is equivalent throughout the Union.
Legislative harmonisation alone in this area is therefore insufficient and must be backed up by enhanced practical cooperation among the Member States.
It is clear that in order to achieve these objectives, it is necessary to adopt reforms without delay, so that people seeking asylum in EU Member States are provided with effective protection.
By voting in favour of this resolution, we MEPs are contributing to the creation of a fair and effective European asylum policy.
I think that the proposals are contradictory.
On the one hand, their aim is to achieve greater harmonisation, improve international protection standards and enhance the quality and efficiency of asylum procedures.
On the other hand, they will result in an unjustified administrative burden, the simplified court procedures will make it much more likely for courts to make rash decisions, various groups of people may be treated differently for no good reason, and Member States' sovereignty may be greatly restricted.
Weighing up the pros and cons of the proposals, as neither is clearly supported by more convincing arguments, I abstained from voting.
The European Union's key objective in the area of asylum entails establishing a common area of protection and solidarity by 2012 based on a common asylum procedure.
Despite the efforts made over the last ten years to achieve harmonisation in the asylum sector, major discrepancies still remain between national provisions and the way they are applied.
In whichever Member State applicants lodge an asylum request, they must enjoy the same treatment, taking into account common standards applicable throughout the European Union.
The adoption of a sound European legal framework is a sine qua non if the Union wishes to introduce a common European asylum system in an adequate and effective manner.
Thus, only by improving and harmonising the procedures and related guarantees will it be possible to achieve a common asylum system.
Furthermore, a fundamental revision of the Procedures Directive is vital, so as to provide an accessible, fair and effective procedure, as much in the interests of asylum seekers as in those of the Member States.
I would like to stress that the Commission's new revised proposal for this directive may genuinely help to achieve greater harmonisation, improve international protection standards and enhance the quality and efficiency of asylum procedures.
In spite of the efforts made over the last 10 years to achieve harmonisation in the asylum sector, major discrepancies still remain between national provisions and in the way they are applied.
Such discrepancies are incompatible with a common European asylum system and are an obstacle to its development.
They run counter to one of the cornerstones of the Dublin system, which is based on the presumption that Member States' asylum systems are comparable. In whichever Member State applicants lodge an asylum request, they must enjoy the same high level of protection across the whole Union.
While legislative harmonisation will not suffice to reduce these differences and will need to be supplemented by practical cooperation among Member States, adopting a sound European legal framework is an absolute prerequisite for the Union to implement a common European asylum system in an adequate and effective manner, just as it has repeatedly pledged to do so.
The Commission's proposal will rectify the mistakes of the past, when the previous approach to asylum encouraged a series of shortcomings regarding procedural guarantees for asylum seekers.
in writing. - UKIP MEPs abstained on the amendments to this report.
This was not due to indifference on our part; rather, it is because this report is a development of the Common Immigration and Asylum Policy under the Lisbon Treaty.
The peoples of Europe do not want the Lisbon Treaty or a Common Immigration and Asylum Policy either, which is why they were denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
To vote on the amendments would have entailed endorsing existing EU legislation (which we don't want either) and a nit-picking exercise in order to decide which bits were worse than others.
Therefore, UKIP MEPs abstained on the amendments, but voted a resounding 'No' to the report as a whole.
I voted in favour of this resolution to harmonise the various national systems while better protecting applicants' rights and improving the quality of procedures.
This resolution provides legal assistance right from the start of the procedure while taking better account of the specificity of vulnerable applicants such as unaccompanied minors.
However, I regret that for the vote in plenary, the European right targeted the strengthening of accelerated procedures based on the notion that asylum seekers are all potential fraudsters.
I regret that these amendments were adopted, because this perspective on asylum is out of all proportion.
in writing. - As a UKIP MEP, I am against any kind of EU interference in the UK system of asylum and in any related directive which would force EU rules on the UK.
I therefore abstained on votes to all amendments because I will not accept even those that might be seen to be helpful; this is a matter for the UK alone.
I therefore voted against the amended proposal and against the legislative resolution.
Enormous progress has been made towards the creation of a common European asylum system in the last decade.
However, major discrepancies still remain between national provisions and in the way they are applied, which need to be overcome if we want to establish a common area of protection and solidarity by 2012, based, inter alia, on a common asylum procedure.
The great objective is that, irrespective of the Member State in which applicants lodge an asylum request, they must enjoy a high standard of treatment that is equivalent throughout the Union.
That is why a fundamental revision of the Procedures Directive is important, so as to provide an accessible, fair and effective procedure.
The Commission's initiative is generally positive, enabling greater consistency and harmonisation, improving protection standards, and enhancing the quality and efficiency of procedures.
I would congratulate the rapporteur on her work and commitment, but I regret that some of her proposals went a little too far, which ended up making agreement with the Council impossible on this initiative that appears so urgently needed so as to increase the efficiency of the asylum process and prevent abuses.
The report by Mrs Guillaume is an important step towards the revision of EU rules on asylum and protection for applicants for 2012.
In view of the terrible tragedies that have taken place, such as the recent sinking of a Libyan boat off Lampedusa, this revision is vital, particularly considering that an applicant's chances of obtaining asylum may differ greatly according to the Member State.
With this text, we are calling on the European Commission to include in the proposed revision the right to free legal advice from the start of the procedure; better consideration of vulnerable applicants, such as unaccompanied minors; and a framework for the time limit for appeals.
My one regret, however, is that the European right adopted a tightening of accelerated procedures based on the notion that asylum seekers are primarily potential fraudsters, limiting their rights.
However, the adoption of Mrs Guillaume's report sends a clear signal to the Council and Commission that they need to work to guarantee all asylum seekers in Europe decent, fair conditions and procedures.
I voted in favour of this report because I argue that these measures contribute to the creation of a common European asylum system that is fair and efficient.
These measures have a direct impact on those seeking protection, as well as on the European Union's ability to develop and create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice.
The European Union and the Member States have been working towards implementing a common European asylum system for a long time.
It is easy to understand the sensitivity and complexity that efforts to this end take on, since this issue gets right to the heart of states' powers as regards foreigners.
The Commission has, however, been tabling proposals to Parliament and the Council aimed at providing suitable solutions to the problems that have been detected.
The recasting of the Procedures Directive, proposed by the Commission on 21 October 2009, is part of this improvement process.
Despite the distance already travelled, we are still a long way from the harmonisation that many of us want.
Increasing the harmonisation of procedures and guarantees will make a positive contribution to clarifying the process, so the proposed revision of the directive seems opportune.
Work on the creation of a common European asylum system started immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999.
In December 2005, with the objective of harmonising the Member States' legal procedures, Council Directive 2005/85/EC on asylum procedures was adopted, laying down the rules for granting and withdrawing 'refugee status'.
The recent social and political upheaval in a number of countries, specifically in North Africa and the Middle East, have brought issues relating to asylum applications in the European Union onto the agenda.
In truth, when refugees cross a border, they should not be persecuted or received with mistrust.
I therefore welcome the adoption of this proposal, which has ended up with a Manichaean interpretation of this problem, acknowledging that the right to asylum is a fundamental right and must be treated fairly and equitably by the Member States.
I welcome the rapporteur's proposals which aim to develop a legal aid system, given that these are vulnerable people who lack effective guarantees; to improve procedures; and to improve procedures and give applicants better rights, minors in particular.
The proposal for a directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection follows the same lines as the creation of a common European asylum system.
Nevertheless, it should be understood that the progress of this legal 'harmonisation' goes hand-in-hand with overall foreign policy followed by the European Union, and its hypocritical positions on immigration and aid for refugees.
The situation in Lampedusa, where there are thousands of refugees without adequate protection, is a clear demonstration of this, not to mention the hundreds or thousands who have been dying in boats crossing the Mediterranean, as has just happened again, disgracefully.
We are extremely concerned with the scale of the current problem, especially given what is happening in the serious armed conflicts, in Libya in particular.
We would also stress the fact that this proposal for a directive includes aspects that will end up restricting the right to asylum and applying conditions to it, above all, limiting each Member State's sovereign right to make its own choices and decide on its own asylum procedures.
The proposal for a directive being voted on in the European Parliament today on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection follows the same lines as the creation of a common European asylum system.
Nevertheless, it should be understood that the progress of this legal 'harmonisation' goes hand-in-hand with overall foreign policy followed by the European Union, and its hypocritical positions on immigration and aid for refugees, such as the situation in Lampedusa, where there are thousands of refugees without adequate protection, not to mention the hundreds or thousands who have been dying in boats crossing the Mediterranean.
We would also stress the fact that this proposal for a directive includes aspects that will end up restricting access to the right to asylum and applying conditions to it, above all, as regards each Member State's sovereign right to make its own choices and decide on its own asylum procedures.
Hence, our critical position as regards this report.
International protection is supposed to enable people who are truly persecuted in their own country to seek refuge under better circumstances.
However, as it is, and although some amendments have helped to improve it, the report by Mrs Guillaume is a real incentive for people to abuse this process, clogging up the relevant services and depriving those who really need their case to be reviewed quickly.
Minors, whatever their age or true circumstances, benefit from total goodwill that is entirely unjustified; there are limited opportunities to use the accelerated procedure in order to reject manifestly unfounded applications; appeals are systematically of a suspensive nature; the request for a review of negative decisions has become a right; and the necessary cooperation of the applicant for protection is hardly ever required, even when it is a matter of proving his or her identity and origin, which is nonetheless the minimum requirement for reviewing the case.
Applications for international protection cannot and should not be a means of circumventing restrictive measures against unwanted economic migration.
It is disgraceful that Parliament lends a hand to this kind of circumvention by granting inordinate rights to false asylum seekers.
in writing. - With reference to the Guillaume report, although, in principle, this represents a significant step towards the realisation of a common asylum policy system for Europe, I voted against the group on a number of clauses as I felt that they did not reflect realistically the complexities and problems faced by my country, Malta, which is a regular recipient of migrants.
Having said that, however, when it came to the final vote, I voted in favour of the whole report which ultimately contained a number of very good clauses addressing Member States' needs and preoccupations.
One example is the call for the immediate mobilisation of financial, administrative and technical support for Member States receiving disproportionately large numbers of asylum applications.
Such an initiative is essential for all Member States, but especially so for countries like Malta - often burdened with responsibilities and complexities, due to the reception of large inflows of migrants, which it cannot shoulder on its own.
On Wednesday, 6 April 2011, the European Parliament adopted the report on the so-called Asylum Procedures Directive.
This vote represents an important step towards creating a genuine European policy on asylum, which we have long requested.
Furthermore, this adoption is a clear sign that the EU needs a common European asylum system (CEAS) by 2012, especially since recent events in the Southern Mediterranean and the recent migration flows from North Africa have clearly proved the limitations of the current European system.
There is an urgent need to revise the EU directives for a credible and efficient system.
Specifically, it is my firm belief that the provisions relating to the accelerated procedure and the rejection of manifestly unfounded applications should not apply to unaccompanied minors or asylum seekers with special needs, so I voted in favour of those amendments that specified otherwise.
Secondly, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe was totally opposed to adding further grounds for allowing an accelerated review of an application for asylum, given the risks that these provisions present for asylum seekers, and I deeply regret that the corresponding amendments were adopted by such a small majority.
Finally, with regard to the 'safe third country' concept, I chose to abstain.
We must work harder than ever to establish a genuine common European asylum system (CEAS) for 2012 by better protecting applicants' rights and improving the quality of procedures.
My report goes in that direction, in particular, by including the right to free legal advice from the start of the procedure; better consideration of vulnerable applicants, such as unaccompanied minors; and a framework for the time limit for appeals.
I regret that the European right only targeted the tightening of accelerated procedures based on the notion that asylum seekers are almost all potential fraudsters, because this perspective on asylum is out of all proportion.
In my opinion, more robust procedures and decisions and faster examination of cases will mean that there are fewer appeals and unfounded applications will be more easily identified.
in writing. - The Guillaume report covers important areas of law and emphasises the need for human rights to be fully respected in relation to people seeking asylum.
My own country, Scotland, does not as yet have control over immigration. However, the policies which have been implemented by successive UK governments have been quite inhumane.
I am proud to be a member of a party which has actively campaigned against the brutal incarceration of young children seeking asylum.
I voted in favour of this document because I believe that we should seize this opportunity to develop a common European asylum system that is fair and efficient.
Asylum policies have a direct impact on those seeking protection, as well as on the European Union's ability to develop and create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice.
It is necessary to ensure harmonised, fair and efficient procedures under the common European asylum system.
The proposal referred to Parliament for a directive regarding the possible provision of a unified procedure for the 27 States of the Union in granting the right of asylum is an important step, but the delicacy of the issue requires careful and thorough reflection.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that States draw their laws closer to one another in accordance with the commitments made under the Treaty of Stockholm, simplifying and speeding up the procedures.
Another goal is to provide a high degree of protection for asylum seekers, ensuring a rapid verdict in the first instance, free legal assistance and permission to stay in the country until the final ruling.
Notwithstanding the good intentions, I voted against this draft directive as it is imprecise on some technical and procedural aspects and some of the definitions are ambiguous.
In fact, it is formulated in such a manner that the directive would lend itself to easy abuse on the part of applicants.
For these reasons, I decided not to support this version of the text as I do not agree with it totally.
in writing. - (FR) As part of its policy plan on asylum, the European Union aims to create a common European asylum system.
Indeed, freedom of movement within Member States that are party to the Schengen Agreement now requires us to make a concerted effort to understand immigration issues.
The report on the granting and withdrawing of international protection will reform the system that exists through Directive 2005/85/EC.
The demographic pressures on Europe today require us to consider these issues with increased vigilance.
Unfortunately, the report by Mrs Guillaume does not reflect those considerations, which led me, along with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), to oppose it.
Indeed, it leaves too much vagueness and laxity in the procedures, which creates the risk that this historic right will be misused.
For example, the notion of 'family members' is too broad and risks being abused.
After six months of procedures, it will be up to the Member State in question to prove that the applicant is not being persecuted, making the task much more complicated for the relevant authorities.
Restrictions on the use of accelerated procedures will further increase all these difficulties.
The first days when refugees arrive in Europe are crucial in determining their status and European countries must, by 2012, improve their asylum procedures at that very first stage, according to the report.
Notably, the adopted report calls on EU countries to enhance the minimum procedural safeguards, particularly as regards the right to free legal assistance, the right to information, and the right to personal interview; to give special attention to vulnerable applicants, like children; and the adoption, in codecision with the European Parliament, of a common list of safe third countries.
I voted against the report by Mrs Guillaume because it establishes criteria for the harmonisation of asylum procedures that are unrealistic in relation to those procedures currently in force in our Member States.
We certainly want a common asylum system, but not at the cost of a utopian harmonisation.
Parliament's vote today clearly shows the unease that is felt in this House, of which half rejected this demagogic approach, preferring a more responsible approach advocating the adoption of asylum systems that are effective and workable in practice.
All UN Member States have an obligation to protect refugees and asylum seekers.
The EU gets away with ignoring this law by requiring Member States with EU borders to hold refugees and asylum seekers in camps to await a decision that is even more uncertain, given that suspicion is the norm, accelerated procedures have been maintained, and the number of officials in charge of these cases has been reduced.
On the other hand, I would note that this text makes some significant improvements, such as the end of the absurd 'safe country of origin' concept, the ban on detaining minors and the inclusion of persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation.
More than 10 years have already passed since work on the creation of a common European asylum system (CEAS) started immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, on the basis of the principles approved by the Tampere European Council.
During the first phase of the CEAS (1999-2005), the goal was to harmonise Member States' legal frameworks on the basis of minimum standards.
There is still a long way to go before true harmonisation will have taken place, but we have to be conscious that only by improving and harmonising the procedures and related guarantees will it be possible to achieve a common system.
With this in mind, a fundamental revision of the Procedures Directive is absolutely vital, so as to provide an accessible, fair and effective procedure, as much in the interests of asylum seekers as in those of the Member States.
in writing. - If the aim of the resolution is to create an accessible, honest and efficient procedure for granting asylum on the territory of the European Union, in that case, people looking for protection will be granted standard European Union guarantees and EU Member States will be able to distinguish asylum seekers from other migrants.
I voted 'for'.
In the efforts to create a common European asylum system, the focus is on the rights of asylum seekers.
However, this ignores the fact that the majority of these people are not genuine asylum seekers but economic migrants, who have no right to asylum under the Geneva Convention and who have taken up the authorities' time by providing incorrect information and employing a range of delaying tactics, giving rise to costs of billions of euro.
In the other direction, very little progress is being made with regard to repatriation.
In the light of the flood of refugees from the overpopulated regions of the world, most of whom are motivated by economic considerations, who are importing the problems and conflicts of areas all over the world into Europe and who are not required to cooperate in the process, we must oppose unequivocally the introduction of stricter unilateral standards of protection which will attract asylum seekers and economic migrants like a magnet and only exacerbate the problem.
I voted in favour of this proposal because we must make every effort to ensure that we achieve a European asylum system that is even more efficient and has a positive impact on people.
Asylum policies are very important as they have a huge impact on the European Union's ability to develop and create a common area of freedom, security and justice.
Above all, we must achieve greater consistency between asylum instruments.
Procedures must be harmonised so that they can proceed in a fair and effective manner.
Furthermore, we must enhance the minimum procedural safeguards.
We must ensure that asylum applicants enjoy the right to information, the right to be heard and the right to free legal assistance, and that there are no restrictions on these rights.
All procedural instruments must be non-discriminatory and uniformly applied with due regard for minimum rights guarantees and principles.
Particular attention must be paid to vulnerable asylum applicants.
The interests of children must be adequately ensured and represented by applying the necessary procedures.
I agree with the proposal providing for the opportunity to immediately deport a person who may be a danger to the Member State's national security or who has been forcibly expelled from a country for reasons of public security under national law.
Such an opportunity is very important and necessary because it provides Member States with increased opportunities to stop terrorist networks from operating and to take appropriate preventive measures.
It was in May 1999, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, that work on the creation of a common European asylum system (CEAS) started, on the basis of the principles approved by the Tampere European Council.
There has been significant progress towards it.
The proposal now being tabled of a fundamental revision and recasting of the Procedures Directive represents another step forward.
In fact, the discrepancies still remaining between national provisions and in the way they are applied were totally incompatible with a CEAS, and are the reason for these amendments.
The goal of the CEAS is for an applicant to enjoy a high standard of treatment that is equivalent throughout the Union, irrespective of the Member State in which they lodge an asylum request.
To that end, I agree that there is a need to establish a robust European legal framework that enables the creation of an adequate and effective CEAS.
I voted for this report because I think that only improving and harmonising the procedures and related guarantees will enable the construction of a common system.
I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague and friend, Mrs Guillaume, on procedures for granting and withdrawing asylum in Europe.
This text marks a major step forward in establishing a common European asylum system (CEAS) by 2012, thereby putting an end to the intolerable situation whereby, depending on the European country in which an asylum seeker applies for protection, his or her chances of being recognised as a refugee vary between 1% and 65%.
Parliament has therefore spoken out in favour of greater justice and greater efficiency in the processing of asylum procedures.
It proposes that each country observe the same enhanced rules on protecting rights and modernising procedures: free legal advice from day one, a framework for the time limit for appeals, special assistance for unaccompanied minors, and a faster examination of cases.
Also, although I regret that the European right, which has a majority in Parliament, has managed to adopt amendments to the text which cast widespread, exaggerated suspicion on the sincerity of asylum seekers, I warmly welcome the adoption of this report.
The ball is now in the court of those Member States that have yet to decide on our proposals.
in writing. - In favour.
I am particularly happy that our centre-right colleagues agreed on the need for special protection, regardless of their general position on asylum.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people fleeing countries such as Iraq, Uganda, Honduras or Indonesia must receive particular protection taking into account cultural sensitivity.
This is a major step towards fully complying with our engagements under international asylum law.
The European Parliament is showing that asylum rules need updating to reflect reality: 76 countries criminalise homosexual acts and 7 foresee the death penalty (maybe 8 soon with Uganda).
I regret that other progressive provisions did not pass, but today's text will ultimately bring more fairness for LGBT asylum seekers.
The text adopted today is the European Parliament's formal position at first reading.
Asylum rules will effectively be amended once EU governments examine the text and conclude an agreement with the European Parliament.
After years of debate and having signed the Treaty of Lisbon, the Committee has submitted to Parliament the first draft for a common asylum procedure between Member States.
The objective is to establish by 2012 a common area of security and solidarity based on harmonised asylum policies between Member States, despite the persistent differences between national regulations.
In fact, these national differences are inconsistent with a common European asylum system and constitute an obstacle to its realisation.
In particular, the new law states that asylum seekers should be granted an equivalent level of treatment throughout Europe, irrespective of the Member State in which the application is made.
It is important that we work towards a gradual improvement and harmonisation of procedures and effective guarantees of asylum, in order to implement a common European system.
I hope that in the context of this review, we ensure an accessible, equitable and effective procedure, in the interests of both asylum seekers and the need for protection for Member States.
We have expressed such convinced opposition to the Parliamentary directive on the unified asylum procedure because, if implemented, it would, in effect, override the sovereignty of Member States.
We consider it unacceptable to prevent Member States from denying asylum and favourable treatment to unwanted people throughout the European Union when there are European families who do not even enjoy the right to housing.
Asylum seekers are also granted the right to legal advice, aid and representation totally free of charge.
It also specifies that NGOs can play an active role in providing services, giving information on procedures for obtaining protection and offering guidance and advice to asylum seekers which should be supplied at border crossings or in reception centres.
Bear in mind that all these benefits will be paid for by European taxpayers and will be granted not only to refugees but to all asylum seekers and, consequently, to any illegal or clandestine immigrant who requests it.
in writing. - (DE) I have voted against the report.
It concerns the implementation of a well-organised, common and rapid asylum procedure in Europe based on uniform legal standards.
However, the amendments tabled by the greens and the socialists will ensure that foreigners can live in the EU with almost no means available for exercising control over them.
As a result, we will be doing a disservice to the genuine asylum seekers who are applying for asylum because their lives are at risk or on political, religious or ethical grounds, as we will be grouping them together with all the other migrants.
That is not my idea of asylum policy.
Asylum policy should be an act of humanity and solidarity.
If we provide these people with a service, then they must offer something in return, for example, by acknowledging and respecting the structures of their host country.
The tourism sector has been increasingly important to European companies and people in recent times.
As such, it is important that statistics for developing more effective tourism policies at European, national, regional and local level be as reliable as possible, since they are instruments for supporting the decision-making process in companies and in the private sector.
I should also stress that it is important that the Commission welcome these suggestions in the terms in which they are proposed.
Tourism statistics play a major role in the development of more effective tourism policies at European, national, regional and local levels.
However, these statistics are not only used to monitor tourism-specific policies, but also play a key role in the context of regional policy and sustainable development.
I think that the European Union tourism sector needs to be strengthened through coordinated action at EU level which will complement Member States' initiatives.
I welcome the aim to update and optimise the legal framework for European statistics on tourism, which will better address the challenges facing this sector, such as climate change, environmental constraints, global competition, demographic trends and seasonal distribution of tourist movements.
This new common framework for systematically generating European statistics on tourism must be established by the Member States collecting, compiling, processing and transmitting harmonised statistics on supply and demand.
I voted for this report as tourism is an important economic activity in the European Union, contributing to higher employment and economic growth.
It is to Europe that most of the world's tourists come: some 370 million international tourists visiting annually.
About 7 million overseas tourists visit Ireland every year.
The tourism sector is of great importance to European enterprises and to the economies of Member States.
Currently, 1.8 million enterprises and 9.7 million jobs depend on European tourism.
There are significant growth opportunities in the same sector, in terms of eco-tourism, heritage, sport and gastronomy.
To get the best value from these opportunities, the tourism sector must be properly understood.
To this end, I support this report on statistical information and tourism.
Accurate information on local, national and European tourism will help the EU to develop effective policies and to encourage tourism in Europe.
Since the tourism sector is vital for Ireland and in the context of the country's geographical location, I especially welcome what the report contains about the special situation of islands and outer regions, and about the discussion of those special cases in the EU Action Framework for European Tourism.
Tourism is an important economic activity in the EU with a high potential for contributing to greater employment and economic growth, as well as to playing an important role in socio-economic integration in rural and less-developed areas.
With some 1.8 million businesses, primarily SMEs, the European tourism industry employs approximately 5.2% of the total workforce (approximately 9.7 million jobs).
I support the Commission's aim to define a new policy framework for tourism in Europe, drawing on the new competences introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.
The tourism sector faces major challenges, such as increasing global competition, demographic trends, climate change and environmental constraints, the seasonal distribution of tourist movements and the increasing use by customers of new information and communication technologies.
I believe that it is necessary to strengthen the EU tourism sector by coordinated action at EU level that complements Member States' initiatives.
This regulation, whose aim is to establish a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on tourism by means of the collection, compilation, processing and transmission by the Member States of harmonised European statistics on tourism supply and demand, is very important because, if it is implemented properly, it will be possible to ascertain the true situation as regards tourism in the Member States and it will be easier to adapt to tourists' changing needs.
Tourism is an important sector of the European economy, with around 1.8 million companies, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises, employing approximately 9.7 million workers.
It is estimated that the tourism industry produces more than 5% of the EU's Gross Domestic Product.
With the tabling of Communication COM(2010)352, the Commission aims to define a new policy framework for tourism in Europe, seeking to reinforce the sector through coordinated action at EU level that complements the Member States' initiatives.
Therefore, in order for the new political framework to be successful, decisions must be taken, founded and based on reliable and comparable statistical data.
This report, which deserved my support, recognises the important role of statistics for developing better tourism policies at European, national, regional and local level, since they represent useful instruments for supporting the decision-making process.
It also supports the establishment of a common legislative framework for the systematic production of European statistics on tourism by means of the collection, compilation, processing and transmission by the Member States of harmonised European statistics on tourism supply and demand.
Statistics plays an important role in the development of more effective tourism policies and in making business decisions.
I support the text because, on the one hand, the changes that have taken place in the tourism industry in recent years have created the need to update the legal framework for European statistics on tourism.
Once adopted, the proposal will improve the timeliness, comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as make data processing more efficient.
The Simpson report, and the regulation to which it refers, propose the establishment of a common framework for the collection and distribution of European statistics on tourism through data gathering and processing, to be carried out by individual Member States with harmonised statistics on demand and supply in tourism using aggregated tables which are then transmitted electronically to the European Commission (Eurostat).
Despite the commendable work of the rapporteur, I cannot vote in favour of the report because it does not change the quantity of work and data collection set out in the regulation.
The compilation of tables proposed by the regulation is somewhat complex and the collection of so much information is, in my opinion, an unreasonable burden.
I cannot, therefore, approve the bureaucratic burden and interference which this regulation would produce.
I voted in favour of this report because it is necessary to improve European tourism policies, particularly given the fact that the European tourism sector has recently had to endure a difficult economic situation.
With the change in the legal framework following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union received more competences and the European Commission presented a proposal on the new policy context for tourism.
The aim of this proposal for a regulation is to update and optimise the legal framework for European statistics on tourism, but there is concern that the proposal does not provide for the introduction of tourism satellite accounts (TSAs).
These TSAs are crucial to progressively developing integrated systems of tourism statistics and to better understanding the true value of tourism, as well as its effects on jobs and the economy.
Furthermore, with a view to enhancing the knowledge base for the development and growth of tourism, the Commission should draw up a programme of pilot studies on tourism.
These studies would be carried out by Member States on a voluntary basis in order to develop a system for the compilation of data showing the effects of tourism on the environment
In several Member States, as is the case with mine, Portugal, tourism occupies an important place in the economy that has intrinsic potential for generating new sources of revenue and economic growth.
Tourism represents the third largest European socio-economic activity, generating over 5% of EU Gross Domestic Product.
European Union remains the world's number one tourist destination, with 40% of arrivals worldwide in 2008.
The EU aims to define a new policy framework for tourism, with the objective of reinforcing the sector so as to address the great challenges, such as climate change, demographic trends and globalisation, through coordinated action at EU level that complements the Member States' initiatives.
Compiling data on tourism enables better knowledge of the volume represented by this sector, of its characteristics, of the profile of the tourists and of the various travel patterns, which contributes, not just to the proper formulation of policies for the sector, but also to better understanding of its socio-economic implications.
I therefore support the updating and optimisation of the current statistics system so that we can have reliable and comparable statistics.
We cannot deny that over the past decade, tourism has changed radically, thanks, among other things, to technological progress.
It is therefore necessary to update the legislation on the collection of data and statistics.
In this regard, I agree with the Commission's proposal to introduce a new regulation which repeals some obsolete items.
At the same time, however, I am in favour of the amendments to the regulation of Parliament, especially with regard to, on the one hand, the need to introduce harmonised statistics that reflect the purely social aspects of tourism and, on the other, the position opposing the adoption of actions delegated by the Commission on key issues and for an indefinite period.
Also, I consider it a serious shortcoming that the Commission has failed to take into account the introduction of tourism satellite accounts (TSAs), as this type of data would provide a more complete picture of the impact that tourism has on the labour market and the economy.
Finally, I am very interested in the proposal to introduce the voluntary collection of tourism statistics regarding the habits of people with disabilities or restricted mobility and the subsequent establishment of pilot projects in order to improve such persons' participation in tourism.
Europe occupies seventh place in the top 10 destinations in a statistical survey covering the 50 most popular countries in the world.
This shows very clearly that Europe has great tourism and cultural potential, still offering opportunities to be utilised, including for European citizens.
I think that one such opportunity is encouraging the participation not only of the elderly, but also of young people, families living in difficult circumstances and people with reduced mobility in the social tourism programmes developed by the Union.
However, adequate statistics are required to do this, compiled using common collection methods, aimed at developing programmes targeted at these groups of tourists in every EU Member State.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the European statistics on tourism report today.
It is a positive step to establish a regulation that will take account of tourism statistics from all Member States.
The importance of tourism in European law was greatly elevated when it was made a competence under the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009.
Going forward, Member States will have to ensure the accuracy of statistical data transmitted in order to achieve quality results.
While European-level coordination will be very beneficial for the European tourism sector, any pan-European initiatives should seek to complement Member States' initiatives and tourism strategies.
By providing statistical data, the EU will be in a better position to help the tourism industry, including SMEs, and to improve the overall marketing of Europe as a highly desirable tourist destination.
The distinction between internal and national tourism is drawn in the report.
Internal tourism covers the capacity of tourist accommodation establishments, and national tourism covers participation in tourism, including excursions.
I voted for this report because I believe that tourism statistics contribute to the development of more effective policy and represent a useful tool for supporting the decision-making processes of companies and the private sector.
There is no doubt that this new regulation will improve the timeliness, comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as the efficiency of the data processing.
According to the report's figures, Europe remains the world's number one tourist destination, and tourism is the third largest socio-economic activity in the EU, with some 1.8 million businesses, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises, 9.7 million jobs and production equivalent to 5% of EU Gross Domestic Product.
For this very reason, it is an activity that should be properly monitored, regulated and supported, particularly in the specific context of the economic recovery and the need to increase production of saleable goods.
While this is the reality for the whole EU, it is especially important for Portugal, which is a country that has, for a long time, been very invested in tourism, as a particularly dynamic economic activity with vast potential for growth.
In this context, and given the importance that a profound and realistic knowledge of the reality of tourism has for developing appropriate policies, the Commission's proposal intended to update and optimise the legal framework for European statistics on tourism that we voted on today is important.
This report is on an area that is fundamental to the future of the EU: tourism.
Despite the crisis that has taken hold at global level, according to the World Tourism Organisation (WTO), in 2010, this sector saw growth of 2%, despite all the political upheavals in a number of areas of the world.
At European level, as well as growing steadily, tourism encompasses 1.8 million businesses, the large majority of these being small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), providing 9.7 million jobs, ranking as the third largest socio-economic activity in the EU, and generating more than 5% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Moreover, Europe is the top tourist destination in the world, with 40% of all tourist arrivals.
This activity is vital to realising the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.
This regulation updates the one currently in force, particularly with regard to the collection and processing of data on provision and accessibility for people with reduced mobility, which are essential to preparing the new EU tourism strategy.
I welcome the adoption of this proposal, which, as well as creating a programme of pilot studies to be carried out by the Member States, will include data on rural tourism and green tourism, which cover over 50 000 lodgings, the overwhelming majority of which are managed by SMEs.
The usefulness of statistical information depends on its comparability in time and space, which entails the adoption of a common set of definitions and classifications.
In the particular case of tourism, this sector includes concepts and definitions that have long been unclear, which has made it difficult to obtain reliable and credible information.
It is therefore necessary to clarify and harmonise criteria and definitions that enable comparable data to be obtained.
The existence of these statistics is of great importance in determining the direct and indirect impact of tourism on the economy, supporting the planning and development of new tourism options, or adapting existing ones.
The proposal included in the report is aimed at improving the timeliness, comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as the efficiency of the data processing, including improved data evaluation.
It is also aimed at adapting the legal framework so as to reflect the latest changes to the sector with the introduction of new variables, such as tourist movements over a single day.
We therefore voted in favour.
We know that it is important to have statistical information, although its usefulness depends on its comparability in time and space, which entails the adoption of a common set of definitions and classifications.
The existence of these statistics is of great importance in determining the direct and indirect impact of tourism on the economy, supporting the planning and development of new tourism options, or adapting existing ones.
The proposal included in the report is aimed at improving the comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as the efficiency of the data processing, including improved data evaluation.
We therefore voted in favour of this report.
in writing. - My group supported the report on Statistics on Tourism, which updates and modernises the method for collecting European statistics on tourism, particularly in the light of modern trends such as low-cost flights and short-stay holidays.
Politicians need to acknowledge the great importance of the tourism industry to Europe.
Individual Member States realise that more must be done to help this sector, which contributes greatly to economic growth.
For example, tourism is one of the largest sectors of the UK economy.
It directly supports 1.36 million jobs - and an expected 1.5 million by 2020 - and nearly 3 million if indirect employment is included.
These figures speak for themselves!
The UK is keen to participate actively and positively in discussions on tourism at EU level, supporting fully the need to improve the competitiveness of the European tourism industry and its capacity for sustainable growth.
However, we must ensure that EU-level action does not encroach on the principle of subsidiarity.
Member States are competing with each other, despite being able to share best practice and cooperate on certain issues, such as improving transport links across Europe and other measures enabling easier consumer travel.
Let me end with a simple message - Visit Britain!
The Treaty of Lisbon has increased the EU's responsibility for tourism.
It goes without saying that statistics provide fundamental information and allow interesting conclusions to be drawn not only at an EU level, but also at a national and regional level.
In my region, which is home to the German-speaking community in Belgium, tourism is not only an important area of competence, but also a crucial economic factor.
For this reason, these statistics represent a significant element of policy making.
However, it is also clear that the different levels - regional, national and cross-border - must work together to define the regions of Europe more accurately as a tourism location, particularly in border areas.
I voted in favour of this document because it is necessary to define a new improved policy framework for tourism in Europe.
Tourism is an important economic activity in the EU with a high potential for contributing to greater employment and economic growth, as well as to playing an important role in socio-economic integration in rural, peripheral and less-developed areas, such as areas rich in industrial heritage.
Statistics in this field are not only used to monitor tourism-specific policies, but also play a role in the wider context of regional policy and sustainable development.
We need to address the main challenges facing the sector such as increasing global competition, demographic trends, climate change and environmental constraints, the seasonal distribution of tourist movements and the increasing use by customers of new information and communication technologies.
There is a need to strengthen the EU tourism sector by coordinated action at EU level that complements Member States' initiatives.
In order to implement successfully the new policy framework, policy makers at all levels of governance need to take well-informed decisions, based on reliable and comparable statistical data.
Tourism is an important economic activity that has a positive impact on economic growth and employment in Europe, and therefore it is necessary to update and optimise the legal framework for European statistics on tourism, thereby strengthening the tourism sector at EU level.
Consequently, implementing the measures mentioned will increase the competitiveness of European tourism and encourage its harmonious growth.
I think the proposal for a regulation on European statistics on tourism, being voted on in this House, should be considered of particular interest and also very useful.
The tourism industry is, for Europe, a leading sector of great importance within the community because it occupies an important role in the individual economies of Member States.
The tourism industry still has significant potential in terms of employment and it would therefore be useful to adopt measures to facilitate better organisation, which would allow the development of its full potential.
The creation of a common framework for the collection and compilation of comparable and comprehensive statistics on European tourism can only be helpful in improving the situation.
Understanding consumer demand will enable private and public companies to intervene to address the needs of the sector, improving performance and competitiveness.
I support the proposed regulation because I believe that unified European statistics which are transparent, reliable and objective are an effective way to support this large industry which is of considerable importance for my country.
I voted for this report as I think that we must do our utmost to remain the number one tourist destination in the world.
To achieve this, we need to make maximum use of every possible funding option.
The development of a sustainable, responsible, high quality tourism sector requires the legal framework for European statistics in this area to be updated and improved.
If we improve the quality of statistical reporting, based on reliable, comparative data, we will benefit from a solid foundation when it comes to making decisions on devising EU financial policies and instruments.
in writing. - I voted for this report which recognises the major role of statistics in the development of more effective tourism policies at European, national, regional and local levels.
In the same manner, tourism statistics represent a useful tool to support decision making in business and in the private sector.
Therefore, the rapporteur supports the aim of the proposed regulation to establish a common framework for the systematic production of European statistics on tourism by means of the collection, compilation, processing and transmission by the Member States of harmonised European statistics on tourism supply and demand.
Once adopted, the proposal is likely to improve the timeliness, comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as the efficiency of the data processing, including better validation of data.
Furthermore, it is necessary to adapt the legal framework to reflect recent trends in the tourism industry by introducing new variables, for instance, concerning same-day visits.
Tourism is undoubtedly one of the economic sectors with the greatest potential for development.
In the last few decades, tourism has grown steadily more important for European businesses and people.
With around 1.8 million businesses, most of them small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), employing about 5.2% of the total workforce, that is, about 9.7 million jobs, it is estimated that the European tourism industry generates more than 5% of the EU's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Tourism therefore represents the third largest socio-economic activity in the EU.
Moreover, the EU continues to be the world's top tourist destination, having recorded 370 million tourist arrivals in 2008, or 40% of world tourist arrivals.
However, there is still potential for further growth.
in writing. - It goes without saying that tourism possesses a high potential which creates an opportunity to increase employment and economic growth.
Tourism plays an important role in social-economic integration of rural, peripheral and less developed areas which have a rich cultural heritage.
Statistics in the field of tourism are not used only for monitoring of tourism policy but also play an important role in the broader context of regional policy and sustainable development.
I totally agree with the rapporteur.
Meaningful statistics which provide answers to questions concerning the reason for successes and trends in the tourist industry could help to prevent many mistaken investments.
Many cities have been wondering for years why their expectations concerning tourism remained unfulfilled after they were chosen to be the European Capital of Culture.
However, the limited availability and comparability of tourism data is also a problem from the point of view of town planning.
At the end of the day, if there is the potential for an increase in visitor numbers, it is important to organise things in such a way that this does not have a negative impact on the local population.
Too many uncertain factors, differing expectations and intangible attractions, such as specific weather conditions, have turned tourism forecasts into a game of chance.
Flexible working hours and safety have an influence on tourism, in the same way as social changes do.
The decisive factors will probably ultimately be the global economy and the price of oil.
Even the best European tourism statistics cannot change these, which is why I have abstained from voting.
Today, the European Parliament adopted an important document on the legal framework for European statistics on tourism.
The Member States must provide a regular set of data on the capacity and occupancy of accommodation establishments and on tourism demand.
As European travel habits change (e.g. the increase in short haul flights), and the tourism sector switches over to certain innovations (e.g. online bookings), it is necessary to update the legal framework, regulating the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism.
However, in my opinion, a particularly important provision, supported by the European Parliament, concerns the collection of data regarding people with limited mobility, and its impact on the ability of such people to obtain fully-fledged tourism services.
We constantly discuss improving quality of life for disabled people and we must include tourism in this area.
Only then will we be able to implement tourism policy effectively and protect the rights of consumers.
The report by Mr Simpson on European statistics on tourism is a text that will replace the directive on the matter, which is now 15 years' old.
Moving with the times and redrafting its regulations is a prerogative of the European system, particularly in view of the importance and continuous development of the tourism sector in Europe over the last decade.
That is why I voted in favour of the report.
New requirements in the sector, which needs increasingly detailed, up-to-date and comparable data, make it essential to update tourism statistics.
Access to facilities, services for disabled people and costs for essential goods are key data that require an up-to-date database that users can consult.
Tourism is of huge economic importance in the EU, and mechanisms that contribute to promoting it are desirable and should be encouraged.
Statistics play an important role in developing more effective tourism policy at European, national, regional and local level.
Indeed, they are a useful instrument for supporting the decision-making process in businesses and the private sector.
This regulation is aimed at establishing a common legislative framework for the systematic production of European statistics on tourism by means of the collection, compilation, processing and transmission by the Member States of harmonised European statistics on tourism supply and demand.
This proposal should improve the timeliness, comparability and completeness of the statistics transmitted, as well as the efficiency of the data processing, including improved data evaluation.
This regulation also adapts the legal framework to reflect the latest changes in the tourism industry through the introduction of new variables, such as tourist movements over the course of a single day.
I voted in favour of the report for those reasons.
Tourism is an important economic activity in the EU.
Statistics are helpful for monitoring specific policies for tourism and are useful in the context of regional policies and sustainable development.
Within the EU, the tourism statistics system is governed by Directive 95/57/EC.
However, since the entry into force of this directive, the tourism industry and relative demand have changed significantly.
The Commission has therefore set out a new proposed regulation aimed at establishing a policy framework for tourism by making use of the powers introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Its goal is to update and streamline the regulatory framework applicable to the European statistics on tourism in order to take into account the latest trends in the area.
In this regard, it is necessary to not only strengthen the tourism sector through coordinated action at EU level, but also to create a common framework for the systematic production of statistics through the collection, compilation, processing and reporting by Member States of harmonised European statistics on supply and demand in the sector.
On the basis of the aforementioned, I hereby give my favourable vote to the proposed regulation.
in writing. - I voted in favour.
Tourism is an important economic activity in the EU, with a high potential for contributing to greater employment and economic growth, as well as for playing an important role in socio-economic integration in rural, peripheral and less-developed areas, such as areas rich in industrial heritage.
In the EU, Directive 95/57/EC on the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism organises the system of tourism statistics.
Eurostat publishes these statistics, which are collected and compiled by national statistical authorities.
In order to successfully implement the new policy framework, policy makers at all levels of governance need to take well-informed decisions, based on reliable and comparable statistical data.
I voted in favour of this report because tourism is an important economic activity in the EU, with a high potential for contributing to the creation of jobs and growth.
Tourism plays an essential role in the socio-economic development of rural areas, which are often marginalised and underdeveloped.
In this context, statistics not only monitor specific tourism policies, but are also useful in the broader context of regional policies and sustainable development.
The document also addresses the main challenges that the sector is facing, such as increased global competition, demographic trends, climate change and environmental restrictions, the seasonal distribution of tourist movement and the increasing use of new information and communications technologies by customers.
I voted against the report because the proposed rules would require a monthly collection of data to measure the seasonal influences and the economic and social aspects of the sector, run mostly by small and medium-sized enterprises.
This strategy's objective is to gain a thorough understanding of the dynamics, characteristics and volume of tourism, but it appears to me to be excessively cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly.
In addition, the Commission asks for delegated powers and, therefore, the ability to modify elements of the proposal.
The tables to be compiled monthly under the proposed regulation are complex and require the collection of an excessive amount of information.
I voted today in favour of the report under discussion concerning European statistics on tourism.
I think that this report is an important one, given the influence of the tourism sector on the European Union's economy and the proportion of jobs it provides.
1.8 million businesses employ around 10 million people, accounting for approximately 5.2% of all jobs.
The European Union gives considerable support to the development of tourism in the various regions in order to increase the availability of different types of tourism.
It is therefore necessary that we possess accurate and relevant statistics, both for the private and public sectors.
The European Union is visited by over 370 million foreign tourists a year, a total of 40% of the tourists in the entire world.
At the same time, this makes it more important that we have timely and impartial statistical data.
Tourism is the third most important socio-economic activity in the EU, which means that its economic dimension, as a generator of jobs, is vital for the Member States.
Moreover, its private aspect not only enhances the image that Europe presents to the world, but also promotes European citizenship.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has assumed new powers on tourism, as confirmed by Article 195 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
This new legal framework allows the EU to support, coordinate and supplement action by the Member States, and to reduce the administrative burden.
I am voting in favour of this report for these reasons, as I believe that it is vital to equip all stakeholders in the tourism sector with reliable statistical data so that they can adapt to the challenges that European tourism is facing.
European coordination, with the effective participation of the Member States, is crucial in order to implement this system and for a concrete evaluation of the competitiveness of the tourism industry.
Knowledge of the volume of this sector, its characteristics, tourist profiles, spending in the sector and the benefits and/or problems it brings to national economies should form part of this extended study.
I am voting in favour of this resolution as it looks at important measures relating to the increase in cofinancing rates for action in the areas of international relations, governance, data collection, scientific advice, and the monitoring and implementation of the common fisheries policy.
Since scientific knowledge depends on the sustainable development of activities, the increase in cofinancing rates relating to database collation, management and use becomes an asset.
It is also worth highlighting the focus on the development of aquaculture, with measures for growth, along with tracking and monitoring from an environmental and health standpoint, which will enable its sustainability.
With regard to measures for controlling their waters, carried out by the supervisory authorities of the Member States, these will only be successful if there is investment in technology and control systems that are more effective and less costly.
Action relating to control measures for waters should also be considered for a higher rate of cofinancing, as a way of enabling and implementing greater compliance with the rules.
Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 sets out Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and the Law of the Sea, this being an important EU financial instrument in the area of fisheries.
Several elements of the legislation have evolved since the adoption of this regulation.
The Commission is proposing to amend it, with the aim of ensuring consistency between all the elements of the legislative framework, and also of clarifying the scope of some of the financed measures.
I voted for this report as it proposes making certain amendments to the Commission's proposal, which will contribute to clearer legislation.
These amendments are based on recent developments in the fisheries sector and future prospects, namely, the possibility of increasing Union cofinancing from 50% to 60%, which represents an asset for the development of the fisheries sector in Portugal, and greater importance given to aquaculture, which justifies introducing the possibility of the collection, management and use of environmental data in this area, in addition to socio-economic data.
I supported this report as Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea is an important EU financing instrument where fisheries are concerned.
It is one of the two principal means employed to put the CFP into practice, the other one being the European Fisheries Fund.
Like the rapporteur, I believe that it is increasingly obvious in general that fisheries management has to be based on up-to-date scientific knowledge of stock status.
This is a prerequisite for sustainable fisheries development.
As regards control, there is undoubtedly greater awareness at the present time of its importance for the future and sustainability of the fisheries sector and as a means of fostering a culture of compliance with the rules.
Member States and their control authorities are playing, and must continue to play, a central role in overseeing and enforcing control measures in their territorial waters.
This is a key way to ensure compliance with the rules and respect for stocks.
I voted in favour of the report amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.
In May 2006, the Council approved this important instrument for financing fishing activity.
Now, however, we need to revise the regulation, to ensure consistency between all the elements of the legislative framework.
Adapting to the times means making use of new technologies that can ensure a better service with less waste of economic resources.
To respond better to real needs, we think it appropriate to clarify certain articles of the regulation and clarify the scope of certain financed measures.
Finally, I agree with the rapporteur on the need for fishery management based on updated and rigorous scientific knowledge of resources and greater control in order to make fishing more sustainable.
in writing. - (RO) I think that the importance of the aquaculture sector is steadily increasing.
This report is proof of this, highlighting 'a new impetus for the strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture' and offering realistic prospects for this sector's development.
Environmental and health monitoring and surveillance carried out in the appropriate manner therefore help to make this important sector more sustainable.
I voted in favour of the report on 'Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea'.
I regret, however, that the proposal to increase cofinancing rates in the area of additional data collection, management and use to 60% of eligible expenditure has not been adopted.
Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006, which the Commission is proposing to amend, is that regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and in the area of the Law of the Sea, and it provides for funding in the following areas: international relations, governance, data collection and scientific advice, and the monitoring and implementation of the CFP.
This revision does not entail any fundamental change to the objectives, the type of activity financed, or the financial structure and budget.
The rapporteur considers it important, however, to table changes that bring the legislation more into line with recent trends in the sector and its future prospects, particularly with regard to fisheries management supported by scientific knowledge of stock status and to investment in aquaculture.
That is why the proposal to increase cofinancing rates provided for in the context of basic data collection, management and use is being tabled.
I am voting for this from a purely national perspective, in order to support the fishing industry in our country.
This report concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea.
Since 2006, several aspects of the aforementioned regulation have changed and become outdated, so their amendment is justified.
This proposal is based on the regulation in force and is intended to safeguard coastal activities by financing the sector's modernisation, not least, equipment and computerisation.
I am voting for this proposal for a regulation because the proposed amendments tabled by the Commission have been taken into account, along with other contributions that significantly improve the previous regulation, particularly in terms of financing for investment - which is crucial in order for us to have accurate and up-to-date scientific data that enable us, fundamentally, to take the measures required by each situation - and of increased cofinancing rates.
We value Parliament's adoption of the amendments to the Commission's proposal for a regulation included in the report.
These amendments will enable financing for the Member States to develop diverse technology to be used in the fishing industry, along with equipment and software or IT networks which allow them to compile, manage, validate, analyse and develop sampling methods, and move towards the exchange of fisheries data.
One new possibility for financing relates to studies regarding dependence on imports of fisheries products.
Within the area of aquaculture, it will also be possible to fund the collection, management and use of environmental data, promoting environmental and health monitoring and surveillance in this sector, in order to contribute to its sustainability.
However, we cannot but regret the rejection of the amendments aimed at increasing, albeit modestly, the maximum Community cofinancing rate for the Member States in the area of the collection, management and use of scientific data on stock status, and in the area of monitoring.
This therefore shows the inconsistency of an EU which, on the one hand, has encroached upon the powers of the Member States in this area, but which, on the other, refuses to strengthen the financing resources dedicated to these activities.
This report has amended Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and in the area of the Law of the Sea.
It constitutes an important European Union financial instrument in the area of fisheries.
Together with the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), these represent the two main instruments for the application of the CFP.
The Commission also believes that, in some cases, experience has demonstrated the need to ensure that the provisions of the regulation be adapted slightly to better respond to needs.
It therefore offers us a limited scope for this revision, with the objectives and structure of the original regulation essentially being retained.
However, the rapporteur, the Member from the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP), Mr Ferreira, has considered it appropriate to propose certain additional amendments, which although quite specific, could contribute to an improved alignment of this legislation with recent changes in the sector and with its future prospects.
However, I regret that not all of the proposals that he tabled have been adopted, especially the confirmation of the possibility of increasing Community cofinancing rates provided for in the area of collection, management and use of both basic and additional scientific data on fishery stock status, including the proposal to raise the maximum limit from 50% to 60%, and in monitoring activity.
in writing. - I was able to support Mr Ferreira's report.
It is essential that there should be adequate funds for enforcement of the Law of the Sea, and this is one of the few fisheries-related areas where the EU provides some added value.
I voted in favour of this document, because it is being increasingly recognised across the board that fisheries management has to be based on up-to-date accurate scientific knowledge of stock status.
This is a sine qua non of sustainable fisheries development.
I therefore believe that it should be permissible to raise the cofinancing rates laid down in the area of basic data collection, management and use, with a proposed maximum of 75%.
Given that aquaculture is being viewed as a sector of increasing importance - witness the report recently produced, debated and adopted on 'a new impetus for the strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture' - with realistic prospects for growth, relevant collection, management and user arrangements should apply to environmental data as well as to socio-economic data.
Environmental and health monitoring and surveillance could accordingly be carried out.
This would help make the sector more sustainable.
At present, the sustainability of the fisheries sector is particularly important.
Member States and their control authorities are playing, and must continue to play, a central role in overseeing and enforcing control measures in their waters: this is a key way of ensuring compliance with the rules and respect for stocks.
If this work is to be carried out effectively, Member States have to acquire, or be in a position to develop and modernise, the technologies available.
The investment entailed could make control systems more efficient and cheaper to operate.
The regulation is an important instrument for implementing the common fisheries policy.
The control activities are playing a growing role in supporting sustainability and the continued existence of the fisheries sector.
It is important that the Member States and their supervisory authorities enforce control measures in their waters to ensure that we have fisheries which comply with the rules and respect stocks.
In addition, aquaculture is increasing in importance, which justifies the introduction of options for collecting, managing and using environmental as well as socio-economic data.
I welcome the revision of the regulation, because it will guarantee that the measures referred to will be put in place.
The proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea is an important financial instrument aimed at protecting fisheries.
I voted in favour of the proposal because I believe we need to change the current version of the regulation in order to bring its provisions in line with the Treaty of Lisbon.
The review has allowed us to make improvements to the text, enabling us to respond appropriately and effectively to the needs of the sector.
The growing importance of aquaculture justifies the introduction of provisions regarding the collection, management and use of environmental, socio-economic and health data, in order to contribute to its sustainability.
A fundamental role is given to individual states, which have the duty to ensure compliance with the rules and control of the use of water, taking advantage of new technologies, in light of scientific developments.
The modifications made in this legislation should facilitate moves towards a policy of regionalisation for the CFP which I welcome.
The existing Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and the Law of the Sea, and constitutes an important EU financial instrument in the area of fisheries.
Together with the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), these represent the two main instruments for the application of the CFP.
This regulation provides for financing in the following areas: international relations, governance, data collection and scientific advice, and the monitoring and implementation of the CFP.
I regret, however, that the proposal to increase the potential level of cofinancing to 60% of eligible expenditure, particularly for measures relating to the monitoring of fisheries activities and to the collection, management and use of data, has not been adopted, as the adoption of this increase would be beneficial to the fisheries sector in my country.
in writing. - The amendment of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishes the second main financial instrument of the common fisheries policy after the European Fisheries Fund.
The so-called 'second instrument' provides funding for data collection, and control measures, scientific advice, common fisheries policy control systems and enforcement.
It is necessary to clarify the scope of some of the measures financed and to improve the wording of certain articles.
Furthermore, it considers, in the light of experience, that a number of minor adjustments should be made to enable the provisions of the regulation to be geared more effectively to real needs.
The amendments to be tabled to Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 should help to allow the specified cofinancing rates of clearly defined common financing to be raised in the area of the Law of the Sea.
The financial action on the part of the Union concerning implementation of the EU's common fisheries policy and the Law of the Sea gives us the economic means to implement the common fisheries policy with funding targeted at those areas in need of development and coordination regarding the Law of the Sea.
For this reason, I voted in favour of Mr Ferreira's report.
The amendment of this regulation will help enforce the common policy and utilise funds for collecting data, international relations, and scientific and technical areas regarding fisheries.
in writing. - I voted in favour.
Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea is an important EU financing tool where fisheries are concerned.
It is one of the two principal means employed - the other being the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) - to translate the CFP into practice.
It provides for funding in the following areas: international relations, governance, data collection, scientific advice, and CFP control systems and enforcement.
In each sphere of activity, this regulation applies in conjunction with other regulations or decisions.
That related legislation has changed in some respects since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, which consequently needs to be amended in order to bring all elements into a coherent relationship within the legislative framework.
The Commission is also seeking to clarify the scope of some of the measures financed and to improve the wording of certain articles.
Furthermore, it considers, in the light of experience, that a number of minor adjustments should be made to enable the provisions of the regulation to be geared more effectively to real needs.
Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea is an important EU instrument for funding fisheries.
This document is also one of the two main means used to implement the common fisheries policy.
It provides funding for the following areas: international relations, governance, data collection, scientific consultancy, as well as control and implementation of the common fisheries policy.
The resolution adopted today recognises the importance of fisheries management based on up-to-date and rigorous scientific knowledge of resources.
The document recognises the growing importance of aquaculture, an activity which generates feasible prospects of development of this activity, as well as others related to it, justifying the introduction of the possibility of applying guidelines regarding the collection, management and use of environmental and socio-economic data, thereby enabling environmental and health control in this sector which will contribute to its sustainability.
The document voted on today is aimed at adapting the financial measures for implementing fisheries policy to the evolution of the legislative framework, to changes in current needs, and to legal clarification on actions to be undertaken, particularly those included in Decision 2000/439/EC that have not yet been taken up by the text of Regulation No 861/2006.
With regard to data collection, Parliament's proposal considers it essential to broaden the scope of implementation so as to include its management and the terms of its use.
It is also vital to facilitate the conclusion of public contracts with international bodies, and to provide for the obligation to possess detailed information in order to carry out joint projects.
It would be desirable to increase the potential level of cofinancing, particularly as regards measures for monitoring fisheries activities, and the collection, management and use of data, to 60% of eligible expenditure.
Aquaculture is no less important, and data for this should stress both the socio-economic and the environmental fields.
Moreover, it is becoming increasingly necessary to make use of new techniques here, which requires the constant adaptation and modernisation of existing techniques.
I would like to congratulate my colleague in the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, Mr Ferreira (PCP), on his report, which was adopted today by a very large majority in the European Parliament.
This report confirms the importance of fisheries management based on up-to-date, accurate scientific knowledge of stock status.
Some of Mr Ferreira's amendments, for example, those enabling an increase in cofinancing rates (from 50% to 60%) in the area of collection, management and use of scientific data on fish stocks, were, regrettably, not adopted.
This report shows the contribution that the GUE/NGL Group can nevertheless make to debates in the European Parliament, and I know that we can count on Mr Ferreira to continue this fight for sustainable fisheries, giving priority to small-scale fishermen over industrial groups in the sector.
I voted in favour of the report by Mr Ferreira to improve the management of financial instruments for fisheries which govern the funding of a range of activities, among which are, typically, fishing controls.
I therefore consider the general agreement on the text between the Council and the European Parliament to be a good compromise in terms of the common fisheries policy and the Law of the Sea.
I am voting for this report.
I believe that the purpose of this report is important, as it aims to extend the transitional arrangements for another 18 months, until 1 January 2013, so that the new package of technical measures can be designed as part of the continuation of the common fisheries policy.
Since agreement on the draft regulation to simplify and clarify the Community rules on the conservation of fisheries resources was not possible in 2008, a regulation was adopted establishing a set of transitional measures for the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
This report, which merited my support, is aimed at extending this transitional period until January 2013, so that a new set of technical measures can be drawn up as part of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy.
It also calls on the Commission to take the initiative during this new extension period for the existing regulation and to proceed, alongside the involved parties, with an assessment of the impact that the measures currently in force have on the ships implementing them and on the ecosystems covered.
The results of this assessment should be considered when drawing up the new draft regulation.
It is equally important that the future Commission proposal on technical measures clearly establish the competences of the Council and Parliament, in line with the ordinary legislative procedure.
I voted for the proposal because the absence of an agreement on the conservation of fisheries resources may produce undesirable consequences.
The proposal to extend the validity of the 2009 Council Regulation on establishing transitional technical measures by 18 months, which means until 31 December 2012, will enable the Commission to prepare a new package of technical measures which will become part of the reform of the common fisheries policy.
I think that the amendments are acceptable because the common fisheries policy must, on the one hand, conserve fisheries resources and, on the other, be beneficial to ordinary citizens, in this case, Ireland's small-scale fishers.
This is precisely the reason why I think that a balance needs to be struck between catch limits, technical measures and the fishers' needs.
I voted in favour of this report because technical measures are very important in that they determine the activities of fishermen and have an impact on the future of fisheries resources.
We all have an interest in reconciling the economic equilibrium of the sector, and therefore in ensuring a decent income for fishermen, with renewable and sustainable fish stocks.
in writing. - I voted for this report to support the fishing industry in Ireland and Europe over the longer term.
Sustainable fishing must be our guiding principal.
I found many very strong arguments in favour of the Gallagher amendments but, in the end, voted with my group to maintain political cohesion within the group.
I voted for the report on fisheries and establishing transitional technical measures.
I regret, however, that the proposed repeal of the Commission's decision prohibiting fishing for hake or anglerfish using trammel nets along the Portuguese coast, without any scientific studies to substantiate it, has been rejected.
In 2008, the Commission tabled a draft Council regulation on the conservation of fish stocks through technical measures, which aimed to replace a previous regulation.
As a similar proposal was not adopted for reasons of legal certainty and in order to maintain appropriate conservation and management of marine resources, Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 was adopted, establishing transitional measures from 1 January until the end of June 2011.
In the light of the obligations arising from the Treaty of Lisbon, in 2010, the Commission withdrew its proposal for a Council regulation on the conservation of fish stocks through technical measures.
The basic principles relating to these technical measures should now be incorporated into a new basic regulation on the reform of the common fisheries policy, and there is expected to be another proposal to this effect in 2011.
As there is currently no other legislation in force, it is proposed that the validity of this regulation be extended for an additional 18 months, until 1 January 2013.
Given the arguments of legal certainty and protection that have been made, I believe that this extension is worthy of support.
I hope that this additional time will allow the impact of the measures in force to be assessed.
The fisheries sector is crucial for the European Union, not only because of the food issue, but also because of the environmental issue, as aquatic ecosystems are at risk.
As Parliament is aware of the importance of this sector, it has often discussed this matter.
In 2009, it adopted Resolution on the need to conserve fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea.
The regulation in force, which was adopted in 2008, established a set of transitional measures that were intended to be in force until June 2011, the provisional date for the entry into force of a new legal framework under the common fisheries policy.
However, the Commission was unable to table a draft regulation.
The Commission is therefore seeking the extension of the current regulation until 1 January 2013, by which time the EU is expected to have legislation for adoption by the Council and Parliament, in line with the ordinary legislative procedure set out in the Treaty of Lisbon.
This legislation will be based on up-to-date scientific studies, so that it does not jeopardise the planet's marine resources.
In view of this, I agree that the current regulation should remain in force until 1 January 2013.
The existence of adequate regulation in terms of technical measures is an instrument necessary for the sustainable use and proper conservation of fisheries resources.
This regulation on transitional technical measures resulted from the lack of agreement in 2008 on the draft regulation aimed at simplifying and clarifying Community rules on the conservation of fisheries resources.
It was intended to apply for the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
It is now proposed that it be extended for an additional period of 18 months, or until 1 January 2013, with the aim of establishing a new set of technical measures in the context of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy, pending a Commission proposal during 2011.
We believe that this extension should not be made without correcting the shortcomings and problems raised by the current legislation.
Unfortunately, the rapporteur and the majority in Parliament, following the Commission's position, have prevented that.
This is a case of discrimination without any scientific justification against a section of the small-scale Portuguese fishing fleet, aimed at fishing for sole and hake using trammel nets, which is prohibited under the current rules.
This will have negative economic and social consequences which could and should be avoided.
in writing. - 'No more discards!' cries the Commission.
'Listen to the industry' is its pretended watchword.
Then it seeks to reimpose fundamentally flawed regulations for a further 18 months.
No less than 42% of West of Scotland haddock catches are dumped back into the sea because of these rules.
Today's vote means that this obscenity will continue for another 18 months.
London Labour backed the Commission: yet another shameful betrayal of our coastal communities!
I voted in favour of this report because, in 2008, in the absence of agreement on a draft regulation to simplify and clarify the Community rules on the conservation of fisheries resources, a regulation was adopted establishing a package of transitional technical measures intended originally to apply from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
The purpose of the present proposal is to extend these transitional arrangements for a further 18 months, i.e. until 1 January 2013, so that a new package of technical measures can be drawn up - which will be the subject of a proposal submitted by the Commission in 2011 - as part of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy.
The Commission must take advantage of this extension of the current regulation's validity to carry out an evaluation - with stakeholder involvement - of the impact of the current measures on the vessels applying them and on the ecosystems concerned.
It will have to take the results of the evaluation into account in drawing up a new proposal for a regulation which will apply from 1 January 2013 and which, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, will be adopted under the codecision procedure.
Extending the validity of the regulation for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for a further 18 months opens up the possibility of analysing and evaluating the current impact on the vessels and ecosystems affected by the regulation.
The proposal is therefore very welcome as it will allow the best possible use to be made of the opportunities for improvement that have been identified.
The results of the evaluation can then be incorporated by the Commission into the process of drawing up a new proposal for a regulation for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution but, in order to support the Scottish fishing industry, I want haddock exempted from the regulation.
In 2008, the lack of an agreement on a draft regulation on simplifying and clarifying Community rules on the conservation of fish stocks led to the adoption of a regulation establishing a set of transitional measures which were originally envisaged for the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
With this legislative proposal, we are aiming to extend this transitional system for another 18 months, until 1 January 2013, in order to establish a new set of technical measures as part of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy, pending a Commission proposal during 2011.
The Commission should thus make use of the new extension period for the current regulation to carry out - with the participation of the involved parties - an assessment of the impact of the measures currently in force on ships that implement them, and on the ecosystems affected.
In 2008, in the absence of an agreement on a draft regulation to simplify and clarify the Community rules on the conservation of fisheries resources, a regulation was adopted establishing a package of transitional technical measures originally intended to apply from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
The purpose of the present proposal is to extend these transitional arrangements for a further 18 months, i.e. until 1 January 2013, so that a new package of technical measures can be drawn up - which will be the subject of a proposal submitted by the Commission in 2011 - as part of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy.
The lack of agreement in 2008 on draft legislation aimed at simplifying and clarifying the Community rules on the conservation of fishery resources meant that we approved a regulation establishing a set of temporary measures initially foreseen for the period 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011.
The legislative proposal voted on today is to extend the term of the transitional arrangements for another eighteen months, that is, until 1 January 2013, with the aim of setting out a new set of technical measures within the framework of the ongoing reform of the common fisheries policy, on which the Commission will submit a proposal in 2011.
Parliament has also passed Resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea.
The text stresses the importance of an appropriate division of powers between the Council, Parliament and the Commission.
With today's vote, Parliament asks that the Commission's forthcoming proposal on technical measures to establish the essential elements of the rules be the responsibility of the Council and Parliament in accordance with a shared decision.
The proposal brought before Parliament's plenary sitting today is aimed at extending the transition period established in 2008 for the conservation of fish stocks.
Given that the legislation in question expires on 30 June 2011, this series of measures should be extended for an additional 18-month period, until January 2013.
The Commission will therefore have to make use of the new extension period to promote an impact assessment of the existing measures and of those that should be taken into account in developing the new proposal for the period from 1 January 2013, which is scheduled to be tabled during 2011.
With regard to the revision of the technical measures covered in the legislation, it is vital to extend the use of trammel nets along the coast to depths of between 200 m and 600 m until 31 December 2012, which will allow ships to continue to capture stocks of great economic importance to Portuguese national fisheries, such as anglerfish, in a sustainable manner.
I am voting for this report, considering the achievements in the negotiations, particularly with regard to increasing Parliament's budget by 2.3% compared to 2011, to funding for the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg being limited, and to the withdrawal of the unit of assessment for the added value which provided for additional reductions to the value of EUR 13.7 million.
Funding for needs arising from EU enlargement with the accession of Croatia and adjustment to the Treaty of Lisbon will be integrated into a charter or amending budget.
However, I would like to emphasise that, in the light of economic and financial difficulties in the Member States, and the guidelines for the 2012 budget that Parliament has adopted, Parliament has stated the need to maintain budgetary discipline in its own budget, keeping it below the rate of inflation for the 27 Member States, and with the conviction that real savings will ensure that it functions properly and efficiently.
I believe, however, that in the climate of austerity which the EU is experiencing, it is also important for Members to moderate their spending.
We are at the start of the procedure for voting on the 2012 budget.
It is up to Parliament to propose an estimate.
I consider the estimate we voted on today to be balanced, and I therefore supported it.
For the first time, Parliament proposed a budget increase (2.3%) that is below inflation (2.8%).
In these times of fiscal austerity, it seems to me that this is indeed necessary.
Furthermore, I fully support the need to explore new funding opportunities in order to define a long-term budgetary strategy.
I shall await the Commission's proposals on this matter.
I agree that the current financial, economic and social situation of the EU obliges the European Parliament and other EU institutions to respond with the quality and efficiency that is required and to employ strict management procedures so that savings can be achieved.
The overall level of the European Parliament's Draft Estimates 2012 should increase 2.3% over the 2011 budget and this does not exceed the current inflation rate of 2.8%.
In future, Parliament must make greater savings and tighten management and monitoring procedures.
I voted for Mr Fernandes's report.
This report allows us to examine objectively the European Parliament's 2012 budget.
This will definitely need to be a tight austerity budget.
It is important for us to take inflation into account as well, which means that the 2012 budget actually entails a reduction in the amounts available.
All expenditure items must be justified and authorised.
Variable expenditure items must be processed as part of cost-benefit analyses so that any additional costs can therefore be avoided in the future.
In 2012, we must improve the situation of young people.
The targets that are set must relate primarily to young people.
I should point out that young people require help in obtaining vocational training and in tackling the school dropout rate.
In this respect, more money must be made available for projects targeted at young people.
They need support to enable them to become integrated into the labour market.
in writing. - I support this report because it gives an adequate budget framework for the important work of the EU institutions during this time of economic crisis for European citizens.
I did not, however, support the Group line on issues such as freezing the allowances of MEPs and provision of business class travel for MEPs.
This, I feel, was appropriate in these times of crisis when ordinary workers are suffering huge pain with cutbacks.
I am voting for the report by Mr Fernandes on Parliament's budget, and I would congratulate him on the tremendous work that he has done.
I would like to emphasise the efforts made towards restraint and austerity, which correspond to the priorities that he had established.
As Parliament's powers have increased through the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be reasonable to have higher operating costs.
However, Parliament's 2012 budget represents a decrease in real terms, with an increase lower than inflation in the EU, and with cuts of EUR 49 million compared to the initial proposal.
The adopted budget has remained below 20% of heading 5, which has not happened for several years.
The rapporteur has also had to fight against misinformation and demagoguery.
Some people have, in bad faith, tried to insinuate that it was increasing Members' salaries.
Parliament is not responsible for this matter: the salary of Members - which stands at 38.5% of the salary of a judge in court - is set by the Council, and the value of the other grants is set by the Bureau and not by Parliament, and cannot exceed the level of inflation published by Eurostat.
Moreover, the budget line related to grants and payments, including funds for paying Members' salaries, is only increasing 0.55% compared with 2011.
I voted in favour of this report and would highlight that the 2.3% increase in Parliament's budget provided for is lower than the inflation forecast of 2.8% for the EU, which will lead to a 0.5% cut in real terms for 2012.
However, I would like to denounce the demagoguery surrounding three proposed amendments aimed at modifying the rules on Members travelling to and from their country of residence and Parliament, and I voted against them.
I do not like to shirk my responsibilities, so I used my vote, although the amendments were so misleading that I would probably be included in the numerous exceptions that they offered.
I also regret the stance of certain fellow Members who, knowing in advance that a particular proposal would not be adopted, placed the burden of doing something 'politically incorrect' on others, and still others who 'preferred' not to participate in voting on the three amendments in question, despite participating in all the voting before and after them.
It should also be remembered that, according to the current statute, no one is obliged to travel business class.
Nonetheless, every week, I see my fellow Members, from all the parties, travelling business class, including on the flight to Portugal that followed that vote; there are a few rare exceptions, not of individual members, but on some sporadic journeys.
in writing. - I supported this report which presents the Parliament's view on the expenditure required for policy implementation and administration for the financial year 2012.
The report seeks to ensure that funding is increased at least in line with inflation for critical social policy expenditure at this time of rising unemployment.
The report proposes a maximum budget increase of 2.3%, keeping the increase below the EU rate of inflation.
This is more than half the original administrative request for an increase of 5.2%.
I also supported a number of amendments to this report opposing increases in MEP salaries and allowances.
The European Parliament is under an obligation to spend taxpayers' money in an appropriate and responsible way.
In a time of economic crisis, it is particularly important to make economical use of taxpayers' money.
Therefore, it is highly regrettable that Parliament is not prepared to commit to saving money, for example, by travelling economy class on flights shorter than four hours.
As Parliament has once again missed the opportunity of demonstrating to the citizens of Europe its clear commitment to making savings, behaving responsibly with taxpayers' money and giving up its privileges, I have voted against the report.
We obviously share the Committee on Budget's view that the European Parliament should now 'show its budgetary responsibility and self-restraint' and we welcome the report's call for the limited resources to be managed with 'rigour and efficiency'.
However, as the amendments concerning freezing MEPs' salaries and allowances next year were rejected - and the result of the vote also meant that the construction of a building for the European Parliament's administration in Luxembourg was once again being welcomed, which, according to some calculations, will cost EUR 549 million - we were not able to support the resolution as it stands.
We therefore chose to abstain in the final vote.
I voted in favour of the report on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of Parliament for the financial year 2012 - Section I - Parliament.
I regret, however, that during the current crisis, Parliament has not felt able to lead by example and has rejected the proposals on revising the current system of salaries for Members, as well as proposals for not updating salaries and allowances in 2012.
In the negotiations on Parliament's budget for 2012, we fought to significantly reduce the original proposal of 5.7%.
The final result was 2.3%, which represents a real reduction in the budget compared with inflation.
Even though this is a very big step in the right direction, we are nevertheless not entirely satisfied.
We believe that it should have been possible to identify further savings.
For that reason, we also pushed a proposal in the negotiations that has now received broad support from the whole of Parliament.
In this proposal, we call for a more long-term review of Parliament's expenditure.
For far too long, there has been a tendency within Parliament to always take new decisions with long-term financial consequences without looking at the whole picture.
Parliament cannot simply make decisions every year concerning cost increases without also trying to find a way to finance them by reprioritising and improving efficiency.
Finally, we would also like to emphasise the fact that we are in favour of a review of the costs for MEPs travel allowances and other allowances.
However, it is not possible to decide on changes to these just by reducing the budget appropriations.
It requires an amendment to the Statute for Members.
This is something that we will work for and support in a future context.
The 2012 budget is being debated at a time when many Member States are facing an extreme need for budgetary restraint and austerity.
Therefore, the budget for the functioning of Parliament should, as the rapporteur points out: 'respond with the quality and efficiency that is required and [...] employ strict management procedures so that savings should be achieved'.
The European public would not understand if, when asked to make sacrifices in their countries, the EU did not show restraint and efficiency in managing its own resources.
The public is therefore asking us to manage the resources allocated to us properly, and make savings whenever possible.
The report by my colleague, Mr Fernandes, makes some headway in this direction.
For ethical reasons, especially when we are asking sacrifices of the European people, particularly the Portuguese, I have decided not to vote for any amendment that affects my salary status or the performance of my duties as a Member.
Despite the crisis of capitalism hitting workers and the general population hard, and austerity measures targeting those who have the least, EU budgets have not reflected the need to change the direction of the policies that are responsible for this crisis in the EU.
This report does not refer to the guidelines for the EU general budget.
However, it cannot be separated from the present situation.
In addition to the concerns that we raised during the debate in plenary, we are concerned that the intended framework will increase job insecurity, exacerbating the situation of workers who find themselves without a permanent employment contract after decades of service, as well as the 'transfer' of many workers to temporary employment agencies.
For this reason, we are voting against the draft amendments, which open the way for insecurity by advocating savings in Parliament.
This report on Parliament's budget reflects the contradictions affecting most of the political forces represented here.
Although it does not relate to the guidelines for the EU budget, these cannot be considered separately from the basic policies that guide their destiny.
Despite including adjustments to Parliament's expenditure by reducing the external provision of services and other minor expenses, yet also increasing headings for grants and travel expenses, Section I of the provision for 2012, concerning Parliament, represents an increase of 2.3% on the same section of the 2011 budget.
We are concerned that the proposed framework will increase job insecurity, exacerbating the situation of workers who find themselves without a permanent employment contract after decades of service, as well as the 'transfer' of many workers to temporary employment agencies.
For this reason, we are voting against the draft amendments, which open the way for insecurity by advocating savings in Parliament, and which seek to promote the funding of European parties and European political foundations, although we believe that Members should set an example by changing their financial status, and we voted against a substantial increase in salaries.
For all these reasons, we voted against this report.
in writing. - With regard to the Fernandes report, even though I would, in principle, have voted in favour of Amendments 13 and 15, I abstained for a technical reason.
This is that, essentially, the salary of an MEP is regulated by the Statute for MEPs, whereby a revision or update of MEPs' salaries is achieved by amending the Statute for Members and not through a vote in plenary with regard to the EU annual budget of any particular year.
I voted in favour of Amendment 15 not to increase Members' salaries and allowances because we are in a crisis.
I voted in favour of this report because the current financial, economic and social situation of the EU obliges the institutions to respond with the quality and efficiency that is required and to employ strict management procedures so that savings can be achieved.
Understandably, the institutions should be provided with sufficient resources, but in the current economic context, those resources should be managed with rigour and efficiency.
I also believe that Parliament must make greater savings and tighten management and monitoring procedures.
We must continue to modernise and rationalise the administration, reducing dependence on external services and applying an effective human resources management approach, and all institutions must exploit all possible efforts towards limiting expenditure in preparing their own estimates of expenditure for the Draft Budget 2012, which would undoubtedly help save taxpayers' money.
The Member States of the EU are having to make tough decisions these days concerning their own national budgets.
Expenditure is being scrutinised, and we also have to do likewise in the EU.
I am not in favour of increasing the Union's budget: on the contrary, it should be cut.
In a tough economic climate, it is not right that the European Parliament should be planning to increase its expenditure by 2.3% next year.
We need to find more areas to make savings in Parliament's generous annual budget of EUR 1.7 billion.
Plans for the House of European History project now need to be put on ice.
As for the StrasbourgBrussels rally, this costs European taxpayers around EUR 200 million each year.
That is as much as the annual budget for the European Court of Human Rights.
The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which represents centre and liberal parties in the European Parliament, has so far been the only one of Parliament's political groups to say that Strasbourg should stop being used.
I urge the other parliamentary groups and, above all, the EU Member States, which will actually decide the matter, to demand the same.
The Danish Liberal Party voted against Amendment 3 in the Fernandes report on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of Parliament for the financial year 2012.
The Danish Liberal Party is in favour of Parliament reducing travel costs, but it is important for Members to continue to be able to change their tickets at short notice.
The proposal does not take this into account.
I voted in favour of the European Parliament's provisional budget for 2012, and I am delighted that it has been kept below inflation, hence sending a message of responsibility to our fellow citizens.
In these times of great budgetary sobriety, it is important that the European Parliament sets an example in its management and achieves savings where it can.
I particularly wished to express my perplexity and my concern about the way in which the House of European History project has so far been handled.
As much as I share the objective of creating a place where the public can learn about the major phases of European integration since the end of the Second World War, I am nonetheless surprised by the relative approximation with which the necessary investments and provisional running costs are quantified and concerned about the opacity of certain decision-making procedures.
I therefore abstained on an amendment tabled by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group calling for this project to be unconditionally cancelled.
However, I voted in favour of an amendment tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) introducing greater transparency and responsibility in the handling of this issue and demanding appropriate parliamentary control.
in writing. - I voted against this resolution as I cannot support a 2.3% increase in Parliament's budget at a time when the Council has made cuts of 4.4% and the Commission will limit its administrative expenditure rise to 1%.
The crisis that has devastated the world, and the difficult economic and budgetary conditions in the Member States, are leading Parliament to demonstrate budgetary responsibility and restraint in the 2012 financial year, without jeopardising the ambitious goals that it has set, including legislative excellence.
Parliament's budget for next year will increase by less than the rate of inflation.
The budget should amount to EUR 1 725 billion, which means a 2.3% increase in 2012.
This is lower than the 2.8% rate of inflation for the 27 EU Member States.
It is this kind of concern that must always be present when discussing EU budgets, so that everyone in the Member States is able to have a say in EU policy and see that their contributions are being properly implemented.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work that he has carried out.
It concerns a matter that is always pressing but which, in the turbulent times in which we live, has become especially so.
The economic and budgetary conditions that all the Member States are currently experiencing are not unfamiliar to Parliament, and it should show budgetary responsibility and restraint in the 2012 financial year while maintaining the level of quality of its work.
The budget has been cut by 2.3% in real terms compared to the 2011 budget, and has suffered a total cut of EUR 48.9 million compared with the proposed estimates.
This is particularly a result of cuts in expenditure on buildings.
I would like to highlight the rapporteur's concern, which reflects the concern of his whole group, for committing to young people.
To this end, the rapporteur proposes lowering the ceiling of heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework for 2012 by EUR 100 million, and raising other headings which favour young people by the same amount.
This is a balanced report which takes due account of the budgetary restrictions needed at a time of crisis, and maintains the conditions for successful and good quality work.
That is why I voted in favour of this report.
I voted in favour of this report as I believe that in the current crisis situation, Parliament and the rest of the EU institutions should act with responsibility and self-restraint, using rigorous budgetary management processes to promote the optimisation of resources and to make savings.
I would like to publicly express my appreciation here for the excellent work that has been carried out by the rapporteur, my colleague, Mr Fernandes.
in writing. - I voted against.
The reasons are that no real savings have been made on any budget line, that expenditure has often just been postponed to 2013, that our requested reduction of travelling costs will most probably fail, and that the negotiating procedure for this report was not transparent and aimed to exclude smaller groups with more critical views on the proposed budget increases.
The report adopted today aims at promoting rigorous management of resources, with a view to curbing public spending.
Considering the well-known financial difficulties Member States are having, it is necessary to reduce costs and keep their growth below the current inflation rate.
The reduction in the total amount should therefore be welcomed.
The additional resources required to meet the needs of the Treaty of Lisbon and future enlargement should be identified in budget reconciliation procedures at a later stage.
in writing. - I abstained in the final vote on this report because at a time of austerity across the European Union, it seems ridiculous to support projects such as the European House of History.
This may be a worthy project in its own right, but clearly it would be remiss of Parliament, which represents the people, to agree with this expenditure at this time.
I voted against the estimates for the EP's 2011 expenditure and income because the resolution contains a number of things which I cannot endorse.
I object to yet another increase in Parliament's budget.
Parliament is selling this exercise as a budgetary decrease, when, in reality, this is about a decrease in the curve of resources used.
In these times of crisis and cutbacks, a freeze on spending would seem to me to be a more appropriate measure.
The amendments tabled by some Members requiring a degree of frugality (not flying business class on flights under four hours; freezing allowances for secretarial expenses etc.) have all been voted down, which is regrettable.
In addition, I voted in favour of the Museum of European History project being scrapped, not because I find such a project uninteresting or unimportant, but because I do not believe that such a project should be set up by Parliament with funds from its own budget.
Besides, the costs of the project which has been scheduled for Brussels are running totally out of control.
For this reason, I voted in favour of the amendment which explicitly states that a closer eye needs to be kept on the cost centre.
in writing. - Given the tough austerity measures currently being taken across all Member States, I believe that it is inappropriate to provide funding for a European House of History at this time, which is why I voted against this report.
It was essential to take into account the current economic and budgetary difficulties in the vote on the Fernandes report on the estimates of Parliament's revenue and expenditure for 2012.
Thus, the initial draft of the report, which made provision for the realisation of a House of European History with exorbitant running costs, was absolutely contrary to my firm belief in budgetary restraint where public money is involved.
It is therefore necessary that all financial guarantees relating to this project are clearly identified before any work can start.
The European institutions must respect real budgetary discipline, especially in the current economic crisis.
Given the difficult economic and budgetary conditions that the Member States are experiencing, Parliament should show budgetary responsibility and restraint in the 2012 financial year without, however, jeopardising its aim of legislative excellence.
The budget in question has been cut by 2.3% in real terms when compared to the 2011 budget, and has suffered a total cut of EUR 48.9 million when compared with the proposed estimates.
This is particularly due to cuts in spending on buildings, on the cost of the 18 new Members, and on the accession of Croatia.
These two latter points will be the subject of an amending budget later.
Investment in young people is a key priority at present for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats).
Finally, I would like to emphasise that the elimination of the budget line for the House of European History will not jeopardise its viability since the amount will be transferred to another heading, in line with a transparent process that is approved by the budgetary authority.
Mr Fernandes' report on the EU Parliament budget for the financial year 2012 involves savings, cautious spending plans and the greatest possible degree of transparency in the use of budget funding, together with support for ongoing environmental policies and the constant provision of information for the citizens of Europe.
However, on the one hand, it is difficult to understand why there was no majority in favour of freezing spending on 'office costs' for 2012 and, on the other, the spending levels on the House of European History are far too high and should be urgently reviewed in the light of the current structural crisis.
I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mr Fernandes on the estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2012.
I fully agree with the objectives outlined in the adopted text, which are: a stringent human resources management approach prior to the establishment of new posts, greater security within the European Parliament, a digital strategy with regard to social networks, the creation of a wi-fi service and a property strategy to manage more intelligently any expenditure on buildings belonging to Parliament.
I am voting for this resolution, which seeks to amend Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, which have only been authorised by the Commission in line with this regulation.
I am voting for this resolution as it relates to a health claim on the list of permitted claims concerning the use of baby milk in infants of six months or over, since docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a type of acid, has been detected as having being added to milk formula.
I support the draft resolution regarding health claims on foods intended for children.
Children's health needs to be better protected from all the nutritional advice given on foods, which is sometimes misleading, and which lead people to purchase them just because they claim to have beneficial nutritional or physiological effects.
We must give consumers the guarantee that products on the market are safe and their labelling truthful and appropriate, in order to give the consumer the necessary information to make choices with full knowledge of the facts and to create equal conditions of competition in the food industry.
At present, in some Member States, there is a vast range of indicators used in the labelling and advertising of foods that refer to substances whose beneficial effect has not been demonstrated, or on which there is not sufficient scientific consensus.
Therefore, we must ensure that the substances which claim to be beneficial are subjected to scientific tests and studies carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
This resolution concerned the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health.
I voted against the resolution proposed in plenary as I consider it essential that claims for children between six and 12 months are able to be made and to be validated scientifically by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
I voted against this initiative because, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the health claim that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake contributes to the normal visual development of infants between six and 12 months of age could not be concluded from the experts' opinion communicated to the Commission.
What is more, a report published in June 2010 in the British Medical Journal found that 10 years after being fed with DHA fortified formula, children were heavier and had higher blood pressure.
There is no clear scientific consensus on the effects of formula fortified with DHA on infants, which runs contrary to Articles 5 and 6 of the regulation in question.
As the claim is incompatible with the purpose and content of the draft regulation, I therefore voted against its adoption.
I agree that the claim that 'the ingestion of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) contributes to the normal development of the eyes of infants up to 12 months old' should be added to the EU list of approved health claims, in accordance with the proposed Commission regulation.
Generally accepted scientific knowledge shows that not only DHA in breast milk, but also synthetic DHA added to dairy foods for infants and other foods intended for infants, helps the development of infants' eyes.
If we reject the inclusion of DHA in the EU list of approved health claims, it might set a dangerous precedent whereby the work of the European Food Safety Authority comes to nothing, simply because any health claims relating to any substances that have gone through the demanding and strict evaluation process of the aforementioned authority could be vetoed for ideologically motivated reasons.
I supported this resolution as I think that health claims can influence the choices made by consumers, which is why these claims must be used responsibly, based on the highest quality scientific evaluations.
It is certainly true that the presence of DHA in breast milk has a positive impact on the visual development of infants up to 12 months.
However, this does not automatically mean that synthesised DHA, included in other forms of milk for infants, has the same effect.
In breast milk, DHA is accompanied by other co-enzymes and co-factors, which jointly produce this effect on visual development.
At the moment, there is no consensus among the scientific community on the positive effects that DHA fortified milk formulae have on infants.
This is why I think that it is premature for us to authorise the use of such a claim until we have tangible scientific proof for this.
This kind of health claim may mislead consumers and have undesirable effects on their children's health.
in writing. - I condemn today's vote, which narrowly defeated the objection to a misleading health claim by a major manufacturer of baby milk.
This is a defeat for families with young babies.
I am disappointed that many conservative MEPs stood with big business interests on this issue.
This vote opens the door to further aggressive marketing on food products which is not backed up by sound scientific evidence.
DHA is naturally found in breast milk, and it helps the development of children's eyes. But the synthesised DHA added to formula milk is different.
As the scientific evidence is still inconclusive, we cannot allow parents to be misled.
Babies' health is too important to be left in the hands of a multinational company's marketing department.
Today's narrow vote by Parliament not to reject the claim is very disappointing.
We did not want the statement that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a fatty acid found in breast milk, was good for the normal visual development of infants to appear on products for infants.
There is no scientific data to support the opinion given by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), on which the European Commission relied to propose the authorisation to display this claim on food intended for infants.
It was therefore necessary to apply the precautionary principle and, hence, not to authorise this claim.
Unfortunately, by just 8 votes, Parliament decided to accept the Commission's proposal.
This puts the issue of the independence and of the accuracy of the EFSA's assessments back on the table.
I voted in favour of the resolution on the 'authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health', as there is no recognised scientific proof that synthesised docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) added to formula milks and other foods intended for infants, and which is different from the DHA found in breast milk, contributes to the visual development of children.
I therefore believe that until there are conclusive studies, the nutritional claim should not be authorised.
The issue of potentially acceptable claims on the labels or advertising of types of food is very important because it can lead to false expectations or to the adoption of behaviour that has no scientific basis.
In view of this, any claim that is to be added to the list of permitted health claims should be considered in the light of the most recent scientific state of the art, so that it can be properly founded.
The Commission argues that this is true in this case, where it considers it proven that 'docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age'.
This resolution of the European Parliament is about the draft regulation tabled by the Commission on the authorisation and refusal of certain health claims made on foods, relating to reduction of the risk of illness or the health and development of children.
Nutrition for the public in general, and children in particular, has to be worthy of the utmost attention from all the European bodies, as people's healthy growth and quality of life are at stake.
The promotion of foods using claims may mislead consumers and contravene scientific advice.
Therefore, taking into account the arguments put forward by the rapporteur on this matter, which is as sensitive as it is important, I am voting against this draft regulation, as I believe that it does not adequately protect public health, especially that of children.
This document is opposed to adopting the draft regulation proposed by the Commission on 'on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health', as it is not compatible with the objectives and content of the regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods.
It relates principally to problems resulting from the addition, using a number of means, of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to breast milk, where it contributes to normal visual development in children aged up to 12 months.
However, the generally accepted scientific evidence show that the effects of this same synthesised DHA added to formula milk and other foods for infants are not clear.
This means that there is no clear scientific consensus on the effect on infants of DHA-enriched formulae in a biological environment other than breast milk, whether it is used in formula milk or other foods for infants.
That is why there is opposition to adopting the Commission's draft regulation.
Today, unfortunately, we have missed an important opportunity to reiterate that in no way should we discourage breast-feeding, not least using nutritional profiles which are supposed to give reliable information.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence to show that adding docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to milk substitutes improves visual development.
I support the resolution because I consider it perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the international code on the marketing of milk substitutes issued by the World Health Organisation.
Indeed, this code, among other things, seeks to ensure that no form of advertising or other form of promotion of breast-milk substitutes is allowed.
It is widely recognised that breast-feeding has positive effects on both the child's health and on that of the mother, reducing the risk of breast cancer.
Moreover, recent research published by UNICEF, as well as by the Italian Society of Prenatal Medicine, emphasises that neonatal deaths could decrease by 22% if babies were breastfed.
I would have preferred to see all the energy that has been put into promoting artificial milk put towards support of mothers who would be happy to breast-feed their children if they received the necessary support.
Products for children such as formula milk must be able to benefit from claims if they have been scientifically validated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as in the case of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which contributes to the normal visual development of infants from six to 12 months of age.
To prohibit all communication, even on recognised scientific effects, would considerably hinder research and innovation in this sector.
It should also be remembered that, after six months, all women either do not wish, or are unable, to breast feed, and they must be able to benefit from preparations for infants for which health claims have been evaluated scientifically.
It is not about claiming superiority for formula enriched with DHA over breast milk.
It is not about that!
Today, Parliament chose the path of reason by rejecting this resolution in favour of banning this claim and of heaping opprobrium on the work of the EFSA.
in writing. - I am voting for this resolution to reject the health claim that adding the natural fatty acid DHA to baby food contributes to the normal visual development of infants for a number of reasons.
First, there is a difference between synthetic DHA and DHA in breast milk.
Also, authoritative studies show that there is no proven benefit regarding visual development and also, some studies have shown negative effects of DHA fortified formula on some children's health.
In short, there is need for more research
The delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) voted in favour of this resolution, because there are clear doubts about the health claims made for DHA.
However, we would like the procedures for the recognition of health claims to be re-examined.
The PVV strongly supports independent scientific research and, for that very reason, we want a transparent procedure which will not produce disputable outcomes.
I voted in favour of this document on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health, because goods in the common market must be safe to consume, comply with standards, and be legal.
Health claims made on foods must be substantiated and scientifically proven, especially when we are talking about children and their health.
It is necessary to ensure that the substances for which a claim is made have been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect.
A claim should be scientifically substantiated by taking into account the totality of the scientific data available, and by weighing up the evidence.
Health claims should only be authorised for use in the Community after a scientific assessment of the highest possible standard, and nutrition and health claims must not be misleading.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution, which challenges an authorised claim about baby food.
The authorised claim is about DHA, a fatty acid found naturally in breast milk, which, in breast milk, is known to be important in the development of babies' vision.
However, the synthesised DHA which is added to formula milk is different.
Formula milk producer Mead Johnson has applied to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) for permission to use the health claim 'Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age'.
The claim has been authorised, based on evidence supplied by Mead Johnson.
However, an independent review of all the available evidence on DHA in formula milk in 2008 found that adding DHA to formula milk 'had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth'.
Furthermore, no studies were submitted to EFSA that showed the effect of giving a baby follow-on formula supplemented with DHA after feeding the baby non-supplemented infant formula from birth.
As this claim would only be allowed on follow-on formulas, this is crucial.
Public health and food security seem to me to be the cornerstones on which human society develops.
When these requirements are met and guaranteed, health risks decrease and population growth takes place under controlled conditions which offer security.
These were the criteria behind the EU regulation of 20 December 2006 regarding nutrition and health claims on foods.
The principles still stated in this regulation today ensure a close relationship between experimented and verified scientific data and the authorisation of the use of certain foods.
The draft Commission regulation which we are discussing today does not provide all the necessary guarantees, nor the normal principle of caution in the absence of necessary scientific requirements, to ensure that nutrition and health claims are not misleading.
This should incline us to deny approval.
DHA in breast milk carries out the function that scientific evidence has shown, but the synthetic version is not yet compatible with the aims and the substance of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
We cannot play around with health issues, especially when they concern children.
For this reason, I share the opinion of the rapporteur.
I voted against the resolution rejecting the indication of the presence of DHA in milk substitutes for babies because I think it is right to advertise the reasons for which DHA is added.
I want to mention here that DHA is an omega 3 fatty acid which is present in breast milk and has a positive effect on children's eyesight.
I would point out that the EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, expressed a favourable opinion to extensively indicating the presence of this substance.
I have not appreciated the many e-mails received indicating the belief that we want to favour artificial milk over breast milk.
We must always provide adequate information on substances added to food products, especially when they are for children.
This lunchtime, the European Parliament sent out a signal of unutterable weakness by rejecting a resolution that refused to add a health claim on foods intended for infants under 12 months with 328 votes for and 323 against, but with an absolute majority of 369 votes being required.
Yet this was a textbook case: to oppose the opinion given by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
In this case, the EFSA gave its authorisation to manufacturers of foodstuffs intended for newly-born infants to claim that the synthesised version of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a fatty acid naturally present in breast milk 'contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age'.
This has not been scientifically proven, as confirmed by a letter sent this morning to the Members of the European Parliament by the World Health Organisation.
I very much regret this slap in the face for a considerable number of European stakeholders: the European Large Families Confederation, the European Consumers' Association, and the Standing Committee of European Doctors, which were simply asking for infants not to be considered ordinary consumers.
I regret that Parliament simply forgot to make commonsense and ethics a priority of European food safety policies.
I voted against the draft regulation aiming to authorise the health claim that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age.
While a majority of Members voted in favour of this rejection, there were 40 votes too few to reach the qualified majority required to validate the rejection.
However, Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council prescribes that nutrition and health claims must not be misleading and must be based on scientific evidence.
Further, even if generally accepted scientific evidence shows that DHA in breast milk contributes to the visual development of infants, there is currently no scientific consensus on a possible causal relationship between the intake of formula supplemented with synthesised DHA and better visual development of infants.
It seems to me that, in the absence of a scientific consensus, there is a need for more research into the possible effects, both beneficial and harmful, of DHA supplementation before the use of DHA in follow-on formulae and foods for infants can be claimed in the EU to be beneficial.
Parliament failed, today, to take advantage of the opportunity to prohibit the forthcoming use of this claim pending more convincing scientific evidence.
I regret that.
The supervision of health claims was introduced so that consumers would not be misled by false information.
However, it should also serve to make consumers more aware.
I have therefore voted in favour of the Commission proposal to include the health claim for DHA on powdered milk for children, as this provides positive information for mothers who, for serious health reasons, are unable to breast-feed their babies.
It is necessary to give these women positive information on powdered milk at the point when they are deciding which product to purchase.
We will not undermine the importance of breast-feeding for the development of the child in this way, as every mother is fully informed about this by the paediatrician.
in writing. - In favour, since the consensus resolution considers that the draft Commission regulation on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health is not compatible with the aim and content of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and opposes the adoption of the draft Commission regulation.
Docosahexaenoic acid, known as DHA, is a substance found in breast milk, and numerous scientific studies show that it plays a positive role in the development of eyesight in newborn children.
I believe that specific information on products fortified with this ingredient, such as artificial milk, will allow the consumer to make a more informed choice when shopping.
I do not consider well founded the fears of those who argue that, by advertising this fortification, mothers would abandon breast-feeding in favour of this type of product.
Breast milk contains substances and active ingredients which are fundamental and irreplaceable for babies, but unfortunately, not all women can breast-feed.
So I voted against this resolution because by preventing access to proper information, we are taking away one more aid for mothers, who, unable to breast-feed their babies, are obliged to resort to the use of these products.
in writing. - I supported this resolution as I believe that the health claims relating to DHA have not been scientifically supported and feel strongly that consumers should not be misinformed.
It is obvious that breast milk is the best food for newborn children.
Not all mothers, however, are able to breast-feed their children, for reasons of health, for example.
There is therefore a need for milk formula.
In such a case, of course, it is to be hoped that the substitute is as much like breast milk as possible, as far as its composition is concerned.
This motion for a resolution questioned the importance of the ingredient known as DHA for children and their development.
DHA seeks to replace the fatty acids in breast milk, which have been found to help the child's eyes develop and which at least some manufacturers of the substitute have added to their products.
This motion aimed, in particular, to deny the fact that the consumer would be informed about DHA, on the product label, for example.
Although, in general, I would like to urge caution in the use of different marketing materials, I feel that, following the large number of scientific tests carried out, it must now be possible to inform the consumer accordingly.
Politicians should also have faith in the decisions of the safety authorities.
In this case, the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) has stated, with reference to scientific evidence, that the product is safe.
For these reasons, I voted against the motion for a resolution entitled 'Authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to children's development and health'.
in writing. - In light of the fact that the World Health Organisation maintains that 'no solid evidence exists to be able to say that adding DHA to infant formula will have important clinical benefits', I chose to vote against allowing companies to make unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of DHA.
There is a danger that these potentially misleading claims could result in an increase in formula milk being given to children who could lose out on vital nutrients, such as DHA, that are found naturally in breast milk.
The European Parliament today rejected the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calling for more research to be carried out before it can be claimed that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is a substance with beneficial properties for infants.
I regret that the resolution was not adopted without all the necessary scientific checks having been made, even though the systematic review of evidence regarding DHA and neurological development in infants published by the Cochrane Library in 2008 found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with DHA and other similar long-chain fatty acids has no proven benefit in terms of vision, cognition or physical growth.
Despite the doubts expressed by the Members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the majority in Parliament has de facto authorised the European Food Safety Authority to declare that 'docosahexaenoic acid contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age'.
However, the case of the controversial Mediator drug, in particular, should lead European institutions to exercise a modicum of prudence.
I am voting for this report since, in the face of an increasingly globalised world, the EU as a whole needs to opt for productive investment options, and I agree with the position stated in this report that the Commission and the Council should open negotiations to begin investing in third countries such as Canada, India and China.
In view of this, I believe that it is vital that Parliament ensure the responsible conduct of European investors abroad, while protecting the rights of the EU to regulate in accordance with our public interest.
The future European policy must promote sustainable investments which will respect the environment, especially in the mining industries, and encourage suitable working conditions in the businesses targeted by international investments.
I think that any investment agreement should be accompanied by a set of social and environmental regulations, both when negotiating a chapter as part of a free trade agreement and in the case of standalone investment agreements.
The European policy must protect biodiversity and support technology transfer and infrastructure improvement.
I voted for this report as I believe that the European Union needs a coherent investment policy which will make a positive contribution to economic growth, sustainable development and employment.
The Treaty of Lisbon provides for exclusive EU competence in the area of foreign direct investment (FDI).
This development, which has significant consequences, throws up a double challenge both for managing more than 1 200 bilateral investment treaties (BIT) already concluded by the Member States and to define a future European investment policy which meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states while, at the same time, respecting the objectives of the EU's external action.
When concluding BITs, the aim is to ensure that investors from developed countries have legal and financial protection.
I agree that when developing future EU investment policy, investor protection must remain the first priority of investment agreements.
The EU's future policy must also promote investment which is sustainable, respects the environment (particularly in the area of extractive industries) and encourages good quality working conditions in the enterprises targeted by the investment.
Hence, the recent reform of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's guidelines to promote responsible behaviour on the part of international enterprises should be promoted by the EU.
We are all aware that, according to the Treaty of Lisbon, foreign investments are the exclusive competence of the EU.
Based on these new powers, both the Commission and Member States can devise, together with Parliament, a policy for promoting high quality investments, with a positive impact on economic growth and employment.
The crisis has led, as was only natural, to a reduction in the volume of foreign direct investments, which had reached EUR 1 500 billion in 2007.
I also welcome the proposal to introduce the term 'EU investor' and I believe that the protection of all EU investors should be the top priority of investment agreements.
I share the rapporteur's view that not all kinds of investments require the same high level of protection and that, for example, short-term speculative investments do not deserve the same level of protection as long-lasting investments.
Consequently, the scope of future European agreements must be limited to foreign direct investments (FDI) only.
This is the reason why I supported this report, which is among the areas coming under the exclusive competence of the European Parliament.
Parliament wished to clarify the rules that the EU will have to introduce when negotiating future investment agreements.
In addition to investor protection, the Commission must include in all future agreements specific clauses laying down the right of the third party and of the EU to regulate in the technological areas associated with protection of national security, the environment, public health, workers' and consumers' rights and industrial policy.
This is a powerful signal, which has been conveyed to the Council and to the Commission on the eve of the opening of investment negotiations with countries such as Canada, India and, in the very near future, China.
European investors must adopt responsible behaviour abroad, while protecting the right of the European Union to regulate investments in the public interest.
I voted for this report because I believe that the proposed investment policy will meet the expectations of both investors and the states involved, thus contributing to making the EU and its companies more competitive.
A coordinated European international investment policy could have an important impact on job creation not only in the EU, but also in developing countries.
According to Articles 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), foreign direct investment (FDI) is an exclusive competence of the EU.
In addition to managing the bilateral investment treaties that have been concluded, it is up to the Union to set out a policy for future European investment that meets the expectations of investors and recipient countries, and which respects its objectives for external action at the same time.
Protecting investors should remain the top priority in investment agreements.
However, the Commission is called on to table a clear definition of the investments that should be protected.
Future agreements should be based on best practice drawn from the experiences of the Member States, and they should take account of the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
This report addresses the problems of future European international investment policy.
Since the founding of the EU, many bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been signed by the Member States: around 3 000 since 1959.
With the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this matter has come under exclusive EU competence, and is currently part of the preparation for a future European investment policy, which must be thoroughly debated.
This matter is of the utmost importance, as we are at a turning point and are facing two challenges: providing the EU with the necessary tools to allow companies abroad to fulfil their investment programmes and, at the same time, ensuring that Europe remains a leader in global investment.
We are living through times when business is very aggressive, so our criteria for choosing trade partners need to have been well thought out.
I therefore agree with the rapporteur of this text with regard to respect for Parliament's prerogatives, and that negotiation processes should be sent in time so as to prevent unnecessary delays or serious disruption of EU relations with those countries.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is defined as 'a long-lasting investment, representing at least 10% of the affiliated company's equity capital/shares and providing the investor with managerial control over the affiliated company's operations'.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, FDI came under sole EU competence, the main roles of which are managing current bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and setting out a European investment policy 'which meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states'.
The implementation of a common investment policy is being advocated on the basis of these new responsibilities.
It is disputable, at the very least, that FDI brings the much-vaunted gains for the 'beneficiary' countries. This is particularly the case if it is carried out under the jurisdiction of the EU, in defence of the interests that it usually defends.
The example of Portugal is particularly revealing.
Since it is true that one of the serious problems that the Portuguese economy is facing is the continued fall in investment, as is reflected in low rates of economic growth and rising unemployment, there has been a great deal of FDI in the Portuguese economy over the years.
Nevertheless, the reality is that a growing share of the wealth generated in Portugal is being transferred abroad.
In the definition given by the Court of Justice of the EU, foreign direct investment (FDI) means 'a long-lasting investment, representing at least 10% of the affiliated company's equity capital/shares and providing the investor with managerial control over the affiliated company's operations'.
Due to these new responsibilities, the rapporteur advocates the implementation of a common investment policy.
However, our position is different.
In most cases, FDI does not solve the problem of development in the countries where it is carried out.
We are all well aware of what multinationals do.
They stay whilst they obtain massive profits and grants.
Then, at the slightest sign of trouble, they look elsewhere and pay no heed to the unemployment and obstacle to development that they create.
Portugal, unfortunately, knows this situation only too well.
Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission has had exclusive competence to sign and negotiate agreements on foreign direct investment.
The report by Mr Arif is paved with good intentions, as is the road to hell.
He is particularly concerned about the capacity of sovereign funds to do harm, speculative forms of investment, which must not be encouraged, the exclusion of sensitive sectors, social and environmental clauses, compliance with the principle of reciprocity, and the regulatory powers of Member States, all of which are issues he wants to see at the centre of future European policy.
I think he is right, especially on the latter point.
The financial interests of foreign investors absolutely must not be allowed to take precedence over the power of Member States to adopt binding social, environmental and fiscal standards.
Yet that is what the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, which was fortunately never adopted in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), was proposing.
Yet the Commission supported this villainy!
It is therefore an understatement to say that I have absolutely no confidence in this institution to defend, comply with or enforce the principles set out in the report.
To give it today the exclusive power to negotiate 'bilateral investment agreements' in the name of, and on behalf of, the 27 Member States is criminal.
I voted in favour of this report because it is necessary to build an integrated and coherent investment policy which promotes high quality investments and makes a positive contribution to worldwide economic progress and sustainable development.
I believe that a common policy on investment will meet the expectations of both investors and the states concerned and help increase the competitiveness of the EU and its businesses and increase employment.
Investment risk is generally higher in developing and less developed countries.
Strong, effective investor protection in the form of investment treaties is key to protecting European investors and can improve governance and ensure stability.
For investment agreements to further benefit these countries, they should also be based on investor obligations in terms of compliance with human rights and anti-corruption standards as part of a broader partnership between the EU and developing countries for the purpose of reducing poverty.
in writing. - (RO) I voted for this report as I think that we need to guarantee external competitiveness and uniform treatment for all EU investors.
We must also have maximum influence in international investment negotiations.
They must cover every type of investment.
The EU must ensure that no EU investor will be treated worse than under the bilateral investment agreements signed between Member States.
Liberalisation of investments and protection are becoming the fundamental instruments of a common international investment policy.
However, Member States will continue to apply policies promoting investments which will supplement and be compatible with the common international investment policy.
in writing. - I voted for this report, which calls for better definition of investor protection standards and greater transparency in the arbitration system, the right to appeal against decisions by international arbitrators and the possibility to consult trades unions and civil society organisations.
Until now, investment agreements were so focused on investor protection that companies could sometimes operate in developing countries without respect for environmental or social considerations.
Such behaviour will no longer be tolerated.
This is why the report calls for new rules and for corporate social responsibility to be a core element of any future agreement.
The EU will increasingly receive foreign investment and we cannot push investor protection to the detriment of the general interest.
The report calls for a real balance between public and private interests.
It aims at effective protection of European investors from illegitimate expropriations or disguised legislation intended to cut them out of certain markets.
It also guarantees that public authorities will always be able to regulate in favour of the general interest.
I call for root and branch reform of the dispute settlement mechanism, which so far enabled private companies to take legal action against countries and sometimes attack their social and environmental law.
While Member States and their citizens are being asked to tighten their belts, this text urges the latter to ensure that the interests of foreign private investors are protected.
It does not even provide for the obligation of protecting public services against all private investment.
It has no regard for the goods belonging to all mankind, such as water.
I am voting against the report.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is under exclusive EU competence, as set out in Articles 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The bilateral investment treaties that have been concluded need to be managed, and the Union should establish a European policy for future investment that meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary countries.
It is important to protect investors, but the Commission is called on to submit a clear definition of the investments that should be protected.
Future agreements should be based on the best practice of the past, and they should also take account of the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
in writing. - As I understood, this report deals with international investment treaties.
The main objectives of these treaties are to increase foreign investors' access to markets and to provide a high level of protection for investments and investors against arbitrary actions by governments of states receiving the investment.
Before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there was a division of tasks in which the Commission negotiated market access of foreign direct investment (FDI) while the Member States signed investment protection agreements with third states.
With the Lisbon Treaty, foreign direct investment has become an exclusive competence of the EU and an integral part of the EU's external trade policy.
It is good that this report sends a strong signal to the Commission and the Council, which are about to start investment negotiations with third countries like Canada, India and, soon to come, China.
Therefore, it is crucial for the Parliament to ensure responsible behaviour by European investors abroad while, at the same time, protecting the EU's right to regulate in the public interest.
I voted in favour of this resolution on international investment policy.
As foreign direct investment (FDI) was brought under exclusive EU competence, every effort must be made to build a coherent and integrated investment policy that respects human rights and the principles of the rule of law.
A common policy on investment will promote high quality investments, sustainable economic, social and environmentally friendly development, and will have a positive impact on economic progress worldwide.
I believe that such a policy on investment will help Europe remain the principal actor in the field of foreign direct investment, and this will help revitalise economic growth, increase the competitiveness of businesses and promote job creation.
I believe that the Commission must draw up the EU's investment strategy as a matter of urgency, because both foreign investment in the EU and EU investment abroad have a positive impact on growth and employment in the EU and other countries, including developing countries.
Every effort must be made to ensure a high level of investor protection, which is an anchor of stability and good governance.
Furthermore, legal certainty must be ensured for small and medium-sized enterprises, creating favourable conditions for them to invest in foreign markets.
Investment agreements should be concluded in full compliance with anti-corruption standards and while making a commitment to respecting human rights.
Under Articles 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, foreign direct investment (FDI) is an exclusive EU competence.
This development, which has serious consequences, represents a two-pronged challenge, namely, managing more than 1 200 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and defining a European policy for future investment that meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states, while also respecting the EU's external action objectives.
Consistent, sound and effective investment policy requires a clear definition of FDI, and a clear definition of its scope and application.
I voted in favour of this report and would like to emphasise the call by Parliament to the Commission that it makes provision for the establishment of a clear definition of the investments to be protected, including both FDIs and portfolio investments, stipulating that investments of a speculative nature, as defined by the Commission, should not be protected.
I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague and friend, Mr Arif, on the EU's foreign direct investment (FDI) policy.
With this document, Parliament formulates two, in my opinion, major requirements when defining how to frame future international investment protection agreements that are binding on Europe.
The first requirement is that all these agreements include clauses compelling European investors to behave responsibly abroad in economic, social and environmental matters.
The second requirement is that all these agreements leave scope for the governments of the countries receiving this investment to legislate for the common good.
In the past, some private investment protection clauses enabled the adoption, by the third country, of social or environmental legislation to be regarded as indirect expropriation, resulting in compensation.
We need to put an end to these abuses.
While this Parliament has, for the first time, a say on such matters, the Arif report has fired a warning shot across the bows of the Council and the Commission as they prepare to open negotiations with India, Canada and, soon, with China.
According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, foreign direct investment comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union.
This represents a challenge to be overcome at all costs, especially as regards the establishment of a European investment policy which will meet the needs of European investors and recipient countries and is able, at the same time, to comply with the objectives of EU foreign action.
The numerous investment agreements signed by the EU, whether bilateral or multilateral, must guarantee the protection of investors in all the appropriate sectors.
Future EU policy should promote sustainable and environmentally friendly investments which promote good working conditions in businesses affected by foreign investment.
All investment agreements must be accompanied by a set of appropriate environmental and social rules as a form of additional guarantee.
in writing. - Abstention.
According to Articles 206 and 207 TFEU, foreign direct investment (FDI) is an exclusive competence of the EU.
This development, which has significant consequences, throws up a double challenge, both for managing the more than 1 200 bilateral investment treaties (BIT) already concluded by the Member States (MS) and defining a future European investment policy which meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states, while, at the same time, respecting the EU's external action objectives.
Specifying this future policy, which will be integrated into the common trade policy, firstly involves an analysis of investment policies conducted so far.
These are critical times, in which the EU is being called upon to deal with an economic and social crisis.
At this stage, the EU needs to concentrate its energies on growth and on generating investments and jobs.
The extension of the competences of the EU to the foreign direct investment sector in the Treaty of Lisbon will allow us to lay the foundations for a single European policy in this sector.
We must give European undertakings the tools needed to make safe and quality investments abroad.
Protection for our undertakings abroad must be our priority.
As the EU is the most 'open' market in the world, we need to adopt a framework to protect our businesses and the relevant conditions that will bring about a balance with our basic trading partners, so that European undertakings enjoy similar competitive conditions.
I voted in favour of this particular report because I consider that it is a move in the right direction in terms of achieving this ultimate aim.
The Treaty of Lisbon has introduced far-reaching changes to the area of common trade policy.
Firstly, under the provisions of the Treaty, common trade policy has been extended by, among other things, matters relating to foreign direct investments.
Secondly, the decision-making procedure has changed - the Council now makes decisions by qualified majority, while Parliament has gained the right of codecision.
This means that the assent of our Chamber will be necessary both in the case of the ratification of trade agreements and on questions of investment (concerning foreign direct investments).
The Union must create, as part of its common trade policy, a European investment policy which meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states.
Investment policy must also take account of the priorities of European Union foreign policy.
In this context, there is also the question of regulation at international level, with particular reference to negotiations at the WTO.
The new powers given to the Union by the Treaty of Lisbon also indirectly affect the competences of the European Parliament, placing it on a par with the Council in the decision-making process in the area of foreign direct investments.
The new consistent and integrated EU investment policy should have a beneficial influence on global economic progress and development.
As one of the most important economic blocs, the EU has a strong negotiating position which, thanks to a common policy in the area of direct investments, can contribute to a growth in the competitiveness of the EU and its businesses and increase employment.
in writing. - I believe that the EU's right to regulate in the public interest needs to be protected and also that we need to ensure the responsible behaviour of European investors outwith the EU, which is why I supported this report.
The Treaty of Lisbon has brought foreign direct investment (FDI) under exclusive EU competence.
This represents a two-pronged challenge: firstly, with regard to managing the Member States' current bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and, secondly, defining a European investment policy that meets the expectations of investors, the beneficiary states, and the interests of the EU.
An integrated, coherent policy that promotes high quality investments, and which makes a positive contribution to economic progress and sustainable growth worldwide, is vital.
To that end, we should move towards a clear definition of the investments to be protected, with the exception of those of a speculative nature, which should not be protected.
It would be useful to introduce the term 'EU investor' and advisable to thoroughly define 'foreign investor'.
By identifying best practices drawn from Member States' experiences, and by respecting basic standards such as non-discrimination, fair and equal treatment, and protection from direct and indirect expropriation, we will have the foundations for a coherent European policy on this issue.
These measures and a definition of the sharing of responsibilities between the EU and the Member States will contribute to creating the conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to invest abroad.
The report gives priority to protection for all EU investors.
It also highlights the fact that new investments promoted by the EU must be viable and environmentally friendly and must encourage a high standard of working conditions.
Finally, it creates a list of countries which will be privileged partners.
I believe that all this will help to create a robust international investment policy in the European Union.
That is why I voted for the report by Mr Arif.
The Treaty of Lisbon brought foreign direct investment (FDI) under exclusive EU competence.
I was keen to support this report, which outlines the new international investment policy and reinforces the position of the EU as the largest recipient of FDI.
This report sends out a powerful message: Europe must be a key player in the investments of tomorrow.
The emergence of new economies has upset the balance between countries and their capacity to invest.
European enterprises must position themselves in the new markets and the EU must help them to grow by offering them legal certainty and by reinforcing their integration into the global economy.
FDI is an essential part of the activities of European countries, but are they always a driver of growth?
FDI is only effective if it is framed by adequate policies, which put in place clear regulations.
The report thus guarantees an economic and legal environment for enterprises, especially our small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which, as a force for growth and jobs, are fundamental to our economic fabric.
We need to be vigilant in order not to leave them at the mercy of the aggressive behaviour of foreign investors.
I am voting for this report because of the proposals of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament for better supervision of pre-accession funds, given the experience in 2009; because of EU actions against tobacco as part of a global partnership; and because of the movement of other goods into or out of the EU, which costs taxpayers money, and deprives the EU budget of funds and actions for dealing with this problem.
Finally, it will be important to monitor the work carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) over the year, and not only in the debate on the annual report.
I agreed with this report, which calls for measures to be taken and resources to be provided to ensure that EU funds are not subject to corruption and also to ensure one-stop transparency of the beneficiaries of EU funds.
EU taxpayers' money must be used appropriately and effectively.
The Member States must have effective control mechanisms and adequate fraud detection capability.
All money paid as a result of irregularities must be returned to the EU budget.
I wholeheartedly voted for the report and the proposals drafted by our fellow Member.
Apart from criticism and ambiguity in the Commission's assessment, I support the rapporteur's idea that we can only draw conclusions with regard to the situation on the Union's financial interests and the results of the fight against fraud if we include the data from the annual report from the Court of Auditors of the European Union for 2009 and from the OLAF report.
Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union obliges the European Commission and Member States to protect EU financial interests and fight against fraud in the areas in which the responsibility is shared between the Union and Member States.
I believe that, in general, the European Commission's report entitled 'The protection of Community financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2009' does not give information on the estimated level of fraud and irregularities in individual Member States, but concentrates rather on the level of reporting.
The results, in my view, cannot be regarded as empirical evidence of the level of fraud and irregularities, precisely because you cannot glean from it a comprehensive view of the actual situation in terms of fraud and irregularities in the Member States.
I therefore agree with the rapporteur, who believes that the most appropriate approach is to base conclusions on the situation regarding the protection of EU financial interests and combating fraud as in the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget, which represents the most reliable source of information, while the reports of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) chiefly provide information on specific cases.
Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) imposes on the European Commission and the Member States the obligation of protecting the EU's financial interests and of fighting fraud.
The Commission should continue its efforts to ensure compliance by Member States in their reporting obligations with a view to providing reliable and comparable data and making a distinction between irregularities and fraud.
This will enable European institutions to take action.
However, it will only be possible if the information is transparent.
If so, we will be able to make proper use of EU funds, thereby gaining credibility and the trust of European citizens.
Given the level of fraud compared to the number of irregularities in the own resources sector for the Member States of Austria, Spain, Italy, Romania and Slovakia, where fraud accounts for more than half the total amount of irregularities in each Member State, not to mention the deficiencies in national customs supervision, I think that customs supervision systems need to be strengthened.
At the same time, the European Commission must exercise its responsibility in ensuring compliance by Member States with their reporting obligations with a view to providing reliable, comparable data on irregularities and fraud.
Fraud, according to the rapporteur's very apt definition, 'is an example of purposeful wrongdoing and is a criminal offence', and an irregularity 'is a failure to comply with a rule'.
This is the defining framework under which we should have zero tolerance for fraud and make it our goal, as he said with regard to the 2008 report, to achieve zero financial irregularities in the EU.
As I pointed out in a question at the end of last year, following an investigation by the Financial Times, there are serious doubts as to the aim and effectiveness of the Cohesion Fund.
These doubts cannot simply remain confined to the newspapers.
At the same time, this report too 'deplores the fact that large amounts of EU funds are still wrongly spent and calls on the Commission to take appropriate action with a view to ensuring prompt recovery of those funds'.
This misuse of EU funds makes better administration necessary, as well as monitoring of how funds are spent.
There must also be provision for effectively penalising Member States that do not make good use of the funds that they have received.
That is the only way that we can move towards the target of zero fraud in the EU.
This motion for a resolution refers to the Commission report to Parliament and the Council on the protection of the Communities' financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2009 (COM(2010)382), and is in line with Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which requires the Commission and all the Member States to safeguard the financial interests of the EU, and paragraph 2 of which requires the Commission to submit a detailed annual report to Parliament and the Council.
Despite the improvements of recent years, it is vital that efforts to prevent any kind of fraud continue, even if it is also being combated by bodies of the Member States.
I agree with the proposals tabled by the rapporteur, which should be complemented by the recommendations suggested during the debate, especially the need to clarify the terms 'fraud' and 'irregularities', since this represents conscious behaviour that is harmful to the interests of the EU; there should also be a better system for managing irregularities.
I hope that, through the incorporation of the suggestions made, the 2010 report will be better than that for 2009.
The report presents a summary of the available statistics on irregularities reported by the Member States in various areas, including agricultural policy, cohesion policy, pre-accession funds and the recovery of the EU's traditional own resources.
Innumerable irregularities were found in the areas mentioned in various Member States during 2009.
Many of these irregularities are detected and/or reported belatedly, jeopardising the protection and proper usage of the public purse.
We support the criticisms and observations made by the rapporteur as regards the need to implement an effective recovery system.
Frankly, at present, the overall recovery rate is low.
However, we would stress that the fight against fraud and corruption should be carried out at a level that is as close as possible to where these phenomena take place, for various reasons, particularly reasons of effectiveness.
It is therefore necessary to step up the fight against fraud and corruption in every Member State, as common legislation at EU level alone is not a panacea for this phenomenon.
This is a report on the EU's financial interests which presents a summary of the available statistics on irregularities reported by the Member States in various areas, including agricultural policy, cohesion policy, pre-accession funds and the recovery of the EU's traditional own resources.
Innumerable irregularities were found in those areas in various Member States during 2009.
Many of these irregularities are detected and/or reported belatedly, jeopardising the protection and proper usage of taxpayers' money.
We support the criticisms made by the rapporteur as regards the need to implement an effective recovery system.
At present, the overall recovery rate is far from the desirable level.
However, we would like to stress that, more importantly than having common legislation at EU level for combating corruption and fraud, each Member State needs to put the fight against fraud and corruption into practice.
In any event, we would warn against confusion between control and excessive bureaucracy, which undermines the rights of those who seek support, especially small social organisations, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
I commend the work done by the rapporteur.
Fraudulent irregularities within the EU emerge from the work, including an overview of OLAF.
The Commission's work, however, is not exhaustive because it does not report the fraud data of individual Member States as underlined by the rapporteur.
For this reason, I approve this proposal.
in writing. - Fraud within the EU strikes at the very integrity of the system.
It is vital that the EU and its Member States continue the important work in this area and I was able to support this report.
I voted in favour of this report because the Member States must act primarily as protectors of taxpayers' money in their efforts to combat fraud.
We must strengthen the applied reporting methodology and fraud detection capability in the Member States.
The Commission's 'Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2009' does not provide information on the estimated level of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States, and it is therefore not possible to have an overview of the actual level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States and to identify and discipline those with the highest level of irregularities and fraud.
The Commission's report fails to consider fraud in detail and deals with irregularities very broadly.
Unfortunately, large amounts of EU funds are still wrongly spent and therefore the Commission must take appropriate action with a view to ensuring prompt recovery of those funds.
Errors should not be tolerated and the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, must draw up an appropriate report in line with the Treaty, to provide Parliament with a reasonable assurance that this objective has been attained and that action to combat fraud is being carried out properly.
This report provides a statistical summary about irregularities reported by the Member States in those areas where they implement the budget (agricultural policy, cohesion policy and pre-accession funds, i.e. around 80% of the budget) and about the collection of the EU's traditional own resources.
I think that the protection of the EU's financial interests and the fight against fraud are especially important areas, and responsibility for them comes under the remit of both the European Union and Member States.
The report also gives an estimate of the irregularities which have occurred regarding expenditure managed directly by the Commission, as well as an overview of the operational activities of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
in writing. - I voted for this report, which strongly criticises the Commission for providing too little information on fraud and irregularities.
This is considered a result of bad reporting by Member States.
The fraud rates in France and Spain are, for example, considered 'suspiciously low'.
In future, we want to see a clear division between irregularities and fraud, given that fraud is a criminal offence, whereas an irregularity is a failure to comply with a rule.
The report also asks for a breakdown of estimated fraud and irregularities for each Member State so that disciplinary action can be taken against individual countries.
Large amounts of EU funding is still spent incorrectly, says the resolution.
Parliament calls on the Commission to take action to ensure prompt recovery of those funds, especially in Italy.
In agriculture and cohesion policy in particular, the rate of recovery of outstanding amounts is 'catastrophic'.
I share the view of the rapporteur that the Commission failed to provide much-needed information in its report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud, even regarding the estimated level of fraud and irregularities in individual EU Member States, in connection with the management of EU funds.
In view of what may, without exaggeration, be termed the gigantic scale of corruption in some Member States, including the Czech Republic, this is a very serious shortcoming.
If we look at fraud and so-called irregularities at Union level, there is usually 'only' a specific segment of corruption and fraud in general at the level of individual Member States, but it is nevertheless a very substantial segment.
In my view, there is an urgent need to consider whether the work currently carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office is sufficiently effective, and whether that work should not undergo structural and methodology-related changes, including a more aggressive approach.
'Protection of the Communities' financial interests' groups together the fight against fraud and irregularities.
It is important to make a distinction between irregularity, or failure to comply with a rule, and fraud, or purposeful wrongdoing, which is a criminal offence.
In other words, the Committee's report does not fully make this distinction and deals extensively with irregularities while failing to explore cases of fraud in any great detail.
Three areas, representing around 80% of the EU budget, are singled out: agricultural policy, cohesion policy and pre-accession funds.
The implementation of these policies and of expenditure depends on Member States, which are responsible for the national tools for the fight against irregularities and fraud.
The commitment of administrations is too heterogeneous and the high level of outstanding irregularities in some Member States is not acceptable.
Improvements are also expected in public procurement procedures, especially in terms of ensuring transparency and combating fraud.
This report highlights the number of irregularities and fraud cases in the spending of EU funds in each Member State.
The increase in the number of reported cases was caused by the introduction of new communication technologies.
I believe that everything must be done to place responsibility on and penalise the Member States with regard to fraud and irregularities.
The necessary information on each Member State must be made available so as to increase the effectiveness of control and monitoring systems, and to ensure that we have a true picture of the situation.
The Member States should introduce the Irregularity Management System in order to develop improvements in fulfilling their reporting obligations to the European institutions.
Agriculture, cohesion policy and pre-accession funds are areas where rates of irregularity and fraud are particularly pronounced.
It is therefore necessary to take measures to increase monitoring, detection and correction.
We have to concern ourselves with creating a transparent and effective system for managing and spending EU funds.
in writing. - I know that the annual report examines how well EU finances are defended against fraud by the Commission and by Member States, as required in Article 325 TFEU.
There are areas where Member States implement the budget (agriculture, cohesion, pre-accession funds) and for collection of the EU's own resources through customs and duties.
It is important to conclude the agreement on the fight against tobacco smuggling between the EU and tobacco manufacturers.
Anyone who is involved in shoplifting will be caught and punished.
In contrast, it is possible to divert millions of euro from the EU funding pot without running almost any risk at all.
It is not only that the likelihood of being discovered is small.
Even when it is finally possible to prove that a fraud has been committed, the Member States are not interested in instituting legal proceedings and recovering the money.
The generous subsidy system continues to lay itself open to fraud and irregularities.
There are many cases of fraud, in particular, in the eastern and southern Member States.
Pre-accession assistance funding has proved to be especially susceptible.
In the case of Turkey, the pre-accession assistance is not only benefiting a non-European country, but is also, in some cases, disappearing into the pockets of corrupt officials.
In order to prevent taxpayers suffering further harm, we must clear the decks.
This report only represents one step in this direction.
Ultimately, it is unlikely to be able to guarantee that European taxpayers' money will not be siphoned off to another EU state or even to regions outside the EU.
I have voted accordingly.
This report on the fight against community fraud goes in the right direction, focusing on the need to demand greater clarity, and reiterating the absolute necessity to never lower our guard.
Italy is, unfortunately, among the countries most affected.
The vast majority of these episodes takes place in Southern Italy and relate to the theft or misuse of funds intended for development in these areas.
The purpose of these funds is to encourage the growth and development of deprived areas.
However, if these episodes of fraud occur precisely where there is greater need for investment, then you can well understand how the resulting damage will be doubled.
Therefore, more and more attention is needed in this area, in the form of continuous monitoring and timely information, which would immediately bring potential abuse to our attention.
This report highlights these issues, which is why I have decided to vote in favour.
On 5 April, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud.
It is the European Commission's and the Member States' duty to protect the EU's financial interests by fighting deceit, fraud and corruption.
The document which has been adopted contains statistics on this problem, many of which are alarming.
There is a lack of appropriate data, supervision systems do not always work properly and many governments do not seem willing to cooperate.
Fraud and corruption act principally against the interests of the taxpayer, and I think every effort should be made to achieve their complete elimination.
I support the opinions of the European Parliament and its requirement for the Member States to exercise real control over the spending of funds from the EU budget and also to provide full and reliable information in this area.
Equally important is the introduction of open and transparent public procurement systems and improved supervision of simplified customs procedures throughout the Union.
These measures will not only be helpful in detecting and combating cases of corruption now, but will also significantly reduce their occurrence in the future.
I voted in favour of the report on the protection of EU financial interests and the fight against fraud because it is a topic of interest for all Member States, which we must all confront in order to better coordinate our efforts against speculation or inappropriate management of national and/or EU resources.
The text lists a series of statistics on fraud, irregularities and inconsistencies found in various Member Countries and EU institutions themselves.
The data serve as a warning to those who protect the financial interests of the Union and who try to give detailed and reliable information in order to give an exhaustive picture of the international situation concerning irregularities and fraud with a view to protecting public interests.
This Commission report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2009, submitted in line with Article 325(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), does not, in general, provide any information about the estimated level of irregularity and fraud in each Member State, but rather focuses on the level of communication. It is therefore impossible to have a clear idea of the true scale of irregularities and fraud in the Member States, or to identify and discipline those with the highest levels of irregularities and fraud.
I agree with the rapporteur that the most appropriate approach is to base conclusions with regard to the situation on the protection of EU financial interests and the fight against fraud on the Annual Report by the Court of Auditors for the year 2009, which he finds to be the most reliable source of information, with the Commission's and the European Anti-Fraud Office's reports serving mainly as auxiliary information on reporting tendencies and as case studies.
I voted for this report for these reasons.
in writing. - In favour.
Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union imposes on the European Commission and the Member States the obligation of protecting the EU's financial interest and fighting against fraud in areas in which the responsibility is shared between the European Union and the Member States.
Pursuant to Article 325(5), the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, each year submits to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the measures taken for the implementation of that article.
The report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual report 2009 (COM(2010)382) provides a summary of statistics on irregularities reported by the Member States in those areas where Member States implement the budget (agricultural policy, cohesion policy and pre-accession funds, i.e. around 80% of the budget) and for the collection of EU's traditional own resources.
It also gives an estimate of irregularities in the field of expenditure managed directly by the Commission and an overview of the operational activities of the European Anti-Fraud Office.
I voted in favour of this report because too often, we lack reliable information on irregularities and fraud related to EU spending in Member States.
Too often, there is no real check on the collection of customs duties and the recovery of money spent incorrectly.
It is important now to take concrete steps to clearly distinguish between irregularities and fraud, as fraud is a criminal offence, while irregularities are the failure to comply with a rule and could easily be unintentional.
We must have a breakdown of these for each Member State so that disciplinary action can be taken against individual countries.
The European Anti-Fraud Office conducts several hundred investigations annually into matters concerning evasion of payments to the EU and misuse of the EU's financial resources. Concealing the scale of the fraud will not do any good.
Quite the opposite, when this happens, we are not aware of the dangers and, as a result, we do not guard against them.
I am worried by the current situation of the low recovery rate of money which has been wrongly spent.
Money recovered from the beneficiaries in the years 2007-2009 represents only 10% of total recoveries.
We must introduce an effective system for recovery and carefully monitor progress made in this area.
Control of fraud must not be restricted only to European institutions, but should be ensured in individual Member States.
It is they which should design and periodically evaluate systems of public procurement to enable the prevention of corruption.
Furthermore, the Member States should maintain transparency and responsibility in the area of public procurements.
Efforts should also be made, both in the Union and in the Member States, to ensure that procedures are simple and that they curb excessive bureaucracy.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report as the fight against fraud is not only in the EU's financial interest but is also crucial to protecting consumers.
This report, which has been approved by all the European political groups, highlights the estimated scale of irregularities and cases of fraud in each Member State relating to the spending of EU funds.
According to the Commission, the increase in the number of reported cases was caused by the introduction of new communication technologies.
I am voting for this report, and I believe that the Commission should do more to place responsibility on and discipline the Member States with regard to fraud and irregularities.
The necessary information on each Member State must be made available so as to increase the effectiveness of control and monitoring systems, and to ensure that we have a true picture of the situation.
At the same time, the Member States should introduce the Irregularity Management System in order to make improvements in fulfilling its reporting obligations to the European institutions.
Agriculture, cohesion policy and pre-accession funds are areas where rates of irregularity and fraud are particularly pronounced, and it is therefore necessary to take measures to increase monitoring, detection and correction.
It is crucial that all the European entities, but particularly those of the Member States, work together in order to create a climate of transparency and rigour in the spending of European funds.
I voted in favour of the report on fraud linked to European expenditure in the Member States.
This report criticises the increase in suspicions of fraud, both in number and volume, compared with the total number of irregularities found in certain Member States (Poland, Romania and Bulgaria), and calls on the Commission, the relevant Union agencies and Member States to take measures to ensure that European funds are not subject to corruption and to adopt dissuasive sanctions where corruption and fraud are found.
This would seem to be a minimum requirement.
Through this report, Parliament also draws attention to France and Spain, 'expressing its concern' at the suspiciously low suspected fraud rates in these countries, and calls on the Commission to provide information on the fraud detection capability in these countries.
The fight against corruption is fundamental.
However, it must not obscure the complexity of procedures.
Genuine simplification should allow greater access to funds both for the local communities and small organisations that need them.
It would, without doubt, facilitate the management of funds and ensure better parliamentary control.
An effective solution must be found as quickly as possible for the problem of the high error rate in the allocation of EU funding.
We must immediately put in place strict measures to prevent public funding from being obtained fraudulently.
The EU and the Member States must work together to ensure that EU funding brings the maximum benefit to the citizens of Europe, because ultimately, this is in the interests of both sides.
The report states that the Integrated Administration and Control System is being undermined by inaccurate data, incomplete cross-checks and a lack of follow-up.
These problems must be resolved.
Clear provisions and complete transparency with regard to participation and allocation of funding, combined with strict rules governing controls, are the best means of ensuring that fraudulent practice is stopped before it can even start.
I voted in favour of the text presented by Mrs Ivan on the protection of EU financial interests and combating fraud in areas where responsibility is shared between the Union and Member States.
I think, especially in light of recent events, that it is important to pay attention to this problem and ensure a continued commitment to enable homogeneous and uniform opposition to fraud throughout the EU.
in writing. - We in UKIP are opposed in principle to European political parties.
The only authentic way of representing the opinion and views of the electors of the Member States is a national political party.
Nonetheless, it would be wrong if only the parties of the European superstate were eligible to benefit from taxpayers' money, if that is what is on offer.
That is why UKIP reserves the right to participate in a European political party.
It would be wholly wrong if many millions of Britons and other peoples in the continent's nation states who oppose the European project should have their voice stifled by the political establishment.
I am voting for this report as it is a big step in the creation of a common legal basis for regulating their funding.
This report is a step in the right direction, as it does not recognise a European statute for the parties' human resources, and it differentiates between the conditions for establishing a party and its funding.
The inclusion of references to political foundations is also positive.
I voted in favour of this resolution on the application of the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding.
This is an important document contributing to European political party development in order to activate public interest in EU affairs.
So that EU citizens support and trust these parties, it is necessary to strengthen a single and transparent framework for the funding of political parties at European level.
By adopting this resolution, the European Parliament is openly supporting transparent funding, which is a fundamental element of democratic values and good governance.
It is very important for European political parties that promote democracy in the Union to be awarded a common and uniform legal status.
The adoption of a European statute based on EU law, which would help harmonise fiscal aspects of the EU's political parties, seems more important than ever for the parties in order to achieve their respective goals.
I agree with the rapporteur's opinion that this document will help make the EU's political party system work more effectively.
The European Union comprises a tableau of different nations, cultures, opinions and beliefs which, in the current social and political climate, must be represented uniformly and supported equally in legislative forums, whether national or European.
The concept of representativity forms the basis for building Europe and it will have to be maintained and supported because this is the only way in which the project of a united Europe can have any meaning.
I think that relaxing the funding regime for political parties at European level may help strengthen and promote in the future the principle of representative democracy and, consequently, the interests of all European citizens, who contribute to the Union budget.
In the process of moving from the concept of a European 'polis' to the sense of a European political identity, we must strive towards simplifying direct contact between European citizens and political parties.
Mrs Giannakou emphasises in her report that this cannot be achieved without reviewing the status and funding of European parties.
The focus must be placed, as is well set out in the report, on cutting the red tape to do with the procedures for granting funding, combined, however, with the introduction of harsh penalties in the event of irregularities or non-compliance with existing regulations.
This is why I voted in favour of this report.
I supported the report presented by Mrs Giannakou, which proposes, in particular, that political parties and European foundations have a legal personality of their own, with the establishment of a common legal and fiscal status based in EU law.
It calls on the European Commission to make specific proposals in this regard.
In addition, it confirms that a political party at EU level may receive funding only if it is represented in the European Parliament by at least one of its members.
I voted in favour of this important report.
The Treaty of Lisbon envisages an important role for political parties in establishing a common European civic space, and therefore it is very important for them to have a uniform legal status and to ensure that funding is as transparent as possible and accountable to society.
At present, many political parties operating in Europe are relatively closed, and there is little change in their leadership, which consequently weakens the role these political organisations play in ensuring the involvement of citizens in the adoption of political decisions.
By reforming the regulation of party activities, the European Union could use this opportunity to promote the revitalisation of European political parties.
I believe that when establishing new unified rules on party activities and funding, we should include democracy criteria regarding the formation of parties' internal structures and specific democratic safeguards.
Should political organisations fail to implement these, they would be deprived of some of their opportunities, such as being awarded public funding.
I agree with the rapporteur that European political parties are basic instruments of parliamentary democracy, even if, at this stage, they are only umbrella organisations of the affiliated national parties.
I also support the idea that only those parties represented by at least one MEP are eligible for funding.
I believe that the idea of asking the Commission to propose a draft statute for European political parties, in accordance with the TFEU, is correct.
I advocate, along with the rapporteur, that we need changes to the financial regulations governing the funding of European parties and political foundations, and that funding must be allocated in full at the start of the year.
It is a sentiment shared by all European citizens and, at this level, whether you are pro-Europe or against the integration of Europe changes nothing.
There is an urgent need to re-appropriate European issues.
Political parties at European level have considerable scope for action.
They must devise fresh perspectives and give fresh impetus to the instruments of a democratic Europe.
We must therefore relax the conditions under which political parties at European level exist in order to release energies.
We need to give a clear status to these new spaces for debate and, finally, a genuine perspective to the activity of political parties at European level in the forthcoming elections.
I rejected this report for a number of reasons.
Many of the proposals on the direct funding and status of European political parties conflict with the national parties.
MEPs are elected by the various countries via national parties.
After their election, thanks to their national parties, they can form European groups, but while pursuing their party interests domestically.
This report does not support this idea.
The development of European political parties is vital for generating public interest in EU affairs.
Dealing with the issue of regulating European parties is a deeper concern, linked to how to create a transnational civic space composed of free and equal citizens, and what a 'collective founding', in the form of a 'civic contract' among diverse peoples, might entail for the future of integration.
Devising a reform package for European political parties as a means of mobilising the democratic energies of individual and organised citizens is not an easy task, not least due to the EU's systemic complexity.
Strengthening European political parties is a means of enhancing participatory governance in the EU and, ultimately, of strengthening democracy.
The EU's future rests on European political parties, complicated as it sounds.
Creating a safe and transparent environment for the operation and funding of European political parties marks a first step.
We need a European space where political parties actively put citizens at the heart of the European Union's concerns and help them in their everyday life, at a time when it is noticeable that European citizens are detached from the Union.
European political parties, which play an important role in shaping democracy in the EU, should be given a common and uniform legal statute.
European political parties should be bodies with legal personality, in order to be capable of overcoming the difference between European political parties and European authorities, from the perspective of taxation procedures.
As far as the establishment of European parties is concerned, it is right and proper that the statute of European parties regards European, national and regional elected representatives as being equal, as long as the regional representatives are elected members of regional parliaments.
In addition to this, every European political party should have at least one representative who is a Member of the European Parliament.
In the end, that is also a condition for a European political party to qualify for funding from the European Parliament.
in writing. - UKIP is, in principle, against European political parties.
They are a waste of hard-pressed taxpayers' money.
There is no need for them, and the authentic way of representing the opinion of the peoples of the Member States remains the national political party.
Nonetheless, it must be clearly understood that UKIP reserves the right to participate in a European political party so that it, too, might benefit from those taxpayers' money, the better to represent the many millions of Britons and other people across the continent who oppose the European Union and all its works and whose voice is stifled by the ruling political class.
in writing. - I strongly support this report as another step in the building of real European political parties which can act on a pan-European basis.
The only way to overcome the democratic deficit whereby the citizens of Europe do not feel part of the European project is to build real European politics.
Crucial to this are pan-European political parties.
I abstained, despite the fact that the report proposes a solution to the problem caused by the fact that European political parties operate as NGOs based in Belgium.
European parties, with their own ideological and political attributes, must acquire a clear legal personality.
Under certain conditions, they may help to galvanise the citizens into action and seek decisions for the benefit of the people, not the financial strong.
However, I have reservations about certain points in the report, in so far as they might be used as restrictions on the free and independent organisation and action of European parties.
Their internal operation and organisation and their political action must depend on their own political choices, without external restrictions.
The rules governing the political and legal recognition of parties and their necessary funding must facilitate their action, so that they can freely create alternative policies, which is the very essence of democracy.
They must also ensure that they act, without any influence from restrictive political frameworks and strong economic interests, as spokesmen for the people of Europe.
The EU operates as a representative democracy, in line with the Treaty of Lisbon.
At European level, political parties have a vital role in creating European political awareness and expressing the will of the EU public.
However, European political parties are only umbrella organisations for national parties, and will not ultimately be in direct contact with voters in the Member States.
Strengthening European political parties also involves their adoption of a political, legal and fiscal statute, including autonomous legal personality founded directly on EU law.
Better regulation of European political parties, and their associated political foundations, will also bring benefits in terms of transparency.
Transparent funding is a key element of supporting democratic values and promoting good governance, with the expectation that this can also help to reinforce public confidence in political parties.
Political parties at European level are a nonsense.
A 'political space at EU level', which many defend, does not exist.
Ideas can be expressed and real and political debates can be had only within an entity in which citizens share the same values, the same language and the same culture, namely the nation.
This report argues that political parties at European level must be the place for 'expressing the will of the citizens of the Union'.
This is an unrealistic objective.
The record of abstention beaten at every single European election should serve to remind us that the supranational level is not that of a fair and effective democracy.
The huge European subsidies granted to these parties is a scandal.
The growing sense of estrangement and lack of interest on the part of the citizens are palpable, but the European Parliament and, more generally, the European institutions, are determined to create a European political space from scratch.
I voted in favour of this report as it advocates safe and transparent standards for the functioning and funding of European political parties within the EU.
The future European statute of political parties will be an important step towards greater public participation, a more representative democracy, and a Europe that is closer to its people.
With regard to the report on regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, we chose to vote against the paragraph in the text that proposes that the European political parties should be allowed to participate in referendum campaigns in the Member States if the referendums have EU relevance.
The European political parties, which are, to a large extent, financed by EU funds, are currently only permitted to campaign in European Parliament elections.
We believe that the current rules are reasonable.
National elections or referendums should be decided without the involvement of parties that are financed via the EU's budget or other external funding.
Our democracy is based on representativeness, which is put into practice through political parties.
These are, for that very reason, democratic instruments representing the legitimate interests of the public, both closely, such as through local government, and at a more distant level, through their representation in the European institutions.
It is no coincidence that the Members of the European Parliament are organised into political parties, and thus seek to represent the interests of the public in line with an agenda of priorities defined by their political orientation.
As the rapporteur says, 'creating a safe and transparent environment for the function and the funding of European political parties is an act deeply democratic', so I believe that the initiative to establish a clear regulatory framework on their recognition and funding is a positive step.
Political parties and their associated political foundations are vital instruments in a parliamentary democracy.
They contribute towards giving shape to the political will of the people.
They are also crucial in training and selecting their candidates.
The Treaty of Lisbon provides for this role to be carried out by the political parties and their respective foundations, with a view to creating a European polis, a political space at EU level, and a European democracy, of which the European Citizens' Initiative is a key constitutive element.
European political parties and political foundations have become indispensable actors in the political life of the EU, particularly as they shape and make known the positions of the different 'political families'.
I agree with the criteria for accessing funding, in particular, the percentage of revenue and the representativeness of the respective political party.
There are a number of considerations set out in the report that have caused us to disagree with it.
The participation of political parties at European level in referendum campaigns in the Member States is one such consideration, even if the subject of the referendum is directly linked to issues concerning the EU.
We also disagree with the proposal made that European political parties should begin a process of examining the conditions for the direct recruitment of individual citizens as members.
These considerations add up to a position of principle that is unfavourable to the creation of political parties with European scope.
This process is inseparable from the neoliberal, federalist and militaristic nature and objectives of the current integration process, in which, moreover, it has an instrumental role.
We voted against this report because of our opposition to the creation of Europe-wide political parties, and of our position on the capitalist integration of the EU.
The same goes for the proposals being made on the respective political foundations.
However, in the specific case of this report, there are also other reasons for our vote against.
For example, we believe that it is wrong for political parties at European level to participate in referendum campaigns in the Member States, even if the subject of the referendum is directly linked to issues concerning the EU.
We also disagree with the proposal made that European political parties should begin a process of examining the conditions for the direct recruitment of individual citizens as members.
To give political parties at European level a legal status and a legal personality based solely on EU law is to transform them into a supranational entity on top of the domestic laws governing the political parties of which they are composed.
It is to create, artificially and dogmatically, a twenty-eighth political space that is only virtual.
I am also against tightening the rules governing the creation of these parties, with a corresponding easing of the financial conditions to which they are subject, and against any link between the recognition of the 'European' status of a party and its access to public funding.
They are trying, by any means at their disposal, to reduce the club so that the privileged few who are members can more easily enjoy its financial and political advantages.
Finally, the right of political parties at European level to participate in referendum campaigns on European affairs is, in my view, ambiguous.
Some of my fellow MEPs approved, thinking of possible referenda on the entry of Turkey into the EU, which will, in any case, not be staged.
I, personally, imagined unacceptable interference in referenda on accession or on the adoption of the euro by a country, referenda associated with the right of each nation, and each nation alone, to self-determination.
I voted against this report.
This report had my full backing as it goes some way to encouraging the emergence of a European democracy based on parties with a properly clarified legal status and legal personality.
This has the undoubted advantage of reinforcing their legitimacy in the eyes of citizens who still feel that the EU is too far removed.
It is also about promoting transparency of operation, which I regard as essential for an assumed democracy.
Finally, their funding will be more transparent, which can only increase their legitimacy, and I welcome this.
I agreed with this report because creating a safe and transparent environment for the functioning and funding of European political parties is a deeply democratic act.
We need a space, a European space, in which political parties would unite the EU's citizens and help them in their everyday lives.
The fact that specific rules will be adopted, enabling this objective to be achieved, has two consequences.
On the one hand, up-to-date and public information will be provided quickly on the formation of European political parties and their situation in Europe.
Citizens will be aware that when participating in the work of a European political party, they must follow European Union law and that political parties have rights and obligations.
On the other hand, the European statute of European political parties paves the way for the creation of a transnational party system.
It is a crucial first step towards more participation, more democracy and finally, more Europe.
It is important to develop the European political parties.
An age-old concern of the European Parliament has been the fact that the public has shown little interest in EU affairs.
This has been evident in the poor turnout in parliamentary elections.
In the last European elections, a mere 40.3% of Finns who were entitled to vote actually went and voted.
There has been a substantial increase in the funding for European political parties and foundations in recent years.
This current year, the parties will be receiving financial support worth a total of EUR 17.4 million, and the foundations will get EUR 11.4 million.
Now we need to take special care that this money, which comes from European taxpayers, is spent openly and as sensibly as possible.
Neither in the future should there any longer be any increase in financial support.
'Political parties at a European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union'.
With these words, Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union sets out the role that European political parties must have.
Although this role is given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon, they cannot always fulfil it in the optimum manner.
I believe that the European political parties can and should contribute more effectively to the political and social life of Europe in order to increase public interest in the internal affairs of the Union.
In light of these considerations, it is vital that European political parties be given recognised legal status, and single, uniform tax policies which allow true convergence of organisation.
Indeed, I believe that the statute on political parties at a European level could pave the way not only towards the involvement of the population, but also to the creation of a truly transnational party system which would be vital to guaranteeing greater democracy in Europe.
For 7 years now, the major European political groupings have established themselves as European parties, joined together within the groups represented in this House.
However, the visibility and activity of these trans-European parties is seriously constrained by the pervasiveness of national allegiances.
Without calling into question the latter, which are essential for the democratic aspirations of the Union, we must endeavour to foster the emergence of a European supranational debate as the only means that will enable Europe to move forward.
The report by Mrs Giannakou specifically aims to promote the establishment of political parties at European level, and it therefore had my backing.
It calls on the Commission to implement legislation creating a status for such bodies, facilitating their funding and enabling them to integrate better into the daily political life of citizens.
This regulation would create a privileged space to ensure that trans-European interests see the light of day, while offering prudential rules guaranteeing an open and transparent debate.
in writing. - I voted for this report, which I see as a major step towards creating a legal statute governing political parties at the European level.
As the political parties are represented at European level, the institutions expect them to inform public opinion on European issues.
I voted in favour of the report establishing a common legal and fiscal status for the European political parties.
This has been made possible by the Treaty of Lisbon, which grants the EU a legal personality.
This status is necessary for convergence in relation to the budget and the organisation of the political parties at European level and their foundations.
Foundations affiliated to political parties contribute to debates on political issues of general interest.
The financial rules are clarified in order to have reliable and transparent information on their funding and functioning.
One important rule is the condition on funding that requires the party to be represented by at least one Member in the European Parliament.
I voted in favour of this report as I believe that, if it can be said that there is no democracy in our countries without political parties, it should also be said that there will not be true European democracy without European political parties.
As I would argue that the funding of national parties by businesses and their lobbies should be completely banned, with public funding guaranteed by the state, I also believe that European parties should be funded from the EU budget and barred from receiving 'donations' from legal persons.
Advocating secure and transparent standards for the functioning and funding of European political parties in the EU is of the utmost importance.
The future European statute of political parties will have a big role in making this a reality, as it will generate greater public participation, a more representative democracy and a Europe that is closer to its people.
in writing. - I am convinced that creating a safe and transparent environment for the function and the funding of European political parties is a deeply democratic act.
We need a space, a European space, of acting political parties that bring citizens into the core of the Union and help them in their everyday life.
The adoption of specific rules makes this target possible and it is twofold: on the one hand, it provides current, quick and public information on the formation of the European political parties and their common European status.
Citizens are aware that participating in a European political party signifies that they are participating in a body covered by the law of the European Union and that political parties have rights and obligations.
On the other hand, the European statute of European political parties paves the way for the creation of a transnational party system.
At Wednesday's sitting, the European Parliament adopted the Giannakou report on the status and rules regarding the funding of political parties at European level.
In my opinion, European political party development is a crucial tool, thanks to which we can raise the interest of public opinion in European Union affairs, which, in my opinion, will result in greater turnouts at European Parliament elections.
In addition, political parties are a platform for dialogue with the citizens, which takes place through numerous seminars and political discussions.
By introducing the possibility of funding European political parties, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Nice enabled them to operate independently of parliamentary groups.
However, despite this undeniable step towards improving the status of European parties, their main sources of funding are still individual membership subscriptions and, to a small extent, donations.
I would like to express the hope that the document which has been adopted will lead to a significant improvement in the position of political parties at European level.
I voted in favour of this important resolution, because political parties at European level are an important factor for integration within the Union, which aims to create a European polis, a political space at EU level, and a European democracy.
European political parties have to cooperate closely with their members in national and regional parties, and therefore they should enjoy favourable working conditions and should be allocated funding.
It is necessary to ensure maximum transparency and financial controls for European political parties financed by the general budget of the European Union.
Above all, the Financial Regulation must be supplemented with provisions purely intended to regulate the funding of European parties and foundations.
Furthermore, it would be advisable to make an exception, whereby the funding would be made available to these parties at the beginning of the financial year at 100%, not 80%, and the independent resources that the parties are required to demonstrate would be reduced to 10%.
To ensure that funding allocated is used transparently and as intended, the regulation must provide for penalties for violating funding procedures.
Given the fact that European political parties play a political role at EU level, I agree with the proposal to give them the right to participate in referendum campaigns, which are directly related to EU issues, and to allow them to use the money they are allocated to finance these campaigns.
Only strong and effectively functioning European political parties can help to connect EU institutions with citizens more strongly, and therefore the Commission should propose a draft statute for European political parties as a matter of urgency.
European Parliament elections should become more democratic.
EU citizens should be given the opportunity to vote not only for national, but for European lists.
European political parties and political foundations are gaining increasing importance in the political life of the European Union.
However, it is still difficult for them to acquire more popularity and support because they are merely umbrella organisations for national parties and not directly in touch with the electorate in the Member States.
We must improve the conditions in which European political parties operate, because this would equate to an improvement in the EU's representative government and the strengthening of democracy.
I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is an important step - probably the first one - towards strengthening political parties at European level.
I agree with the rapporteur that we need to establish a legal framework for the activities of European political parties as a matter of urgency.
The funding of European political parties' work must be transparent.
To ensure this, it should be made possible to carry out checks on funding.
The democratic system on which the EU is based focuses on the citizen as a reference point around which all decisions are made.
The citizen is represented by the political parties which, in order to act as guarantors of the will of their constituents, must adopt common rules of transparency and uniformity.
That is why I voted in favour of implementing the regulations on the statute and the financing of political parties at a European level.
An EU regulation of this scale offers the opportunity to obtain extensive information on European political parties, guarantees against internal corruption and stimulates citizens' interest, facilitating their participation in EU politics.
This report is based on the assumption that the development of European political parties is critical to the mobilisation of the public interest in EU matters.
Underlying the debate on the European parties' statute is a deep concern about co-constituting a transnational civic space composed of free and equal citizens, and what collective funding, in the form of a 'civic contract' among diverse peoples, might entail for the future of integration.
Designing a reform package for European political parties as a means of mobilising the democratic energies of individual and organised citizens is a difficult but noble task, particularly due to the EU's systemic complexity.
However, this disadvantage can be converted into an advantage if the 'constructive mission' of the European political parties is clarified, along with the way in which clear and serious dialogue on their political development can contribute to the emergence of a more pluralistic democracy.
I voted in favour of this report as I believe that creating a safe and transparent environment for the functioning and funding of European political parties promotes the quality of European democracy.
I voted in favour of this report as I believe that, if it can be said that there is no democracy in our countries without political parties, it should also be said that there will not be true European democracy without European political parties.
As I would argue that the funding of national parties by businesses and their lobbies should be completely banned, with public funding guaranteed by the state, I also believe that European parties should be funded from the EU budget and barred from receiving 'donations' from legal persons.
The deepening of representative democracy and the creation of a political space at EU level undoubtedly strengthen the role of the European political parties and their respective foundations.
The adoption of a common and uniform legal status for all European political parties and the foundations that are associated with them, founded directly on EU law, represents a very important first step in this direction.
I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, as it stresses the importance of the European political parties as indispensable actors in the political life of the EU, putting forward concrete proposals with a view to creating a safe and transparent regulatory environment for the functioning and funding of European political parties.
The European political parties contribute to creating European political awareness and expressing the will of citizens.
At a time when we are striving to increase the participation of citizens in the EU's activities and to strengthen its democratic character, we ought to take steps to improve the regulatory environment of the European political parties.
I am supporting the report by my fellow Member Mrs Giannakou.
The European political parties must be permitted - and even encouraged - to participate in European referendum campaigns.
I also think that it is essential for them to offer the option of participating individually and directly to citizens who wish to do so.
Furthermore, the financial rules applying to the political parties must be modified.
We must encourage self-financing by increasing the current donation limit per year and per person.
Other rules must also be relaxed - I am thinking, in particular, of authorisation for the carrying-over of funds to the following financial year.
While making such modifications, however, we must also retain all the current transparency requirements and bring in sanctions - primarily financial ones - something which is currently lacking in the Financial Regulation.
in writing. - In favour.
European political party development is critical for the activation of public interest in EU affairs.
By transcending the centrality of the oft-raised questions 'who governs and how', it calls attention to the question 'who is governed'.
Underlying discourses on European party regulation is a deeper concern of how to co-constitute a transnational civic space composed of free and equal citizens, and what a collective founding, in the form of a 'civic contract' among diverse peoples, might entail for the future of integration.
Designing a reform package for European political parties as a means of mobilising the democratic energies of individual and organised citizens is not an easy task, not least due to the EU's systemic complexity.
But this may be turned into an advantage, should one clarify the 'constitutive mission' of European political parties and how an informed and principled dialogue on their political development can facilitate the emergence of a plural demos, whose members can direct their democratic claims to, and via, the central institutions.
Strengthening European political parties is a means of enhancing participatory governance in the EU and, finally, strengthening democracy.
It is not an easy task to work out a package of reforms for Europe-wide political parties that will allow them to mobilise the democratic impulses of individuals and citizen organisations.
However, the creation of a secure and transparent framework for the operations and financing of Europe-wide political parties constitutes a profoundly democratic act.
We must foster the creation of a European space for political parties' activities which puts citizens at the heart of the European Union and helps them in their daily lives.
The approval of specific rules can achieve this goal and has a double advantage.
On the one hand, it provides updated, rapid and public information on the formation of political parties at European level and their common European status.
In this way, citizens know that participation in a political party at European level is covered by EU law and that political parties not only have rights but also duties.
On the other hand, the European statute of political parties at the European level opens the way for the creation of a transnational party system.
The approval of this resolution is a first, indispensable step towards the greater participation of citizens in Europe.
Obviously, I share the view that political parties and political foundations related thereto are essential tools of a parliamentary democracy.
Indeed, they ensure that members of parliament are accountable, they help shape the political will of the citizens, they draw up political programmes, they select and train candidates, they maintain a dialogue with citizens and enable citizens to express their opinions.
On top of that, the Treaty of Lisbon expressly provides for this role to be played by political parties and their affiliate foundations.
They are an important part of the political space at EU level and of the European democracy, of which the European Citizens' Initiative is an essential part.
However, I voted against this report in the final vote, in order to show my total disagreement with the rejection of Amendment 10.
In terms of the funding and donations scheme, this amendment stripped legal entities and businesses of the right to make annual donations of up to EUR 25 000.
The fact that the European Parliament is allowing this unfortunate practice to continue will open the door to companies and lobbying organisations exerting a strong influence over political parties and European foundations by granting them financial support.
I do not want that, hence my protest vote.
I am voting for this report as it promotes better conditions for governing the Single Market and involving partners in it.
However, it is important to put people at the heart of these policies and to give Parliament greater political importance in matters related to the Single Market.
I supported the report by our colleague, Mrs Kalniete, as well as the two reports by Mr Busoi and Mr Correia de Campos.
These three reports were drawn up following the proposal for a Single Market Act published by the European Commission.
The objective of Michel Barnier, Commissioner for the Internal Market, is to relaunch the Single Market but, above all, to bring it closer to the citizen.
This is an objective which I fully support.
The Single Market Act must be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate to citizens that European integration, and the Single Market in particular, is being carried out in their interest, not against them.
Guaranteeing access to a basic banking service - or, more generally, safeguarding the quality and accessibility of services that are essential for our fellow citizens - is a step in this direction.
One of the main challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring effective political leadership, commitment and coordination, and therefore, comprehensive guidance from the highest political level is crucial for the relaunch of the Single Market.
The European Commission must play a greater coordinating role, and the President of the Commission should be given the mandate to coordinate and supervise the relaunch of the Single Market, in close cooperation with the President of the European Council and the competent authorities in the Member States.
I agreed with this report because I believe that it is necessary to improve political coordination at all levels in order to properly implement Single Market priorities aimed at boosting economic growth, competitiveness, the social market economy and sustainability in the Union.
I supported the rapporteur's proposals and the approach adopted in the Commission communication 'Towards a Single Market Act', as well as the idea that an annual Single Market Forum is required.
Local and regional authorities should have greater involvement in creating the Single Market, while dialogue with social partners and civil society will help restore confidence in the Single Market.
I, too, believe that the use of regulations instead of directives would create a clearer regulatory environment and reduce implementation costs.
I also believe that it is useful to carry out an assessment of the state of the Single Market at every spring session of the European Council.
We also need a legislative proposal from the Commission on resolving disputes using alternative mechanisms by the end of this year.
I voted in favour of this report because, in my opinion, in order to successfully revitalise the EU Single Market, it is especially important to provide for and strategically plan not just specific measures to achieve the objective, but also effective ways of using those measures.
One of the most important measures which has been stressed over and over by many representatives of the people and interest groups, as well as Professor Monti himself, is ensuring political leadership in this project which is particularly important for the whole of the EU.
This would allow the importance of the completion of the internal market to be stressed throughout the European Union.
Another measure that is equally important, in my opinion, is the strengthening of dialogue with social partners and civil society.
When drawing up Single Market legislation, which could have an impact on the labour market, social partners should always be actively involved in preparatory work.
It is also particularly important to involve and strengthen partnership with local and regional authorities in the process of establishing the Single Market because in practice, it is precisely at this level that most legislation must be applied.
Finally, I completely agree that simply adopting measures is not enough if we want to bring Europe closer to its citizens.
It is very important to constantly inform European citizens about the achievements of the internal market and the benefits it provides so that they know what rights and opportunities they are offered by the European Union and one of its cornerstones - the common internal market.
Governance and partnership are two key issues in reviving the Single Market.
Parliament's role in drafting legislation on the Single Market, in particular, can be further strengthened.
The Treaty of Lisbon has already made a great contribution in this direction, but it is not enough.
I think, in particular, of those files on which Parliament has expressed a position which is strong and clear but divergent from that of the Council and governments of the Member States.
Take, for example, the age-old question of the indication of origin of products, the 'Made In' label, particularly in the textile sector regulations which I have been following personally.
Although Parliament has the power to block the adoption of an act if it does not agree with the Council, sometimes this is not enough.
We need a change in mentality and attitude from everyone involved.
The strengthening of European economic governance, coordination for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the relaunch of the Single Market are key to revitalising the European economy.
The Single Market should be competitive, making a positive contribution to the daily lives of workers, students, pensioners and the public in general, along with businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
One of the main challenges to relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination.
I believe that there can only be good governance of the Single Market if there is good quality and up-to-date information on how it functions.
This requires the use of suitable instruments for monitoring and evaluating Single Market policies in order to link the different stages of the policy cycle, from conception to implementation.
It is also important for the Member States to become engaged in the assessment and monitoring of Single Market rules.
The Commission's report on the Single Market Act follows on from Mr Monti's report on 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
That is the context of this report.
The objectives are clear: strengthening free competition, and speeding up the process of liberalisation and privatisation of various sectors of economic activity and social life.
The report's rhetoric seeks to obscure its real intentions, and the claim that it is seeking to strengthen 'a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment' is symptomatic.
It is full of contradictions and demagoguery, also mentioning that 'companies, especially [small and medium-sized enterprises] (SMEs), and Europeans' will be 'at the heart of the Single Market'.
Indeed, they are sure to be at the heart of the negative consequences, which have become so evident during the recent decades of the Single Market.
The conclusions of the Council of 25 March, and the 'Euro Plus Pact', adopted there, are illustrative of the war being openly waged against workers, young people and pensioners, and, in the end, against the general public.
This report is part of the package relating to the Commission communication on the Single Market Act, the proposal of which follows on from Mr Monti's report on 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
It is thus aimed at strengthening free competition and speeding up the process of liberalisation and privatisation, although the whole document is phrased in a way that seeks to obscure its real intentions, stating, for example, that the intention is to strengthen 'a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment', and adding that it therefore aims to place companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and Europeans at the heart of the Single Market.
In fact, however, you only have to read the conclusions of the Council on 25 March, and particularly the 'Euro Plus Pact', to see clearly what is intended: war against the world of work, collective bargaining, trade unions, retirees and their right to pensions.
The key objectives are to speed up the process of concentration and accumulation of capital to the benefit of monopolist groups, ending any attempt to protect SMEs, workers and public services.
Hence, our vote against.
The report presented to us by our fellow Member from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE) has some findings which are certainly shared by our group, such as the need for greater involvement of the regions and for more transparency.
However, this is not enough to gain my vote in favour since I do not agree with the majority of points it makes.
For example, I do not agree with the conviction that the Commission should play an even more important role, nor with the overly frequent references to the issue of infringement proceedings, nor with the mandate given to the President of the Commission to coordinate the revitalisation of the Single Market.
Of all the reports on the Single Market that have been adopted today, and against which I voted, only the Kalniete report stands out somewhat from the pack.
It has the courage to talk of something other than further integration and consolidation of the Single Market, which has gone on for 25 years without Europeans seeing tangible benefits from it.
It talks, for example, of listening to citizens and proposes that, each year, we identify the principal sources of discontent and frustrations among citizens and take them into account.
That would be a novelty!
'No to the liberalisation of public services' is what those citizens would say who are exasperated by delays in postal services, soaring energy prices, the deterioration of rail services, and so forth.
And it would be stopped!
People are sick of unfair competition; they have had enough relocations and imports that are killing off our jobs.
We would protect our markets and our industries by sending the WTO packing!
Abandon the 'Euro Plus Pact', for which our wages and our purchasing power are less important than the survival of a currency which has only brought us trouble!
And it would be done!
Yet, considering how long demonstrators have been marching outside your windows saying such things, who have you been listening to, apart from the lobbyists and the wheeler-dealers?
This report is of great importance, because it concerns the question of how the internal market, which is one of the EU's main priorities, can bring increased benefits for European citizens and businesses by ensuring that those involved work more efficiently together.
In addition to dialogue and partnership between the stakeholders, such as the national parliaments, the local and regional authorities and the social partners, and increased coordination, there is a need for the existing regulations to be simplified and implemented more efficiently by the Member States.
In the context of this report, I welcome the recognition of the important role played by EURES (the European Job Mobility Portal), in particular, with regard to making the free movement of employees easier, because this contact point is of major significance, especially in border regions.
The measures for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are to be provided with clear information about the internal market, are also extremely important.
in writing. - The Kalniete report rightly emphasises the importance of authorities below the Member State government level in implementing rules relating to the Single Market.
I fully support this sentiment and consider that, when Scotland wins back her independence, it will be appropriate for those levels of government below the Scottish national government to be fully involved in implementing Single Market rules.
I voted for this report because it proposes adopting a directive that would involve national governments and regional authorities more in the drawing up of a new directive, through consultation with employers, unions and other associations.
It calls on the Commission to indicate the implementation timetable for the Single Market Act and to publish regular updates of tangible progress in order to make the EU public more aware of the Act's implementation and highlight its benefits.
It is proposed that partnership with local and regional authorities needs to be broadened from cohesion policy to Single Market policies.
Single market rules are very often implemented and enforced by Member States' authorities at regional or local levels.
The experience with the implementation of the Services Directive has clearly shown that involvement of regional and local authorities can be extremely important for ensuring that Single Market legislation is properly implemented and applied.
The dialogue and partnership element of Single Market governance should be strengthened through stronger involvement by national parliaments.
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon offers a window of opportunity for the national parliaments to engage with Single Market rules throughout the legislative cycle and participate in joint activities with the European Parliament.
This could speed up the adoption of subsequent transposition measures at Member State level.
A constant exchange of information with national parliaments on the progress of transpositions could also facilitate the transposition process.
All measures aimed at the development and integration of Member States are worthy of attention.
There is no doubt that the current system of economic cooperation - the European Union Single Market - makes life easier for all citizens, among other things, by lifting trade barriers and enabling the free flow of people.
However, new proposals need to be introduced successively to prevent stagnation occurring within the system.
Let us consider whether political leadership would not be a good idea for revitalising the Single Market.
The President of the Council of the European Union, working together with the President of the European Commission, would be authorised to coordinate and supervise this process of revitalisation while maintaining, however, the involvement of the Member States.
Partnership as a factor in managing the Single Market should be based on dialogue with the parliaments of Member States, and also on cooperation with local and regional authorities.
Working together would help in implementing directives properly and would produce the expected results.
I support the final form of the report on governance and partnership in the Single Market, and especially its key priorities.
In my opinion, regular assessment of the situation on the internal market will improve the way it functions.
A better functioning internal market is also promised from the more broadly conceived, more interactive and more transparent public consultations of the draft legislation.
If we can persuade Member States to publish comparison tables for legislation relating to the Single Market, there is a chance that we will be able to reduce the deficit in the implementation of directives relating to the Single Market to 0.5% in the case of legislation not yet adopted, and to 0.5% in the case of legislation incorrectly implemented.
However, the fundamental precondition for success is for the Commission to take a more active approach towards enforcing the transposition of EU law than is currently the case, for example, with the directive on services on the internal market.
This directive is one of the cornerstones of a functioning internal market. Unfortunately, however, many states have implemented it late and often incorrectly, in a bid to apply the principles of economic nationalism, and the Commission turns a blind eye to this.
I have voted for the adoption of this report.
The report I have supported embodies many of the principles which I personally consider foundational for the European Union.
I refer, in general terms, to the type of dialogue that must be established as soon as possible between citizens and institutions at different levels.
This dialogue takes on specific and diverse connotations in relation to the life of all of us Europeans, but it becomes much more relevant when one considers the creation of a Single Market aimed at revitalising the entire European economy and improving communications between legislative bodies and the direct beneficiaries.
I think the priorities in our pursuit of shared growth should be to proceed in this direction, while looking at new methods of governance and monitoring various kinds of procedures while, at the same time, streamlining our citizens' access to public administration.
Last October, the Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, presented his 'Single Market Act', a collection of 50 proposals for boosting growth in the European Union.
The European Parliament was then invited to give its view on the various parts of this paper.
Part 3 of the Act calls on the Member States and the institutions to implement the measures necessary to bring the citizens and the Single Market closer together.
In particular, this rapprochement will be achieved by launching a mutual evaluation system for the 2006 Services Directive and by increasing consultation and dialogue with civil society, both when preparing and implementing texts and in resolving problems.
I voted for Parliament's resolution because it welcomes the commitments made by the Commission and highlights the importance of improving the clarity of European texts or of using its power to impose sanctions in order to oblige the Member States to respect their commitments.
in writing. - I voted for this report which states that one of the key challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination.
The 50 proposals for relaunching the Single Market encompass numerous portfolios, crucially involving the competences of several commissioners in the Commission, and touch upon the jurisdiction of various committees in the European Parliament.
In the Council, the Single Market Act is furthermore split into different Council configurations whose role and effectiveness vary a great deal.
National institutions also differ a lot in the ways that they are configured and in their organisational cultures.
in writing. - (RO) Member States must adopt a firm joint stance in order to improve the functioning of the European Single Market and prevent the return of economic protectionism, which would result in fragmentation of the internal market and affect competitiveness.
The aim of the European Single Market Act is to develop administrative cooperation between Member States, also by means of expanding the role of regional authorities with a view to establishing coordination at their level.
Unfortunately, it is relatively difficult to register such programmes at regional level as a result of the economic disparities between EU regions.
In order to revitalise the less developed regions, we need to focus on human capital.
The region's prosperity is determined firstly by the productivity of its inhabitants and their skills, in addition to the level of capital investment and their innovative capacity.
However, there are major differences even between regions in the same Member State.
I think that adapting the European Single Market to the needs of European citizens is achieved primarily through improving worker mobility.
The free movement of labour can make a significant contribution to narrowing the disparities between regions.
Another key aspect is the provision of ongoing education and training for workers.
Specialist workers and those who have retrained for another career can meet the market's specific needs much more easily, thanks to their high level of mobility.
in writing. - (FR) The economic and financial crisis has demonstrated the failure of euro-liberalism, the dogmatic framework of the Single Market.
Far from changing course, EU leaders are rushing headlong down the same path and consolidating the mechanisms which inherently underpin unbridled liberalisation.
The 'governance' proposed on the pretext of improving coordination aims to bypass and punish national parliaments opposed to this dogma being applied.
This report is harmful for the European economy and shows contempt for popular sovereignty.
I shall vote against it.
The Single Market has always been one of the pillars of Europe's economic development.
I believe that one of the key challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination.
These 50 proposals to relaunch the Single Market encompass numerous portfolios, crucially involving the competences of several commissioners in the European Commission and touch upon the jurisdictions of various committees in the European Parliament.
However, it is important for the Member States to establish their own priorities and develop their own agenda in line with the priorities of the Single Market.
It is important for us to strengthen the internal market, in particular, during an economic crisis, when the impact of the crisis is being felt.
We need to return to a secure labour market.
This can be guaranteed primarily with the support of small and medium-sized businesses, which are one of the main engines within the national economies.
As the rapporteur has spoken out in favour of increased supervision and assessment of internal market policies, I have not voted for the report.
It is not clear how this can be achieved and what consequences it would have for the individual states.
I have voted against the report on governance and partnership in the Single Market because I find it too unbalanced.
Some outstanding issues are not assessed with due attention.
We should not believe that the great Single Market is the solution to all of Europe's problems, as it appears to be in some parts of this report.
I believe that some features and peculiarities of the various Member States should be taken into account.
Not all countries are the same and a measure that may be useful in one country might possibly cause serious damage in another Member State.
In addition, the system of penalties for offences should be carefully considered, since it runs the risk of exacerbating already difficult situations with still more damaging measures.
We still have to remember all the problems which the infamous Services Directive has caused and continues to cause, at least in Italy, for example, among itinerant tradespeople and seaside businesses.
I would not like these problems to recur with increasing frequency.
I voted in favour of this resolution because the establishment and operation of governance and partnership processes is one of the main factors ensuring the effective functioning of the market.
Attention is drawn to the fact that partnership needs to be broadened from cohesion policy to Single Market policies.
I believe that national parliaments and regional authorities must be more involved in drawing up the directive.
This is very important for ensuring that EU legislation is properly implemented and applied in the Member States.
Moreover, this would facilitate the transposition process.
In order to take account of the needs and interests of society, there should be consultation with employers, unions and other associations.
It is noted that a governance framework is established through interaction between the state, civil society and the private sector, and it is therefore particularly important for the governance of the Single Market to be based on the principles of transparency and accountability.
For governance structures to function effectively, the Member States must regularly supply the Commission with clear and precise information in relation to the implementation of directives.
I agree with the proposal to reduce the transposition deficit of Single Market directives to 0.5% for outstanding legislation and 0.5% for incorrectly transposed legislation by the end of 2012.
I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the key points on governance and partnership of the Single Market that are set out in it.
In particular, I agree with the need to strengthen political leadership and partnership.
Indeed, one of the key challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination.
The 50 proposals for relaunching the Single Market encompass numerous portfolios, crucially involving the competences of several commissioners in the Commission and touch upon the jurisdictions of various committees in the European Parliament.
Moreover, in the Council, the Single Market Act is shared between various parts of the institution, whose roles and effectiveness vary widely.
Strengthening political dialogue, commitment and coordination is essential to ensuring the relaunch of the Single Market.
In order to ensure leadership, I also agree with the rapporteur, who suggests that the President of the Council be mandated to coordinate and oversee this process, in close cooperation with the President of the Commission, setting the spring session of the European Council as the time for the annual evaluation of the Single Market.
A competitive European Single Market without obstacles should be finalized in order to bring concrete advantages for employees, students, pensioners and citizens in general, and for businesses, particularly SMEs.
Good governance and legal certainty are crucial to achieving the Single Market's economic and social objectives, including the free movement of workers, promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, a high level of education and vocational training, and the portability of pensions.
The European executive must continue to promote a one-stop shop, integrating all existing services into one single access point and providing citizens and businesses with information and support concerning their rights in the Single Market, as well as practical information on national rules and procedures.
I call on Member States to increase public awareness of the one-stop shop and its constituent services.
The European Commission has to incorporate fundamental rights into all Single Market legislation.
Implementation of the fundamental economic freedoms of the Single Market must not affect collective bargaining rights and the right to strike as defined by national legislation.
The full realisation of a competitive Single Market, without barriers, and with definite advantages for the daily lives of workers, students, pensioners and the public in general, along with businesses, is essential to relaunching the European economy and stimulating growth, competitiveness and sustainability in the EU.
All stakeholders - the public, the European institutions, the Member States - should therefore make an effort to ensure the relaunch of the Single Market, and coordinate their respective activities closely and effectively, particularly in order to improve the transposition, implementation and application of the respective rules, to develop a clearer regulatory framework, to ensure greater involvement by the regional and local authorities in this process, to promote open, transparent and regular dialogue with their social partners and civil society, to strengthen administrative cooperation between the Member States, and to develop tools that enable the functioning of the Internal Market to be monitored properly.
Following the Monti report on relaunching the Single Market, the Commission has submitted the paper 'Towards a Single Market Act', drawn up under the leadership of Commissioner Barnier, for public consultation.
On the basis of the contributions received and the priorities set, the Commission will propose a definitive version of this Act, which will contain a dozen priority measures for completing the Single Market.
That is why it is important for Parliament to look at its priorities and to send a clear message to the Commission beforehand.
This 'governance and partnership' resolution, which I supported, calls for stronger political leadership, an improvement in the implementation of legislation relating to the Single Market, and the introduction of tools for good governance (reducing the transposition deficit, alleviating administrative burdens, partnership with local authorities, stronger involvement of national Parliaments, dialogue with civil society, and so on).
One priority that has been identified is an alternative method of conflict resolution.
On this point, I am disappointed that we neglected collective redress.
This omission is a missed opportunity for the European Parliament to affirm its commitment to introduce such an instrument quickly.
The rapporteur has suggested that one of the key challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination.
The 50 proposals for relaunching the Single Market encompass numerous portfolios, crucially involving the competences of several commissioners in the Commission and touch upon jurisdiction of various committees in the European Parliament.
I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that the improvement of the single market, through the active support of Member States and all stakeholders, is essential for the European Union.
The active participation of stakeholders can be achieved only with a change in the current single market policy that provides leadership and a commitment to its improvement.
I am in full agreement with the rapporteur when she considers that merely enhancing the role of the Council, as the institution leading the implementation of the single market, is not enough.
We need a more targeted approach to the choice of legislative instruments, which, in addition to the Institution, would give the President of the European Council the mandate to coordinate the relaunch of the single market, in close cooperation with the President of the Commission.
In fact, we must ensure top-level political guidance and invite Member States to set their own priorities and develop their own agenda in accordance with the priorities of the single market in order to take true ownership of its implementation.
in writing. - I supported the twelve measures contained in the Single Market Act, in particular, focusing on the digital agenda and innovative procurement.
I hope to see this translated into effective legislative measures by the Commission.
The implementation of the Single Market is now emerging as one of the measures for overcoming the economic and financial crisis, and thus promoting increased competitiveness and full EU integration.
It is imperative to create a European space where the potential of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can create added economic value, as suggested in the Commission communication - The Single Market Act.
I believe it is essential to support Europe's SMEs, along with the full liberalisation of the free movement of people, goods and services, so as to maximise the gains of the Single Market.
The rapporteur sets out five priorities that the EU should focus on, of which I would highlight the following: the creation of a European patent and a unified system for resolving disputes, which is essential for innovation and creativity; new instruments for funding innovation for SMEs; the development of e-commerce by increasing the confidence of companies and the public with measures against piracy and counterfeiting; better access to capital markets; and the elimination and harmonisation of administrative and tax barriers in cross-border activities, the review of public contracts and public and private partnerships, and encouragement of cross-border contracts.
A more competitive Single Market provides a perfect opportunity to stimulate economic growth in European countries affected by the crisis.
The economic and social objectives of the Single Market - the free movement of workers, combating social exclusion and pension portability - are something worth fighting for.
However, for a true Single Market to become a reality, there needs to be good governance and legal clarity.
The Single Market's management structures must be as simple as possible, because otherwise, the effectiveness and transparency of the Single Market will suffer.
I agree with the rapporteur that we must choose more appropriate legislative measures.
More efforts should also be made to improve administrative cooperation between the Member States.
This would help solve urgent problems implementing specific directives and also establish mutual trust between the Member States' institutions and a more effective Single Market in the long term.
I feel it is important for the relaunch of the Single Market to promote job creation and to create a business friendly environment.
A successful Single Market should encourage entrepreneurship and remove obstacles hindering the establishment of new SMEs.
This is particularly true for Lithuania, where there are approximately 31 SMEs per 1 000 inhabitants, which is clearly lower than the average in the EU 27 (40).
I am very pleased at the adoption of three resolutions on relaunching the Single Market which strengthen governance and the role of businesses and growth, as well as that of citizens, in this policy.
More than 20 years after the signing of the Single European Act, the freedom of movement of individuals, goods and capital throughout Europe is testament to the success of an ambitious policy serving citizens and growth, a policy from which everyone can draw benefits every day.
However, it would not have been enough for us just to take stock, as Europeans are expecting specific proposals from us to respond to future challenges.
In stating our priorities, we have drawn up a collection of balanced measures embodying a clear political, economic and social model.
In relation to this particular resolution on governance and partnership, I wished to vote in favour of a report which gives the project a political dimension.
In order to make sure that people are better informed, the supervision of the relaunch will, from now on, be undertaken by the President of the Commission.
In this way, the Single Market is represented by a European body, which will allow European citizens to be federated around a single project and will strengthen European membership.
The practical findings of recent decades are being used to revitalise the internal market and form the basis for the incorporation of important corrective measures.
In order to prevent future delays in the implementation of national measures, the instruments provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon will be used and the national parliaments will be included in the entire legislative process at a European level.
However, the second proposal, in particular, is the essential one.
Its aim is to guarantee the proper implementation of the measures at a regional and local level, where they will have the greatest impact on the citizens, and to ensure that the intention behind the preparation and adoption of the directive at a European level is made clear to the European citizens.
I voted in favour of Mrs Kalniete's report.
It is important to focus on the revitalisation of the Single Market, focusing on activities with a high potential for growth and job creation that will provide concrete and immediately visible results for European citizens.
I also think it is right to focus on streamlining legislation to make the EU's internal market more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises and, above all, establish renewed EU action for the liberalisation of regulated professions and for the mutual recognition of qualifications.
I am voting for this report because, amongst other progressive measures, it introduces a link between the Single Market Act and the Europe 2020 strategy, it mentions the need to protect the rights of workers, it focuses on job creation, and it allows the portability of pensioners' rights.
Despite all this, the social dimension of this report still lags behind what was hoped for.
I supported the report by our fellow Member, Mr Correia de Campos, as well as the two reports by Mrs Kalniete and Mr Busoi.
The objective of Michel Barnier, Commissioner for the Internal Market, is to relaunch the Single Market, but, above all, to bring it closer to the citizen.
in writing. - (LT) I voted in favour of this report.
The fragmentation of the internal market is reducing EU citizens' confidence in it because they are unable to take advantage of their freedoms.
The Commission's communication presents a toolbox, which should help to achieve a Single Market that is integrated and functions without obstacles, and which could boost Europe's economic recovery and its competitiveness.
I would like to highlight one particularly important aspect - the importance of the creation of a single energy market.
A single energy market is especially important for EU competitiveness both within the EU and externally.
The creation of such a market would help reduce external dependence and make energy prices more affordable, fair and competitive for our citizens and businesses.
Legislative and non-legislative initiatives on energy should aim at safeguarding the supply of energy through a diversified energy network, new infrastructures of renewable energy and coordinated research and development on new energy sources.
Such initiatives should be taken on a basis of close coordination between the Commission, the Member States and the relevant sectors of the industry.
A real deepening of the Single Market benefiting citizens, business and European competitiveness must be strengthened by creating infrastructure projects that have added value for the whole of Europe, and which are funded and managed at EU level in order to ensure our energy independence and security.
I voted for this report because we need to make progress.
There are really too many obstacles hampering citizens wishing to study, work or go and shop in another Member State.
It is also still just as difficult for small and medium-sized businesses.
European citizens also need more information, not to mention simpler, more comprehensible and more clearly communicated legislation.
Europe is not just a market; it is also a community of citizens - that is a statement that we often hear.
What is the reality, though?
Few citizens believe in it.
Hence, this report on a Single Market for Europeans, adopted today in response to the Single Market Act put forward by the Commission last October.
Alongside the reports dealing with businesses, growth and the governance of the Single Market, this report addresses the expectations of citizens, consumers and users of public services.
Among the ideas mentioned are greater transparency of banking charges, but also real recognition of professional qualifications and portability of pension rights.
The negotiations allowed us to include a reference to the horizontal social clause which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon and which now has to be transposed concretely into legislation.
Finally, the report once again takes up the concept, advocated by Commissioner Barnier, of a 'toolbox' for services of general interest - in particular, social services of general interest - which are currently a major concern of citizens and service providers in the national territories.
Although it is non-legislative, this report has the merit of including citizens in the well-known necessity of completing the Single Market.
In 2010, the Commission adopted a proposal to renew the confidence of European citizens in the Single Market with the objective of reinforcing a 'highly competitive social market economy, aiming for full employment and social progress'.
In my view, efforts to implement the Single Market have focused on the market itself and its organisation, while ignoring the concerns and rights of citizens, workers and consumers.
Particularly essential is the establishment of a single energy market, which should be in a position to encourage European competitiveness by reducing energy prices and dependence on foreign sources.
Legislative initiatives on energy should be implemented in close coordination between the Commission, Member States and the relevant sectors of industry.
Another fundamental issue is transparency in bank charges, costs and the real conditions for mortgage loans, in order to protect consumers and investors and ensure access to credit for individuals and small businesses.
Finally, I believe that any true widening of the Single Market for citizens, businesses and Europe's competitiveness will be founded on the ability to develop EU-funded infrastructure projects.
I therefore encourage the Commission to present legislative proposals in this area.
I share the view that a functioning Single Market is the key driver which will enable the European Union to reach its full potential in terms of competitiveness, smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, and the creation of more and better jobs.
The Single Market strategy should strengthen social welfare and workers' rights and ensure fair working conditions for all citizens.
I voted in favour of the legislative initiative.
I think that the European Commission must take measures to increase citizens' mobility.
I welcome the idea of drafting a green paper on the recognition of professional qualifications and of creating a 'mobility scoreboard' for measuring this indicator within the EU.
I voted in favour of this report because, in my opinion, in order to restore European citizens' confidence in the Single Market and support for the idea of the European Union, it is necessary to take further action to strengthen citizens' social rights and their implementation.
Areas mentioned in the report requiring further action, both at national and EU levels, include the creation of new jobs, taking account of demographic and labour market changes in the Member States, as well as workers' rights and ensuring fair working conditions, which is particularly important, while also promoting movement of workers between the Member States.
The report also stresses the need to strengthen the rights of citizens as consumers and as public service users, and the need to organise appropriate information campaigns, during which they would be informed about their rights and freedoms.
Attention is also drawn to the reform of the framework for recognising professional qualifications and the need to guarantee the portability of pension rights, while also encouraging the Member States to coordinate their pension policies more effectively.
The communication proposal for restoring European citizens' trust in the Single Market, drafted by the Commission, is slightly unclear when examining it in correlation with the EU 2020 strategy.
Many of the proposals featuring in it overlap with various other initiatives.
In these circumstances, more consistency, greater effectiveness and better governance are required for a renewed Single Market to foster, within the EU, economic growth, employment and competitiveness, as well as respect for the rights of citizens and consumers.
The Council and Member States have to support together the European and national commitment to deepening and strengthening the Single Market.
Efforts to achieve the Single Market have been concentrated on its organisation and too little on the concerns and rights of citizens, workers and consumers, which might explain European citizens' reluctance and lack of enthusiasm towards the internal market.
Citizens need to feature at the heart of the Single Market.
This point is clearly stated in the document's introduction. On the other hand, the proposals to attain this objective are too weak to achieve it.
The Grech report, adopted by Parliament in May 2010, recommended a holistic approach to relaunching and strengthening the internal market, encompassing key sectors such as industry, energy and infrastructure.
The completion of the Single Market represents a valuable tool with which to relaunch the European economy, particularly as regards job creation.
The reports on this subject, which we have approved here today, represent, in my opinion, an important step towards an integrated and functional Single Market.
The Commission has made 50 proposals to allow us to work and trade together in a better way.
I voted in favour of this report which aims to ensure effective economic freedom, while protecting the right to work, the full implementation of the principle of equal pay and free movement of workers (which also includes full recognition of professions within the Member States).
I therefore agree with the priorities identified by the rapporteur, such as strengthening the supervision of the European market, the establishment of an action plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting and the development of a communications policy which will highlight the activities carried out by the EU.
in writing. - This report is part of a package of three reports with which the Parliament has answered to the broad Commission communication on the Single Market Act (SMA) containing 50 legislative and non-legislative proposals and divided in three different chapters, one focusing on Citizens, one on Business and one on Governance.
The objective of the SMA, was supposed to give implementation to the Monti report which had as main concern to re-launch the Single Market.
I voted for this report but abstained on some amendments as they were part of the negotiated package on the compromise amendments.
I hope this report puts the citizens at the heart of the Single Market and strengthens its social dimension.
We voted in favour of the report on a Single Market for Europeans.
The report contains many important proposals for the development of the Single Market.
A particular priority for us is to ensure that labour market rights are respected in connection with revitalising a more competitively oriented Single Market.
However, the report also contains proposals to call on the Commission to identify and eliminate the tax obstacles faced by European citizens and to further develop immigration policy in respect of migrants and seasonal workers.
In our opinion, both of these are national matters.
A number of amendments to the report were also tabled, the spirit of which we support, but we do not believe that this report warrants this type of amendment.
I agree with this report.
The creation of a Single Market has always been one of the main objectives of the process of European integration and, today more than ever, we feel the need to strengthen it through concrete measures which aim to address three crucial aspects.
We must strengthen the single European market in order to make it highly efficient and competitive and we must renew it within the framework of EU policies in order to combat the effects of the financial crisis.
I thoroughly agree with the proposals made by the European Parliament on strengthening consumer and business confidence.
What emerges as a top priority for the realisation of this project is the adoption of urgent measures to facilitate the mobility of citizens which would make the market more open to European workers and promote full employment.
We can no longer consider developing a Single Market without greater citizen involvement.
For example, improving access to banking services and mortgages for the protection of investors, consumers and financial institutions, or resolving the outstanding issues concerning the free movement of workers, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
I voted for Mr Campos's resolution as I feel that the final text he has proposed is balanced.
Furthermore, I welcomed the fact that the proposals from both the Grech and Monti reports were mentioned again by the rapporteur.
Restoring European citizens' confidence in the proper functioning of the Single Market ought to be the European Commission's prime concern.
In any case, dividing the proposals into three different chapters does not provide a complete overview of the Single Market Act. Indeed, this criticism was included in Mr Campos's final report.
In addition, as shadow rapporteur for my political group for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the report 'A Single Market for Europeans', I tabled an amendment which requested that Member States still applying restrictions on their labour markets to workers from the new Member States lift these barriers for the sake of the obvious economic benefits, especially during an economic crisis.
I am pleased that this amendment enjoyed the support of most of my fellow Members.
Too often, the European Union is distant from its citizens, its policies seem far removed, and the European project lacks meaning in the eyes of Europeans.
If the Single Market is only to be a conduit for rampant liberalisation, deregulating public services, social systems and workers' rights by submitting them to fierce competition, this is a cause for concern, even though it has and may have several positive specific consequences for consumers and in the everyday lives of our fellow citizens.
With Mr Correia de Campos's report, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have fought for better regulation when it comes to strengthening the Single Market, and for this strengthening to serve the general interest of Europeans and not just that of businesses.
Such interests include consumers' rights, the protection of workers' rights against the tendency towards social dumping, with an explicit recognition of collective labour agreements in all the Member States of the Union, the call for a recognised framework for public services, and universal access to these services.
The integration of the Single Market must now go hand in hand with the advances of a social Europe, which is needed more than ever at a time when the recession continues to affect Europeans.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the 'Single market for Europeans' report.
It is the duty of the European institutions to facilitate a highly developed, highly competitive social market economy that will seek to create full employment and stimulate social progress.
I believe that the Single Market is one of the key drivers for European growth.
Market fatigue is a cause for concern and this must be examined in detail.
Most importantly, this report reaffirms citizens' fundamental social rights in the field of collective action, labour law, employment protection and industrial restructuring in line with primary European law.
I am in favour of the short-term strategies suggested in this report, including the enhancement of European market surveillance, the creation of a single integrated mortgage market and the removal of tax obstacles and double taxation.
Implementing a sound e-commerce policy will increase citizens' and consumers' confidence when shopping online.
I would like to also welcome the proposal to create an action plan to reduce illegal counterfeiting of goods.
This will contribute to a rapid return to growth in the goods sector.
I voted in favour of this report as it contributes to the idea of a Single Market that is friendlier and more attractive to the European public.
It should be stressed that the text includes measures safeguarding respect for social values and rights in EU legislation, so that these can never be subsumed by the market approach.
This is one of three reports being debated and voted on today relating to the Internal Market and the consolidation of the Single Market.
Although the rapporteur also tries here to gloss over the consequences of his support for liberalisation by advocating the social clause in all legislation on the Single Market, in line with Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the truth is that he is not unaware that neither the Commission nor the Council comply with it.
Many Member States do not comply with it either, as is the case with Portugal.
There is more and more praise for free competition, and more professions of faith in the market, liberalisation and privatisation, one example of which is the insistence on implementing the Services Directive.
The link with the conclusions of the Council on 25 March and, above all, with the newly renamed 'Euro Plus Pact', is clear.
Germany originally thought this up and dubbed it the 'Competitiveness Pact', and it declares war on workers, on their social rights and on the people in general, whilst denouncing the dependence of countries that have weaker economies and where civilisation is truly moving backward.
We therefore voted against, as we did the two other reports.
This is another report on the Internal Market, and it is part of the package relating to the Commission communication on the Single Market Act, the proposal of which follows on from Mr Monti's report on 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
Although the rapporteur also tries here to hide his true support for liberalisation by advocating the social clause in all legislation on the Single Market, in line with Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the truth is that he is not unaware that neither the Commission nor the Council comply with it.
In this way, the intention is to strengthen free competition and speed up the process of liberalisation and privatisation, which again the report does not hide, by insisting on the implementation of the Services Directive.
Thus, it appears to be in line with the conclusions of the Council on 25 March, and particularly the 'Euro Plus Pact', which declares war on the world of work and social rights by insisting on speeding up liberalisation.
In his report, our Portuguese fellow Member has included recommendations we support such as the need to move to a Single Market that favours consumer rights issues and especially making customs checks of goods from third countries a priority.
In addition to these positive aspects, however, there are points of significant divergence on how Member States should comply with the directives and too many references are made to social forms of entrepreneurship.
I will, therefore, abstain from voting.
This report concerns the 19 initiatives proposed by the Commission which will put European citizens at the heart of the internal market and, at the same time, will work towards a sustainable social market economy.
I particularly welcome this report, among other things, because it will benefit European citizens, especially those who live in border regions.
The proposed measures will make the everyday lives of citizens and businesses in border regions easier.
The report supports the initiative to recognise professional qualifications and the 'Youth on the Move' initiative.
In addition, tax obstacles will be identified and eliminated and decisive measures will be taken to prevent double taxation.
Furthermore, the report calls for fair working conditions for all Europeans and also full portability of pension rights.
These measures will make citizens the centre point of the internal market. Their specific needs will be matched by specific measures.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report, which rightly highlights the need to 'respect the principles of subsidiarity and Member State sovereignty'.
It is just a pity that not all Member States are prepared to recognise where sovereignty lies.
In 1953, the Lord President of Scotland's highest civil court confirmed that, unlike in other parts of the UK, in Scottish constitutional law, sovereignty lies with the people.
How unfortunate therefore it is that all the unionist parties blocked attempts by the Scottish Government to promote this principle by way of a referendum on Scottish independence.
I voted in favour of this document because there is a need to enhance European market surveillance, provide better access to basic banking services, establish a single integrated mortgage market and remove tax obstacles and double taxation.
The rapid and effective implementation of an e-commerce policy is also required in order to increase citizens' and consumers' trust while shopping online.
Furthermore, there is a need for an action plan against counterfeiting and piracy as a major preventive tool, to guarantee that goods circulating in the Single Market are safe to consume, of the appropriate standard and legal.
The Commission and the Member States should develop an effective communication policy on the Single Market Act, based on a policy audit of its tangibility to citizens.
We also require a system of benchmarks, based on the horizontal social clause, to assess the relevance of all Single Market measures based on their social impact, tangibility and feasibility, to be used as a basis for future policy.
Our citizens must be at the heart of the Single Market project.
There is no doubt that the Single Market, which we are talking about today, is one of the greatest achievements of economic integration in the Union, but it should be remembered that our responsibility is not to encourage stagnation, but the relentless pursuit of perfection.
A coherent whole depends on the constituent parts, which, just like the pieces of a puzzle, form a construction which is robust, strong, and stable.
The constituent parts in the Single Market are the people, whose rights and responsibilities should always be our priority.
Our objective is healthy and continuous development which will activate economic growth, and such growth is possible only thanks to improvements in economic and social issues and better governance.
We should give thought to whether policies ought not to be truly citizen-centred.
Development and valorisation of human capital is essential, and a real deepening of the market should bring benefits for every European - employee, consumer and entrepreneur.
The report on the Single Market for Europeans contains many positive proposals, such as support for the mobility of citizens or elimination of the dual taxation of European citizens, but it also contains many proposals which bear the stamp of over-regulation and which would ultimately put a brake on the Single Market and cause it to stagnate.
Personally, I do not support the proposals for a more regulated and controlled Single Market for retail finance, nor do I support the proposal for an automatic extension of the measure to regulate roaming, as this regulatory measure was only temporary and should have brought about the realignment of roaming prices.
Where there is a failure of market mechanisms, the regulation of final retail prices should be the instrument of last resort, as in the case of the Roaming Regulation.
The calls of politicians for an automatic extension of this regulation is more of a politically populist gesture than a rationally justified step reflecting the changes that have taken place in the EU in the field of telecommunications since 2007.
The proposal to launch a 'European cross-border business of the year' television competition is, in my opinion, a senseless waste of European resources.
I have therefore decided to abstain from the vote on this report.
I voted in favour of this report because I am firmly convinced that the existence of a Single Market would constitute the most significant manifestation of a strong and cohesive Europe.
Promoting social enterprises, ensuring the free mobility of European citizens and promoting up-to-date banking services for everyone are but a few of the focal points on which we must concentrate our ideas, resources and projects.
With reference to the first point, in particular, I wholeheartedly welcome the call for the Commission to publish a Green Paper on the recognition of professional qualifications across the various EU Member States.
This would be an important step towards making the role of education and training more tangible in an increasingly open European context.
Part 2 of the Act lays the foundation for reconciling Europeans with the Single Market.
Jacques Delors once said: 'One cannot fall in love with a Single Market'.
That is certainly true, but we can nevertheless try to make it useful for citizens.
For this reason, I supported the European Parliament resolution, which welcomes the balance given to the relation between workers' freedoms and the demands of a social economy.
This part of the Act thus reserves an important place for those elements that are essential for Europeans, such as public services, communication infrastructure, solidarity and employment, as well as consumer protection.
This balance reflects the full awareness of the Commission that the market cannot act against the citizens, but must act to serve them, in the short as well as the long term.
Efforts to achieve the Single Market have been concentrated on the market and its organisation and very little on concerns and rights of citizens, workers and consumers, which can explain the Europeans' reluctance and fatigue regarding the Internal Market.
Citizens need to be placed at the heart of the Single Market.
This is clearly stated in the introduction of the document; however, the proposals to implement that goal are too weak to achieve it.
While admitting that Europeans overwhelmingly reject the Single Market, this report reaffirms a central place for it in the Community system.
The stated desire to strengthen social legislation and to consider citizens' concerns, while certainly a positive thing, is inapplicable to the principle of the Single Market, given the free and non-distorted competition we see currently.
This report is contradictory and misleading.
Efforts to stimulate the Single Market should focus on the concerns and rights of the public and companies, providing them with tangible benefits.
There also needs to be a reference to social rights in legislation relating to the Single Market, and measures need to be proposed to encourage mobility for the public and ensure the portability of their pension rights.
This is the only way that we will be successful in terms of a complete and functioning Single Market.
More than half a century ago, the countries of Europe united in order to establish a Single Market.
We believe we established it a quarter of a century ago. Today, however, there are still many issues that we have to address in order for the Single Market to function effectively and for the European Union to be competitive.
I believe that of all the measures discussed and mentioned in the document we have adopted, two aspects are particularly important: lifelong learning and reducing unemployment for young people and the establishment and functioning of a single energy market.
On the subject of young people, it is precisely this section of society that will live in the Europe we are creating.
It is therefore important to create every opportunity for young people to properly adapt and engage in the creation of their future.
An energy market is a new area of EU policy.
Smart energy networks will undoubtedly play a major role in the economy of the future, and therefore we must not delay and devote sufficient attention and resources to establishing and improving them.
I agree with this resolution because most attention should be paid to basic social rights and to ensuring consumer rights and the free movement of workers, goods and businesses.
The Single Market must create conditions for sustainable growth and higher employment and citizens must be at its heart.
Consequently, it is very important to avoid distortions of competition.
The Single Market will remain competitive if all social rights are respected.
We must guarantee and constantly strengthen social welfare and workers' rights, and provide decent working conditions.
I agree with the proposal making it impossible to work in the territory of a Member State without complying with its provisions on wages and working conditions.
The principle of equal pay for work of equal value must be implemented fully.
Barriers to the free movement of workers must be removed.
We must open the labour markets in the Member States to all European workers, but the regulation of these markets must be implemented in compliance with those Member States' labour market rules, including the Scandinavian collective agreement model.
It is very important to give the Member States the right to decide for themselves whether they should grant non-EU citizens the right to reside in their territory.
For the Single Market to be socially oriented, industry must be restructured in a sustainable manner, and there must be constant consultation with social partners.
It is very important to ensure that the public sector has opportunities to involve businesses more effectively in its work, so that citizens can receive high quality, innovative public services, and universal access to these can be guaranteed.
I voted in favour of the report on the Single Market for Europeans because I believe that Europe should adopt a common regulatory framework which meets the needs of citizens and redresses the imbalances and divergences of the internal market.
Following the economic crisis, Europe needs a market where workers and consumers are at the centre of policies.
The text on the Single Market for Europeans calls for greater coordination between European institutions, Member States and businesses in order to strengthen policy, planned by the European Parliament, and to ensure it meets all the needs of the European market.
I voted in favour because I agree with the main priorities submitted to the Commission by Parliament.
The most important of these proposals is the call for measures to be taken to increase the mobility of European citizens, in particular, by publishing a Green Paper on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, including an assessment of the existing framework and, if appropriate, to propose a legislative initiative to reform this framework in 2012, at the same time assessing the feasibility and the added value of EU-wide professional identity cards and a 'European skills passport' in 2011.
This is a positive measure which is grounded in the current situation, and which is aimed at increasing mobility within the EU.
I would also stress the call for the Commission to table a legislative proposal on guaranteeing access to certain basic banking services by June 2011 and to improve the transparency and comparability of bank charges by the end of 2011, as well as the call to table a legislative proposal to remove obstacles encountered by mobile workers in order to ensure the full portability of pension rights.
The Single Market for Europeans is primarily about jobs and creating other new ones, which will help develop an environment in which businesses and citizens can fully exercise their rights, A more ambitious approach is needed on the proposal relating to the Posting of Workers Directive, aiming at a revision of the directive which will ensure, along with the economic freedoms, protection of the most advanced labour law and industrial relations standards and practices, as well as respect for the rights of collective representation and bargaining, collective action, including the right to strike, and the full implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
It is vital to develop a European transport network through a common framework of European funding, boosting competitiveness and integration, and facilitating citizens' and workers' mobility through the provision of affordable services.
I think that providing workers with training and qualifications is of paramount importance, as they are vital to job creation, social integration and the success of the Single Market.
I call on Member States to eliminate barriers hampering the mobility of workers from new Member States, bearing in mind the positive impact of worker mobility in the context of the financial and economic crisis.
The full realisation of a competitive Single Market, without barriers, is essential to relaunching the European economy and stimulating growth, competitiveness and sustainability in the EU.
Efforts to relaunch and strengthen the Single Market should also focus on the concerns and rights of the public, consumers, users of public services and companies, providing them with tangible benefits with the aim of completely restoring their confidence in the European project and giving them proper information about the opportunities offered by the Internal Market.
In this context, measures should be adopted that can increase the mobility of Europeans and ensure the protection of consumers, along with strengthening social wellbeing and safeguarding workers' rights.
I voted for the Correia De Campos report, which relates to 19 initiatives on citizens and the Single Market contained in the Single Market Act proposed by Commissioner Barnier.
I supported this report, which reminds us how essential it is to put citizens at the heart of the Single Market once again.
Too often, up to now, efforts to complete the famous 'great market' have been concentrated on the Single Market and its organisation.
We should carry out this exercise once more in the light of the concerns and rights of citizens, workers and consumers.
I call on the Commission to support the key priorities contained in this resolution.
In particular, I would like to mention here three urgent objectives so as to make the Single Market more attractive in the eyes of our fellow citizens: improving mobility (whether, for example, in terms of recognising professional qualifications or in terms of the transferable nature of pension rights for mobile workers), extending the 'roaming' regulation - in particular, proposing a limit on the retail price of roaming data transfer - and finally, the accessibility of basic banking services and the transparency and comparability of banking charges across Europe.
On 11 November 2010, the Commission adopted a communication proposal to renew Europeans' trust in the Single Market.
This Single Market Act will be under discussion until 28 February 2011.
The overall approach proposed by the Commission is a continuation of the report by Mario Monti to the President of the European Commission, 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
Its purpose, in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, is to strengthen 'a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment' by placing companies, especially SMEs, and Europeans at the heart of the Single Market.
The Commission communication 'Towards a Single Market Act for a highly competitive social market economy' contains 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another', and Chapter II in particular, 'Restoring confidence by putting Europeans at the heart of the Single Market', contains 19 initiatives on the social dimension of the Single Market.
The full implementation of the Single Market is the decisive step for the European Union to fully achieve its potential in terms of intelligent, inclusive and sustainable growth.
This requires harmonisation of national legislation to encourage the free movement of people, goods, services and capital.
A prosperous and dynamic internal market depends on our capacity to put forward policies which can support growth, employment and innovation.
With today's vote, Parliament is once again demonstrating that the public must be central to the renewal of the Single Market, since they are the key actors capable of activating virtuous circles of growth and innovation.
The completion of the Single Market policy is closely linked to integration with other policy areas such as competition, industry, energy and transport.
It is important that we have entered into such a wide-ranging discussion on the common, single European market, which has been operating for 20 years, but has not fully achieved its potential.
In spite of all the legislation, recommendations and mutual assurances, we cannot say we have fully put the Single Market into effect, yet without a Single Market, Europe will not be united at all.
Creating the Single Market is something which has the potential to strengthen the idea of the Union.
Why is it still not possible to create a market without barriers, despite the universal agreement of Member States that precisely this course of policy should be followed?
Strongly-rooted national particularisms - and they are too strongly rooted - stand in the way of building the Single Market.
We must lift protectionist barriers to be able to revitalise the Single Market.
I agree with the view that the structures and processes of managing the Single Market are too complicated.
This results mainly from the fact that there are too many differences within the Union.
Strengthening the single currency and adopting it throughout the Union is necessary for the creation of a new quality in the Single Market.
The Single Market cannot exist just for large firms, but should also be for small and medium-sized enterprises, and especially for consumers.
Transparency and harmonisation are our goal.
Creating a truly Single Market is our priority, which is why the European Council and the European Parliament should assess the state of the Single Market every year, as this will allow us to monitor the extent to which we have succeeded in achieving the goals we have set.
This report seeks to strengthen measures to put citizens at the heart of the Single Market project, focusing on 19 initiatives targeted at the needs of European citizens.
I believe that it is essential to restore the confidence of the European public in the European project, and in order to do this, efforts must be concentrated on the concerns and rights of citizens, consumers, users of public services, and companies.
It is necessary to create a holistic approach to the Single Market which is able to respond to the democratic deficit being felt by both the European public and by public and private bodies.
Encouraging mobility through the elimination of administrative and tax barriers and the harmonisation of qualifications, investment in cross-border projects in several areas, the coordination of customs activities and monitoring of national markets, and the expansion of the Roaming Regulation, are examples of the measures that I believe are key to forging closer relations between the public and the European project.
However, it is worth emphasising once again that the social aspect of the Single Market should be complemented by political governance and by partnership between the EU and the national bodies, and by the economic dimension, which will facilitate economic growth and make Europe more competitive.
This particular resolution on a Single Market for Europeans puts the citizen at the heart of our concerns.
By encouraging mobility and exchanges, regardless of place of origin, age or profession, this report marks a step towards a European labour market.
The social protection measures addressed in the resolution are, furthermore, vital for regulating this market and for supporting the model of a social economy based on solidarity.
I am voting for this report because it focuses on the need to support projects that bring added value to Europe, on the need for a new industrial policy, and on regional development, by investing in clusters by region.
I am also voting for it because it promotes a Single Market for energy, by reducing energy dependence, and by creating more competitive infrastructure and prices for end consumers.
I voted in favour of this resolution on a Single Market for Enterprises and Growth.
The Single Market is the cornerstone for businesses and consumers alike, and particular attention should be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, which have the highest potential for further development and increased employment.
I support the rapporteur's opinion that stimulating e-commerce and the creation of a digital Single Market represent another important aspect of the Single Market.
This is a very complex process, bearing in mind the differences in tax systems, contract law and requirements for conducting a business across the EU Member States, but efforts must continue in this area.
There is also a need to coordinate fiscal policy, because the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base would make the Single Market a better business environment for European enterprises.
In order to achieve the EU 2020 strategy goals, the Single Market must provide the conditions necessary for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
The European Union's economic governance needs to be improved in order to create the economic conditions required for businesses to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the Single Market, allowing them to grow and become more competitive.
The removal of barriers to mobility and the harmonisation of institutional regulations, with the aim of fostering integration, economic growth and European solidarity, are major benefits for the Single Market.
I voted for this report to encourage confidence in the Single Market at every level and to remove the current barriers preventing businesses from accessing the market.
A Single Market based on free and fair competition is the European Union's crucial economic reform objective and offers Europe a key competitive edge in a globalised economy.
A Single Market that functions smoothly and is based on free and fair competition is the principal objective of EU economic reform.
Currently, the internal market remains fragmented, and lingering administrative and regulatory obstacles are having a negative impact on all businesses, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises, which are unable to fully benefit from all the advantages offered by the Single Market.
The regulation of copyright licensing in the EU has not been resolved, which has a direct impact on counterfeiting and piracy.
This leads to reduced business confidence in e-commerce and fuels the fragmentation of intellectual property protection rules, which stifles innovation in the Single Market.
It is particularly important to properly address the issue of public procurement, which accounts for 17% of EU GDP.
Hitherto, cross-border procurement has accounted for a small share of the whole public procurement market, because SMEs still have limited access to public procurement markets.
Services are a crucial sector for economic growth and employment, but the Single Market for services is still underdeveloped, particularly due to gaps and difficulties encountered by the Member States with respect to the implementation of the Services Directive.
I agree with the proposals made in the Commission communication 'Towards a Single Market Act', but I believe that in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market, the Member States must improve the implementation of EU initiatives that have already been adopted, such as the Small Business Act, which would help address many of the administrative and regulatory problems that EU enterprises face today.
To maintain its position as a world economic leader, Europe must constantly support and stimulate economic development.
The European Single Market is of fundamental significance for both businesses and consumers.
We should give particular care to small and medium-sized enterprises, which drive economic growth and provide significant numbers of jobs.
Innovative measures and suitable financial instruments should be used to improve their competitiveness, access to information and participation in research programmes.
An interesting idea is the proposal to create project bonds, which will allow businesses to raise funds.
The digital Single Market should also be an important part of the economy.
Efforts should be made to stimulate electronic commerce in particular, because it contributes to increasing cross-border trade.
I also think it is essential to create an EU patent and a unified litigation system.
I am certain that a well-functioning Single Market will contribute to sustainable economic growth, so I endorse the resolution.
I voted in favour of this report because I believe that in order to successfully revitalise the EU Single Market and to increase the global competitiveness of the EU as a whole and to create new jobs, it is necessary to adopt and implement many measures that would promote sustainable business growth and development.
I also believe that it is very important for these measures to be coordinated with measures for regional development, and for these to be complementary, so as to avoid a concentration of industry, businesses and services in certain regions, while other more remote regions are left to the mercy of fate.
The report also touches on a myriad of other issues affecting citizens' daily lives, the competitiveness of businesses and also the creation of new jobs in Europe - the carrying out of research and promotion of new technologies, as well as the development and expansion of transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure.
In addition, the report touches on an issue that is important for Lithuania, drawing attention to the need to upgrade energy infrastructure in Eastern European countries so that they can be linked successfully to Western European energy networks.
The affordability of energy for consumers throughout Europe is also highlighted in this area.
The report also encourages cooperation between the Commission and the Member States to establish and promote the use of more effective and cleaner transport systems, as well as develop international e-commerce, also improving online payment systems.
The European Union is one of the world's leading economies, the engine of which is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises.
The EU must pay particular attention to these organisations who have felt the effects of the economic crisis most of all, not least because SMEs have the greatest potential for growth and employment.
It goes without saying, therefore, that European efforts should be aimed at encouraging sustainable economic growth.
I voted in favour of this report because it has the merit of identifying the right priorities to build a stronger Single Market, able to better meet the needs of EU companies and create higher growth rates.
So I agree with the guidelines outlined in this document which, in my opinion, can actively contribute to the transformation of the Single Market in an innovative environment, favourable to businesses, based on digital economy and the effective free movement of services.
To this end, I agree with the need to encourage e-commerce able to promote cross-border trade, the coordination of fiscal policies and greater streamlining of cross-border public contract procurement, points on which the European SMEs lag behind.
We voted in favour of the report on a Single Market for enterprises and growth.
However, we do not support the idea that differences in fiscal provisions may result in significant obstacles to cross-border transactions or that the coordination of national tax policies, as proposed by Mr Monti in his report, would bring substantial added value to enterprises and citizens.
On the other hand, we are in favour of coordination between the Member States to prevent tax avoidance and tax havens for enterprises.
Tax rates remain a matter for the Member States.
In order to create a functional Single Market in which healthy and productive competition is the rule, I believe that the measures described in this report are essential
I strongly agree with the need to create a single digital market, because the lack of adequate rules affects the efficiency of the European market in no small way, especially in recent times, given the technological advances of other countries that are our economic competitors.
We must consider the enormous potential of e-commerce, especially as regards the growth of cross-border trade and, as I said before, the resulting increase in competitiveness that it would bring to the market.
Furthermore, I agree with the need to act on two other fronts; the services sector and SMEs.
Proper implementation of the directive on services and on reforming the regulatory framework on standardisation so that it extends to these is indispensable.
In addition, we are waiting for the European Commission's proposed legislation.
Finally, as I have said in other debates, we must identify new incentives and give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of our market and creators of so many jobs.
in writing. - (RO) I think that Europe will benefit from the improvement in access for all companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to information about the financial support for innovation which they can apply for, so as to become more involved in research programmes and, in particular, in public/private partnerships intending to run the research and innovation programmes.
I think that the potential offered by these enterprises has not been tapped sufficiently.
This is why the EU must support this sector in extending its activities, including at cross-border level, and in taking advantage of all the current opportunities available within the Single Market.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report on a 'Single Market for enterprises and growth' because I believe it will greatly enhance our internal market for the benefit of all citizens.
This report will, in reality, seek to strengthen industrial competitiveness, sustainable development and job creation.
The European Union has a unique economy, boasting 500 million consumers.
By maintaining, enhancing and promoting Europe's internal market, this will ensure greater movement of goods and services without barriers to trade between Member States.
It is critical during times of austerity to increase growth in our economy.
I agree that further steps should be taken to ensure adequate implementation of the Services and Professional Qualifications directives.
Through proper implementation of these directives, European citizens will be able to travel to other European Member States for work and to provide services without high administrative burdens.
One of the core objectives of the European Union is to have an area without barriers.
This report is also in favour of supporting SMEs which require a lot of support at this time.
As Europe is the largest economy in the world, implementing the Single Market is key to giving citizens and companies a feeling of confidence and security.
The crisis that the world, in general, and Europe, in particular, are experiencing leads us to reflect on the future of the EU and the measures that we must adopt in order to relaunch the European economy.
In October 2010, the Commission adopted a communication called 'The Single Market Act', following Mr Monti's report, 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
Among its objectives was the implementation of measures providing businesses with stronger, more sustainable and more equitable growth.
I am therefore pleased that this report has been adopted, as it aims, among other things, to reduce the bureaucratic burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by giving them access to credit, by investing in innovation and the modernisation of services, such as through electronic management, and by implementing a digital economy.
These are fundamental pillars of the Europe 2020 strategy, which will contribute greatly to making the Single Market more competitive and stimulating its growth.
This is another report from the package on consolidating the Single Market.
It contains shameless praise for the market and free competition, when faced with the obvious disaster that was caused by these policies and their terrible consequences, which are today being felt by workers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the people in general, particularly in countries with weaker economies.
Let us focus on the examples given in some quotes from the report, such as on the area of energy, for example: 'points out the importance of a fully operational internal market for energy [...]; stresses that the internal energy market should contribute to maintaining energy prices affordable for both consumers and businesses'.
The contradiction and falsehood here is obvious.
One only has to look at what is happening in Portugal to realise that liberalisation has led to privatisation, high prices for businesses and consumers, and profits of more than EUR 1 billion for the shareholders of EDP - Energias de Portugal, S.A., and a similar amount for Galp Energia, SGPS, S.A. and other companies in the sector.
However, the same might be said of sectors like the postal services, telecommunications or the financial sector.
This is another report from the Commission's communication package on the Single Market Act, whose proposal follows on from Mr Monti's report entitled 'A new strategy for the Single Market'.
It is another paean to free competition, although it glosses over its contents to disguise the dynamite contained in this gift sent to workers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and especially the people of countries with weaker economies.
Let us look at some examples of the items included in the report, especially on energy:
'points out the importance of a fully operational internal market for energy [...]; stresses that the internal energy market should contribute to maintaining energy prices affordable for both consumers and businesses'.
Moreover, one only has to look at what is happening in Portugal to realise that liberalisation has led to privatisation, high prices for companies and consumers, and profits of more than EUR 1 billion for the shareholders of EDP - Energias de Portugal, S.A., and a similar amount for Galp Energia, SGPS, S.A. and other companies in the sector.
Something similar might be said of other sectors including postal services or telecommunications, not to mention the financial sector.
We therefore voted against the report.
in writing. - The four Irish Fine Gael MEPs voted for the report on the Single Market Act for enterprises and growth because we support the overall thrust of the resolution, but we do not support CCCTB, as we have explained in previous explanations.
in writing. - The Buşoi report calls for a business friendly Single Market and quite rightly stresses the importance of SMEs.
In one part of the EU, Scotland, tens of thousands of small businesses have benefited from the Scottish Government's Small Business Bonus Scheme and I hold this up as an example of best practice for other European nations.
I voted in favour of this report because in order to successfully revitalise the EU Single Market and to increase the global competitiveness of the EU as a whole and to create new jobs, it is necessary to adopt and implement many measures that would promote sustainable business growth and development.
Today, Europe has become the world's biggest economy.
The Single Market is the cornerstone for businesses and consumers alike, but it can offer more growth and jobs and its full potential is yet to be seen.
Particular attention should be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, which have the highest potential for further development and increased employment.
Therefore, it is very important to encourage sustainable economic growth.
The Single Market itself and the enterprises operating within it are vital for the future growth of EU economies.
The Single Market must become an innovative, business friendly environment, based on a digital economy and where the free movement of services is effective.
A well functioning Single Market for services has an important potential for growth and, hence, for our economic recovery.
Only sustainable growth can guarantee the creation of sustainable jobs.
Further steps should be taken to ensure proper implementation of the Services Directive and of the Professional Qualifications Directive.
Moreover, the creation of EU-wide professional cards where appropriate is an idea that needs some analysis, given the potential of such cards to enhance freedom of movement for EU citizens and simplify recruitment procedures for EU businesses.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report as I see an urgent need to improve the conditions for SMEs so as to make Europe really competitive in the world.
It has been proved on countless occasions that the reduction of bureaucratic burdens on SMEs has resulted in economic growth and enhanced their competitiveness.
Not enough efforts have been made to enable SMEs to operate with fewer bureaucratic obstacles and with more efficiency.
SMEs are the driving force of Europe's economy.
There are also dramatic developments going on in the e-world.
Currently, the EU is not really competitive on e-markets.
This means we have to do everything we can to boost e-commerce, making real progress in implementing the European Digital Single Market.
Important steps have been taken, but more remains to be done and we have to progress fast.
I welcome the efforts this report has proposed to further the issue in question.
The report on the Single Market for businesses and growth is, in my opinion, very balanced, and I believe that the implementation of the proposed measures will stimulate the growth of the Single Market and, ultimately, the economies of the Member States as well.
I particularly agree with the key priorities of the report, such as creating an EU patent and a single system for dispute resolution, emphasising the need for long-term investments in innovative sectors, boosting the confidence of business and consumers in e-commerce and galvanising the development of e-commerce in the Single Market, eliminating the bureaucratic obstacles faced by small and medium-sized firms in cross-border activities and rationalising the processes for awarding public contracts.
As I support all of the aforementioned measures, and as I am convinced of their usefulness and benefits, I voted for the adoption of this report.
The pursuit of the objectives set out by the 2020 strategy calls for Europe to create conditions which are favourable for growth and innovation through investment and decisive action in the European market.
Europe needs to sustain growth and promote effective strategies within the internal market, which aim at increasing competitiveness, innovation and research.
The Commission must guarantee the implementation of a package which will ensure the achievement of these objectives by taking measures to improve competitiveness in the domestic market.
The strengthening of economic governance in the European Union is therefore an important step which will enable companies in the market to maximise the benefits offered by the Single Market.
The creation of European bonds to finance projects and a patent which is valid throughout Europe are some of the points which led me to support the resolution.
The Single Market is an important goal to be reached.
Bearing in mind the different conditions within the various Member States, the EU's task must be to minimise such discrepancies so as to allow all European enterprises to benefit.
Part 1 of the Act discusses the Commission's plans for introducing an environment which encourages entrepreneurship.
We must therefore promote creation and innovation from a perspective of sustainable development which combines international competitiveness with protection for SMEs.
This resolution by the European Parliament approves and supplements the commitments of the Commission, which is why I supported it.
It also reminds us of the need to support the real economy more than ever; in particular, through an ambitious European industrial policy.
With a view to establishing a genuinely Single Market for SMEs, the resolution proposes the creation of a 'European private company' status which would encourage the cross-border creation and functioning of these essential components of the Union's economic fabric.
I voted for this report as I think that the Single Market is unquestionably the main asset to our global competitiveness.
Without it, we would not play such an important role in maintaining the global balance of economic forces, especially at a time when new powers are emerging on the global stage.
The progress of the internal market and further development of the regions complement each other and jointly create a powerful Europe characterised by cohesion and competitiveness.
In this respect, I would like to highlight the particularly important role played by regional policy in the integration of the Single Market.
I think that increased accessibility for every single region in the European Union is an absolute prerequisite for a dynamic and powerful Single Market.
The new Member States are in a specific situation where there is still a low level of accessibility.
Support for investments in the infrastructure and its improvement will help boost the competitiveness of the regions lagging behind and ensure the internal market's harmonious operation.
This will help improve the whole European Union's global competitiveness significantly.
This draft report outlines the priority measures which should be taken to build a stronger Single Market that responds better to the needs of EU businesses and which would generate higher growth rates than before.
The priorities of the rapporteur are arranged in four groups, aiming at transforming the Single Market in an innovative, business friendly environment, based on a digital economy, and where free movement of services is effective.
Only sustainable growth can guarantee the creation of sustainable jobs
This report proposes increased liberalisation of the energy and postal sectors and a stronger application of the Services Directive, on the pretext of supporting businesses and boosting growth.
True to neoliberal ideology, it blames administrative regulation and the protection of public services for impeding growth.
The European leaders have not learned the lessons from the 2008 crisis, yet a radical change of direction to another Europe is essential.
The communication 'A Single Market Act' is based on the theme of political leadership and the principle of partnership as the fundamental instruments for relaunching and deepening the Single Market.
We have to create a new dynamic in interinstitutional relations, and in the cooperation and commitment of the Member States, as well as of the national parliaments and regional and local authorities, so that it is possible to improve the applicability and implementation of Single Market legislation.
We all have to commit, Member States and European institutions, to monitoring, evaluating and modernising the implementation of European legislation.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular are an important engine for our entire economy.
They should be offered far more opportunities to become established and to expand within the internal market.
Capital is required for this purpose and SMEs must be given easier access to it.
Another factor which will help us to ensure lasting and sustainable growth in European national economies is support for the service sector.
For this, the free movement of services is needed.
The internal market must be made more attractive as a whole in order to become an innovative and business friendly environment.
The EU also needs a digital internal market to improve competitiveness and promote growth.
All businesses within the EU should be able to benefit from the internal market, even if many areas, such as e-commerce, are still in clear need of development.
I did not vote in favour of the report because the rapporteur proposed the introduction of a new VAT strategy, but did not go into sufficient detail about how this would work in practice.
I voted in favour of this resolution because the Single Market is a very important factor for enterprises and growth.
Significant attention should be paid to innovations and creativity, and an appropriate mechanism for funding these.
Innovations provide a basis for strong and more sustainable growth and job creation.
Above all, in order to ensure that the funding mechanism functions effectively, we must create favourable conditions for long-term investment in innovative and job-creating sectors.
Particular attention must be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises which have a huge economic impact on the European economy.
The Single Market must become a better environment for SMEs, helping them to expand their cross-border activities, improving their access to capital markets, and removing administrative and fiscal barriers.
The conditions must be created for SMEs to receive appropriate support under the Union's regional policy, given their importance for improving social ties in urban districts or sparsely populated areas.
The structure of the European banking sector must be pluralistic in order to meet the financing needs of SMEs.
It is very important to lay down a clearer VAT framework and a common consolidated corporate tax base.
I believe that a Statute for a European Private Company must be adopted as a matter of urgency to facilitate the establishment and cross-border operation of small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is noted that public procurement procedures must be more rational.
We must make conditions for cross-border procurement more favourable, ensuring reciprocity with industrialised countries and major emerging economies.
The financial and economic crisis has mobilised the EU in search of new rules and systems that ensure balance and growth; Mario Monti's report has set the tone for the drafting of the single European internal market act.
The main objective is to ensure growth and development, but also security and guarantees for small and medium-sized enterprises, investors and consumers and all market participants whose commercial functions must be facilitated.
My 'yes' vote indicates not only a willingness to support the text, but also a real commitment to citizens to improve regulations and ensure equal opportunities for investment and consumption in a continually growing system for both the public and the private sector.
In this report, Parliament presents five major priorities, with the aim of consolidating the Single Market for enterprises and growth: the creation of an EU patent and a unified system for settling patent-related disputes; funding for innovation; the promotion of e-commerce; improved access to and greater participation in the Single Market by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); and the streamlining of procedures relating to public procurement.
I agree with the priorities presented, and I therefore voted in favour of this report.
I would like to reiterate my belief that the creation of an EU patent and a unified system for settling patent-related disputes is indispensable in order to support innovation and creativity in the Single Market.
Innovation and creativity are known to be factors in growth.
Alongside this measure, I believe that the Commission and the Member States should take into account the importance of innovation for strong and sustainable growth, as well as for job creation.
The way to promote growth is to ensure that there is proper funding for innovation, particularly through the creation of European loan securities for funding EU projects.
The Single Market must be relaunched and completed in order to meet the objectives set in the Europe 2020 strategy so as to offer more growth for businesses, including social economy enterprises (cooperatives, associations, mutual societies and foundations) and create more and better jobs, as well as provide adequate protection for the rights of European workers and consumers.
I call for the creation of a more SME-friendly regulatory environment by carefully assessing the impact of any new regulatory or legislative measures on SMEs, with a view to cutting red tape, boosting competitiveness and promoting quality employment.
It is also necessary to keep existing health and safety provisions for workers.
The Commission's proposal needs to publish a VAT strategy as better tax coordination between Member States is needed to avoid unfair tax competition and market distortions.
I think that the proposal for a directive on introducing a common consolidated corporate tax base will boost the competitiveness of SMEs, in particular, by reducing obligations arising from administrative complexity and cutting high costs generated as a result of complying with different national tax systems, thereby exerting a potentially positive impact on public finances and employment.
It is therefore advisable to adopt measures enabling a stronger Single Market to be built which is better able to respond to the needs of companies in the EU, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby making it a favourable environment for innovation, based on a digital economy, where there is real freedom of movement for services.
A Single Market which works well is essential for ensuring competitiveness, the creation of jobs and sustainable growth in Europe.
That is why I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mr Busoi, which puts forward several priorities for improving the functioning of the Single Market, accompanied by a number of legislative proposals for achieving this.
We must speed up the creation of the Community patent, rationalise procurement procedures and provide more of a stimulus to the digital economy by reinforcing the confidence of businesses and citizens in e-commerce.
Finally, let me highlight two essential levers of growth that must be applied urgently.
The first is long-term innovation for supporting the ecological transformation of economies.
This can be done by creating bonds in the EU, more specifically in the fields of energy, transport and telecommunications.
The second is to increase the participation of SMEs in the Single Market by developing their funding sources and by improving their access to capital markets, by eliminating fiscal barriers to their cross-border activities, and by revising the public procurement framework in order to make procedures more flexible and less bureaucratic.
in writing. - I voted in favour.
In October 2010, the Commission adopted a communication entitled 'Towards a Single Market Act' to re-launch the Single Market.
In the first part of this communication, the Commission proposes a number of actions to have stronger, sustainable and equitable growth for business.
The Single Market is the cornerstone for businesses and consumers alike, but it can offer more growth and jobs, and its full potential is yet to be seen.
Essential attention should be paid to SMEs, which have the highest potential for further development and increased employment.
The communication, 'A Single Market Act', addresses the issue of political leadership and the principle of partnership as the fundamental instruments for relaunching the Single Market.
The dynamics of interinstitutional relations and the cooperation and commitment of the Member States, particularly national parliaments and regional and local authorities, are mechanisms that will improve the applicability and implementation of Single Market legislation.
I am voting in favour of this report as I believe that the measures presented are vital.
Of these, I would like to highlight the inclusion of an assessment of the state of the Single Market in the spring session of the Council, the publication of a Green Paper with the participation of civil society and regional and local authorities, the publication of correlation tables and, finally, the reduction of deficits and errors in the transposition of directives.
Both the Member States and the European institutions should engage in monitoring, evaluating and modernising the implementation of European legislation, as only then can integration policy be successful.
I would also like to point out that regional and local authorities should have a more important role, in line with the subsidiarity principle and the partnership principle.
I supported the report by our fellow Member, Mr Busoi, as well as the two reports by Mrs Kalniete and Mr Correia de Campos.
The three European Parliament reports in response to the Commission's Single Market Act address issues which are important to European industry and its small and medium-sized enterprises.
The simplification of legislation and bureaucracy, the fight against counterfeiting, the importance of innovation and increased access to credit represent points on which our businesses are expecting necessary interventions from Europe so they can return to being competitive again in international markets.
On the other hand, what is really necessary for the recovery and completion of the single European market is a uniform tax policy within the Union.
Tax policy is the oxygen that small and medium-sized European businesses need for a resurgence which must not stop at the initial incentive, but which will see them through consolidation and growth.
The lack of fiscal harmonisation in Europe creates imbalances between the various EU territories, such as North-Eastern Italy and Slovenia, which compete on fiscal levels as well as on the degree of development of their economies.
The three reports on the internal market do not excite us because, along with items that we could support, we find others with which we disagree.
In this case however, despite the things I disagree with in the report by the Member from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), such as the measures which, I believe, benefit large corporations rather than small enterprises, I will abstain from voting because of the importance given to emphasising innovation to promote growth.
in writing. - The European Commission's proposed Single Market Act aims to unlock the potential of the Single Market and put the EU's economy and competitiveness back on track after the economic crisis.
I voted for Parliament's recommendations on the Commission's Single Market Act and I urge the European Commission to take up those recommendations to ensure that governance structures are strengthened, support for innovation and job creation is provided, and citizens are put at the heart of the Single Market.
We need to work together on strengthening the governance of the Single Market and putting in place a more coordinated political leadership approach, which will increase the effectiveness of the Single Market Act and restore citizens' confidence in the initiative.
I welcome the resolution calling for an increased focus on the mobility of citizens and I believe it is also essential that the re-launch of the Single Market focuses on the needs of SMEs in order to provide an environment that will create new, innovative businesses across the EU, and especially in Wales.
in writing. - I supported the twelve measures contained in the Single Market Act and hope that the Commission will translate this into effective legislative measures.
Lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan
The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to say that I am pleased that we are continuing the debate that started last month.
On the one hand, this proves the gravity of the matter, and on the other, it is an indication that, beyond all those emotional reactions that the still extremely serious situation in Japan rightly elicits in all of us, our institutions intend to take action in this matter with appropriate prudency.
At the same time, I would like to reaffirm that we are ready to provide continuous and concrete assistance to the Japanese people, both in the form of humanitarian aid and assistance from nuclear experts.
The European Council stated this clearly on 25 March.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the Hungarian Presidency reacted immediately to the disaster in Japan, in particular, the activities related to nuclear energy risks.
Let me already at the very outset dispel those misconceptions that the public may form regarding nuclear safety, namely that only now, in relation to an external crisis situation, does the EU realise the significance of the matter.
That is a major fallacy, on the one hand because in actuality, there has been a legally binding framework in effect on this subject in Europe for more than 25 years, which we are continuously adjusting, most recently, for example, through the 2009 Nuclear Safety Directive.
On the other hand, also because ensuring nuclear safety is a continuous process, during which we are gradually perfecting the specifications, drawing conclusions from events such as those that took place now in Fukushima, and regularly checking the actual safety condition of the installations.
In March, the European Council provided actual confirmation that the EU's response must follow directions which combine guaranteeing safety on-site with perfecting the regulatory framework.
One aspect of this multi-threaded EU response is the comprehensive risk and safety assessment of European nuclear power plants, that is, the matter of 'stress tests'.
The scope of this, and the practical steps involved, must be established while taking into account recent events and making full use of available expertise.
The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group and its members, the independent national regulatory authorities, must finish determining the aforementioned practical steps by the middle of May, which will probably allow for the assessment of these to be started in the summer.
Several Member States and nuclear operators have already adopted decisions requiring the safety review of power plants.
Based on this, the first conclusions can therefore be drawn and published at the end of the year.
The assessing authorities will therefore share the results of the stress tests with both the general public and the Commission.
Based on the latter report, the European Council will evaluate the preliminary results by the end of the year.
In the framework of the other, that is, the regulatory aspect, the European Council has already asked the Commission to review the existing legislative and regulatory framework for the safety of nuclear installations and to make a proposal for perfecting it as required.
At the same time, we must continue the work that is already under way in the field of legal regulation, and we must adopt the proposal for a directive on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
After all, the safety specifications obviously need to be determined in such a way that they cover the entire life cycle of nuclear installations.
As a third step, we must also ask third countries in the neighbourhood of the EU to join this assessment and raise the level of their safety requirements.
Safety concerns are, of course, not restricted to nuclear energy.
We cannot afford, with regard to any energy source, however large its share in supply security may be, to put considerations of guaranteeing supply before safety aspects related to human health or environmental protection.
As you know, we must also take into account the existing situation in Europe, namely, that the fuel use of the Member States is based on different mixes.
As such, everyone is free to decide upon their energy mix.
It will remain this way in the foreseeable future, because we are talking about the energy mix, the determination of which lies within Member State competence.
However, in respect of common goals, this does not prevent us from making progress on the road to creating a common energy policy.
This year, for example, we will begin the examination of the Energy Roadmap 2050. In doing so, we will assess the degree to which individual energy sources need to contribute to achieving climate-related targets, in parallel with which we also need to meet our energy policy, supply security, sustainability and competitiveness objectives.
In addition to the freedom to determine the energy mix, however, the deepening of the internal market and increasingly close interconnections result in a growing interdependence between Member States' energy policies and energy source selection decisions.
Accordingly, it is also sensible to form a common vision about the consequences of our energy policies on investments, energy prices and regulation.
This also means that, since nuclear energy currently accounts for 30% of Europe's energy production, none of the 14 Member States that choose nuclear energy can afford to close down their nuclear power plants immediately without first consulting the other Member States, and examining both potential alternative energy sources and network-related issues in the process.
To this end, the Presidency intends to hold a detailed exchange at the informal meeting of energy ministers in May to resolve issues relating to this subject.
Last but not least, it is important that we also inform the public about the underlying assumptions and about both the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen energy sources.
I am certain that we can also contribute to this with today's debate.
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, Mrs Győri, ladies and gentlemen, the terrible earthquake of 11 March, the subsequent tsunami, the accident in the nuclear power plant, which caused damage to the various blocks, and the fact that there is still no end in sight to the process of repairing the damage and overcoming the risks, as the nuclear power station is still out of control, even with the use of the latest technology: all of these events are causing us concern with regard to safety and the energy sector in the European Union and elsewhere.
For this reason, on 11 March, we invited a high-level group consisting of ministers and representatives of the national governments, the nuclear power plant construction companies and the energy sector to attend a meeting on 15 March.
In the Council of Energy Ministers, we made preparations on 21 March for the European Council, which finally, on 25 March, called on the Commission and the national nuclear safety authorities to carry out a special stress test and a comprehensive safety investigation with the aim of ensuring the highest possible safety standards.
Since then, we have been drawing up the test criteria.
The Directorates-General, myself and the nuclear safety authorities have been putting together a catalogue of test criteria, which will be presented to you and to the public before it is finally adopted.
On the one hand, this concerns the consequences of the risks for power stations in the European Union from earthquakes and from high water, particularly on the Atlantic coast.
On the other hand, it concerns the consequences for the power stations themselves, in other words, the question of how the cooling systems, the electricity supply and the emergency generators can be protected.
Other test factors include terrorist and cyber attacks and aircraft crashing into power stations.
We believe that the consultation and the decision on the test criteria will be completed by the middle of May at the meeting of ENSREG, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group.
By the end of the year, we expect comprehensive testing to have taken place in order to ensure the highest possible safety standards in the 143 nuclear power plants in the European Union.
We have spoken to the governments of the Russian Federation and Ukraine and, in the next few days, we will be contacting Switzerland and Armenia and, in addition, the countries that are planning to build nuclear power stations, such as Turkey and Belarus.
Our aim in all of this is to ensure that the highest safety standards and the test criteria for the safety investigation are applied in the countries which are the immediate neighbours of the European Union.
We know that the responsibility for the energy mix and, therefore, also for energy technology, nuclear power plants and other technologies lies with the Member States.
Over the last few days, it has become clear that the Member States want to retain these powers.
In other words, it does not seem realistic on the basis of current treaties and legislation to take the decision on nuclear power at a European level.
However, the safety test, which everyone must take part in, seems to me to be the common denominator for all the Member States because of the high standards it imposes, regardless of whether they do or do not have nuclear power.
Around 76% of electricity in France is generated by nuclear power, while the figure in Austria is 0%.
A total of 14 Member States use nuclear power and 13 do not.
Germany is currently investigating shortening the operational time spans of its power stations.
Poland is considering whether to build its first nuclear power plant and Italy is looking at whether to invest in additional power stations.
Alongside the implementation of the safety investigation, we believe that the transfer of the Nuclear Safety Directive into national law by July of this year is of the greatest importance.
Our plan was to carry out an evaluation in 2014 of the Nuclear Safety Directive, which was adopted by Parliament and by the Council and is to be transposed into national law.
We now want to bring this forward.
We intend to inform you by the end of the year about our further considerations on how the directive can be strengthened, as it currently primarily concerns formal powers and the bodies that have to be established, together with other areas.
I would also like to mention the proposals for nuclear waste which have been presented by the Commission and are currently being debated by Parliament and the Council.
These will also contribute to the joint measures for ensuring the highest possible levels of safety.
We know that the safety investigation will result in the Member States drawing their own conclusions.
However, I am relying on the impact that reality will have in this case.
I am relying on the Member States to take on board the safety evaluation, the standards and the necessary measures proposed by the experts and to put these things into practice in their countries and their nuclear power stations.
In the middle of May, we will tell you when we expect to be able to present to you the draft of the stress test and the test criteria produced at a working level.
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank Commissioner Oettinger for setting to work on the issue of nuclear safety immediately after the disaster in Japan.
This work is of great importance to the safety of our citizens, because the nuclear disaster in Japan has shown that we need to review our rules on nuclear safety.
This is an important task for you, and the Council, because we in Europe are mutually dependent when it comes to nuclear safety.
We need a European stress test for all nuclear installations and, as you said, the criteria must be harmonised.
We need an objective and transparent report - that is, a public report - on that stress test, the starting point of which has to be the highest security level.
Mr President, I hope that you and the Member States are working hard on that harmonised approach, so that we can rely on the highest security standards being in place.
Should a nuclear installation not pass the stress test, you and the Council must ensure that there is a commitment on the part of that Member State to taking immediate action.
Such action could even include the temporary, or even permanent, closure of a nuclear power plant.
In that regard, it is important that we also include nuclear power plants which straddle our borders because, sometimes, these have an even greater impact on our citizens than nuclear power plants which are fully in Europe.
Please pay great attention to this.
We need to properly investigate the considered actions and risks.
Nuclear power is a source of energy which we cannot give up just like that, because it provides a large part of our energy and contributes to our reduction in CO2 emissions.
However, we have to rethink our future and renewable energy and also ambitiously develop energy efficiency further.
Mr President, nuclear power differs from other energy sources.
In an extremely short time, it can do an enormous amount of harm to countries, people and future generations.
I am therefore pleased that there seems to be strong and broad support in the European Parliament when it comes to nuclear power and the safety issues.
I hope that this will also result in clear, broad, joint decisions.
Nuclear power cannot be regulated and monitored at national level alone.
Nuclear power does not know national boundaries, nor does it know European boundaries.
The safety debate and the safety work must therefore have a very wide agenda.
In the light of this, it is important for us to take as united a decision as possible and, for once, overlook the fact that we have slightly differing opinions on the issue of nuclear power.
This is about a common interest, in the short and long term: safety.
In the longer term, the situation indicates the unsustainable state of our current energy supply.
We do not have a sufficiently diverse energy mix.
Talk about investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency must be turned into action.
What we need is nothing less than a paradigm shift in our energy policy, but that is not what this resolution should be about.
It must be the beginning of a new start for the shifting of our energy system in the direction of sustainable energy and, of course, preparation for a strategy that also phases out nuclear power - in some cases, in the near future, and in others, in the slightly longer or medium to long term.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the tragic events in Japan have not only revealed mistakes and flaws in Japanese reactors.
The Fukushima events have also revealed shortcomings in the international system of safeguards in nuclear power plants.
Today, many Europeans are concerned about nuclear safety here in Europe.
It is therefore essential that the European Union should comprehensively reassess its approach to nuclear safety.
The view of the Liberals and Democrats is that the Council's proposed stress tests are too weak.
We should not only test technology and geography, but also the entire safety culture and preparedness to respond to multifaceted disaster scenarios.
It is also absolutely vital that the tests should be made mandatory and be based on common and transparent Community criteria.
It should be obvious to everyone that we cannot leave it to governments and national authorities to supervise themselves.
Instead, the stress tests should be conducted by independent experts and in full transparency.
All facts should be made public under the supervision of the Commission.
Today, that is the only credible alternative for this technology.
There should also be a comprehensive review of EU nuclear safety legislation by the IAEA.
We should have European standards and stringent requirements.
There is a responsibility for the Commission, but there is also a responsibility for the Council to step forward and take its responsibility.
Lastly, it is essential that we should now also draw the lessons for alternative energy and energy efficiency.
It is time to decide on binding targets.
Mr President, Mr Oettinger, you already know that I do not trust your stress tests.
I would like to explain to you briefly why this is the case.
I believe that it is not a good thing for the national authorities and the supervisory bodies to be given responsibility for defining the criteria for the test and evaluating the results.
Until now, they have been solely responsible for supervising and testing the nuclear power plants in the European Union.
The members of these bodies will be part of the familiar old boys' network who are happy to certify that each others' nuclear power stations were safe, are safe and will continue to be safe.
Do you really believe that the national regulatory authorities will suddenly realise that they have been doing a bad job up until now and have been too tolerant?
I do not believe that, Mr Oettinger, and you have not yet explained to me how you plan to guarantee that this whole supervisory system will suddenly become independent.
The voluntary nature of the stress tests is further proof that we cannot take them as seriously as we would like to.
However, you still have time to change your plans and provide us with a guarantee that independent experts will be given access to the plants.
You can guarantee that everything will be tested and that we will not just see reports on paper from a system which I have rightly described as an old boys' network, because those people involved have all known each other and been friends for decades and have always accepted the highest levels of risk.
I would like to explain to you that we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance expect the stress tests to be designed in such a way that they show which nuclear power plants really are no longer acceptable and which should be disconnected from the grid first.
If the stress tests are genuinely to bring about a change of direction in Europe, we see them as the basis for an exit timetable which will start now and, if everything goes well in Europe, could come to an end in around 2025.
I would like to ask you to do one specific thing, Mr Oettinger.
Over the last few days, you have given a number of interviews and have explained in Germany, for example, that you know which nuclear power plants will not pass these stress tests and that you are certain about some of them.
Please make the names of these power plants public.
For example, if one of them is Fessenheim, a power station which, as the French supervisory body has said, is not adequately protected against high water or earthquakes, then you should publicise the names of the sites which represent a risk.
This would increase public confidence in your policies.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, may I thank the President-in-Office and the Commissioner for their statements.
Their measured content is in contrast with some other contributions.
First of all, let us remember that there is a world of difference between 50-year-old reactors in Japan and the new designs under preparation in Europe - a world of difference.
Let us also remember that there is a world of difference between the seismic risks faced in Japan and those in Western Europe.
We need, above all, to be absolutely certain about what happened before taking steps to review what we are doing and plan to do.
Modern reactors are being designed now to withstand risks that were unimaginable 20 or 50 years ago.
I am glad to see you agree with me, Mrs Harms.
(Heckling from Mrs Harms)
That was a rudery off-mike and you are taking up my speaking time, Mrs Harms.
There is a proposal for a moratorium.
I oppose that because it would be to act in haste without scientific evidence.
We must find out what has happened before we take any steps to change our already impressive safety culture in Europe.
I agree we want to reinforce our safety culture, but let us not act in haste.
Mr President, there have recently been demonstrations in Germany in which 250 000 people called for an immediate exit from nuclear power and a changeover to 100% renewable energy.
Both of these things are possible.
After Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is clear that nuclear power will always involve a residual risk.
Therefore, it must be mandatory for the nuclear safety standards throughout Europe to be based on the best available technologies.
Despite the adoption of the Council Directive concerning the nuclear safety of nuclear installations in 2009, the existing safety standards remain in place in the Member States.
Therefore, we urgently need a revision of this directive with the involvement of Parliament under the codecision procedure which is not based on the Euratom Treaty.
I want to see an initiative involving as many of the groups in Parliament as possible which will call on the Council and the Commission to draw up a proposal for a directive to this effect.
I believe that we need a nuclear exit scenario covering the whole of Europe.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, I agree with what has been said until now and also that we have to think about the moratorium tomorrow, as Mr Chichester suggested.
However, I want to add the following: we are entering a new era, a new world.
All natural disasters that have taken place in the 21st century have been mega-disasters: mega-fires, mega-earthquakes and mega-sea tides.
How can we protect ourselves from, and avoid, the nuclear threat arising from these disasters?
We can see that we risk ending up with mega-killings as well due to these catastrophes.
In this Parliament, we condemn crimes against humanity.
I consider TEPCO's efficiency as a company to be a new form of crime against humanity: no transparency, no precautions, and nothing is done about the workers who are fighting the problem.
I urge all of you to think about this new crime against society that we are going to face in the 21st century.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we need energy to eat, travel, study, cure diseases, and for many other things.
That energy has always come from a variety of sources.
In some cases, from the oldest sources, such as hydropower, fossil energy, and even nuclear energy; in other cases, from the most modern, for example, renewables.
In addition to this, technologies are being developed to bring about increased safety, in some cases, or to offer greater efficiency, as in the case of renewable energies.
There is also research that has not yet been applied, such as carbon storage, or that which is expected to - and will - lead us to fusion power.
All of this is necessary, ladies and gentlemen, because human life has operated and developed on the basis of constant improvements to the resources used and the research that made this possible.
Communication, energy, medicine and study are based on that: the continual improvement of all our resources.
Recently, the tsunami and the earthquake that caused it resulted in serious damage for the people of Japan, including victims, missing people and material losses, as well as significant damage to the Fukushima plant.
With all that in mind, what we have to do is improve safety.
Tomorrow, this House will vote on a joint resolution, on which the vast majority of the parliamentary groups have agreed.
It expresses what unites us, not what divides us.
I would ask the groups to remain loyal to the content of the proposal and not to allow their own interests to get in the way of the common interest or of the shared view that we have achieved on this proposal.
That is our responsibility for tomorrow.
(ES) Mr President, first of all, I should like to express my deepest sympathy to the victims and the families evacuated because of the nuclear accident.
Ladies and gentlemen, the lesson we should indeed learn from this accident is the urgent need to strengthen security measures.
However, security also involves human resources.
We need to ensure the highest level of training for staff working in the sector.
We must guarantee optimum working conditions.
Creating an excellent framework for training and work is a task that can be carried out from within the European institutions.
I would also like to emphasise the commitments that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) has made in its energy plan for Europe, which are a firm pledge in favour of renewable energies, infrastructures, energy efficiency and electric mobility.
In this context, I also think we should reopen the debate on coal, because it is our only indigenous source of fossil energy.
Mr President, stress tests on technical standards are not enough.
It is not just about earthquakes.
The problem in Japan was the accumulation of events: flooding, loss of off-site power and disruption of communications.
We have seen how one problem leads to another, and that the very radioactivity of the site in Fukushima now is hugely hampering the safety work which needs to go on.
A nuclear accident is not a linear event; the consequences ripple outwards like the radioactivity which is still discharging into the sea.
It is therefore vital that the proposed stress tests take into account the multiple, complex, geometric consequences of a disaster event.
Commissioner, as you say, Member States have the right to decide their energy mix, but you have the responsibility for nuclear safety.
Do you agree that Member States should impose a moratorium on the planning and commissioning of new nuclear plants?
What will you be proposing to make sure that governments and investors focus instead, now, on how to get a greater commitment to energy efficiency and renewables?
(DE) Mr President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, the dramatic events in Japan have shown us that the only totally safe nuclear power plant is the one that was never built or the one that was shut down.
These are the only ones that are completely safe.
Since the events in Japan, we know that all other claims are untrue.
The citizens of Europe know that and this is why they want to see a strong response from us.
The only response that we can give is that our vision is to develop a Europe which is totally based on renewable energy.
We can gradually begin to put this vision into practice by a combination of energy efficiency in homes, transport, industry and electricity generation, a wide range of renewable energies and the use of natural gas as a transition fuel.
Mr Oettinger, you are in the process of drawing up the Energy Roadmap 2050.
Our question to you is: Are you prepared to work with us on a vision of this kind?
Are you convinced that the Energy Roadmap 2050 should be used as the basis for a discussion not only with experts but also with the citizens of Europe about a different future for energy in Europe?
(PL) Mr President, if, today, we have to learn the lessons and do some homework after what has happened in Japan, we should do so with great caution.
We will have to concentrate and think carefully.
A move away from nuclear energy or the imposition of unrealistic requirements for this section of our energy system will not eliminate a single problem.
Just across our borders, yet more power stations will be built, which will not be subject to our safety standards or the supervision of our regulatory bodies.
In Kaliningrad and Belarus today, developments of this kind to supply the demand from Central Europe are already under way.
The flight of nuclear energy from the Union will show our efforts to be illusory.
Yet again, we will hit at the competitiveness of our energy system and, in so doing, at our economy and industry.
For the umpteenth time, ecological plans will benefit our competition, mainly from Russia.
Therefore, if today we are going to increase the standards we require from nuclear energy, we must have a guarantee that the electricity produced by reactors which are outside our borders will be subject to the same rigorous criteria.
(CS) Mr President, there are several possible conclusions to be drawn from the disaster in Japan.
First, the energy sector should be under state control, and there should be reliable back-up facilities at every power plant, positioned sufficiently far away.
The TEPCO company has behaved irresponsibly.
Secondly, we should support the environment in all ways possible and say 'no' to the green scaremongers who have long been blackmailing Europe.
Thirdly, we need a change of mood in our Parliament and in the Commission.
An uncivilised atmosphere has long prevailed in the European Parliament, and we need a Commission of courageous men and women who are not afraid of new solutions, and who have a pioneering spirit, not buck-passers who, after the manner of a certain kind of beetle, roll a ball of petty personal interests along in front of themselves, even in relation to European positions.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, I fully support the joint resolution.
We are sending two specific messages to those in positions of responsibility in the Member States and to the population of Europe.
We need common rules to protect us from nuclear accidents throughout the whole of Europe.
The time for a parochial approach to nuclear safety has long since gone.
Two older power stations in Germany, 180 km from Strasbourg, have been temporarily shut down and disconnected from the grid.
Around 100 km away from here in Fessenheim is a reactor which, as far as we know, is no safer than the two power plants in Germany that have been disconnected from the grid as a result of events in Japan.
This example clearly shows that we need common criteria at a very high level.
We have the legal basis in place and the question of how far we go with the existing legal basis will always be a political one.
We need to go much further than we have in the past.
The second message is that regardless of the decisions made in the Member States, and some will disconnect power stations from the grid more quickly than others, we should not be replacing the lost energy with additional gas imports, for example, from Russia.
Paragraphs 21 and 22 show the direction in which we want to go.
We want more renewable energy and more energy efficiency.
Mr Oettinger, before the events at Fukushima, you produced an energy efficiency action plan.
That was an important step forward and it now needs to be put into practice even more urgently.
Personally, I agree with the majority of this House that we need binding targets.
We no longer want to use fossil fuels.
We want jobs in trade and industry.
Energy efficiency is cost-effective and so we urgently need to make progress in this area.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, nuclear power is a non-carbon energy source, but also a transitional energy source which depends on exhaustible resources.
It is also a potentially dangerous form of energy.
The obvious priority, after Fukushima, is to take a view on the safety of our power stations.
These stress tests must be carried out in the most coordinated way possible at Union level, and potentially beyond in our immediate neighbourhood, by independent entities working in accordance with the strictest standards and with the greatest transparency.
Next, the fight against climate change requires a coherent and ambitious policy.
While nuclear power means that we can emit less CO2 into the atmosphere to produce the electricity we need, we must not be dependent on it.
In countries such as France which produce nuclear power, reducing its share is a precondition for any far-reaching decision.
This process means that we must redouble our efforts when it comes to saving energy and increasing the share of renewables, which, in the medium and long-term, will be able to cover almost all of our consumption.
This is about the safety of power stations, but it must also be about the security of provision throughout the European Union, so that no country finds itself in economic difficulty.
Finally, true solidarity requires the creation of an Energy Community.
(FR) Mr President, regarding safety, I am, of course, only too happy to support all the proposals made by my fellow Members on the essential independence of those who will be responsible for carrying out the stress tests and the idea that these rules will be set at Community level.
Let us not deceive ourselves, though: we have some old power stations which were designed without regard for the accumulation of risks and, as a result, whether or not we carry out stress tests, we will never have complete safety with the existing power stations.
We must be fully aware of this.
Furthermore, I do not believe that most European citizens today accept the idea of paying the price for a nuclear accident in Europe.
That is a luxury that we cannot afford; we must be fully aware of that.
We must therefore organise the phasing-out of nuclear power while bearing in mind our economic needs, our needs in terms of employment, our industrial capacities and the requirement not to increase our greenhouse gas emissions.
I think that we are all aware of that.
How should we do this?
We should do it with the great European project that is the phasing-out of nuclear power.
Claude mentioned 15 years.
I think that that is very optimistic; it will probably be a little longer.
However, this is a great project which could mobilise Europeans, could restore confidence in ourselves and also in the institutions, because beyond Fukushima, Mr President, this is still an act of defiance towards the public authorities and the supervisory bodies.
We have to be aware of this.
Mr President, I would like to ask Mrs Trautmann to answer a question for me.
In France, there is a system of independent regulators who do a very good job.
Do you believe that the French model could be applied throughout Europe, with a European regulator based on the French system?
(FR) Mr President, I thank my fellow Member, Mr Rübig, for asking this question.
I think that, actually, the French regulator is independent - his proposals are testament to that.
I think that, given the logic of what I mentioned concerning the European Energy Community, we should have an independent regulator at European level and make available the supervisory means to ensure that the regulator's work is independent and that the regulator is genuinely competent.
On this point, Mrs Trautmann, an independent authority on the paper, yes.
Given its composition and the fact that there is no pluralism in the people who make it up, quite frankly, we could ask ourselves a lot of questions.
(FR) Mr President, at national level, it is always possible to question the composition and, from this point of view, I agree with Mrs Lepage's comment.
I think that we will soon see a period in which pluralism can be better ensured, but in any case, I would not want to question the honesty of the work by those people who have taken up their task conscientiously, and one person in particular, Mr Lacoste.
(CS) Mr President, for several weeks now, we have been following with bated breath the incredible struggle in Japan with the effects of the gigantic earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
I also admire the way the Japanese have coped with it, something which has not been said here yet.
People always learn from every disaster.
Events such as these have always led to technical improvements and safety measures.
People do not stop flying after major air disasters.
Reliability and safety are improved.
It is important to gather all of the experience on the operation of nuclear power plants from the disaster in Japan.
We must evaluate this extreme natural stress test correctly and obtain as much experience as possible for technical and safety measures.
Nuclear plants must be ready to withstand extreme natural disasters.
We must also learn from the emergency procedures, as this, too, is part of plant operation and safety.
Politicians must refrain from quick and simple judgments.
It is surely sensible to have the maximum number of repeat verifications of nuclear plants.
The Japanese experience is an opportunity for the responsible appraisal of existing safety standards, without unnecessary political grandstanding.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone knows that there are very different opinions both in the Member States and here in the political groups on the question of whether or not we should have nuclear power.
The debate today has shown that there are also differing views within the groups.
On the other hand, there has been a disaster in Japan which represents a huge problem.
We have started a debate on this subject and I think that the resolution offers us an important opportunity to focus today and tomorrow on one specific question, which is whether we can jointly raise our safety standards and whether we will be able to put in place increased European powers of whatever kind or greater European cooperation.
Although there are many things in this resolution which I do not like, I am of the opinion that my fellow Members have done an excellent job, because they have produced a text which focuses more closely on safety and on European cooperation.
Therefore, I would like to ask if it is not high time that we took the opportunity presented by this debate today and tomorrow to put aside the question of whether or not we should get out of nuclear power, or of whether we are enthusiastic or unenthusiastic supporters of nuclear power, and to focus on this instead.
If we could all agree not to put the amendments that we have tabled to the vote tomorrow - I would just like to see them presented - and to concentrate on voting with a large majority or perhaps even unanimously for more safety and greater European powers, we would be doing more for the reputation of the European Parliament and for the process of drawing consequences from the events in Japan than if we continue with the disputes that we are always having.
We can perhaps postpone them until the week after next.
I would like to ask you to think about whether we should try this.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Reul, you know that I have always supported higher levels of safety in the nuclear industry.
When it came to the Nuclear Safety Directive which we adopted two years ago, I had very little success.
A large majority of this House was against the highest safety standards.
The subject of a new feeling of mutual trust presents us with another major problem.
Parliament has no contribution to make to this debate.
If there is any doubt, the decisions on nuclear safety and stress tests will be made by the Council and by Euratom.
Parliament will be excluded from the process.
We are generally able to express our opinion, but whether this will have any consequences or not is in the lap of the gods.
If you are now saying that we will take action against the old Euratom Treaty in future and ensure that there is consultation and transparency in all the areas relating to safety, we will perhaps be able to come to a better understanding.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Harms, I did not fully understand your question, because it was not a question.
However, that is not a bad thing, because I have made an effort and will continue making an effort to take up this opportunity.
You know that we have totally opposing positions on this subject.
It would send out an important signal, regardless of the question of powers, if we could agree on the issue of increased safety with a large majority.
The resolution covers a number of areas, many more than those we have already adopted and many more than I was prepared to go along with.
That is true and you are absolutely right.
However, if we can manage to agree on more safety and more Europe, we will be sending out a signal to the Member States.
If we do this tomorrow on the basis of a dispute, because we have different positions when it comes to the issue of whether or not we should exit from nuclear power, then it will probably not have a major impact.
This is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.
Mr President, I am deeply insulted that Mrs Harms merely heckled me from off microphone but waved her blue card at my colleague, Mr Reul.
Can I not have equal treatment?
Mr President, Mr Reul, I wanted to ask you whether your personal position has changed at all.
The sweater that I am wearing today is 30 years old.
In those days, we were demonstrating against nuclear power.
The so-called experts told us that there was a risk of an accident once every ten thousand years.
The Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Mr Schnellhuber, recently said in an interview with Die Zeit that this is true.
If you divide ten thousand years by the 400 nuclear power plants in the world, the result is 25 years.
Therefore, we can expect a reactor accident to happen every 25 years.
First Chernobyl, then Fukushima.
Where next?
Have you changed your position on this point?
Do you still believe that nuclear power stations are safe or do you share my opinion that Zwentendorf is the only safe nuclear power station in the world?
(DE) Mr President, of course my opinion has changed, but not fundamentally.
Is it so bad not to change your views about something?
However, my opinion has changed a great deal and I hope you have noticed that.
I have explained that I will vote in favour of this resolution if it stays as it is.
That is a major change in comparison to my previous views.
You may see that as being satisfactory or as unsatisfactory.
I stand by what I have said.
It would be good if we could adopt this resolution unanimously.
(DE) Mr President, you have heard what the Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has said.
Now I am speaking as Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the differences could not be greater.
The fact that we need the highest safety levels for all nuclear power plants goes without saying.
We all agree on that.
Mr Oettinger, your stress test is an important first step, but it does not go nearly far enough.
I also believe that we need to rethink our approach and come up with a new one which goes into greater depth and is far more fundamental.
This is why, in addition to the highest safety standards in the EU, we also need an exit scenario from a risky technology, which we cannot justify using on the densely populated continent of Europe.
Mr Reul, you and others will simply have to go along with this.
Your colleagues in Berlin have made much more progress than you have here in Strasbourg and in Brussels.
They have probably reached the turning point, while you are still stuck with your old ideas.
I hope that we can come up with a formulation, a scenario and a strategy for exiting from nuclear power.
Mr Oettinger, the road map which you are producing in June of this year would be a wonderful opportunity to achieve this.
After the stress tests, you must also give us your idea of how we can get out of nuclear technology.
(IT) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that our condolences should go to all the victims of the great disaster which has hit Japan.
The situation is really worrying, but I think the task of politics is not to make choices under conditions of panic, but to try to remain rational and face reality as best we can.
That said, I think we should start from two important considerations.
The first is that there is only one sky and yet the land is divided by boundaries that have nothing to do with the problems we have on our agenda; and the second is that we must always aim for sustainable development which has multiple components.
This sustainable development has three components which must be put together: economic, environmental and social.
If we succeed in this effort, I think we will move in the right direction.
I think the resolution tabled, which I fully support and which has been widely shared, comes at the right time for us to take on the responsibility of safety, an issue which should represent a diagnosis of the current situation, and to look to the future.
How should we look to the future?
By meeting the criteria we committed ourselves to respecting and, above all, by moving towards decisions regarding efficiency and renewal, which should always take into account culture and innovation in research, including the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
The Presidency has been informed that today is Mr Leinen's birthday, so happy birthday, Mr Leinen.
(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, nuclear safety has a human face.
The design, construction, operation, supervision and closure of a power plant, and the drafting of the related laws, are all human activities.
The key component of safety is therefore knowledge and the maximum utilisation of human activities.
The maintenance and practical application of this knowledge is essential both in connection with the operation of power plants and, for a long time afterwards, in connection with their closure.
I agree with conducting stress tests and I agree that the experience gained should be incorporated in the Nuclear Safety Directive.
I agree that we should conduct cross-border checks, if only to calm the population.
I agree that we should do everything to participate in international organisations contributing the best of our knowledge.
I especially agree that we should use R&D activities to dispose of the nuclear waste of the past 60 years.
There is one thing I particularly agree with: whatever decision we make with regard to energy, we should insist that the 500 million people in Europe be supplied with electricity.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking today about improving the safety of nuclear power, not about calling civil nuclear power into question when it is an essential component of energy independence and of the fight against greenhouse gases in many Member States of the European Union.
The European initiative of performing stress tests on all our power stations is a first essential and reasonable step which responds to the expectations of European citizens.
We must carry out these tests using a common approach and common criteria whose methodology will have to be entrusted to the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group.
The neighbouring countries of the European Union should also undergo these tests, given the cross-border risks that exist.
Besides these tests, the European Union must work to harmonise international standards at the highest level, within the G20 and the International Atomic Energy Agency, on the basis of the Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association's objectives for new reactors.
Within the European Union, we should promote and intensify cooperation between the national safety authorities.
The European Union must serve as a model, both for the strengthening of the rules and for efforts in solidarity.
In the face of this type of disaster, I think that the creation of a European Civil Protection Force is needed more than ever.
(NL) Mr President, that is right: you will find advocates and opponents of nuclear energy across the political spectrum.
However, what I do not understand is why some people have still not opened their eyes to this topic, even after Fukushima.
The unthinkable has happened.
A combination of factors has led to a disaster that could perfectly conceivably happen in our part of the world, too.
There is no such thing as zero risk.
Today, we need to take three steps.
First of all, as the Commissioner has proposed, the stress test should be conducted in all openness, in all transparency, whilst, at the same time, steps should be taken to ensure that it covers as broad a range of plants as possible.
Yet, we must also ensure that we act on the results of this stress test.
Any nuclear plant which is not safe should be closed down.
Secondly, we must ensure that we organise a phasing out of nuclear energy.
We cannot have nuclear power plants which are built for a service life of thirty years still remaining in use after forty or even fifty years.
Thirdly, it would be too absurd for words if we, in this European Union, were to opt for new nuclear plants.
There is only one way forward in Europe, and that is renewable energy, and we in this House ought to reach a consensus in favour of renewables.
(PL) Mr President, on 26 April, a quarter of a century will have passed since the Chernobyl disaster, the worst nuclear accident in history.
Twenty-five years on, we remember all the victims of the tragedy, those who suffered and those who, to this day, are still feeling the effects of the disaster.
This tragic anniversary has unfortunately coincided with the events in Japan.
In recalling the Chernobyl disaster, I would like to express my solidarity with the Japanese people, who are struggling with the effects of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station, which was itself caused by the waves of the tsunami.
Even today, contamination is to be found in food produced in the regions of Ukraine which were exposed to radioactive caesium 137 - an isotope which has a half-life of 30 years.
Greenpeace has carried out research which shows that in at least two provinces, Zhitomir and Rovno, the local population consumes contaminated milk, mushrooms, fruit, fresh-water fish and vegetables.
According to official data, there is a high level of radiation in areas at a distance of 30 km from the power station.
It is estimated, however, that the affected area may, in fact, include a total of around 50 000 km2 across many provinces in Ukraine.
There are currently 165 operational reactors in Europe, not including Russia.
It is important to know that they are not only located on the territory of the European Union, but also in neighbouring countries near the Union's borders.
Russia and Belarus are beginning the construction of power stations near the borders of the Union.
We must ask what guarantee can be given of their safety?
Energy should not be bought from nuclear power stations located outside the borders of the European Union if they do not comply with the highest standards of safety as defined by stress tests in the European Union.
(The President interrupted the speaker)
I will say that again: at this moment, nuclear power stations are being built by Russia and Belarus near the borders of the European Union.
In relation to this, I think European Union Member States should not buy nuclear energy from these power stations if they do not pass stress tests which are the same as those required in the European Union.
(RO) Mr President, I want to begin by expressing my complete sympathy for the Japanese people.
I believe that it is important now for us to give them every support we can.
The Fukushima accident has shown us that some existing nuclear power plants are not safe.
This is why we must attach greater importance to nuclear safety.
I think that it is vital to carry out safety tests on the nuclear power plants immediately.
On the other hand, however, we must avoid the pitfall of making emotional and unfounded decisions about whether to keep or abandon nuclear energy.
The decision about the composition of the energy mix must remain under Member States' jurisdiction, while the European Union's role must be to ensure that the highest safety standards are applied.
However, any measure taken at European or national level with regard to the energy mix and regulating nuclear energy must be based on a high level of scientific objectivity.
(LV) Mr President, nuclear energy currently generates approximately one third of total energy consumption in Europe.
If we wanted to replace this capacity in a short time, there are only two real alternatives: i.e. increase the use of either coal or natural gas.
Both these alternatives have their difficulties.
With coal, it is CO2 emissions.
With natural gas, of course, it is that the majority is imported from Russia.
In the short term, therefore, there are two things that can be done.
The more important thing is what has already been discussed: to increase safety measures.
However, ladies and gentlemen, it will not be enough to increase safety measures in Europe, for Europe's neighbours, Russia and Belarus, are going ahead, regardless of our debates on nuclear safety.
They will develop their reactors, which is why we must ensure that Europe's high standards are imposed not only in Europe, but also in the rest of the world, especially in our neighbouring states, Russia and Belarus.
Naturally, the second thing that Europe must do, also in the short term, what we can do, is constantly to reinforce our measures in the area of energy saving, and to place ever greater stress on renewable energy resources, making more use of wind, solar, water and biomass sources.
Naturally, also in the long term, it is precisely energy saving and an increased use of wind, solar, water and biomass that will reduce our dependence on both nuclear energy and on imported energy sources.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the news regarding Fukushima is increasingly worrying.
Safety limits have been greatly exceeded and we do not know what will happen in the near future.
There has been a lack of clear and transparent communications.
Stress tests should be conducted on existing nuclear plants and if the outcome raises concern we must have the courage to call for their immediate closure.
We need to introduce higher international safety standards and there should be no thought of constructing new nuclear plants.
We must prepare the way for a gradual withdrawal of this type of energy which causes irreparable damage to the environment and human health.
Careful thought on the development of future energy policies is essential.
We must urgently develop policies that aim at energy conservation and efficiency, and increased investment in research into new technologies and renewable energy sources.
Finally, we should open a debate involving citizens and local authorities.
(SL) Mr President, I agree with the Members who have said that we should ensure nuclear safety at the European level.
However, ladies and gentlemen, we need to recognise in this respect that 'safety culture' is a very broad concept, which takes into account both ... which includes both a safe nuclear technology and the ensuring of adequate financial resources, human resources, adequate safety standards and strong and independent supervisory bodies.
In my opinion, all this should also be part of these European safety standards.
This is not about us lacking trust in the existing institutions, but about ensuring, at the institutional level, the highest possible safety in the future too.
Commissioner, you have said that Member States are not interested in that, but who are these Member States?
If we asked our citizens (and such public opinion polls have already been carried out), you would see that they are happy for some of the powers to be transferred to the European Union.
I must state clearly that I am against the closure of nuclear power plants for political reasons.
There are several nuclear power plants in Japan, and one of them has been struck by this severe nuclear accident.
Before we adopt various measures, we need to have arguments and expert findings.
We therefore need to have expert analyses of what happened in Fukushima if we are to find out at all the real reasons for the nuclear accident and the damage to the core.
To conclude, let me just say that we have come a long way towards adopting a directive on radioactive waste and that, with this directive, we will be able to show that we are serious.
(The speaker agreed to take three blue card questions under Rule 149(8))
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I ask my fellow Member if thousands of deaths are not a matter to think over and reflect on for a long time, seeing as she just said that we do not have sufficient reason to believe that nuclear power is dangerous.
Since there have been thousands of new deaths in Japan, I wanted to ask if this fact might not be enough.
Mr President, I would like to ask my colleague how many nuclear plants have to go down before she says that it is enough.
She talks about only one nuclear plant in Japan having been hit.
However, there were six nuclear plants, not one.
How many would be enough for her to change her opinion?
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Jordan Cizelj, there is a power station in Krško in your country, which is viewed rather critically, among other things, because it is located in an earthquake zone.
Are you prepared at least to ensure that it is one of the first power stations to be investigated using strict and, hopefully, objective stress tests, so that we can make sure that the citizens are at no immediate risk from this power station, although it is in an earthquake zone, and that improvements can be made for as long as the power station remains in existence?
(SL) Mr President, there are, indeed, thousands of victims in Japan and I personally deeply sympathise with them and think that the European Union should offer all possible assistance.
However, what I am against is these victims being misused in the name of some ideological fight against the use of nuclear energy.
That is why I said that we need to analyse the causes which have led to this nuclear accident and that we need to find out whether they are at all possible in Europe and how we can avoid them.
I would also ask that we do not confuse victims of a natural disaster, victims of an earthquake and a tsunami, with potential victims of a nuclear accident.
That is my answer to the first question.
As far as the second question is concerned, how many accidents in nuclear plants ...
May I continue?
How many accidents will it take to change my mind?
I mentioned one plant which has several reactors, so a single plant with several reactors.
We know that there are a number of plants in Japan.
I think that each plant ... or each accident should be taken very seriously; we should not be thinking in terms of how many accidents, because we need to take into account each accident, and not only the accident, but also any other incident assessed to be less than an accident.
We have to learn something from each such incident.
Indeed, this very example is telling us that we should not conclude from one accident that nuclear technology is unacceptable.
There is one more question I have not answered.
There were three questions.
The Krško nuclear power plant.
May I?
The safety of this plant has been tested and, at the time, Austria, which was very active on this issue, also carried out additional seismic safety tests.
As a result, additional modifications were made and this is now, in fact, an established practice.
I firmly believe that everyone in Slovenia will agree to such a stress test being carried out at Krško immediately.
Since we are a small nuclear country, we are used to being subjected to a relatively greater number of international tests than is the case for other nuclear power plants in the larger countries.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, I come from Austria and we are all worried about Krško.
I hope that the assurances made by Mrs Jordan Cizelj will be followed up.
I would like to express my concern for and sympathy with the people of Japan who have suffered a great deal and who are coping with these events with calm stoicism.
However, we should try to draw some positive conclusions from the disaster.
The only positive aspect is that we must reconsider our position and begin to learn lessons in Europe from the catastrophe.
One short-term lesson is the need to bring about a huge improvement in safety standards in European reactors.
Another lesson is that we must establish a European civil protection body.
Europe must allow its safety and rescue teams to work together across national borders.
The long-term lesson involves the need to draw up a common exit scenario, because events have clearly shown that nuclear technology as it currently stands is too dangerous and that is unlikely to change in future.
The consequences are too long-lasting.
You can see from my remarks that the divide runs right across all the groups, including the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats).
However, overall, I believe that we should take to heart the fact that the famous safety standards promised us by everyone simply cannot be guaranteed.
Therefore, the stress tests must cover an accumulation of different risks.
If we only investigate individual risks, we will never have a realistic scenario.
In this context, realistic means that it is very difficult, for example, to predict a tsunami, even if it is unlikely to happen here in Europe, but we do have earthquake zones here.
(RO) Mr President, I would first of all like to express my admiration and respect for the attitude of the Japanese people towards the extraordinary situation they are going through.
This situation has given rise to heated debates about the future of nuclear energy - whether to continue with or abandon it.
I believe that we must adopt a balanced attitude, taking into account every aspect: the demands of the economy, public safety and climate change.
I believe that the future energy policy must be based on striking a balance between renewable energy, new technologies for conventional energy resources and nuclear energy in safe conditions.
Investments must be made in research into the efficient production of renewable energy.
We must invest to make secure new sources of conventional raw materials and new supply routes for Europe - the Southern Corridor.
At the same time, innovation and research are required into new technologies which will eliminate the polluting effect conventional energy production has on the environment.
The Nuclear Safety Directive must be revised in order to tighten requirements.
The stress tests proposed by the Commission are necessary.
The criteria must be set out, taking into account every aspect: age, technologies and natural hazards.
The tests must be carried out with the Commission's involvement.
The tests' results must be used when revising the directive.
The consequences of the tests must be very clear.
Those which pass continue to operate, those which fail stop.
I should point out the need for a European policy for treating and storing nuclear waste, as well as for decommissioning power plants.
Lastly, but by no means the least important point, the general public must retain their confidence in nuclear energy and be informed accordingly.
Mr President, I would like to make a short comment regarding nuclear plants in third countries that are very close to EU borders.
Two particular cases have already been mentioned today, two simultaneous nuclear projects: one in the Kaliningrad district of the Russian Federation, which is completely surrounded by Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic Sea, and the second in Belarus, where a nuclear power station is planned to be built just 20 km away from the Lithuanian border.
When the whole world was watching the dramatic developments in Fukushima, on 15 March, the Belarus Government and the Russian state-owned energy company Rosatom signed a contract under which Rosatom will have to finish the nuclear plant in Belarus by 2018.
Russia is also preparing a USD 6 billion envelope to Belarus to finance this project.
So the Belarus authorities have been defiant about the need to properly inform Belarus's neighbours about the planned project, and the project as it stands clearly violates the Espoo Convention on environmental impact assessment.
(RO) Mr President, I welcome the Commission's decision to impose stress tests on the European Union's nuclear reactors.
We call on these inspections to be carried out based on common, detailed evaluation criteria in order to enhance nuclear safety further in the European Union.
The Union currently has 143 nuclear reactors, with nuclear energy accounting for 30% of the energy mix.
Member States are responsible for their own energy mix, but nuclear safety is the responsibility of all of us.
This is why it is important for us to have a resolution on nuclear safety in the European Union.
I should emphasise that investments made in nuclear safety must be guaranteed for every nuclear reactor until the end of the period envisaged for their operation.
The stress tests will result in a rise in standards for future nuclear reactors and, by extension, in the cost of nuclear energy.
The Union must therefore make considerable investments in energy efficiency measures and in the production and use of renewable energy sources, particularly for buildings and transport.
(FI) Mr President, it is a good thing that the EU wants stress tests for its Member States and its neighbours.
The only drawback is that they will not be compulsory.
The EU is now coyly asking if these could possibly be carried out.
Another failing is that the EU has not drawn up common standards.
It is imperative, however, that these should exist.
Thirdly, an independent body should carry out these tests.
I simply cannot believe that national bodies will say that there have been malfunctions in their country or that they themselves have neglected to monitor sites properly.
If these are to be genuine tests, there should be standards in place for them, they should be carried out openly, and independent parties should conduct them.
(FR) Mr President, I would nevertheless like to remind my fellow Members that the Fukushima accident is not over and that there are still risks of explosion relating to the molten core.
I have a question to put to our Commissioner, Mr Oettinger.
It is about the implementation of these stress tests.
As our fellow Member has just said, how will you get a guarantee that all the criteria that you have mentioned to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy are taken into account by each Member State that uses nuclear power stations?
How will you force a Member State to allow independent experts to verify and monitor the power stations if it refuses?
The reason I ask this is that, if they monitor themselves, I do not see how we will apply your stress tests.
There absolutely must be an independent body monitoring the power stations in each Member State.
How, furthermore, will we ensure that neighbouring countries - you spoke of Armenia, with Metsamor, and of other countries such as Belarus, and so on - accept such monitoring?
Parliament will have to support you, Commissioner, but how will we do this?
Finally, we have a real responsibility to phase out nuclear power, and this is where scenarios for achieving this must be proposed to Parliament.
It is the only guarantee that there will be no further accidents.
(SK) Mr President, the extensive damage to the nuclear power plant in Fukushima caused by an extraordinary natural disaster has shown that it is extremely important to look after safety in facilities of this kind.
It is therefore right and proper that the European Commission has decided to perform a safety audit of all nuclear plants on our territory without delay.
European citizens have a right to safety, and a professional independent audit of nuclear facilities can alert us to any deficiencies and risks which we might avoid with careful operation.
I do not doubt that the result of the findings of the safety audit of our nuclear facilities will be a serious decision obliging operators of power plants to correct any deficiencies in the facilities immediately, and not try to circumvent the safety criteria, fulfilment of which must be a precondition for the running of a nuclear plant.
Commissioner, I am sure the European public expects us to conduct an open and honest dialogue today on the future of European energy policy, including the definition of new safety limits for all power plants in Europe.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear disaster in Japan has shown us one thing.
Nature is stronger and more powerful than mankind.
For this reason, it is high time for us finally to disconnect from the grid the old nuclear power stations and those that are at risk of earthquakes and, in the long-term, to get out of nuclear power.
We need stress tests, Mr Oettinger!
We do not want a second Chernobyl.
We need limits for food from Japan.
I have one question for the Commission.
Do you really want to irradiate the people of Europe?
You should withdraw this implementing regulation immediately and preferably today.
We must invest in and make use of alternative energies.
They do exist.
They are safe, environmentally friendly and less harmful to people.
One more point: they create new jobs.
In Austria, we had the Zwentendorf nuclear power plant that was never connected to the grid.
Now it is a solar power station.
Mr President, this debate should be about nuclear safety.
It has obviously gone further than that and is about the energy mix.
Could I suggest that we have that debate when the Commission brings forward its road map on energy?
On the issue of safety, can I ask the Commissioner whether it is appropriate to use the words 'stress tests', because when it comes to banking, the words 'stress tests' have certainly failed us.
What I would ask is to use the words 'safety assessments' or 'risk assessments'.
What follow-up will there be on those safety assessments?
Will you ensure that they are carried out on all nuclear plants, including waste and reprocessing facilities, because I have a particular concern about Sellafield, which is close to the Irish border?
We need to look at the safety of plants now.
Regrettably, some colleagues say, we are highly reliant on nuclear power - even those who do not have plants on their territory - so safety is paramount.
Let us move to another stage of looking at the energy mix.
Let us be honest: renewables are not an easy answer either.
(EL) Mr President, it took us 25 years to forget Chernobyl and I fear that the disaster in Japan will not suffice to remind us.
We have been systematically condemning Japan. It is as if we want to say that it is Japan, rather than nuclear energy, that is unsafe.
We have started safety tests on our nuclear power plants and are again insisting that there is such a thing as safe nuclear technology.
We need to shut down nuclear power plants over thirty years old immediately and put an end to any thoughts of building new plants.
We need an immediate 'nuclear' tax that will allow us to reflect the entire environmental cost of nuclear energy.
We need to invest in improving the performance of photovoltaic energy and to make real investments in increasing the performance of all renewable energy sources.
Commissioner, the legislative initiative and responsibility for our action, or the consequences of our failure to act, lie with you.
Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, I would like to look at our long-term energy policy.
We want to invite you to become involved with the Energy Roadmap from day one.
For this reason, I am offering to meet with the groups from May onwards to discuss different scenarios for Europe's energy sector for the decades to come.
One scenario, in other words, one option with all the resulting consequences, will definitely involve setting the target for the proportion of renewable energy used in electricity generation as high as possible, even at 100%, which will have an impact on power grids, storage facilities, research, efficiency and a number of other factors.
However, at the same time, I would like to ask everyone to take the legal basis into consideration.
The Treaty of Lisbon is only 18 months old and you were more closely involved in its creation than I was.
The Treaty gives the European Union comprehensive legislative powers in the field of energy with only one far-reaching exception, which was included quite deliberately.
The question of energy technology and the energy mix remains in the hands of the national parliaments.
We can argue about whether this was the right thing to do, but it is clear that the conclusions to be drawn from the events in Japan for the Energy Roadmap must be based on the Treaty of Lisbon and, as things currently stand, I believe that Article 194 is unlikely to be revised in the foreseeable future.
I would like it to be revised and I believe that there is sufficient expertise at a European level with regard to the energy mix.
However, for the next few years, energy technology and electricity generation are a matter for the Member States.
However, there is one restriction in place, which we agreed on together with the Member States.
The target of 20% renewable energy restricts the powers of the Member States to the remaining 80%.
Therefore, because we will have to reach a level of 20% renewable energy with the support and commitment of the Member States in nine years and will have to evaluate the situation constantly by means of progress reports, the powers of the Member States will be reduced to 80% or to even less than this.
This is because the overall figure of 20% will mean perhaps 10% renewable energy in the transport sector.
In the field of electricity generation, which is currently the focus of attention, we are aiming for a proportion of 35% renewable energy - water, biomass, geothermal, solar and wind energy - in nine years.
This means that in three to four years, renewable energy will have overtaken coal and nuclear power in the electricity sector.
I believe that we cannot praise this development process highly enough.
A total of 35% renewable energy in nine years!
The Energy Roadmap will be focusing not only on 2050, but also on 2025 and 2030, in other words, the next decade, during which we must invest in technology, power grids and storage facilities.
I am sure that we can come to a consensus on a percentage for energy generation of 40 + x% in 2030 and then reach a decision about this with the Member States.
Once renewable energy makes up a proportion of 40% or more, the Member States will only be responsible for 60% or less and this will mean that we will be making progress on the subject of powers at a European level with the knowledge and consent of the Member States.
This may not be fast enough for some people, but without amending the Treaty of Lisbon, which is currently not realistic, the target will be 20%, then 35% and later 40% or more renewable energy.
This means a clear shift of power towards European control and the European level.
When we look at the renewable energy scenario, we should also always consider what is happening in the Member States.
One example is Poland, a large and up-and-coming country which I very much respect.
In Poland, 90% of electricity is currently generated using coal.
Ninety per cent!
I do not believe that it is likely and, therefore, I would like to ask the Members of all the groups who are present from the large and up-and-coming EU Member State of Poland: Do you believe that the politicians in your country, regardless of who is in government, will be able to bring the percentage of coal down to zero over the next few years and decades?
I do not think that they will.
Incidentally, Poland is currently planning a new nuclear power station.
This means that the Poles want nuclear power to make up part of their energy mix, with the aim of becoming less dependent on gas and on the Russian Federation.
Mrs Harms, the Polish Government was democratically elected and is highly respected within its own country.
We Germans in particular should not think that we always know better.
I trust our friends in Poland to take security issues into consideration in just the same way as I trust you.
(Applause and heckling)
To the group chair, I would like to say that we have a tendency in Germany to want to decide everything in Europe.
My advice is to take into consideration and to accept the democratic processes in Poland and in France with appropriate humility.
I am speaking as a European.
I know my own country of Germany and I respect the democratic processes in Poland, in France and in every other Member State.
However, any country whose energy supply is based on 90% coal will find it more difficult to get down to 0%.
This is why my plans include the option of coal without CO2 emissions.
Anyone who is familiar with the situation in Poland, Romania or Spain will understand that coal has to be included as an option in the Energy Roadmap 2050, otherwise they will be ignoring the realities of democratically elected parliaments and governments.
For this reason, I believe that research into carbon capture and storage (CCS) and demonstration projects are very important en route to another objective, which involves achieving a CO2-free energy sector in the next few decades.
In Mrs Hedegaard's road map, we have included a reduction of 10% in CO2 emissions for the energy sector by 2050 compared with today's levels.
As far as the subject of nuclear power is concerned, we all know that there are countries which currently have a moratorium on nuclear power stations or which want to shut them down, for example, Germany.
Some of our neighbours, such as Switzerland, have postponed the planning process for new nuclear power plants.
However, there are countries which are in the process of building nuclear power stations, Finland, for example, and there are countries which currently have nuclear power and are planning new plants and others which do not have nuclear power and want to build their first power plant.
Therefore, I think it is very important, despite all these differences and differing cultures, that the stress test and the safety investigation with the highest safety standards should be introduced and accepted by all the Member States.
It is a small but decisive common denominator which will ensure the highest possible levels of safety for countries with and without nuclear power.
Some speakers have mentioned the fact that the authorities should be independent.
We have public control and supervision in a wide range of areas of life, including health, safety, road transport, energy, industry and other fields.
I would like to express my fundamental confidence in the system of public supervision.
Mrs Harms, you have made sweeping statements referring to the old boys' network and suggested that the national nuclear regulatory bodies are not fulfilling their statutory tasks.
I believe that this is a serious accusation which implies a lack of trust in your fellow Member Mr Trittin who, as German Federal Environment Minister, was responsible for this regulatory body in Germany for seven years.
I have fundamental confidence in these bodies and we have the task of working with them.
Before the decision is made, I will be presenting you with a draft of the stress test and the test criteria in May in a way which is completely transparent.
I will be interested to hear your suggestions on where the draft can be improved, added to or tightened up, with the aim of starting a process which will ultimately lead to broad acceptance among all the Member States and a high level of control.
This stress test which we have been commissioned to develop by the Heads of State or Government is the first common European procedure for ensuring the highest safety standards in all 143 nuclear power plants.
This is an innovation and a development which should win the support of Parliament and not be met with criticism and mistrust right from the start.
My final point is that I inherited the Nuclear Safety Directive of June 2009, which must be transposed into national law by July of this year.
I can say to you quite honestly that I feel that it does not have sufficient substance because it focuses primarily on implementing formal regulations, defining powers and specifying the requirements for supervisory bodies; in my view, it does not have enough core content.
Therefore, in the second half of the year, while the safety investigation is going on, I would like to discuss with you, in line with the European Council's requirements, the issue of how we can carry out an early, rapid revision of this safety directive and establish concrete requirements for the safety of nuclear energy at a European level.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate has been most instructive.
Thank you very much, I have been following it with keen attention.
The Hungarian Presidency began this half-year with great ambitions in the area of energy policy.
One ambition we did not have was to settle the issue of the energy mix.
I believe that today's debate, too, has shown that this would not be a realistic goal.
A multitude of arguments have been made for and against having some form of guidance regarding the energy mix in the European Union.
I believe that we will not be able to settle this within the foreseeable future, but I am not sure if that is a problem; as such, the Member States must be able to make responsible decisions regarding their own energy mix.
We did, however, have ambitions to make significant progress in the creation of a common energy market.
The European Council of 4 February 2011 set this as its objective, as well as the elimination of energy islands within the European Union by 2015, and subsequently, at the Energy Council at the end of February, we were also able to adopt conclusions, which I believe is a major step forward.
To our knowledge, the Commission will publish the Energy Roadmap 2050 in November.
The energy ministers, however, will already hold a preliminary debate on this subject and the related goals at the informal Energy Council on 2 and 3 May in Budapest, and the Presidency will prepare a report and a political summary of this, which will be on the agenda of the formal Energy Council meeting in June.
I am certain that these questions, which have been raised now in this hall, will also come up during the Council debates, and I also trust that once the Hungarian Presidency summarises that debate, the Commission will be able to build upon it when finalising the Energy Roadmap it will publish in November.
However, the fact that the Member States have a maximum commitment to both the issue of nuclear energy safety and having a common European framework is best demonstrated by the conclusions of the European Council of 24 to 25 March.
These conclusions stress that we must draw lessons from the disaster in Japan, and that we must review the safety condition of the EU's nuclear power plants and conduct the stress tests.
ENSREG and the Commission have been requested to do so as soon as possible, and to make a proposal regarding the competence and modalities of these, so that a general assessment can be prepared subsequently and published by the Commission on the basis of the assessments of these independent authorities.
Finally, the European Council itself will also address the topic again at the last European Council meeting of 2011.
The Heads of State or Government also stressed that nuclear safety must not be limited to the territory of the European Union, and that we will also ask our neighbours to take these stress tests.
They also stated that the highest possible standards are needed in the area of nuclear safety, and that the European Council has set out serious tasks for the Commission, which - as I am certain, and as the Commissioner has also mentioned - it will carry out with the utmost commitment.
And so, as intense as today's debate may have been, there have been common points on which, I believe, we are all in agreement: there should be a common European framework, we should do everything at every level to ensure the highest possible level of safety, and we should do all this in a transparent manner, ensuring maximum publicity.
The Council is ready to cooperate with both the European Council and the European Parliament along these principles.
I have received six motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
There is a significant nuclear threat to Ireland from nuclear stations, some working and some closed, on the west coast of Britain.
Sellafield is the most famous.
Those stations are an understandable cause of concern to the people of Ireland, who have a right to be given accurate and up-to-date information about them.
Although there is a bilateral agreement on sharing information in case of a nuclear incident in place between Ireland and Britain, Ireland and other neighbouring countries must be involved earlier in the security process.
The EU must carry out a major review of the approach to nuclear safety it has in place and of the criteria used to evaluate the safety of stations.
Comprehensive, independent and transparent stress tests must begin immediately.
Stress tests on nuclear facilities represent a step forward.
To get the best from them, detailed results must be shared with neighbouring countries and with the European Commission to enable appropriate measures to be put in place and safety plans implemented, in order to protect the people of Europe.
in writing. - (RO) Safety regulations in the nuclear industry must be reviewed against the background of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
We are talking about more than 400 nuclear reactors worldwide.
I welcome the introduction of 'stress tests' as soon as possible.
However, this measure is not enough - a nuclear safety culture is required.
I should mention at this point the Chernobyl accident in 1986, which introduced the concept of 'nuclear safety'.
As regards Romania, I should point out that there is no risk of an earthquake jeopardising the operation of the Cernavodă nuclear power plant.
The preventive inspections carried out showed that both reactors are operating safely.
They generate approximately 20% of the country's energy consumption.
The plant can withstand earthquakes with a magnitude of 8 on the Richter scale, while the earthquakes which can occur in Romania have an average magnitude of between 7 and 7.5.
The tragedy of Fukushima has taken us, in a very painful manner, into a new era in terms of the use of nuclear energy.
At the same time, both the energy challenges of the 21st century and the hazards caused by the age and increasing unreliability of numerous nuclear power plants have caused a change and, as a result, the Euratom Treaty, which has basically not been amended for over half a century, needs to be reviewed.
If there is to be full supervision at European level of a sector characterised by a lack of transparency, Euratom would need to be incorporated into the European Union and nuclear safety issues would need to be brought within the normal legislative procedure.
As part of the review, stricter safety specifications, restrictions (such as earthquake zones) and strict construction specifications for new nuclear plants could be added, together with regular, reliable stress testing of existing plants.
It goes without saying that the new strict framework would need to be applied by countries neighbouring the EU until such time, of course, as we manage to break free, once and for all, from the nightmare of nuclear power plants.
in writing. - I am opposed to nuclear fission power on the principle of safety, while I support ongoing research into the potential of nuclear fusion as a possible safer alternative in the longer term.
There is no safe way.
There will always be accidents.
The recent nuclear accident in Japan, which we were told could never happen, demonstrates yet again that current nuclear energy production is potentially catastrophic.
Its by-product, radioactive waste, is already a lethal threat to human health, effectively for ever.
Rather than investing billions of euro in new nuclear plants, we need to invest that money in developing renewable energy sources.
As a result of the Japanese experience, several countries will probably re-think their nuclear energy strategies.
Germany has already taken concrete steps and has shut down its nuclear power plants built prior to 1980 for three months.
Should multiple Member States across Europe re-think their nuclear energy strategies as a result of the events in Japan, this could have a considerable influence on European energy markets, as the power generated by the nuclear power plants would have to be substituted from other sources.
I am convinced that, in the current situation, hasty measures could have the same harmful effects as a potential disaster.
Instead, it would be most expedient to prudently take account of the effects of the individual scenarios.
Only by doing so can we prevent an increase in electricity prices similar to the consequences of the aforementioned German measures, and prevent Member States that are electricity exporters under normal circumstances from also being faced with challenges of supply security.
Europe must think through with a clear head the effects that a re-thinking of nuclear energy strategy would have on the energy market.
It is also unclear what technologies could be suitable for replacing nuclear power plant capacities.
A further important question is what effects a possible strategic shift would have on the gas markets, gas supply security and the EU's carbon dioxide emission reduction targets.
Finally, I welcome the quick reaction of the European Commission and the announcement that European nuclear power plants will be subjected to stress tests.
The most important question, however, is what further measures Europe plans in order to guarantee the safety of nuclear energy production.
in writing. - (BG) The Fukushima tragedy forces us to learn lessons and immediately adopt the measures expected by European citizens.
However, these measures should be targeted in the right direction.
The basic problem which we need to tackle is how to guarantee European citizens' safety.
In the coming months, the European Parliament will be dealing with a number of legislative texts which will determine the future of the energy sector in Europe, and of nuclear energy in particular.
At the moment, safety is our top priority.
We should not compare Europe's power plants with the 40-year-old Fukushima nuclear power plant whose private owner has refused to fulfil the requirements for increasing safety.
The EU must adopt as soon as possible the minimum safety standards to be made mandatory for all power plants.
These standards should be drawn up and adopted prior to the stress tests being carried out at the power plants.
During its term of government, the Bulgarian Socialist Party insisted on several occasions on such standards being established, but this has not happened so far.
Both the standards and criteria for the stress tests must be drawn up by the specialists from the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group.
I support the development of new technologies and especially renewable energy sources.
However, it is patently clear that they are unable to replace the nuclear facilities in the short and medium term.
Another lesson from the accident at the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant is that it is dangerous to entrust power generation fully to the private sector.
Private capital maximises profits, even at the cost of neglecting safety measures.
How many global economic crises, 'Gulf of Mexico oil spills' or 'Fukushimas' will it take before we finally acknowledge this?
The world is now in a financial crisis due to the irresponsibility of private investors.
There are millions of tonnes of oil in the sea due to the irresponsibility of private oil firms.
Due to the irresponsibility of a private firm, Japan will take decades to sort out the radioactive contamination of its land, sea and food chain.
Nuclear energy should always be under state and international control.
Planned stress tests must have uniform standards, transparent and independent control bodies and a cross-border nature.
Although, in Europe, there is a legal framework initiating constant improvements in the technology, there will be a need to invest extensively in research and training, in order to guarantee the highest possible level of safety and the protection of health and the environment, in line with the latest scientific and technical findings.
Extensive investments will also be necessary in the area of managing nuclear waste and spent fuel, which are currently stored in more-or-less temporary conditions.
The lessons from this disaster must be directed decisively towards ensuring safety, and not towards closing down the only truly sustainable, climate neutral energy source available to us.
in writing. - The nuclear accident in Japan has raised fresh concerns about the safety of nuclear power across the globe.
In Romania, the nuclear power plant at Cernavodă has been assessed by various bodies, including the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A study in 2004 identified seismic hazard as being the single biggest risk factor for safety at the plant.
This risk must be managed effectively and, as the tragic events in Japan remind us, as a matter of urgency.
I therefore welcome the recent proposal to introduce stress tests for nuclear installations, as well as the entry into force of the directive on nuclear safety.
Regardless of what we decide about the future energy mix and how we meet our low carbon objectives, the safety of nuclear facilities, including long-term depositories, will continue to be of the upmost importance for both current and future generations.
Nuclear energy is a resource which the global economy cannot do without in the long term.
We must not come to the conclusion of rejecting nuclear energy just because dangerous accidents occur affecting the operation of nuclear power plants.
The solution is for us to assign more resources to research in this area and to improve nuclear technology so that we can reduce the risks caused by accidents.
Yes, we must phase out nuclear power - that is clear.
However, it is impossible to do this overnight.
In Belgium alone, 55% of our electricity comes from nuclear energy.
How would we heat, feed and provide light for ourselves if we decided to close all our power stations tomorrow?
That is why we must act on two levels.
Firstly, we must increase the safety standards of the existing power stations, in particular, using the stress tests that are currently carried out in the Member States.
As well as the essential harmonisation of these tests at European level, we must be as transparent as possible with the population.
We must restore confidence in our nuclear power.
Secondly, we must intensify our research and innovation to develop solutions as quickly as possible that will allow us to save energy and to promote sustainable and effective renewable energies.
The least expensive, least polluting and least dangerous energy is unconsumed energy.
These efforts make it necessary, from today, to have a binding regulation and massive investments at European level and in the Member States.
Situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen
The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mrs Ashton, on the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Németh, will speak on behalf of Mrs Ashton.
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, I am here today to present to you some remarks on behalf of the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on the situation in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Events have recently taken a dramatic turn in Syria.
In Yemen, an already dire situation may well get worse and the very tense atmosphere which now prevails in Bahrain is of serious concern, even if the bloodshed there has been less.
The EU has been following the rapidly unfolding events in the entire region very attentively, as confirmed by numerous high-level meetings, formal statements and Council conclusions.
More than this, Baroness Ashton has been maintaining constant contact with key partners, as well as with key players in the countries themselves.
This is being done every day directly by phone or through her representatives in the countries in question, in order to bring the EU's influence to bear wherever this is possible and whenever it can help.
Every country's situation is unique and demands a strategic, carefully thought-out, well-tailored reaction.
But when events move so fast, it is all the more crucial to build sound policy on solid fundamental principles.
Let me cite three principles: first, the rejection of violence - mass protests must always be dealt with peacefully and with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; secondly, the promotion of dialogue - differences and grievances must be addressed in a constructive manner by the right people being ready to talk to each other, setting aside prejudices and preconditions; thirdly, fundamental political and economic reforms must come from within the countries, and the EU has made it very clear that it is ready to provide prompt support as and when requested.
Allow me now to move more specifically to the three countries before us.
In Bahrain, in spite of some return to normality on the streets, the situation remains tense.
Arrests are continuing, with individuals being seized for having apparently done no more than exercise their right to freedom of expression.
Just as elsewhere in the region, the EU and the High Representative herself have condemned the violence in Bahrain outright and called on the authorities and all forces present to respect fully human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as international humanitarian standards.
We have also repeatedly urged the Bahraini authorities and the opposition to start a genuine national dialogue.
The High Representative has spoken with the Foreign Minister directly to this end.
Without concrete steps to get all the right people to talk to each other without exclusions and without preconditions, there is an increasing risk that radical elements will prevail.
This would have clear and worrying implications for regional stability.
The best way to preserve and promote stability remains dialogue.
This is the message that the High Representative will be taking with her when she meets the ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council very shortly this month.
In Syria, popular protests have spread over a number of cities since mid-March.
The brutal repression with which they have been met is unacceptable.
The High Representative and the European Union have made numerous calls on the Syrian authorities to stop the violence, respect people's right to demonstrate peacefully and to listen to their legitimate aspirations.
The Syrian people deserve long-awaited political reforms, notably in relation to freedom of expression, assembly, political participation and governance.
President Assad's address to the nation on 30 March provided for neither a clear programme for reform nor a timetable for its implementation.
The EU will continue to press Syria on delivering reforms without delay.
They must be real, political as well as socio-economic, serious - not just cosmetic - and to be implemented without further delay.
We will be monitoring very closely how the new government, still to be formed, will take reforms forward.
We hope that the formation of a legal committee will result in the drawing up of new legislation to allow for the lifting of the state of emergency and guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.
At the same time, the EU will continue to press the Syrian leadership in public and private to refrain from using force against demonstrators.
Equally important is to convey that those responsible for the violence and the fatalities must be held accountable and that all political prisoners and human rights defenders must be released.
In Yemen, the situation remains of the utmost concern.
The High Representative's messages, following the deplorable violence on 18 March, were crystal clear and the Foreign Affairs Council's conclusions on 21 March reiterated the EU's condemnation of the use of force against protesters.
The EU also stated unequivocally that those responsible for loss of life and injuries should be held accountable for their actions and brought to justice.
Since then, the messages coming from the Yemeni leadership have been less clear.
For this reason, the High Representative called President Saleh directly on the phone on 30 March urging him to do everything possible to avert further bloodshed.
She stated her view that the best way to ensure this is for a credible and rapid political transition to begin without delay.
That constitutional transition should be founded on substantive and consistent commitments which are properly followed through.
Time is running out and the victims will be the Yemeni people.
This is why, in close concert with international partners, the EU has been, and will remain, very actively involved in trying to defuse the crisis in Yemen.
While Mr Brok is seated next to Mr Salafranca, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his team's success yesterday.
He is wearing the scarf of Schalke 04, a team that achieved a glorious victory, but with the help of one of the best players in the world, the Spaniard, Raúl.
Now we have congratulated Mr Brok, Mr Salafranca has the floor on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for one and a half minutes.
Mr President, I entirely agree with what you have just said.
Mr Németh, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that we have been continuously following the flow of information provided by the High Representative, Mrs Ashton, on the developments in these countries and I think we should recognise the efforts she is making on behalf of the European Union in support of the democratic aspirations in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
Tomorrow, Parliament will adopt a resolution supported by all the political groups in this regard.
However I would like to put forward a couple of questions, Mr President, and would ask Mr Németh to pass them on to Mrs Ashton.
First of all, in some bodies of the Union and, of course, in this Parliament, there is the feeling that we are taking a step back in the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy, and that we are being taken back to the times of political cooperation.
Obviously, that is not why we established the Treaty of Lisbon.
Secondly, a contradiction has arisen, related to the growing need for a European presence in those countries, with no knowledge of what will be the end result of these transitional processes.
It is clear that we have to be present, and it is also clear that the slogan used in Mrs Ashton's communication is very wise: 'more for more'
However, the question I wish to ask - and I shall conclude now, Mr President - is whether the EU Member States are willing to increase resources to meet the growing needs that are emerging in those countries.
Mr President, we are very aware of the intense diplomatic efforts that Mrs Ashton has deployed, and that she continues to deploy, and we are aware, too, of the difficulties of the situations that she is encountering.
Indeed, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are countries with which we have no agreements besides trade agreements, which do not, for example, contain clauses on human rights, and we have very few levers available to us.
Nevertheless, in spite of that, I would like to say three things.
First of all, in relation to the inspirations of the people, in relation to those who are in the streets today, under fire from snipers, we must not only stand behind them, but we must also make sure that there is an end to violence at all costs.
Today, I saw a Syrian dissident.
What these dissidents are calling for, in the end, is an end to violence so that they can express themselves.
On this topic, I would like to say that, even if we do not have an agreement with Syria, we should now make use of the entire arsenal of sanctions available to us, if necessary, to end this violence.
The second thing that I wanted to say is that in general, these are countries - and this is true of the Gulf countries as well as Libya - that we have armed, indeed overarmed.
I think a minimum requirement is better arms controls, so that these countries and these governments do not become powder kegs which then turn against their populations.
Finally, there is the question of double standards.
I would like to say that we have been very prudent in relation to Bahrain, and we have been very firm in relation to other countries.
I know that Bahrain is a particularly sensitive situation, that Saudi Arabia has sent troops there, and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council are helping us against Libya, but we would not want to trade the price of a barrel of oil and of the support for us against the Libyan Government for the price of silence regarding the Shi'ites who are currently being repressed by the government of Bahrain.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I am angry.
At our group meeting yesterday, we heard from three witnesses from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who were present in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
Their stories were appalling.
It made me angry.
The letter we received from Baroness Ashton is no strategy.
Once again, it is another agenda.
We should stop sending empty messages, as we have done for too long with Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
It is time to take action.
Firstly, the EU should call for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The UN should send a mission to the three countries in order to hold the regimes accountable for human rights violations.
Secondly, the EU should call for a ban on arms exports from all EU Member States to those three countries.
It is unacceptable that EU countries are still selling arms to these regimes.
Thirdly, the EU should make clear that, if political regimes in those countries constitute an obstacle to democratisation, it is time for them to go.
Meanwhile, we should introduce sanctions such as freezing assets and a travel ban.
I repeat that it is time to take action.
Mr President, it is very good news that populations are moving to reclaim their freedoms and rights, and to obtain a change of the political regime and more democracy.
This is at the heart of the European Union's foreign policy and of the European project.
That can only evoke our enthusiasm and our support.
The very bad news, however, is that these populations are suffering an extremely tough repression, demonstrating these values and aspirations while putting their lives at risk, and that is totally unacceptable.
Thus, the imperative of protecting the populations, which has led to military action in Libya, must now take other forms to protect those who are demonstrating in these three countries.
I think that the statements are extremely important - the legitimate statements, the aspirations held by these populations - but we also need action.
As part of this action, we need an assurance that all those leaders responsible for using disproportionate force against their populations will not go unpunished.
In order to do that, the diplomatic convocation and activation of the Member States of the United Nations Human Rights Council must be in full swing in order to get missions, reports and resolutions so that the politicians responsible get an assurance that these acts of violence will not remain unpunished.
Finally, I think that we certainly do have methods for bypassing the 'blackout' of the press.
Journalists, whether national or foreign, are facing considerable difficulties in documenting the situation.
We know what to do; we have instruments for bypassing these obstacles.
We absolutely must make use of them.
Then, when we have the means to act, I think that we must find a way of using them.
Clearly, this is not the time to chase the Syrian President to get his signature on a readmission agreement, which could, in any case, only be envisaged under certain conditions, including a very serious, effective and relevant programme, the implementation of reforms in Syria and the freeing of all prisoners of conscience and peaceful demonstrators, not just here, but also in the other two countries.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to say this to the Minister: as I sat here listening to your statement, I heard what you had to say, but it was mere words - sometimes very sweet words, but unfortunately empty words.
It was all reactionary; there was nothing proactive in what you put before us.
As I listened, I actually wrote the heading 'Plan' on a sheet of paper, where I intended to make notes of the information you would give us about what the EU was going to do.
I still have before me a completely blank sheet.
You had nothing to contribute today.
There was nothing proactive in the agenda you outlined.
People throughout the Middle East are looking to Europe to come forward and help them to gain their rights, and all you have for them is empty words.
In the last action plan that was put forward, there was a core element missing throughout, and there was much press debate about the fact that Middle Eastern leaders are still able to take money from their populations and bring it into Europe, and we are doing nothing to prevent that from happening in the future.
You yourself said that time is running out.
If that is the case, and I believe it to be the case, then why have you come forward with nothing but a blank sheet for us today?
Please have more respect for this House.
Mr President, we are with the people of Yemen, Syria and Bahrain in their aspirations to freedom and democracy, and in the bloody repression of the demonstrations and popular protests.
Therefore, we must be clear.
Firstly, I call for us to please stop the sale of arms to these countries immediately.
Europe continues to sell arms that are being used to kill civilians.
Secondly, we should be on the side of the people, not of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes.
Having said that, in our solidarity, we should not forget that we are still applying double standards, with one set of rules for addressing peoples' democratic aspirations, and another for taking care of and conducting business.
In Libya, the bombing has clearly gone beyond the mandate of the UN itself, while in Bahrain, we did nothing more than protest when the Saudi Arabian army entered the country in order to save a kleptocracy.
While young people are doing whatever it takes against armies and police, putting heart and soul into confronting these forces, we limit ourselves to writing diplomatic notes.
I would like to finish, Mr President, by saying that it is as wrong to think that there are military solutions to political problems as it is for us to think that the Arab peoples have still not noticed our duplicity.
Mr President, radical regime change, in the sense of the seizure of power by radical Islamic forces in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, would be tantamount to outright disaster, both domestically and internationally.
The real winner in this unforeseen situation, at least in the Arabian Peninsula, would certainly be the Iranian ruling duo, Khamenei-Ahmadinejad, and this would put paid to the already small chance of a Persian spring for the time being.
By the way, the crisis situation in Damascus, Manamah and Sana'a has offered the EU an excellent opportunity to impose, in close coordination with the United States, clear conditions for our continued backing of these regimes which are in dire straits: political and socio-economic reforms.
Mr President, a few years ago, we visited Syria with an EP delegation.
Since 2003, this state, the only secular one in the region, has provided shelter to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians, which should serve as a warning sign.
Let the west make every effort to ensure that the extremely bloody sectarian civil war in Iraq does not spill over into Syria.
(DE) Mr President, the jasmine revolution which started in Tunisia is unfortunately not taking such a peaceful path in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.
A dialogue between the government and the opposition is definitely the best way of agreeing on an active solution to social and economic problems, which is what is wanted by the people, and a move towards more democratic participation.
Whether agreements of this kind will then be kept is another question altogether.
After all, the wave of protests was triggered by broken promises of political reform.
The people have been put off with promises for too long and now action is needed.
The dual strategy of violently suppressing opposition demonstrations and, at the same time, promising a few small reforms without introducing any real political change could lead to an escalation of the situation in all three countries, as we are aware.
The ongoing unrest in Syria gives rise to the concern that arms bought by the government could be sold on to terrorist organisations, such as Hezbollah.
In my opinion, the EU should play the role of impartial mediator in these conflicts.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the match is not won until after the second game, so let us wait for the return leg between Inter Milan and Schalke 04 to see who will go through to the next round.
Meanwhile, I agree that Raul is a great footballer.
What is happening in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain is not dissimilar from what is happening in other parts of the world.
Though economic reasons are usually the cause of such upheavals, in all cases, there is a deep longing for freedom.
Facebook and the Internet have broken the isolation of many, too many, fake democracies which have long lingered in many regions of the world.
There is a new leadership, a new idea of politics which reflects the dreams of many young people.
There is a desire for citizenship, especially where the youth of the world are more aware and educated.
A few days ago, the dissident, Suhayr al-Atassi, was released and this is a signal, though slight, which points to the development of freedom of thought and political freedom.
The same excitement is felt in Yemen, where protests against President Saleh mount, and much the same in Bahrain.
We must act with force to stop this violence.
The journey to democratisation must be assisted; we cannot allow ourselves, once again, to lag behind.
What is happening in the Mediterranean is surely a difficult signal to understand, which is why Europe must speak up and act with solidarity which would, at this time, probably help the regions exposed to increased migration pressures in the Mediterranean.
Mr President, whether it is the coordinated sniper attack or the protest camp in Sana'a, Yemen on 15 March, the crackdown on the protests by 100 000 people in Dara, Syria, on 17 March, or the sixth floor of Salmaniya Hospital, Bahrain, where injured protestors are taken by men in balaclavas wielding guns, never to return, and where the injured are forced to go because it has the only blood bank in the country, we have to show that, while the media may only concentrate on one country at a time, this Parliament will stand up for human rights everywhere where they are under threat.
Today, we must call on the Foreign Affairs Council to seek clear accountability for all those responsible for the violence, independent investigations and no impunity.
This is the basic warning to prevent further violence against protestors now.
Secondly, when we hear that Bahraini security forces have fired supposedly non-lethal pellets, at a distance of less than one metre, killing protestors by literally splitting their heads in half, we have to suspend the authorisation, supply and transfer of all arms in the region.
Finally, the principles of Commissioner Füle's communication on the southern neighbourhood must inform our approach to the process of seeking an association agreement with Syria.
That has to start by our insisting on unhindered access for international human rights monitors now.
The Arab world has changed with the Jasmine Revolution and we have to show that we have changed with it.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, spring has arrived in the Mediterranean, but in the Gulf and in Syria, winter still reigns.
The images of violence which we are seeing are horrifying.
Several hundred people have been killed and Amnesty International and the United Nations have produced alarming reports.
The calls which the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are making are clear.
We want a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to be held as quickly as possible.
The Council of Europe and the Member States of the European Union which are represented on the UN Human Rights Council should take up this call.
The UN Council is always very quick to act when it comes to taking one side in the Middle East conflict.
It is now time for it to face the real challenge presented by these extreme violations of human rights.
We need reform, we need a move to democracy, and we need an arms embargo.
All of these things have already been mentioned here.
I watched the speech made by President Assad of Syria live.
This is a medieval-style dictatorship which uses western PR agencies to present its representatives as pseudo-modernising influences in glossy magazines.
The agencies and the magazines should be asking themselves whether this is really the right thing to do.
Now to Yemen.
This is where there is, in my opinion, the greatest danger: the risk of a split between north and south, an active al-Qaeda cell and the danger of a failed state.
We already have a failed state of this kind in the case of Somalia and our Atalanta mission is in operation in the Gulf of Aden.
Europe has a direct interest in the area and we need to hear more than what the representative of the Council has said here today.
(NL) Mr President, to be honest, I must admit that my reaction was one of astonishment when I noted the three principles which the minister was putting forward: the rejection of violence, the promotion of dialogue to patch up some of the differences of opinion and address some of the grievances and, of course, the necessary political reforms.
Now, merely calling for dialogue at the moment will really make no difference, nor is it really credible.
I think that the European Union should really take much stronger action to bring about those democratic reforms.
We hear that the High Representative has a great number of official contacts, but what is she doing to maintain contact with civil society; what is she doing to listen to them?
The previous speakers have said it already: the European Union must stop supplying weapons to the region immediately.
When I see that, for example, more than EUR 100 million worth of weapons were supplied to Yemen alone last year by no fewer than eight European countries, I wonder if the European common position on arms exports actually means anything at all.
Should we not be taking urgent action on this?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I refer to Bahrain.
This little country lies in a strategic position in terms of the balance of the Gulf and energy supply distribution.
The presence of a major oil refinery for Saudi crude is well known.
I would like to draw your attention to one aspect of this situation which seems particularly worrying to me.
Reliable sources have identified Iranian influence on the Shi'ite population of Bahrain.
This is in addition to the legitimate aspirations for more substantial reforms in the government of that country.
It is difficult to determine how much weight outside influence has had on the recent events in Bahrain, but there is a risk of destabilisation of the region that could extend to eastern regions of Saudi Arabia, home to another large group of Shi'ites.
Iran funds Hamas, supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and influences the internal politics of Iraq, where Shi'ite Islam is the predominant component of the government.
If the disruption of balance spread to the Gulf, the impact would be obvious and there could be global repercussions.
We must be very careful in assessing what happens in the Middle East and distinguish the legitimate aspirations of peoples for greater democracy from external influences which have strategic ambitions in the area.
(NL) Mr President, we are talking today about three very different countries with very specific local conditions.
In Yemen, the uprising has reached mass proportions, despite brutal violence on the part of the police and the army.
In Bahrain, there is a serious risk that the whole region might become destabilised because of the involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Finally, in Syria, the opposition has virtually no room for manoeuvre and the regime seems prepared to go to any lengths to put down the protests.
On the basis of those specific circumstances, I believe that the EU should conduct bilateral relations with these countries.
There are a couple of principles which need to be upheld.
Obviously, every citizen has a right to demonstrate and to freely express his or her opinion.
However, what should we do about peaceful protests, where those very citizens simultaneously become victims of repression, because of police and army intervention?
Are we going to investigate this internationally?
What is the EU doing to promote that investigation?
Secondly, there is an obligation on governments to engage in dialogue with the opposition and with civil society organisations, because violence and oppression are never the solution.
What is the EU doing specifically to foster this dialogue?
And if, after that, the regimes in Syria and Bahrain, and also in Yemen, are still unable or unwilling to listen to their people, what will be the consequences of that in terms of our relations with those countries?
Mr President, we need to offer concrete help, as has been said many times, but that concrete help must also have real substance.
How are we going to achieve that?
I would have liked to have heard a plan today of how we are going to go about this.
I would just like to address a comment to the Commissioner.
I think that, in the specific case of Syria, and Turkey too, we should call for pressure to be applied, amongst other means, as part of the plans which are apparently going to be put together over the coming days.
One final comment. I think that our delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries could do some excellent work here and that we should do everything to enable them to do so.
(PT) Mr President, the EU must be consistent in its statements and actions on the popular uprisings in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and the other countries of the Arab world.
More than its credibility is at stake: there is also the effectiveness of the message it is sending to the dictatorships that are the targets of the protests, along with the men and women who are risking their likes to take to the streets to call for human rights, justice and democracy.
The EU has been dismayingly ambiguous regarding Bahrain, in particular.
This is a reflection of the contradictions of a foreign policy with double standards, which is concerned with oil and the supply of weapons by the Member States, not only to Bahrain, but also to Saudi Arabia, in violation of the common position on the export of military equipment.
Parliament is calling for an immediate halt to the sale of weapons, and the High Representative is calling - loud and clear - for the Bahraini authorities to account for those who have been killed or gone missing in the repression of the peaceful protests, and to stop the blackout measures being imposed on the media immediately.
Mr President, last night, I helped to organise a hearing of experts from the region who told us that in Bahrain, the deaths so far at the hands of the security forces have been at least 23; in Syria, 132; and in Yemen, at least 63.
It may be asked: what can the EU do?
Well, our resolution which will be adopted tomorrow makes some suggestions.
However, I have to say that in previous months, the European Parliament has passed resolutions on Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and my office has made a comparison between those resolutions and the actions of the Commission, its blueprint for change, and it does not give me much courage.
We are wasting our words here unless the Commission listens to us and unless the Council listens.
So, as I say, I am publishing this analysis on my website.
I believe that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Parliament additional responsibilities.
We must be taken seriously by the other elements in the foreign policy of the European Union.
Especially at a time of massive change in the Arab world, we all need to work together.
Mr President, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are three tyrannies being challenged by their own citizens and these citizens deserve our unconditional support.
Until this moment, the EU's action vis-à-vis the wave of democratisation in the region has been uncertain and lacking in strength and credibility.
If we want to increase both, we should start first of all to eliminate the double standards we used in the past.
We supported these autocracies in several ways and we, the Europeans, along with Russia and the United States, sold them almost any sort of armaments.
Now we are lamenting the consequences of our arms trade with the Gulf autocracies in terms of casualties, in terms of innocent victims of the weapons we sold to them.
If we want to be credible, we should cancel all contracts in armaments to these countries and to the Gulf Cooperation Council, and ask for the establishment of an arms embargo in all of the North Africa and Middle East region.
The reduction of their military budget will be a dividend to invest in a fund for democratic transition.
(ES) Mr President, the historic and irreversible move towards democracy in the Arab countries did not end with the still-fragile transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, nor with the support, also historic, of the international community for the activation of the principle of responsibility to protect the Libyan population.
The change is now continuing in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, and the European Union must be present; it must learn from what has gone before and take on the leadership of the international response, through far-reaching measures, Commissioner Füle, such as the well-defined European Neighbourhood Policy, and through concrete and immediate measures so that the population of these countries as well as the citizens of Europe know that there is no rift in the European Union's commitment to freedom, dignity, democracy and human rights.
The authorities in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain should remember that the use of violence by the state against the people has immediate repercussions; they must also realise that it is not enough to make superficial changes in their autocratic governments.
Instead, they must initiate an immediate dialogue with the opposition movements and civil society; release political prisoners, journalists and human rights defenders at once; and end the state of emergency immediately.
Mr President, we should not turn a blind eye to blatant human rights violations taking place in the three countries.
The situation in Syria is very serious and its stakes the highest.
In Syria, teachers, opposition activists, journalists and bloggers are being targeted.
There are many people killed; many detained; foreign journalists have been kicked out of the country; an information blockade is in place; no independent press at all.
So we should consider sanctions against Syria.
We should also consider policy actions in Yemen and Bahrain.
As for Yemen, we have a standing agreement on arms exports; we should consider suspending this agreement.
As we debate the situation in those three countries: firstly, let us call for accountability; secondly let us have special sessions in the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva ...
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I lived in Bahrain for three years, from 1987 to 1990.
Then, it was considered one of the most democratic countries of the Gulf and has been considered so even in recent years.
So one must say, imagine what happens in other countries given that Saudi Arabia performs a few hundred executions a year, given that terrible massacres take place in Iran, given that throughout the Gulf, killings are commonplace and there is complete denial of the rights of the press.
Today, we approved the resolution on Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, but when we will prepare a resolution for Saudi Arabia, for Algeria, for China and for the other countries which violate human rights in the world?
The problem is that here in the West, I see a strange thing, on the one hand ...
(FR) Mr President, what role must Europe play in countries whose regimes are being confronted by the people, but whose leaders remain deaf to repeated calls for more democracy, real structural reforms and fairer development?
That is the question being put to us.
For me, there is an initial response.
It is an urgent one.
The Union must flex its muscles by using the entire arsenal of sanctions available to it to put a stop to the repression and to obtain the immediate release of political prisoners and journalists.
It must support the introduction of an independent commission for an inquiry into the acts committed and call for a special session of the Human Rights Council.
In the medium term, I think that we must look again in depth at our relations with these countries.
The European Union must, from now on, show that it is firmly on the side of public opinion, on the side of the people and not of those in power.
To this end, the Union must establish and conduct a permanent dialogue with all the forces of civil society, with all those who want to support democracy as well as the leaders of the opposition movements.
This is, therefore, a profound change ...
Mr President, we have heard that Parliament is now very serious about tackling the serious human rights violations in the three countries: Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
We need to hear from the European External Action Service, we need to hear from the Commission how we can show that we are no longer working on the basis of double standards.
We have been told about very many concrete measures.
We need to hear how the operations in the UN Human Rights Council are proceeding.
Is the European Union united in the call for special sessions on Syria, Bahrain and Yemen?
We have heard that it is time to stop exporting weapons to these countries.
We cannot wait, so please, what are the European External Action Service and the Commission going to do about these things now?
Mr President, in Syria, security forces have brutally responded to demonstrations about legitimate grievances with lethal force.
President Assad's belligerence and his rhetoric towards Israel, our ally, his support for terrorists such as Hezbollah, and his friendship with Iran, all mark him out, in my view, as a dangerous autocrat.
In contrast, Bahrain is a relatively modern and progressive constitutional monarchy.
Unfortunately, Shi'ite extremists, inspired and supported by Iran, continue to stoke sectarian tensions and spread propaganda against the government and the king.
The king has made patient efforts to listen to protestors' concerns and enter into dialogue, but, of course, we must condemn all deaths of unarmed protestors.
Finally, it seems in Yemen that President Saleh, by his use of disproportionate force, has alienated his principal backers, including the United States, despite his firm action over many years to root out al-Qaeda terrorists.
Withdrawing EU support from him now, without knowing what comes afterwards, is a high-risk strategy.
Mr President, we might ask what we should do to alleviate the political impasse and suffering of the people in these countries, but it presupposes three propositions.
One, that it is within our capacity to do anything; two, that it is the proper role to do anything; and three, that the present situation is not in any way attributable to our interference.
British military personnel are, as we speak, being handed redundancy notices - often while on active duty - by the wretched UK Government.
It would be absurd to expect the remaining servicemen to be stretched to engage in further adventures.
States make a solemn, but usually unwritten, covenant with their troops to send them into battle and risk their lives, but only when the vital interests of the nation or nationals are at stake.
We have no vital interests in these states.
There is also every reason to believe that external forces associated with the United States and its allies have a vested interest in destabilising Syria.
I have no brief for the Ba'athist regime ...
(DE) Mr President, I believe that many of the young people who live in these countries long for democracy, modernisation and freedom.
We need to take this fact into account.
We must try to win friends in these countries and not make blanket judgments.
Instead, we must identify those individuals who do not follow the rules of a modern society.
For this reason, we should try to organise exchange programmes for small and medium-sized businesses, for teachers, university professors and journalists.
Our job is to make friends in these countries.
I hope that we will soon be taking action of this kind.
Mr President, Minister, like many in this House today, I share a sense of horror at the violence and the human rights violations we have witnessed throughout the entire region.
However, I could not let this moment pass without saying - particularly to you, Minister - that your statement today on behalf of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy demonstrates most ably, and perhaps better than any of us could ever do, the nonsense of this office and the millions of euro we have spent on it.
Your message today is quite right: one of rejection of violence, one of promotion of dialogue, one of reform from within the countries concerned.
But, quite frankly, in these situations, it is all motherhood and apple pie.
We need much, much more than the odd telephone call and a statement calling for this, that or the other; and I think that the people in the Middle East ...
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the speeches.
(The speech continues in English.)
Mr President, allow me first to respond specifically to a few questions relating to Bahrain.
The question of Iranian interference in Bahrain's domestic affairs was raised.
There is no hard evidence so far that Iran has been meddling in the Bahraini situation by provoking radicalisation.
Clearly this is a risk, and one more good reason to start a national dialogue in Bahrain as soon as possible to avoid that option.
Concerning the Saudi invasion in Bahrain, I would like to underline the fact that the six Gulf Cooperation Council states have a collective security agreement amongst themselves.
The presence of Saudi and other Gulf forces in Bahrain was requested in the framework of that agreement and was provided for by more than one GCC Member State.
This is not merely a legalistic consideration.
We have to take the regional dimension very seriously in our evaluation of developments in this region.
Concerning Yemen, I would point out that the European Union did suspend some assistance to Yemen: for example, its assistance on civilian counter-terrorism.
We thought that we needed to have a differentiated approach in this respect.
Allow me to speak now in Hungarian to respond to some questions which have been raised.
(HU) Mr Salafranca raised the question of what the result of the transition will be.
In this regard, I would like to underline that we do not know what the result of the Arab Spring will be.
Nobody knows, and a couple of months ago, we did not even know that such a domino effect could be set in motion.
However, I believe that, for the time being, the final outcome of this Arab Spring is not set in stone.
I therefore also believe that it will depend to a very great degree on us.
This is how I would like to answer Mr Salafranca: the final outcome of this Arab Spring will depend to a very great degree on us, too.
I believe that the proposals put forward here have been very useful, and I believe that both the attending representatives of the Commission and the representatives of the Council and the External Action Service were very pleased to welcome all proposals put forward.
We are in the process of reviewing our Neighbourhood Policy, and all proposals that have been put forward here will be integrated in the review of that policy.
I therefore believe that it is a very fortunate circumstance that the Eastern Partnership summit in Budapest, which was scheduled for a few weeks from now, will not take place, because this way, we will have time to incorporate the proposals that have been put forward now into the review of the Neighbourhood Policy.
I consider it very important that this Neighbourhood Policy be unified.
This Neighbourhood Policy must cover the Eastern Dimension in the same way as the Southern one.
And only if we are able to create a unified, coherent, well-thought-out Neighbourhood Policy here, within the European Union, can we be credible in the eyes of our southern neighbours, who are paying keen attention to everything we say.
The proposals put forward here in connection with the Neighbourhood Policy - as, for example, by the last speakers here, Mrs Dodds and Mr Rübig - stressed civilian relations.
The priority treatment of civilian relations, citizen relations, and especially relations with young people, is among our Neighbourhood Policy ideas.
The creation of truly new funds and, if necessary, funds of new magnitudes, must also be a key part of this review.
At the same time, we should not forget that each aspect requires an individual approach.
There are countries where the introduction of sanctions or arms embargoes, or, in some cases, military action, has already been unavoidable.
As you know, Libya is not the only country in our southern neighbourhood where there is an armed intervention under way; there has also been one in Côte d'Ivoire for a few days now.
This will be a separate topic here tonight, and we are yet to talk about this.
However, I believe that these countries, where military intervention has become unavoidable due to civil war, must not be confused with the countries we are discussing now, even though these repressive countries, these authoritarian, repressive countries, are also toying with the use of violence.
However, I believe that the High Representative has sent a very strong message to these countries as regards their attitude to violence.
And the military action itself, which is taking place in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, must be a very strong message to these countries, to all three of these countries.
In the past few weeks, the European and international community has managed to form a very clear philosophy.
The 'right to protect' and 'the responsibility to protect' are new principles which have been applied by the international community recently, and which must also be a warning sign to Yemen, Bahrain and everyone, to all authoritarian regimes in the region.
What is taking place now, the military interventions, is not an analogy to Iraq, but much more to Rwanda or Kosovo, where the international community had to intervene in order to protect citizens.
I believe that the international community is sending out this message very strongly now to countries that use violence against their citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen, the honourable institution that is the European Parliament, allow me to only briefly respond to a few more specific proposals.
I will relay your highly unanimous and general proposal for convening a special session of the UN Human Rights Council to the High Representative.
This proposition has definitely been a key element in the debate here and one that should be given consideration.
Likewise, I will also relay to the High Representative the similarly clear and consensual opinion about arms exports that has been expressed here.
I believe that we need to be able to establish a suitable balance between cooperation and sanctions with regard to these three groups of countries.
It is definitely a particular task when it comes not to the application of sanctions and military intervention, but to cooperation and, if necessary, some degree of sanctions with regard to a group of countries.
I also consider what Mrs Oomen-Ruijten stated, that the European Union must also be able to rely very strongly on Turkey when forming its policy regarding the region, to be important.
Thank you very much for the debates, and thank you very much for the comments, speeches and questions.
The resolution on the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen rightly denounces the brutal and murderous repression whose victims are the demonstrators in Syria, as well as those in Yemen and Bahrain.
The leaders of these three countries are giving orders to fire on their own people, who are legitimately demanding political freedom, human dignity and social fairness.
Through this resolution, the European Parliament is strongly expressing its solidarity with the Syrian, Bahraini and Yemeni citizens, who are showing great courage in demonstrating their aspirations while faced with government forces who are opening fire on unarmed civilians.
As well as the Islamic faith, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have one thing in common: an authoritarian regime, regardless of whether the ruler is a king, a president or the Assad clan.
In Western terms, they are undoubtedly undemocratic systems.
Growing revolutionary tendencies like those in Egypt or Tunisia are being nipped in the bud and democracy and human rights are being disregarded.
In Yemen, for example, 37% of under-age girls undergo forced marriages.
This puts Yemen in second place in the world, exceeded only by Somalia.
The governments of these three countries must demonstrate that they are working for and not against their people.
For decades, the EU has supported and paid court to countries like this, while this was to its economic and geopolitical advantage.
The EU should fight more strongly for democracy and human rights and combat the process of radical Islamification in these countries.
in writing. - Although the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen is something that ought to be addressed urgently, I would like to draw your attention to the alarming situation in Lebanon, where seven citizens of the EU from Estonia are held captive.
I would like to thank Baroness Ashton for her prompt reply and her reassurance two weeks ago that the matter will be treated on the highest possible level in the EU.
We have now received the information that the abductors, claiming to be members of the 'Renaissance and Reform movement' have handed in an obscure ransom note that says that they will announce their further demands at a later time.
The seven Estonian citizens are told to be alive.
I would like to plea to Baroness Ashton to get involved in the resolution of the hostage crisis in her capacity as the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
There are European lives at stake and this requires urgently the instant attention of the European External Action Service.
This is a chance for Baroness Ashton to demonstrate what she is actually made of.
Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the European Union is fully committed to the success of the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries, which will take place in Istanbul on 9-13 May 2011.
It believes that this conference provides a major opportunity to enhance support for the least developed countries (LDCs).
The Council has very recently adopted conclusions to be used as guidelines by the EU negotiators in the preparatory process and during the conference.
Prioritising LDCs is a necessity in our common endeavour to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
We therefore remain firmly committed to supporting the inclusive and sustainable development of all LDCs, which represent the poorest and weakest segment of the international community, and which are also characterised by their acute susceptibility to external economic shocks, natural and man-made disasters and communicable diseases.
We strongly support an outcome focusing on areas and measures that can add value with regard to the specific needs of LDCs and which should reflect the lessons learned from the 2001 Brussels Programme of Action, by maintaining coherence with the MDGs and setting specific goals and targets for LDCs.
A long-term commitment through a renewed partnership with LDCs containing suitable measures is fundamental in a rapidly changing world.
In particular, the European Union considers that the outcome of the Istanbul conference should address three main objectives: firstly, combating the vulnerability and fragility of LDCs and further enhancing their resilience to shocks; secondly, creating a favourable environment for the sustainable development of LDCs; thirdly, promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth for LDCs.
These objectives will continue to guide the European Union's discussions with the LDCs throughout the preparatory process and during the conference itself.
The European Union has always led the international community's efforts to support the LDCs, and is their largest donor.
It has been the most successful development partner at fulfilling its commitments, notably in terms of market access, rules of origin and debt alleviation.
It has made significant progress on official development assistance (ODA) as well as on policy coherence for development.
Some LDCs have achieved good economic growth and progress in development during the last decade, yet we recognise that overall, progress has been uneven.
Considerable work remains to be done, notably in sub-Saharan Africa and in countries that are in both conflict and fragile situations.
For that reason, the EU has recently reaffirmed its commitment, in the context of the overall ODA commitment, to meet collectively the target of providing 0.15-0.20 of GNP to the LDCs.
The LDCs have primary responsibility for their own development, and assistance by the donor community ought to be based on the initiative and full ownership of the recipient countries.
The European Union also stresses the interdependence of overall progress in the LDCs with the improvement of good governance, democracy, human rights and gender equality.
Finally, at the same time, we are firmly convinced that all countries have the responsibility to help developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty and achieve progress towards the MDGs.
Progress in the LDCs is interconnected with the quality and coherence of development partner policies.
Strong efforts should therefore be directed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aid mechanisms and to fulfilling existing commitments.
On several occasions, the EU has called on other donors to meet these commitments.
Emerging economies should also provide their fair share of assistance to LDCs.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is committed to the success of the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries in Istanbul, creating a renewed political momentum for inclusive growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction in the least developed countries.
This conviction and commitment of ours is expressed in the Council conclusions, adopted last week on 31 March, on Guidelines for the participation of the EU in the upcoming conference on the least developed countries.
I am also very happy to note that Parliament will be strongly represented in the delegation that will be attending this conference.
Many least developed countries have made progress in their development, but progress has been uneven and considerable work remains to be done.
Too few of the least developed countries are graduating from the category and most are lagging behind in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
We, both donors and least developed countries, need to learn important lessons from the success of some of the least developed countries, as well as from the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action.
Global partnership and mutual responsibility are vital for the success of the conference.
Development is a joint challenge.
The developing countries have primary responsibility for their own development by designing and implementing appropriate policies and achieving good governance.
As regards the least developed countries, the European Union has been their most successful development partner in fulfilling its commitments, notably in terms of market access, rules of origin and debt alleviation.
The European Union is the largest donor to the least developed countries and has made significant progress concerning Official Development Assistance, tripling its aid to these countries in the past decade.
In Istanbul, the European Union will call upon other donors and development partners to match its commitment and ambition.
Developed countries have a responsibility to help developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty.
In this context of global partnership, the emerging economies should also do their share.
Sustainable development and long-term equitable and inclusive growth are essential for each of these countries.
The private sector has a crucial role to play in this regard and can have a huge impact on people's lives through generating wealth and employment.
The potential of trade as an engine for growth and employment is considerable.
Nevertheless, the European Union wants to underline the interdependence of progress in the least developed countries with human rights, gender equality, democracy, good governance, peace and security.
Progress in the least developed countries is interconnected with equality and coherence of development partners' policies.
Therefore, strenuous efforts should be directed towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aid mechanisms, as well as policy coherence for development.
The Presidency has already announced three priorities, so let me just add that the conference should address the issue of graduation also.
The European Union will be calling for a more systematic mechanism for granting time-sensitive concession and support to graduating countries.
The Commission is convinced that this new momentum will result in a significant increase in the number of countries graduating from the category of the least developed countries in the next decade.
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, as you quite rightly said Mr Németh, the Council conclusions, in conjunction with the commitments made by the European Union, need to be accompanied by effective measures to support the overall endeavour.
Of course, the European Parliament representation at the UN conference on the least developed countries in Istanbul will be 'armed' with a good resolution expressing satisfactory positions.
However, there is a problem with the representation's status because, as observers, they will not be able to intervene directly and I think that the Commission and President Barroso could make an important intervention in order to change this situation.
Growth and security in the European Union and control of migration flows cannot be achieved with approximately one billion citizens living in misery and poverty.
It would appear that efforts to develop the least developed countries need to be revised because, although the least developed countries are also to blame, the mechanisms used to break the vicious circle of poverty appear to be ineffective.
I would point out that the wealth of under-developed countries is being exploited by outsiders and that the democratic deficit, corruption and insecurity are the overriding characteristics of these countries.
All this results in a lack of basic infrastructures in the education, health, transport, communications, primary production, agricultural, banking and public administration sectors.
I think that mechanisms could be adopted in Istanbul to improve the approach to the problem of poverty.
Mr President, economic growth of 7%, a large increase in the number of children attending primary school, more countries whose people are demanding democracy: in the least developed countries in Africa, much progress has been made in the past 10 years.
These countries have worked for better governance and mobilised their own financial resources.
The rich countries' particular contribution has been debt relief and ensuring the availability of vaccines.
However, we are not there yet, because rapid economic growth in the poorest countries has not gone hand in hand with a proportional reduction in poverty.
The list of the poorest countries has remained virtually unchanged for decades.
The number of people living on less than USD 1 a day has decreased, but the number of people living on less than USD 2 a day remains the same.
The rich countries have kept corrupt regimes in place, rather than considering a fair sharing of resources.
It is therefore absurd and cynical to say that development is not working.
We have not given it enough of a chance.
The UN conference in Istanbul will have to draw some conclusions from this.
Much more attention needs to be given to the equitable distribution of wealth within the poorest countries themselves.
This will provide stability and a fair distribution.
This will eliminate tensions and bring peace.
Social justice will also do much more to bring about economic development than the inequality of dictatorships ruled by a small clique at the top.
Countries with democracy achieve fair distribution much faster than dictatorships.
Good governance will bring us closer to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
We also need to do more for public health.
For a family in a poor country, disease is a financial disaster.
Disease is a luxury which no one can afford.
We must therefore work towards financing healthcare through health insurance, so that not only vaccines are available, but also good hospitals and clinics.
Mr President, between 1980 and 2011, global GDP increased by USD 19 000 billion.
This increase should mean that we have sufficient means to eradicate extreme poverty.
So much for the arithmetic.
With regard to policy, improving the lot of the poorest is not as straightforward.
We must therefore make some clear choices.
Firstly, we must target the poorest countries in our cooperation programmes.
Secondly, and this is a corollary of the first point, we must withdraw gradually from emerging countries.
China, the main creditor of the United States, has sufficient means at its disposal to deal with the poverty prevailing within its borders.
The third point is that we need strong partnerships with the least developed countries.
They need to do the bulk of the work.
All we can do is assist them with our know-how, our expertise and our political will.
We can do nothing more and nothing less than that.
I would make one last point: as we are the largest donor, it is also up to us, as the European Union, to assume a leadership role at this conference.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I want to thank Mrs Theocharous for raising the issue of the status of the European Parliament at international conferences: we are one of the three sister institutions of the EU and we need to have a look at this very quickly or there is going to be trouble.
We are the largest donor to the least developed countries in the world; we have trebled aid in the last few years, but poverty has increased, not decreased.
Some ten years ago, Pascal Lamy and the Development Committee introduced 'Everything but Arms'.
Gradually, this Parliament turned it into 'Anything but Farms'.
Now the least developed countries in the world do not have industrial capacity, they have agriculture capacity.
If you are really interested in eliminating poverty and helping these people, we need to increase their capacity to trade.
It is not aid but trade that is going to reduce poverty.
But in order to reduce poverty and to increase trade, we need to increase their capacity to export what they can export, which is agricultural produce, fisheries produce and so on.
But we do not do that.
We have introduced stringent standards, which is very important for the health of the European consumer, but we do not help to increase the capacity of these least developed countries.
So, out of 51, only three have matriculated from being a least developed country to not being a least developed country.
We have got to increase that effort otherwise we are just fooling ourselves and those countries.
Mr President, I would like to ask the representatives of the Council and the Commission why they believe that they have to address this subject using speech bubbles.
I do not think that we are helping anyone by not making a specific statement to the effect that in the run-up to the Istanbul conference, the Member States and the European Union must finally meet their obligations in full and that we cannot tolerate Member States increasingly shirking their responsibilities.
It is unacceptable that one billion people still live in hunger, most of them in the least developed countries (LDCs), in other words, the poorest countries in the world.
It is also unacceptable that the majority of our development aid does not go to support and develop agriculture.
The proportion used for this purpose has fallen rapidly in recent years, while one billion people go hungry.
I am slowly beginning to think that saying that we hope the LDCs will become more resistant to shocks is a cynical approach.
I am calling on you to take specific measures to address the problems and to make concrete commitments to provide the LDCs with real help.
(NL) Mr President, the forthcoming UN summit on the least developed countries is a good opportunity for a debate on whether development aid makes sense or if it is, in fact, nonsensical.
The aid quantity argument, as it is generally known - that is, the proposition that the more aid you grant, the more economic development there will be - has been totally discredited.
I would like to use my speaking time to quote what the Kenyan economist James Shikwati said to Der Spiegel online on 7 April 2005.
Quote: 'Development aid serves to keep large bureaucracies in place, encourages corruption and complacency and teaches Africans to beg, rather than be independent', unquote.
In addition, development aid weakens the local markets and it causes the spirit of enterprise, the very spirit that we so badly need, to evaporate.
Regardless of how absurd it may sound, development aid is one of the causes of Africa's problems.
If the west stopped these payments, normal Africans would not even notice.
It is only government officials who would be hard hit.
So, instead of us handing out more money, what is needed is less corruption, more entrepreneurship and more self-reliance.
(NL) Mr Claeys, would you agree with me that the foreign interests of the rich Western European countries and of the United States have led to dictators being kept in power and, consequently, to development aid often failing to work, because that aid has ended up in the wrong pockets and because we have never done anything to tackle that, in the interests of maintaining a 'stability' which has not, in fact, been worth the name, as has been demonstrated in North Africa and the Middle East?
Standing up for democracy means standing up for democrats in developing countries and letting dictators fall, whilst keeping development aid flowing.
(NL) Mr Berman, yes, I do partly agree with what you have said.
Indeed, we are to blame for the fact that some dictators have been able to remain in power.
I am thinking, for example, of the European policy towards Cuba, where we have seen that Fidel Castro has been considered a partner with whom we can do business.
That sort of thing should, indeed, be consigned to the past and we should only talk to people who have been democratically elected and who also have the power to establish democracy in their own country.
(PL) Mr President, the term 'least developed countries' arose 40 years ago to help developed countries and other donors identify those communities around the world which are most in need of aid.
The definition of 'least developed country' used by the United Nations is not based exclusively on per capita income levels, but also takes account of human capital and problems with economic development.
The geographical distribution of these countries is very distinctive, because the great majority of them are found in Africa.
The European Union is right, therefore, in giving particular attention to this continent.
A fundamental problem is the fact that the number of countries identified as LDCs is growing, while the number of countries which have developed sufficiently to be able to graduate from the group is as low as three.
This, therefore, is why the UN conference should give serious consideration to how to introduce an effective, measurable and easy-to-monitor strategy for countries to leave the LDC.
I am pleased that the European Commission and the Council have proposals which might help in this process.
One of these is the promotion of inclusive growth.
I know that some fellow Members are worried by this term because they are not sure if the growth will be truly inclusive.
On the other hand, however, without growth, we will not build developing countries' economic potential.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, we need a tangible objective, which can be adopted at the conference in Istanbul, and this objective should be to reduce the number of least developed countries to half of what they are today.
This sounds self-evident but, over the last 30 years, just 3 of these countries have managed to rise above the category of least developed countries.
In order to achieve this, we need to honour our commitments and contribute 0.15 to 0.20% of our annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to development aid for these countries.
It is equally important to safeguard policy coherence for development.
We cannot give money to these countries, on the one hand, and basically steal from them through unfair trade agreements between them and the EU, on the other.
We need to pay our monetary debt and that also means investing in these countries, both in order to adapt them and to combat climate change and to pay off our debt that has accumulated from our unfair common agricultural policy.
In order to do so, we need to promote the food sovereignty of these countries by supporting traditional agricultural policies, local resources, local crops and local markets, and preventing speculative attacks, land capture and seed monopolies, which threaten all of us, especially these weak countries.
Mr President, I wonder whether the honourable gentleman will agree with me - because he used a very strong word 'steal' - that we steal from developing countries.
Such an example could be that we give EUR 2 million to a small island off the Atlantic coast for their fisheries, for 7 000 tonnes of tuna, and we sell that on the streets of Europe for EUR 235 million.
So we convert EUR 2 million to EUR 235 million.
That is what we do with our fisheries policies.
(EL) Mr President, Mr Deva is right.
Fisheries agreements between the European Union and third countries are, to a large degree, an issue that needs to be re-examined in depth.
Agreements are necessary, but the European Union also needs, when entering into these fisheries agreements with the countries in question, to do so in the most viable way possible.
However, we also need to check if the money we pay in return for fishing is enough and if it is being used as development aid, to ultimately strengthen these countries so that they can get out of the category of least developed countries.
(PL) Mr President, Mr Németh is not right in his optimism over countries graduating from least developed country status, whereas Mr Deva, Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Arsenis are right in saying that in the last 10 years, only three countries - Botswana, Cape Verde and Maldives - have graduated from this group.
This means that in fact, the chief cause of the poverty is politics, for there are very wealthy countries which do not possess any natural resources, such as Switzerland and Japan, and, on the other hand, there are countries which are rich in natural resources but which are nevertheless poor.
This means that the cause of the poverty is politics, and not vice versa.
Therefore, alongside aid to the LDC countries and trading with them, the role of the European Union should be to give political assistance leading to stabilisation and democracy in these countries.
This is what we have to do.
(RO) Mr President, the Fourth UN conference on the least developed countries provides a good opportunity to review the international Aid for Trade policy.
This group of countries is facing financial difficulties against the background of the global economic changes in the wake of the financial crisis.
The steady rise in basic food prices is an acute problem which cannot be ignored.
The main aim of Aid for Trade is to boost the 48 states' domestic and international competitiveness.
In this regard, I should stress the importance of eradicating poverty and making effective use of the financial aid provided as part of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
I think that it is useful getting developing countries involved in this process as a result of the experience they have in the area of reforming trade facilities.
(FR) Mr President, progress in least developed countries reflects our own development policies and those of the international community.
The rise in the number of countries classified as least developed is a clear indication that it is time to review our policies, our instruments and our resources.
The poorest countries are very susceptible to war, crises and widespread poverty.
Hence, it is vital that we continue to work to establish peace, stability, democracy and human rights.
Three other elements should be taken into account.
Firstly, we need to re-examine internal factors such as corruption, the lack of democratic safeguards and property rights loopholes, which cause these countries to remain underdeveloped.
Secondly, we need to enhance our economic approach by providing greater support for farmers, for SMEs and for good use of State resources with a view to creating new instruments.
Lastly, we need to make our aid instruments more targeted and ensure that they are consistent with the Millennium Development Goals.
If we adjust global development policies to reflect the real needs in each country and greater participation by the private sector and civil society, we will be better able to rise to the challenges of the next decade.
(ES) Mr President, 10 years ago in Brussels, donor countries agreed on a Programme of Action for least developed countries (LDCs).
We set targets for eliminating extreme poverty in those countries.
It is clear to all of us that LDCs are suffering most from the effects of the global crisis, whether economic, financial, or environmental, or caused by rising food prices.
However, 10 years later, we have not achieved the goals we set and only two of the 48 countries that make up the LDC block have managed to graduate from LDC status.
We are at a pivotal moment.
At the upcoming Fourth United Nations conference in Istanbul, the work carried out so far will be reviewed and a new Programme of Action will be established.
We should renew our commitment to LDCs and show that in 10 years, we have learned the lessons of the previous period and are in a position to provide effective, quality support that will enable us to meet our objectives, not in 2021 but in 2015, by fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals.
Mr President, the three key areas - the vulnerability of LDCs, sustainable development and the promotion of economic growth - are all welcome.
However, I wanted to ask whether food security will be part of the discussions.
There was mention of sub-Saharan Africa; currently 80% of sub-Saharan African farmers are female.
If we can help with the development of better agricultural methods, investing in those who are the most vulnerable in our world, helping them to feed themselves, we can make a huge contribution to the health and the wellbeing of the poorest in our world.
I wish the delegation well as they go from this Parliament to the conference, but I also look forward to the report back that we will hear from all those who will attend.
(RO) Mr President, I firmly believe that this Parliament takes responsibility for the results achieved by the European Union as part of the project promoting global solidarity in the fight against poverty.
At the same time, it is my strong conviction that we are a Parliament which takes responsibility for using European taxpayers' money.
I would like to try to acknowledge the idea that this conference must provide, including us, with an opportunity to assess the solidarity model which we have promoted. This is because, if we look at what we call less developed countries, we will see that the poor countries still remain poor, while the rich countries maintain a certain standard of living.
We need to reassess the model we use for making donations and the support we give because we are at risk of this aid becoming detrimental to the recipient countries.
(PT) Mr President, in this debate, we have been discussing the poorest and weakest countries in the world.
These include almost 50 countries whose people are suffering from the effects of successive failures to implement the recommendations of successive United Nations conferences.
It is not the inevitability of fate, nor inescapable natural limitations or constraints that make these countries poor; on the contrary, several of them are very rich indeed in natural resources.
Rather, it is the injustice and inhumanity of a system that is the world's dominant mode of economic and social organisation, and that is sustained by asymmetrical relationships, which create and replicate inequalities.
It is the result of free trade, of financial deregulation, of the illicit but permitted flight of capital to tax havens, and of war and conflicts fed by disputes over natural resources.
It is in breaking with the foundations of this system, and in a genuine and solidarity-based policy of cooperation and development aid, that the possibility of these peoples' emancipation and their countries' development lies.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think that this interesting debate shows that we all share the same objectives.
This is also reflected in the joint motion for a resolution presented by the political groups.
In particular, I would like to mention the following main objectives that we all share: first of all, that the conference should be results-oriented and that the European Union should fulfil its commitments.
The object of this is to support countries, so that they can graduate from least developed country status.
We have undertaken commitments in terms of market access and debt alleviation, as well as reserving a share of official development assistance for the least developed countries.
Clearly, policy coherence for development should contribute to all policy areas in support of the least developed countries' fight against poverty and priority should be given, as Ms Stihler quite rightly highlighted, to food security, agriculture and infrastructure.
Indeed, as Mr Deva suggested, trade plays a very important role.
We have all recognised the least developed countries' primary responsibility for their own development, which is why a more efficient tax system and good governance in tax matters are needed to enhance their domestic resources.
Finally, even if they bear practically no responsibility for climate change, the least developed countries will be hit the hardest by it and we have an obligation to help them adapt to this.
In conclusion, this House has always given great support for the cause of the least developed countries and I am sure that this will continue.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, concerning the sum total of the ODA, I would like to underline that, since 2002 when establishing its commitment for the Monterey conference, the Council has reiterated the need to mobilise all other available sources of financing for development - primarily domestic resources complemented by viable innovative financing mechanisms - and support from developed countries, the private sector and emerging economies.
In the latest conclusions of April 2011, the Council pointed out that the EU is seriously considering proposals for innovative financing mechanisms with significant revenue generation potential, with a view to ensuring predictable financing for development, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
I agree with Commissioner Füle's opinion concerning the relevance of keeping to our commitments in the European Union and also his comments concerning the importance of increasing the possibility of trade between LDCs and the European Union.
I have received six motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 April 2011, at noon.
2010 progress report on Iceland
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the 2010 progress report on Iceland.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I greatly appreciate the European Parliament's active involvement in the enlargement process and its constructive participation in the general debate on enlargement, and, of course, specifically in the accession process of Iceland.
As one of the most successful Union policies in EU history, the enlargement of the European Union is among the most important of our Presidency's priorities.
On 17 June 2010, the European Council unanimously decided to grant Iceland candidate status.
The first meeting of the accession conference at ministerial level took place on 27 July 2010, and November 2010 saw the start of the screening process, which is proceeding as planned.
The next accession conference at ministerial level is scheduled for 27 June; this way, we will have the opportunity to take stock of the results achieved and, we hope, open up as many chapters as possible.
There are several particularly important areas which I would like to point out specifically.
Parliament's draft resolution also identifies these issues.
In its 2010 report on the results achieved, the Commission concluded that Iceland meets the political criteria required for membership, and even though it was hit hard by the economic and financial crisis, it is suitably prepared to take the measures necessary to meet the requirements of EU membership.
On 14 December 2010, the Council recalled, in its conclusions, that Iceland is a democracy that has a long history of good functioning, with strong institutions and close relations to the EU.
It also concluded that Iceland's general preparedness was sufficient for it to adopt and apply the EU acquis, in particular, due to the fact that the country is a member of the European Economic Area and party to the Schengen Agreement.
Iceland can be considered a functioning market economy and may, in the medium term, regain its ability to hold its own against the competitive pressure and market forces present in the Single Market.
The Council recalled that the negotiations are aimed at Iceland fully adopting and applying the EU acquis.
The course of the negotiations will be determined by whether Iceland meets all of its obligations under the EEA Agreement, taking full account, among other things, of the European Council conclusions of 17 June 2010, and also by the results it achieves in eliminating other deficiencies identified in the Commission's opinion.
At the same time, the Council recalled, on the one hand, that while the accession negotiations are in progress, the EEA Agreement will continue to represent the fundamental treaty basis between Iceland and the EU and, on the other, that Iceland has also been an active and constructive partner over the past two years within this framework and with regard to the Schengen Area.
The country has also achieved good results in applying the developing EU acquis.
The Council therefore encouraged Iceland to continue this practice.
The European Parliament's draft resolution paints a comprehensive picture of the results achieved and the tasks to be completed.
As regards the latter, I would like to draw your attention to our common task, that is, the necessity for appropriate and in-depth communication with the public, both with regard to Icelandic and EU citizens.
In the light of the above, I would once again like to point out that there is still very much work to be done, including during the Hungarian Presidency.
As regards the Presidency, we are naturally counting on all Member States, the Commission and, of course, the European Parliament, to support Iceland in this endeavour.
It is essential that we maintain the impetus of the work and thereby move the negotiations forward as much as possible while still in this half-year.
I am convinced that Iceland's accession can become a success story.
It may give impetus to the entire enlargement policy and enhance its success.
The motto and goal of the Hungarian Presidency is a strong Europe.
All progress made in Iceland's accession process contributes to the achievement of this.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, today's debate on Iceland and the next steps in its accession process is very opportune.
I would like to thank the House for its support for Icelandic membership and to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Preda, for his high quality report.
The resolution under discussion is a helpful contribution to the process: it delivers the right messages to Iceland at the right moment.
The assessment of Iceland's compliance with the acquis - the screening exercise - is on track.
Since November 2010, 24 chapters have been discussed and 23 bilateral screening meetings have been completed, covering fisheries, agriculture, environment, regional policy and financial services.
Screening is an important technical process and the meetings have already identified sensitive issues and challenges in key chapters, such as agriculture, environment and fisheries.
This stage of the negotiation process will be completed by June 2011.
I can confirm that we expect actual negotiations to start towards the end of the Hungarian Presidency, with the opening of some chapters at the accession conference scheduled for 27 June 2011.
This is an ambitious but achievable timetable and all sides are committed to moving forward.
The Commission stands ready to take Iceland's specificities and expectations into account, within the existing approach on accession negotiations and fully safeguarding the principles and rules of the Union.
We therefore aim to work in an open and constructive spirit to find solutions acceptable to both sides, in a way that reflects the high level of cooperation between the European Union and the Icelandic authorities.
As with any accession so far, it is to be expected that this will not always be an easy task, but we trust that we have embarked with Iceland on a successful journey.
As regards Icesave, and as referred to in your resolution, the Commission would welcome a swift resolution of this matter in the interests of all the parties involved.
On the economic front, Iceland's banking and fiscal consolidation in the framework of the IMF programme has been impressive.
The adjustment programme is on track and the government is committed to further consolidation.
Enhanced debt restructuring will help to strengthen economic recovery.
The government is also working on a strategy for the gradual lifting of capital controls. This will contribute to an improved business climate.
Let me also briefly mention the support measures we are putting in place under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).
There is provision for a total indicative envelope of EUR 28 million for the next three years to support strengthening of administrative capacity and to prepare Iceland for management of the structural funds.
Good progress is being made on finalising the national IPA programme for 2011 and a number of specific activities have started in the framework of the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX) programme.
I fully share your views on the need for a fact-based public debate on EU accession.
It can indeed play a decisive role in increasing understanding of the realities of the policies and actions of the European Union, and can help to dispel myths.
Furthermore, I warmly welcome the fact that the Icelandic authorities have started intensive communication activities.
It is encouraging to note that public opinion in Iceland has improved significantly in favour of the EU over the past year - both in relation to support for continuing the accession process and in terms of the attitude towards membership of the EU and its image.
The Commission is stepping up its own information and communication activities to facilitate well informed public debate.
The European Union Delegation in Reykjavík is fully operational and actively involved in communication activities, and an EU info centre is planned.
With the screening period almost over, I am very much looking forward to starting to open the various chapters with Iceland.
Mr President, I would like to begin by welcoming the presence of the Commission and Council in the Chamber, as well as the fruitful cooperation we have had so far with these two institutions, including in drafting this resolution.
Just like nine months ago, when we announced Iceland's application to join the European Union, we have decided to touch on four main points in this report.
Political criteria.
Iceland excels in this respect, with a strong tradition of democracy.
In addition to this, I believe that we must welcome the progress made during recent months on strengthening the independence of the judiciary, removing the predominant position of the Minister for Justice on appointing magistrates and on increasing the latter's independence.
At the same time, these measures must be implemented rigorously.
Economic criteria.
As a member of the European Economic Area, Iceland already fulfils a large proportion of a Member State's obligations.
I welcome the agreement on the Icesave legislation.
I hope that, as indicated by the surveys, the Icelandic population will decide to support it in the referendum to be held in three days' time, thereby ensuring that this bilateral dispute disappears from the negotiation process for accession to the EU.
Regional cooperation is also an important factor.
Iceland's accession to the EU offers the Union a unique opportunity to strengthen its presence in the Arctic region in general, and on the Arctic Council in particular.
Last but not least, public opinion is vital to ensuring that the accession process culminates in success.
With this in mind, I believe that encouragement must be given to the initiative from the authorities in Reykjavik to launch a public debate and consult with all the stakeholders in this project.
This is all the more important as opinion polls indicate Icelanders' support for continuing the accession negotiations.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow's vote is one of the steps which will soon lead to the accession of Iceland to the European Union.
Iceland has made significant progress, as Mr Preda said.
I will mention a few examples: the strengthening of judicial independence, a special commission of inquiry to investigate and analyse the processes that led to the collapse of the Icelandic banking system, the creation of a joint Parliamentary Committee between the European Union and Iceland, the situation regarding entry into the euro area, increased experience in the renewable energy sector.
The very thorny issue of 'Icesave remains open, and on Saturday there will be a referendum which will bring Icelanders to the polls.
Although the outcome of the referendum is a matter of debate, I think it has very strong democratic value because it gives the people of Iceland a sense of responsibility and involves them even more in this delicate stage of negotiations.
Although the first referendum did not bring a positive result, the Icelandic Government has worked hard to create a broad coalition capable of explaining to citizens the reason for Iceland's commitment to reimbursing the UK and the Netherlands for the damage they suffered.
Europe's role at this time should be one of patience and respect, without exerting excessive pressure which might cause some sort of self-defence and closure in Icelandic society.
With regard to fisheries and agriculture, I believe that Europe and Iceland must find the best solution to meet the criteria established in the Treaty and to preserve the Icelandic economy, ecosystems and the country's specific characteristics.
The accession of Iceland to the European Union will mean that Europe moves towards the North Pole, with significant positive effects in the political, economic, environmental and scientific fields.
It is clear that belonging to Europe, sixty years on, is still an attractive possibility.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I am pleased to learn from the Commissioner that screening the accession chapters relating to Iceland, which began in November of last year, is expected to be completed shortly.
Of course, Iceland, as a member of the EEA, has had a major advantage in that they have already adopted a significant part of the acquis.
I am also pleased to note from opinion polls in Iceland that 65% of the Icelandic people want the negotiations to continue.
I will use my position as chair of the JPC to prevail upon the Icelandic people not to take up entrenched positions until such time as they know exactly what the deal is later on this year.
The second meeting of the EU-Icelandic Joint Parliamentary Committee will take place in Reykjavík on 26 and 27 April.
It was established last year and I genuinely believe that it is an important forum for dialogue and cooperation between the EU and the Icelandic Parliament.
I have to say that I am disappointed that the coastal states did not reach an agreement in Oslo at the beginning of March.
It is essential that agreement be reached.
We cannot fish one million tonnes of mackerel between the four coastal states while we are being told that the scientific advice is for only half of that.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, a small country always causes a lot of headaches to the EU when it wants to join, and Iceland's headaches as we know are fisheries, the environment and everything else the Commissioner mentioned.
However, we have a recipe and this Chamber could adopt a more welcoming attitude, because small countries need to be treated tenderly.
I always admire Mr Tannock's principled, political approach towards the acquis and what Iceland is or is not doing.
This time, however, my group and I disapprove of the radical tone of those amendments and that is why we very much ask for a compromise to be found by tomorrow with the rapporteur.
I already envisage six extra chairs in this Parliament and an extra booth for interpreters.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the ECR Group fully supports Icelandic accession to the European Union, although the decision is firmly a matter for Icelanders alone in a referendum.
Iceland is a small, stable and wealthy democracy and a founder member of NATO and the Council of Europe.
Its economy is heavily dependent on fishing, however, having had a disastrous venture into financial services, and Iceland is therefore likely to demand a significant concession to protect its fishing industries if it ever joins the EU.
This would then, hopefully, provide the UK and other Member States with an ideal opportunity to push for broader and further reform of the controversial common fisheries policy.
With regard to whaling, I make no apologies for it.
I do not like bullfighting or cockfighting either but these are, believe it or not, allowed in some parts of the EU on the grounds of national culture, so if Iceland joins the EU, it must be allowed - in my personal view - to safeguard its whaling industry if it insists on so doing.
Finally, Iceland must commit to repaying monies owed to the UK and the Netherlands after the collapse of Icesave.
A negative result in the forthcoming referendum in Iceland on this issue could prove a serious handicap with regard to support from the UK Government.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, in Britain, the first day of April is called April Fool's Day and people take great delight in fooling one another.
So when some report that Iceland is on course to join the EU next year, I think: 'April Fool!'
In reality, a survey has shown that 64% of Icelanders want to remain independent, only 24% want to carry on applying for EU membership and, indeed, 60% of Icelandic businesses are against it.
It is also said that Iceland wants the security of the euro.
April Fool!
Even Portugal's own banks are currently refusing to buy Portuguese bonds.
Iceland will neither give up its rich fishing grounds - producing 40% of its exports - to join the disastrous common fisheries policy, nor abandon an Icelandic Parliament that is more than 1 000 years old and the winner of a UNESCO award for democracy.
Even with a banking hangover, Iceland, like Britain, remains better off outside.
No fooling there!
I got a little confused there, Mr Campbell Bannerman, with the April Fool thing.
It is 6 April today, I just double checked, but I suppose you can declare April Fool's day as any day you want!
Mr President, as is so common here, this debate has little connection to reality and none whatsoever to democracy.
Most here talk as though Iceland being sucked into the Euro black hole is a done deal.
But that is not the message coming from Icelanders.
Current opinion polls show that those who wish to keep their independence outnumber the Euro-Quislings and Europhiles nearly two to one.
Seventy-five percent of Icelanders wisely do not trust the EU.
The only Icelandic party in favour of membership has slumped from 30% to 18% in the polls.
It is the same all over Europe.
While the political elite move to ever closer union and federal empire, the people want freedom and independence.
Such mismatches are the seedbed of revolution.
Congratulate yourselves on accession progress all you like, but the coming financial meltdown in the countries being crushed in your Euro straightjacket will be costly to us all, but fatal to your Utopia.
Iceland, and the nations now stuck in your raspberry Reich, will be free at last.
(SV) Mr President, Iceland is a small nation in terms of its population, with around 300 000 inhabitants, but it is a great nation.
I really want to emphasise what has been said here.
Iceland has democratic traditions, it has an impressive culture, and it was actually also able to provide social security long before other countries were able to.
Clearly, we could get bogged down talking about the economic excesses of 2008, but there have been such excesses in more countries than just little Iceland.
It is clear that when a small nation with a population of 300 000 is affected by the unrestrained market economy, there are no inertia effects in the administration.
That is something that we should not forget when we talk about a country, an island nation, in the Arctic region.
I also understand very well that the Icelanders are interested in fishing.
It is also the branch of industry that has made it possible for generation after generation to live on the island.
We have to be careful when we talk about a small nation that we do not fall into a kind of big brother role.
Iceland is naturally subject to scrutiny by the EU, and I would like to say that it is coping with it better than many current Member States would have done if they had been subject to as rigorous scrutiny as we are now subjecting Iceland to.
By that, I do not mean that it is wrong.
I also believe that it will be easier for Norway to draw closer to the EU and eventually become a Member if Iceland joins.
Iceland should be welcomed.
Iceland will breathe life into the EU and it is certainly not a sacrificial offering.
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur.
The motion for a resolution before us is balanced and covers all key aspects of the progress report.
With 33 chapters discussed in the progress report, Iceland moves forward quickly to meeting the criteria to join the EU.
The reference in the motion to the report of the special investigation committee into the collapse of the Icelandic banking system is important.
The fact that justice will be served on the culprits of the crisis is welcome.
Perhaps the EU and its Member States could copy Iceland's sensible approach.
However, there are two issues I wish to raise this evening: Icesave and mackerel.
The referendum at the end of this week will hopefully bring an end to the saga.
However, I was disappointed that the second referendum was necessary after the intense renegotiation and the approval of the Althingi, the Icelandic Parliament.
On mackerel, the unilateral increase of quotas without discussion and the consequences for neighbouring fleets was short-sighted.
The need to resolve issues surrounding fisheries is essential to the success of the accession negotiations.
Finally, I would like to wish the second JPC, led by Pat the Cope Gallagher, to Reykjavík on 26 and 27 April, well.
Mr President, I am glad to hear that a majority of the Icelanders in recent opinion polls say that they have no intention of joining the EU because, frankly, why do we want them to join?
What exactly are they going to bring to our European club?
They have got a collapsed economy, their banks have defaulted, their volcano closed our airspace for nine days - I presume we would have to pick up the bill for that if it happens again - and now they are plundering our mackerel stocks.
In 2005, Iceland landed 367 tonnes of north-east Atlantic mackerel.
This year, they intend to land 150 000 tonnes.
What kind of good management - sustainable management of fisheries - do you call that?
They always pride themselves on having a sustainable fishery and they laugh at the common fisheries policy that we employ.
This is almost criminal.
This is almost illegal fishing and there is no way we should invite them to join the EU.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin with my usual refrain: Parliament has only one seat, Strasbourg.
As you know, the Committee on Fisheries is concerned about the mackerel situation.
I am particularly troubled by the recent breakdown of negotiations between the European Union, Iceland and the Faroe Islands.
For over 10 years, the mackerel quota has been allocated using a fixed allocation key based on historical catches for each coastal State.
Since 2010, Iceland has been demanding new, much higher quotas, citing a hypothetical geographic redistribution of mackerel stocks caused by climate change.
Iceland therefore suddenly - as Mr Stevenson has just said - increased its catch quota from 2 000 tonnes to 130 000 tonnes in 2010.
That is an increase of over 6 500%, ladies and gentlemen.
This decision is unacceptable because it has been taken unilaterally and penalises EU fishermen.
What is more, it sends a very negative message in the context of Iceland's accession negotiations.
We cannot accept this unilateral decision.
We would like to see a rapid resolution of the conflict between Iceland and the European Union.
Iceland needs to adapt to our common fisheries policy, rather than our common fisheries policy changing for Iceland's benefit.
In my view, Iceland is playing a dangerous game by imposing these unacceptable conditions on us.
Iceland needs to put forward a more realistic proposal.
At the end of the day, no one wants to see overfishing or the collapse of mackerel stocks, which would be damaging for all sides.
I urge Iceland to be more responsible and flexible in negotiations and to display greater transparency in discussions.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Iceland very sincerely on gaining candidate country status.
According to the Commission statement, Iceland's preparations to meet European Union requirements are generally good and on schedule.
It should not be forgotten, however, that one condition for the accession of any country to the European Union is the clear commitment of both government and society.
Therefore, I think an effective strategy for informing society is of key significance for gaining the support of society for Iceland's membership of the European Union.
Poland's experience shows that a significant role may be played here not only by a broad range of government measures, but also by national media, local non-governmental organisations and international cooperation at regional and local level.
(RO) Mr President, as I also observed during the European Parliament delegation's official visit last year, of which I was a member, Iceland has made huge investments in education and research and development.
I congratulate the Icelandic authorities for the support given to the Lisbon strategy and their involvement in it, including through the adoption of an Iceland 2020 strategy, which highlights the importance of these areas and outlines targets for the years ahead.
I think that accession to the European Union will entail benefits for all the parties involved.
Iceland will gain economic and monetary stability, while the European Union will become more powerful in the Arctic region and in areas such as renewable energy and climate change.
I firmly believe that improving dialogue with civil society and also between the European Union and Iceland is of paramount importance.
My simple recommendation to the Icelandic people is for them to wait for the final outcome of the negotiations before adopting a stance.
(FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can actually congratulate ourselves.
The willingness of the Icelanders to join us shows that the EU is still an attractive prospect.
The stability, prosperity and security that result from European integration have been so successfully achieved that a country with such a high standard of living as Iceland is willing to join us.
Of course, Iceland's economic crisis may well also have some sort of role in all this.
Iceland's membership of the EU, however, may not be a matter of course.
Have we considered adequately what Iceland's added value would be for Europe?
Iceland has already, in practice, outsourced its legislation to Brussels and its defence forces to NATO.
It would be the smallest country in the EU in terms of population.
On the other hand, it is perhaps an irony that, compared to earlier enlargements, Iceland, as a wealthy and cherished applicant country, would actually meet the conditions set for EU membership.
I am hoping for active and completely open discussions on Iceland's membership of the EU.
(SK) Mr President, it is necessary to take account of many aspects when evaluating the report on the progress of Iceland.
Iceland is a fully functioning democracy and a country which fulfils all the expected standards on human rights.
Iceland is part of the European Free Trade Area, and is therefore compatible with the acquis in many of the areas covered by this agenda.
In comparison with other candidate countries, this puts Iceland ahead of the competition.
Despite the fact that Iceland has a functioning market economy, one of its biggest problems is the crisis in the financial sector.
The divided banking sector and public debt amounting to 90% of GDP are alarming.
The situation may be improving, but only very slowly.
Reduced inflation is a positive development, in my opinion, but, at the same time, there is rising unemployment.
I welcome Iceland's decision reinforcing the independence of the judiciary in relation to the replacement of judges.
I personally consider the progress made by Iceland in the area of education and culture to be a huge success.
Standards are very high compared to the EU, thanks to which the country is participating in the Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus lifelong learning programmes I also agree with the Commission's conclusions that Iceland is a stable democracy with strong institutions.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, today's discussion has proved productive in identifying the steps Iceland needs to take in order to ensure a positive outcome in the accession negotiations.
As acknowledged in the draft resolution we discussed today, and in the Commission progress report of last November, Iceland is at an advanced stage of meeting membership obligations and has achieved a great deal, but it needs to deliver more on a number of well-defined issues.
Some of you have mentioned mackerel.
While this issue relates primarily to the management, by the coastal states concerned, of the mackerel stock in the north-east Atlantic, let me say this: we are disappointed at the lack of progress in the latest consultations.
Substantial differences of opinion between the parties remain - particularly between the European Union and Norway, on the one hand, and the Faroe Islands and Iceland, on the other - with regard to their respective shares.
The sustainability of this resource is important for our fishing industry, and the Commission will continue to explore all possible avenues in order to find a balanced solution for the mackerel stock, in cooperation with the coastal states.
Iceland is now entering a decisive stage in which the pace of progress towards EU membership depends on its own determination.
I am positive that, with our joint support and, most importantly, with the involvement and support of its people, Iceland is capable of making real progress in the direction of the European Union.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this debate.
You have pointed out quite a number of issues, which I am convinced the Council will address appropriately during the accession negotiations, and we will be able to pay the utmost attention to their settlement.
I would like to inform you that I am planning to attend the Iceland-EU Association Council meeting at the end of April, and I trust that we will receive first hand information from the Icelandic authorities regarding these matters.
There has never been one second of doubt that it is agriculture, but especially fisheries, or the Icesave case, where the situation is the most difficult.
However, I trust that the Commission will handle these issues in a very transparent manner.
The Members will also be appropriately informed about these issues at all times over the course of the accession negotiations.
Finally, I would like to add one more thought: I am very pleased that, during the debate, no speaker questioned the fact that Iceland has a perfectly functional democratic institutional system and political culture - we all recognised this.
And I am certain that the Icelandic people will make a very responsible decision about whether or not to join the European Union.
Let us trust them with this; this is their task.
Our task is to enable their accession, and should they decide on it, we will welcome them accordingly.
To wind up the debate, I have received a motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Iceland has not seriously considered full membership of the EU since the beginning of European integration, applying for accession in 2009, following a financial collapse.
Despite this, the country has managed to achieve European standards and, in many areas, to fulfil the set conditions necessary for successful integration into the current 27 countries of the EU.
Membership of the European Economic Area and the Schengen Area has contributed substantially to this progress.
Although Iceland has managed to implement a considerable part of European legislation, the actual accession procedure may be complicated by, for example, economic policy or the policy on fishing.
This represents half of Iceland's exports, accounting for 10% of its GDP.
The as yet unsettled dispute between Iceland and the Netherlands and Great Britain may be viewed as another possible obstacle to Icelandic membership.
The parties involved continue to look for an appropriate way to compensate Dutch and British citizens who lost their savings through the collapse of Icelandic banks.
The fact that a considerable proportion of Icelandic citizens do not much favour EU membership may also be regarded as a negative factor to some extent, despite the considerable support from the population for the accession talks.
It might therefore be appropriate for the Icelandic Government to initiate steps to inform the citizens as to what membership in European institutions would mean for the country, and the resulting benefits in the everyday lives of the population.
As we know, Iceland began accession negotiations in July 2010.
From the outset, Iceland has been in a privileged position because of its membership in the European Economic Area.
Iceland's progress on the road to EU membership is evident.
The prospect of accession is being seen in a positive light, but there are still some disputed matters, such as whaling, which is banned in the EU, Iceland's desire to protect its fisheries and agriculture markets and the dispute over Icesave.
Further progress is essential, mainly in the areas of fisheries, agriculture and rural development.
It is important to reach agreement on the question of fishing quotas.
We should emphasise the necessity of bringing Iceland's fisheries legislation into line with the principles of the EU internal market.
Let us not forget that Iceland is a country in which the economy is, to a great extent, based on fisheries.
Therefore, following Iceland's accession to the EU, it would want to retain a certain degree of control over the management of fisheries in its own exclusive economic zone.
We should also give attention to the serious differences on the question of whaling.
The ban on whaling is part of the body of EU law, which every new Member State has to accept.
Worthy of note are the recent results of public opinion polls, which showed a rise in the support of society for continuing the accession negotiations and increased trust in the European Parliament.
The prospect of Iceland's accession has been well received.
However, contentious issues still exist, such as whaling, which is banned in the European Union, and Iceland's wish to protect its fisheries markets.
I do not think we can make any allowances in the case of whaling.
Regardless of historical factors, we cannot allow a situation in which a country applying for EU membership intends to catch these rare and protected animals.
Standards which were adopted and came into force in the European Community after many years of work cannot be 'bent' to fit a brutal reality for reasons of tradition.
Another question is the dispute over the size of mackerel catches.
As you know, despite appeals to observe the principles of responsible fishing, in 2010, the government in Reykjavik unilaterally established a total allowable catch for the species which was much higher than the limits put forward in scientific advice.
Iceland has not demonstrated the necessary openness and flexibility to achieve a compromise on this matter.
Furthermore, Iceland has announced that it will introduce catch limits for 2011 of 146 000 tonnes.
Such an approach fills me with fear when I think of future cooperation with Iceland on fisheries.
We all realise that this conflict jeopardises the accession negotiations with Iceland.
However, I personally think that in both cases, we should not agree to any concessions and should enforce compliance with the standards set by the Union in the fisheries sector.
2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, you will adopt the resolution on the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
As you know, in its conclusions of 14 December 2010, the Council reaffirmed its unanimous commitment to the European Union perspective of the Western Balkan countries.
The ultimate goal of this perspective is the membership of these countries in the European Union.
I congratulate you on the balanced findings of the draft resolution.
The text objectively reflects the situation at hand, and formulates valuable recommendations.
It is unfortunate that, despite the results and progress, FYROM has so far not been allowed to commence accession negotiations.
I believe that this is a loss, not only for the candidate, but also for the EU.
I am pleased that the core message of Parliament's draft resolution corresponds to one of the basic principles of the Presidency.
Individual performance must always be acknowledged by the EU.
As regards the specifics, we welcome the fact that the country has made significant achievements in such key areas of reform as the operation of the police, and the judicial system.
The implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement continues to constitute a fundamental element of democracy and the rule of law in the country.
There is some success to report in this respect as well, for example, in the implementation of the Act on languages.
Nevertheless, it is essential that the country produce further achievements as soon as possible in areas such as dialogue between political actors, the reform of the justice system and public administration, the fight against corruption, freedom of expression and improving the business environment.
The areas concerned are also covered in detail by the resolution you will be adopting, and these must also continue to have priority among the plans of the Skopje Government.
The Council acknowledged that the Commission repeated its recommendation for accession negotiations to be started with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
In its conclusions of December 2010, the Council stated that it was ready to come back to this issue during the term of the Hungarian Presidency, but unfortunately, in the absence of any new relevant developments, the Presidency has been unable to initiate this step as yet.
At this point, I must stress that good neighbourly relations continue to be of the essence.
It must be treated as a fact that progress in general, and especially steps taken towards European integration, can only be successful if there is political commitment at all levels of society.
Nevertheless, the political actors in a democratic society have a special, exceptional responsibility, for example, in resolving differences of opinion through democratic means, namely, dialogue and compromise.
We therefore call upon the political actors of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to resume their dialogue, not only in order to accelerate the pace of the reform processes, but also to ensure the maturity of the democratic institutions of their country.
The perspective of the early elections requires special attention.
The stability of the current coalition is remarkable despite the difficulties.
It would be grounds for concern if the next elections created fault lines in the political palette.
In order to reduce this risk, it would be important to announce the early elections based on the wide agreement that has been established in Parliament.
While, on the one hand, I would like to encourage the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, its political leadership and institutions, to step up their efforts and endeavour to meet the expectations formed by their citizens, on the other hand, I would like to urge the Commission and the European Parliament to continue to pay appropriate attention to the candidate and the region.
No other incentive for ensuring the stability and prosperity of the Balkans available to us is as effective as a European perspective and the promotion of the accession process.
I trust that, during the Hungarian Presidency, there will be a tangible sign to prove to the Balkans that the enlargement process is being kept alive, and this sign could be the decisive event in Croatia's accession, that is, the conclusion of its accession negotiations.
I am convinced that this would act as a magnet to all countries in the Balkans, including the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the state of play of the accession process with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
I also thank Mr Vigenin for taking this report forward, building on Mr Thaler's thorough preparation.
The report is comprehensive, accurate and sets out the challenges ahead.
Over the last 20 years, the country has made significant progress for two reasons.
Firstly, great efforts had to be made to overcome difficult problems and even conflicts.
Secondly, the European perspective has been a great incentive for progress.
The challenge today is to use the very same formula - great efforts combined with a European incentive - to take the country forward.
I am grateful for the support of the European Parliament for the Commission's recommendation to start accession negotiations.
We believe the country is ready to engage in a higher level of integration with Europe.
In fact, the accession negotiations are our most powerful instrument to support reforms.
Yet I must share with you my preoccupation with recent developments.
Our recommendation confirmed that the country has sufficiently met the political criteria but underlined that further efforts are needed in most areas.
Developments so far this year have not shown the expected progress.
The Commission has been consistently asking for political dialogue, judiciary and public administration reform, fight against corruption, freedom of expression and implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement.
I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Gruevski in Brussels on 24 March.
We agreed to step up our efforts to bring the EU agenda back to top priority for the country.
The Commission will support and monitor the process, including through a regular accession dialogue between the Commission and the government.
Concerning elections, we expect that the leaders will spare no efforts to ensure that elections will be fully transparent and in line with the best international standards.
The timing is totally up to them.
I continue stressing that freedom of expression is fundamental and that journalists must be able to express their views freely.
The Commission expects due process and non-selective application of the law.
The fight against corruption also needs to be pursued vigorously.
I fully agree with the emphasis placed on this subject in the European Parliament's report and I welcome your suggestions regarding strengthened monitoring in this field.
For me, the 10th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement this summer is an opportunity to take stock of implementation, to bring all the communities of the country together and to renew the commitment to address the ongoing challenges.
Lastly, on the post-visa liberalisation monitoring, we need a review of the measures taken to prevent abuses of the visa regime.
Countries benefiting from visa-free access to the European Union need to take all necessary measures to limit unfounded asylum applications.
2011 is an important year for the whole region.
President Barroso and I will be visiting the region together, starting tomorrow and concluding in Ohrid on Saturday.
We will be showing our commitment to the countries of the region and, at the same time, underlining that they should spare no effort in creating a positive momentum for enlargement.
It is important that Skopje plays an active part.
It is therefore essential that the name issue is solved.
Both parties have repeated their commitment to finding a solution.
I would have hoped that this would be more substantially reflected in the recent round of negotiations in New York.
I have consistently raised the matter, encouraging both parties to remain fully engaged.
And I know that the two Prime Ministers in their direct contacts have already invested considerable efforts in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.
I hope that they are able to capitalise on these efforts this year.
A solution would be a major breakthrough in turning 2011 into a promising year for enlargement.
I also thank you for your comments and requests related to the IPA Programme.
IPA is the concrete demonstration that we do not only assess and criticise countries, but we, in fact, support them very practically in their efforts.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that this instrument must be used as efficiently and effectively as possible.
I take note of your requests for further funding in the areas of unemployment, transport and the environment, to add to our ongoing efforts.
For most IPA components, the choice of projects is the responsibility of the national authorities.
This is very important for the country's ownership.
Furthermore, for the period 2011-2013, we are introducing, together with the authorities of the country, a sector-based approach.
It means we will focus on sectors where the help is most needed, and plan for several years ahead.
In this context, your suggestions are very valuable input for our ongoing programming dialogue.
In conclusion, I believe the Commission and Parliament are very much in agreement on the achievements of the country, and the remaining challenges.
I very much hope that the name issue will indeed be resolved in the near future, and before the judgment of the International Court of Justice, which is awaited in the autumn.
We are all keenly aware that the European Union has its role to play in providing the right incentives.
We are at a critical juncture with the country.
It can either take the path towards Europe, to our mutual benefit, or stand by as the rest of the region moves forward.
This is a time for all of us to fulfil our responsibilities and our commitments.
Mr President, representatives of the Commission and Council, ladies and gentlemen, I took responsibility for presenting the European Parliament resolution on the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
I want to emphasise that the former rapporteur, Zoran Thaler, did an excellent job.
We have before us an objective report which I hope will receive broad support during tomorrow's vote.
In 2011, new impetus may be given to the enlargement process in the entire Western Balkans region.
Croatia is about to complete its membership negotiations.
Serbia is on course to receive an endorsement from the European Commission to start such negotiations.
Macedonia must do everything it can not to lag further behind in this process.
The key problem is resolving the name dispute with Greece.
The early elections provide an opportunity for the new government that will be formed to use the electorate's trust to make a definitive decision on this issue.
It must be clear that postponing the process entails an increasingly higher cost for Macedonia's citizens.
We hope that the country's leaders will be bold and far-sighted.
Mediation may also be sought from the European Commission so that the path to European Union membership can finally be opened to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
We hope that the Council will take into account the European Parliament's position and that membership negotiations will start as soon as possible.
However, the country must not simply wait, but carry out all the necessary reforms in the meantime.
This will enable the negotiations to conclude much more quickly in the future.
The process of building a stable political system must continue.
A key element in this is to improve electoral legislation.
A greater number and more effective measures and legislation are required against corruption, as well as reforms to the judicial system and public administration.
We are expecting serious efforts in terms of guaranteeing media freedom and independence.
Interethnic relations are a cause for concern.
The 10th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement provides an occasion to carry out a review of the achievements made and to outline future objectives with the involvement of all ethnic groups.
I hope that European integration and the necessary reforms in the country will convey key messages to all the main political forces and that they will give their broad agreement after the elections as well.
I wish to end by saying that the European Parliament will soon appoint a standing rapporteur whom we expect to be shown due respect and trust.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Vigenin, you have spoken here as the rapporteur and not as an ordinary speaker.
Are you aware that the country has introduced massive reforms and made huge progress?
The instability comes from the European Union's actions.
The EU and the Council were prevented from acting by the blackmailing tactics of Greece, which have been clearly addressed by the Hungarian Presidency.
Did you know that or do you really believe what you said?
(BG) Mr President, I do not know, Mr Posselt, what you failed to understand in my speech and what contradicts the actual report and the view which the Committee on Foreign Affairs was united on.
I do not think that we need unnecessarily to give the authorities in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the opportunity to use statements like yours to attempt to shift the blame for the reforms that have not been carried out and the objectives not achieved to the European Commission and European Parliament.
I think that the report encourages the reforms, but also requires further measures still, which is natural when we see that there are genuine problems in a country which will possibly be a member of the European Union.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, we have quite a balanced and objective report before us and I wish to thank all the colleagues who contributed to it.
The report is of significant importance for the future of the country and its EU integration process.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been a candidate country since 2005 and now, for the second time, the Commission has recommended that negotiations be opened.
We are supporting this recommendation, and the report calls again on the Council to open the negotiations immediately.
I believe this is a timely call.
The FYROM needs the European agenda as a stimulus to positive changes in the future.
Having said that, we should not be giving concessions to the FYROM, but we do need to motivate its politicians to progress and work on the European agenda.
The country has recently been going through a political crisis, with part of the opposition boycotting the parliament.
This is not the way that political discourse should be conducted.
Political contradictions need to be addressed through dialogue, on the basis of democratic institutions created for that purpose.
Therefore, I hope that the early elections called for June 2011 will contribute to resolving the situation.
They should be transparent, free and fair and should be conducted in line with all applicable international standards and with the participation of all the political parties.
The issue of regional cooperation and relations with neighbours is especially important for the FYROM and its neighbours.
I hope that the main issue which has been holding the country back from starting negotiations will be resolved soon.
In conclusion, let me say that we as politicians need to bring more vision and a broader perspective to the region.
It is our duty and responsibility to stimulate positive changes in this country.
Mr President, in keeping with the vision on enlargement, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the immediate commencement of negotiations.
Mr President, I would not like Macedonia to join Turkey as one of the states which, to paraphrase Talleyrand, are dancing rather than advancing towards their European aspirations.
Although this report - and I must thank the former rapporteur, Mr Thaler, for the balance and objectivity he showed in drafting it - concludes that the situation in Macedonia has improved in a number of respects, I believe that starting negotiations will be a solution which will help speed up the reforms, create a democratic framework and a real opportunity for this country to become a European Union Member State.
It is ironic that this country's population, unlike Iceland's, is motivated to embrace European values.
In the latter, the number of people interested in sharing these values of ours is very small.
On the other hand, in Macedonia, the assessment of the political leadership's performance is not favourable.
I do not believe that this assessment must take priority.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has delivered a good and balanced report on the progress of Macedonia, and we as Greens will gladly support it.
On the one hand, it is critical of the authorities in Macedonia, and more so than last year.
They need to work on political stability, they need to stop any provocation of ethnic non-majorities and neighbours, and they need to guarantee freedom of the media and expression.
On the other hand, it unambiguously calls for the opening of negotiations.
The country complies with the criteria and deserves that.
I wish Greece would respect the advice of the Commission and Parliament and stop blocking the accession process.
It can always put the brakes on the final decision if it really wants to.
I very much hope Macedonia will keep working on becoming a mature European democracy, regardless of what Greece does.
The accession dialogue that Commissioner Füle just mentioned sounds promising in that respect.
Reform is a good thing in any case.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, this year, we celebrate 30 years since your country, Greece, became a member of the EU.
As a confirmed philhellene, I believe Greece has contributed massively to our Union.
It has gained a great deal too, so why Greece would continue to deny the same benefits to its neighbour, Macedonia, simply on the base of its name, is quite beyond me and many from my country.
It is time other Member States took a much firmer line with Greece on this matter.
Having received a massive package of debt refinancing from the EU to prevent its euro-based economy from collapse, Greece is hardly now in a position to hold hostage the whole enlargement process with its neighbour.
Macedonia as a candidate has waited long and patiently for accession negotiations to start.
It would be a disaster now if continued delays result in Macedonia turning inwards and abandoning its EU and NATO membership ambitions.
This is a genuine risk given Macedonia's domestic political fragility and its imminent elections.
We need to send a strong signal of support to the forces of reform and progress in Macedonia.
Failure to do so would resonate negatively throughout the Western Balkans, a region where EU membership prospects are the glue that binds these fractious countries together.
Mr President, we are in favour of the enlargement of the European Union to include all the Balkan countries, if they so wish.
However, I should like to point out, based on progress in enlargement to date, that cooperation with these countries and the accession procedure - especially in times of economic crisis - should contribute to sustainable development and the economic and social prosperity of the enlargement countries and the Union and their citizens, and not to the imposition of economic policies that plunge these countries into recession, increase unemployment and cut back social rights.
Also, Commissioner, I believe that the accession procedure should be carried out with respect for international law and international procedures, in this case, with respect and support for the procedure to find a commonly acceptable solution to the question of the name, under the aegis of the UN.
This is an important issue and should be resolved before accession negotiations commence.
The political forces in FYROM should take the necessary steps and avoid practices and rhetoric that exacerbate the problem.
Their political will, in terms of whether or not they want an accession procedure, will be judged on this point and not on military-type missions, such as Afghanistan, which the report again considers to be an achievement of this country.
Mr President, Mr Zoran Thaler, who acted as the rapporteur on FYROM, is no longer with us following the serious complaints which we all read about in the Sunday Times.
In my view, he enjoys a presumption of innocence.
However, in light of the accusations against him, the present report on FYROM does not enjoy a presumption of credibility.
In a letter to the President of the House dated 22 March, I asked for the report not to be put to the vote until such time as the results of enquiries had been released following the opening of the conciliation procedure.
I therefore call on every Member to abstain in this vote, in order to maintain the integrity and credibility of the House.
I personally shall do so.
Nevertheless, I must comment, in any event, that I do not agree with the position taken by Mrs Győri, but I do consider the views of Mr Füle and the deputy rapporteur to be realistic.
They have pointed out that this country is riddled with corruption, with no plan on the horizon, and that relations between the various ethnic groups and the quarrel with Greece over the question of the name remain.
Therefore, serious account needs to be taken of this point in the report.
(BG) Mr President, I will agree, to a certain extent, with what Commissioner Füle said, namely, that we can actually see tangible progress in Macedonia's development as it advances towards the European Union.
However, numerous unresolved issues also remain.
For example, the case concerning the registration of the Bulgarian non-governmental organisation 'RADKO' has been pending for years on end before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia.
On account of this registration and its rejection, to be more precise, 'RADKO' won a case here in the building of the European Court of Human Rights, very close to our Parliament, for which Macedonia was condemned.
People considering themselves Bulgarian, whom I will refer to as a 'Bulgarian ethnic group' to make it easier, even though this is not an accurate definition, are still the only ethnic group in Macedonia without a registered political party.
This is due to the repression that has already been going on for 20 years against anyone declaring that they consider themselves Bulgarian.
This has reached the point that these people no longer want to form a political party like all the other ethnic groups in Macedonia are doing.
I feel that these issues are vitally important and need to be resolved because they are part of the political criteria which, in my view - and on this point I will disagree with the Commissioner - Macedonia has not met.
Until these problems are resolved, it is not possible to initiate any new phase whatsoever in the negotiations on Macedonia's accession to the European Union.
(EL) Mr President, I have listened to the Commission; the Commission report this time is much more critical than last time and we all know what is happening inside the country.
Nevertheless, I have listened to fellow Members putting forward unprecedented theories.
Theories such as, because Greece is in economic crisis, it should say 'yes' to whatever everyone else wants.
I should like to point out to my fellow Members that, for as long as Greece is in economic crisis, no government will agree to start negotiations in the Council and the proof of Greece's good faith was demonstrated when it agreed to this country's candidature.
Consequently, either the issue over the name, which is being used as a cover for propaganda and efforts to put the current political situation first, will be resolved or negotiations will not start and no Greek government will agree to this.
Also, I wish to say to my fellow Members that there are numerous countries which have prevented other countries - over long periods of time - from joining the Union.
Greece cannot therefore be condemned for exercising its absolute right under the Treaties in the Council.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr Füle, I was one of the first or perhaps the first rapporteur on Macedonia in this House and I am watching with regret how the situation has and has not developed.
After this, I became rapporteur for Croatia and there, it is possible to see a clear difference.
Croatia had problems with its neighbours, including Slovenia, but Croatia worked to solve the problems.
If Macedonia does not make enough effort to resolve its difficulties, although I do not want to blame just one side, then at least that is Macedonia's problem.
Let us be honest.
You cannot give the country a greater sense of identity by erecting a statue of Alexander the Great in every square or by calling the airport after Alexander the Great.
You must have an interest in resolving the problems.
Why is this interest important?
Mr Füle referred to the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which represented major progress.
However, the less effort the country and the government make to implement domestic reforms and to find a solution together with Greece, the more the Albanian population of the country will say: 'What are we doing in this country when we really have no option of joining the European Union?'
This is why it is so urgent for Macedonia to work together with Greece to resolve the problem.
(BG) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank Mr Vigenin for the fine presentation of this report.
The European Union's political will is for all the countries in the Western Balkans to be quickly and successfully integrated into the European Union and be given full membership of the European family.
The problems which have accumulated historically, especially in the Balkans, can only be overcome through European integration.
This would allow the borders in this part of Europe to turn from a sign of division to a sign of unity, as in the case here, for example, between France and Germany.
The resolution takes into account and welcomes the progress made by this country, especially in the economic sector.
However, it emphasises that the country needs to complete the remaining section of the journey towards full membership.
The resolution mentions problem areas as well.
These are political and interethnic relations, good neighbourly relations, the state of freedom of the media and the rights of all citizens, irrespective of their declared ethnic origin.
Particularly those who openly declare their Bulgarian ethnic origin are sometimes subject to discrimination.
The resolution also mentions the importance of preserving cultural and historical heritage, which is an important European value.
It is good that this resolution explicitly mentions the situation regarding the ethnic Bulgarian cultural monuments in Macedonia.
Trust is built through respecting the historical facts and not through provocative, needless manipulation and distortion of the truth.
I sincerely want Macedonia's citizens to overcome the problems of the past quickly so that we can welcome them as fully-fledged citizens of the European Union.
However, this process of overcoming problems is achieved through having the political will to break the ties with people who served in the former Yugoslav Communist secret services, infiltrated and engaged in acts of provocation in Macedonia's political and economic, media and social life, just as happened, of course, in other Eastern European countries.
(EL) Mr President, a few days ago, Mr Gruevski's government announced early elections.
In the midst of the outcry about violations of the independence of the press, the independence of the judiciary and the Skopje 2014 urban development plan, at a time when political dialogue has ground to a halt, Mr Gruevski is attempting a forward retreat.
If the unresolved question of the name is added to this unfortunate internal environment, this will severely try the European prospects of this country.
The Greek Government has repeatedly proven that it wishes to close this chapter once and for all, by increasing bilateral contacts at prime ministerial level.
Unfortunately, so far, nothing positive has come out of this, through no fault of Greece's.
Within this framework, Mr Gruevski is playing pre-election games and trying to convince international public opinion that it is Greece which is pulling new rabbits out of the hat on the name question, thereby constantly obstructing any resolution of the difference.
Responsibility for the European future of this country is in its hands and it is being called upon to assume its responsibilities.
(SV) Mr President, as I only have one minute, I will just mention one point.
What we have learnt so far from enlargement is that the real reforms only begin once the negotiations start.
It is not the case that tomorrow, as soon as we initiate negotiations with Macedonia, we will also conclude this process.
This is only the beginning.
There will then be numerous opportunities to block the country if Greece should so wish, but to block the country now in this situation, and with the particular geographical location of this country, is totally irresponsible.
Macedonia is in a very sensitive position.
To make this country wait even longer would be to send out the wrong signals.
It would only contribute to increasing nationalism and strengthen the very negative forces that we want to combat through enlargement.
(SK) Mr President, on the journey from Strasbourg to Brussels, we cross Luxembourg twice.
First through the sovereign state of Luxembourg, and then through the Belgian region of the same name.
If the Belgians had followed the logic of the Greeks when the EU was being established, it would not exist today.
Macedonia is ready to begin talks on EU accession.
However, if it is to continue on a democratic path, it will need our help and solidarity, just as Greece needed it recently.
I fully respect the veto right of every Member State when it comes to accepting new members.
I would like to appeal to the Members from Greece, however, to show goodwill and support not only this report, but also the amendment, which reinstates the reference to Macedonian in the text as one of the official languages.
(HU) Mr President, the achievements made by Macedonia in relation to European integration were already greatly appreciated by the country report of February last year.
The relevant decision of the European Parliament once again urged the settlement of the name debate and the immediate commencement of accession negotiations.
I consider it unacceptable, and even downright scandalous, that there has not been any substantial progress in this regard in the past year either.
This undermines the credibility of the EU itself.
The EU, as well as the Hungarian Presidency, counts the accession of the countries of the Balkans, including Croatia and the Macedonian state, among its priorities.
I ask Parliament, the Council and the Commission to support, regardless of the country's name, Macedonia's accession negotiations being started as soon as possible.
(HU) Mr President, I agree with those who point out that there is mutual responsibility.
The European Union, the European Council is responsible for continuing to drag its feet over the accession negotiations and thereby depriving itself of one of its most important tools, namely, the stabilisation of the region, and so is the Macedonian leadership for believing that, if the accession negotiations do not begin, it does not need to continue the reforms referred to by Minister Győri and Commissioner Füle.
And as far as the name is concerned, I must say that as a Central European, a Hungarian, I find this dispute between Greece and Macedonia exceedingly absurd.
I consider the inflexibility of both parties unacceptable.
I wonder how the European Union would have reacted if, for example, Hungary had objected to the accession of Romania in 2007.
There was not the slightest risk of this happening in Hungary, and I therefore ask both parties to exercise reasonable self-restraint.
(SK) Mr President, it cannot be denied that Macedonia has made substantial progress over the past year.
However, there is still room for improvement in key areas.
In my opinion, the most important requirements are to secure the independence of the judiciary, the level of freedom of expression in the media, a stronger civil society and better political dialogue.
The office of ombudsman had considerably more work over the past year, but the number of its recommendations accepted by the public administration fell.
I therefore agree with the Commission's view that the position of the ombudsman must be strengthened.
However, I welcome the success in the area of improving the protection of minorities and cultural rights.
Macedonia has substantially reduced the number of Roma who are without personal documents.
Unfortunately, their living conditions are still wretched and they continue to face discrimination.
As we all know, this is an issue which does not apply only to Macedonia.
The situation of the Roma confirms to us all the more that this is a pan-European problem.
Despite the problems, Macedonia remains a stable country in the region, enjoying good relations with neighbouring states, and I believe it is well on its way towards the EU.
(SK) Mr President, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has long been interested in joining the EU.
According to the available information, the country is now ready to begin accession talks, as it has sufficiently fulfilled the necessary political criteria, achieving progress in the reform of public administration, the judiciary and police forces.
The political system appears to be stable, the political parties communicate with one another and the position of minorities has also improved.
Certain reservations may still be raised in relation to the independence of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and freedom of expression in the media, all of which has a negative impact on the business environment and the inflow of foreign capital.
However, progress has been achieved in the area of harmonising laws and policies, especially in the free movement of goods, the law on trading companies and financial services, and also justice, freedom and security.
I am therefore certain that the citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia now quite rightly expect that free Europe will offer them the hand of friendship.
Let us have the confidence to open the doors of the European Union to them.
(EL) Mr President, in this House, we all support the European prospects of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
We - and especially the Greek MEPs - also want to resolve the long-standing issue of the name of this country.
These are two objectives which, by default, are closely linked, but which do not run in parallel, Commissioner.
Do you believe that these two interlinked objectives will be achieved if we support the immediate start of accession negotiations between this country and the European Union tomorrow?
I can assure you that they will bring about precisely the opposite: we will give the Gruevski government an incentive for even greater intransigence, thereby prolonging the impasse in negotiations on the name and, as a result, further freezing this country's accession prospects.
If we adopt this report tomorrow, it will therefore be the wrong message, the wrong policy and the wrong move, which is why I shall be voting against the report tomorrow.
(DE) Mr President, like Mr Swoboda, I would like to compare Croatia and Macedonia.
Both countries have an exemplary record as far as minorities are concerned.
The minorities in both countries are all represented in the government, which is not the case in most EU Member States.
However, there is one difference.
In Croatia, the opposition has largely taken a constructive approach.
In Macedonia, the socialist opposition has used brutal blocking tactics.
I regret the fact that some Members of this House have today turned themselves into the tools of the socialist opposition during the election campaign.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as acknowledged in the draft resolution we are discussing today, and in the Commission progress report of November 2010, the country has sufficiently met the political criteria.
However, it needs to maintain the momentum of the reform process in all areas.
It is a critical issue indeed.
As the discussion has shown, we all agree on this important point.
As I have said already, we are at a critical juncture with the country.
It must continue on the path towards Europe as the rest of the region moves forward.
The leadership of the country needs to focus on the future for the benefit of its citizens.
They will have all our support in this endeavour.
Let me make one more remark which I think is important for the country we are debating and for the whole region.
It is not for the first time we have seen a party being represented in a parliament walking out and boycotting the work of the parliament.
Let me tell you my personal view; it is unacceptable.
I think all the aspirant countries and candidate countries need to use the democratic institutions to strengthen them and not undermine them.
They need to learn that democracy needs to be exercised within the democratic institutions and not outside.
I hope very much that you will join me in sending a powerful message to the countries in the region that the political parties, whether they are from the right or left, should use the inclusive character of the process to work together on the European agenda and not take their argument to the street.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to respond to one aspect, namely the issue of the name of the country, and let me begin by stating that I deeply sympathise with the dissatisfaction, and even anger, of the Members over this matter.
There is nothing worse than a situation where we are stalling over an issue, and even if the country delivers in terms of performance, we are unable to acknowledge it.
I must say that I consider maintaining good neighbourly relations to be essential, and enlargement is only possible along these lines.
A part of this should be that the parties come to a mutually acceptable solution through negotiations, under the auspices of the UN.
The Council welcomes the ongoing high-level dialogue and is looking forward to it yielding results.
Currently, all attention is focused on the ongoing case before the International Court of Justice, where the arguments put forward orally were heard between 21 and 30 March.
The final decision is expected for September 2011.
However, the fact that the name dispute remains unresolved, and the protraction of the so far unsuccessful negotiations, must not be a justification for slowing down the reforms in the country.
The Hungarian Presidency conducted in-depth bilateral negotiations with the parties concerned before the beginning of its term of Presidency, and encouraged them to find a solution.
It is they who must find this solution.
Although everyone else is free to help, it ultimately depends on them.
We therefore continuously encourage this dialogue and this search for a solution.
I would be deeply sorry if we could not make progress in this matter during the Hungarian Presidency.
As I have mentioned, the reason for this is not only the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but the entire region, the courtyard of the European Union, for which the time has come to no longer be a courtyard but an integral part of the EU.
It should be important for us to finally be able to make progress.
I have received one motion for a resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
I am both pleased and sad that we are having this debate today.
I am sad because six years have already elapsed since the Council granted the Republic of Macedonia candidate country status without any date being set for starting negotiations, in spite of the progress made.
While examining Mr Vigenin's report, I recognise many of the demands made on my country, Romania, during the pre-accession period.
However, I notice that, in spite of the prompt, specific response from the Republic of Macedonia to these demands, we have not made any kind of progress in opening negotiations.
I think that the Republic of Macedonia's journey towards EU membership is taking far too long and we do not want its citizens to lose their optimism and hope one day.
I agree with our rapporteur who is calling on the Commission, Council and High Representative to start developing a generally applicable arbitration mechanism which will resolve bilateral issues, including the dispute with Greece about this country's name.
This is an important test not only for the post-Treaty of Lisbon common foreign policy, but also for the Union's ability to resolve disputes at its borders.
The last assessment report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is neither worse nor better than the previous ones.
However, we all know that the content of these reports is not the main obstacle to the commencement of accession talks.
The obstacle is the dispute with Greece over names.
Without this, the talks would probably have started already.
The EU should therefore play a more determined role in solving it, perhaps even a decisive role.
After almost 20 years of fruitless searching for a way out, it is now entirely appropriate to debate the next steps, including possible changes to the negotiating mechanism.
The Commission should submit relevant alternative proposals in this direction.
Through our lengthy passivity, we have all contributed to the uncertain fate of the entire country, yet this is a country that is still - even after so many years - reporting to the EU.
We should also end the 'foot-dragging' between Parliament, the Commission and the Council over the start of accession talks.
No one takes seriously the 'dialogue of the deaf' between Parliament and the Commission on the one side, and the Council on the other.
This is because it undermines the credibility of the EU as a whole.
Let us not fool ourselves - support for EU accession is still high in FYROM.
However, it has fallen noticeably over the long term.
The patience of the people of FYROM, both Macedonians and Albanians, has its limits, even if each have their reasons for this.
Situation in Côte d'Ivoire
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, last Monday, the United Nations operations in Côte d'Ivoire and French Licorne troops proceeded to neutralise the heavy weaponry that was concentrated in the hands of former President Laurent Gbagbo.
These weapons had, during the last weeks, frequently been used to terrorise the civilian population in Abidjan, resulting in numerous dead and wounded.
The neutralisation of these weapons was thus necessary to protect civilians, and was carried out in accordance with the mandate given by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 1975.
Shortly afterwards, the Republican forces loyal to the democratically elected President Alassane Ouattara launched a ground offensive on Laurent Gbagbo's last stronghold in Abidjan in order to force him to hand over power.
Due to these ongoing operations, it is our hope that the whole of Côte d'Ivoire has now been brought under the control of its legal government.
I can only regret that this transfer of power could only be achieved at the price of human life and suffering, and that the verdict of the ballot boxes alone was not enough.
This, however, is a victory for democracy in Africa and sends an important message to many countries undergoing political elections in this continent.
Since his defeat in the presidential elections on 28 November 2010, Mr Gbagbo has refused to hand over power despite the fact that international observers described the elections as free and fair and the entire international community, through the UN certification, recognised his opponent, Alassane Ouattara, as legally-elected President.
During the four months that have passed since, several initiatives have been made by ECOWAS, the African Union and the UN to negotiate a peaceful handover of power.
I would like to commend these organisations for their efforts made in the name of peace and democracy.
Unfortunately, all proposals for a peaceful handover of power were rejected by Mr Gbagbo, who insisted on clinging onto power illegally.
The EU therefore holds him personally responsible for the sufferings and bloodshed that the Ivorians have endured during these last four months of post-electoral crisis.
Mr Gbagbo should therefore be brought to justice to answer for his acts.
The EU, through the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has congratulated President Ouattara on his victory, but we are aware of the numerous challenges ahead of him.
He has won the war but must now win the peace.
Law and order must be restored so that those hundreds of thousands of people who have fled their homes and even left the country can now feel safe to go home again.
The economy must be relaunched to end the last ten years of recession and provide for growth and jobs.
The administration must start functioning again so that public services can be provided.
The EU has stood by Côte d'Ivoire throughout the long years of crisis.
EU cooperation has provided for humanitarian assistance but also for post-conflict aid for reconstruction and reconciliation.
Some EUR 500 million has been disbursed since 2003.
During the last dramatic months, the EU has taken a number of restrictive measures against individuals and entities supporting Mr Gbagbo, and this is recognised by our African partners as having substantially helped throughout the crisis.
The EU should continue to accompany Côte d'Ivoire at this crucial moment.
An aid package is being prepared, to be launched at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is now time to start working to implement peace in Côte d'Ivoire.
Mr President, the events of the past 24 hours in Côte d'Ivoire have been bewildering.
We heard that Mr Gbagbo was set to surrender, a claim that was later denied.
Now, tired of waiting for the outcome of the interminable wrangling, President Ouattara's Republican forces have launched an offensive on Abidjan.
Amid all this confusion, let us not forget what brought us to the current situation.
Let me remind you that over the last four months, there have been several hundred deaths and one million displaced refugees.
We must not lose sight of the bigger picture.
The reason that we are in this situation is that Mr Gbagbo has stubbornly refused to listen to the verdict of the ballot boxes and to accept defeat.
I think that the time has finally come, as his regime is collapsing in the wake of defections by his supporters, for Mr Gbagbo to cede power to the rightful President, Alassane Ouattara.
What is more, we must not forget the human rights violations and infringements of humanitarian law that have been committed in the country, which may constitute crimes against humanity.
No effort should be spared in bringing the authors of these violations to justice - and that includes international justice.
Lastly, I would like to praise the action taken by the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), with the support of French forces, to enforce the United Nations Security Council mandate aimed at putting an end to the use of heavy weaponry and at protecting civilians.
Mr President, the end of the struggle for power in Côte d'Ivoire is in sight, after more than 1 500 people have died, nearly one million people in the region have been made refugees, entire streets of houses have been looted and the economy has ground to a halt.
The country is experiencing a catastrophe and that is the price which Laurent Gbagbo has had to pay for refusing to admit defeat.
His relentless refusal to respect the voters' wishes merits strong condemnation.
Many other things also merit condemnation: all the violence of the last few months, the many human rights violations, the threats, the violence against United Nations personnel, the speeches stirring up hatred and the kidnappings.
There are still some firefights going on, but Gbagbo's departure is being negotiated, and that is good news.
However, there is an emergency situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
Many Ivorians are now running out of food and water, because they have not dared leave their homes.
It is essential that President Alassane Ouattara receives every support during the process of return to the rule of law, under which people will be able to live in peace and without fear, and under which the freedom of the press will be restored.
A return to the rule of law is now the first thing that needs to happen.
In that regard, the President has a duty to prevent his troops using force against the population and it is good that Ouattara has ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shocking massacre in Duékoué.
Whatever means the Ivorians choose to restore the rule of law, through the courts or through a truth and reconciliation commission, one thing is clear: there is no statute of limitation on war crimes.
The International Criminal Court must be allowed to do its work.
The sanctions have had an impact: Gbagbo has been financially drained.
However, we must now ensure that we rapidly begin to dismantle the sanctions as soon as Ouattara takes up his rightful office because everything has ground to a halt.
Even programmes for the provision of medicines to people in Côte d'Ivoire with HIV-AIDS are now at risk.
Mr President, those donating aid to Côte d'Ivoire should not leave the country in the lurch now.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, as we speak, hopefully the end of the Côte d'Ivoire crisis is imminent.
We would all like to hear that Mr Gbagbo has surrendered in the next few hours.
The international community has been very patient, the African Union has undertaken several rounds of mediation, and the United Nations chose not to intervene between the two sides for several months.
The United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) has now taken action, with support from the French Licorne troops and in accordance with the Security Council resolution, but it has done so in order to protect civilians from the heavy weaponry used by the incumbent regime.
The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire should now serve as an example to all those who refuse to give up power despite electoral defeat.
These individuals need to understand that, from now on, the international community is determined to enforce the law.
Yet in strife-torn countries, where the concept of nationhood is still evolving, we cannot be satisfied with declaring a victor.
We must strive for national reconciliation.
This is the message that we now need to send to Mr Ouattara, who will be responsible for establishing a national unity government.
As each camp has accused the other of massacres and crimes against humanity, investigations need to be initiated with a view to apportioning blame and dispensing justice.
Justice can involve vengeance, but it can also bring peace.
I would like to plead in favour of the latter option, if that will allow Côte d'Ivoire to rediscover peace and stability and to see growth and development resume.
Mr President, I am confused now.
I heard the Hungarian Presidency say: Mr Ouattara has won the war; now he must win the peace.
However, I have been watching television all day, keeping up with all the news, and it seems to me that Ouattara is still in the process of winning the war.
It looks like it is going to happen, but it is still some way off.
When he finally manages to take up his post as President of the country, he will leave behind him four months of misery, which have left the country in a state of collapse, the economy in smithereens, people dead and population groups played off against one other.
What a start to a new period of governance!
If we are using expressions such as 'a victory for democracy in Africa' to describe elections which have resulted in wars, then it seems to me that we must be getting our words confused.
However, what is far more serious is the fact that the country has responded to the elections in such a way.
What should we, in Europe, do now, if Mr Ouattara gets the chance to take up his position?
I think that, with the cocoa boycott, we have demonstrated that we are capable of taking rapid action and that we are able to use trade to promote democracy.
Côte d'Ivoire is one of the ACP countries: as such, it receives development aid from us and, thus, a political dialogue needs to be part of the picture.
We have to enter into that political dialogue with a man who is able to show that he can bring all parts of the country back together.
He has to show us and the rest of the world, but, above all, his own people, that he is able to move beyond this violence and that he is willing to make amends.
Mr President, it is difficult to comment on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire when it is constantly changing and incredibly uncertain.
Let me start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, who spent this morning working on the motion for a resolution that will be presented tomorrow.
We have all worked together to ensure that the motion is balanced and forward-looking.
We know today that atrocities have probably been committed by both camps and that the culprits will need to be brought to justice, no matter who they are.
The Ivorian population has been the main victim of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
The United Nations presence on the ground, in the form of the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), has been unable to protect civilians.
What is worse, it has taken action, with support from French military forces, against one side, admittedly under the auspices of a UN resolution, but one that dates back to 1975, making it 36 years old.
The Chair of the African Union, Mr Obiang Nguema, denounced it in no uncertain terms yesterday.
Fortunately, the UNOCI does not seem to be involved in the final attack that is apparently now being launched by Mr Ouattara's troops.
In view of all this, we did not want to be associated with the resolution and will not be voting in favour of it.
We are all aware of France's role in Africa.
Françafrique has caused a lot of harm and continues to do so.
What is more, the French authorities make no secret of the policy, claiming that they want to protect and maintain France's interests.
(FR) Mr President, the terrible thing about our modern societies and, in particular, European society, and, even more specifically, our Parliament, is the generalised flock mentality: our tendency to behave like sheep.
Apart from the last two speakers, everyone has simply parroted what they have read in the paper, heard on the radio or seen on the television.
Everyone tells us that Mr Ouattara won the elections, which is quite possible, but it certainly was not clear-cut.
Everyone tells us that the brutal military intervention yesterday was a means of neutralising heavy arms.
These things are presented in the rosiest terms.
Neutralising heavy weaponry is another name for a bombardment.
I myself have seen the effects of bombardments: I am a reserve officer and I can tell you that a bombardment involves killing people, burning people, blowing people up.
In other words, it is military action conducted in favour of one side and against another.
It may be justifiable, but here, among parliamentarians, among political representatives, we should be brave enough to tell the truth.
We are also told that these arms were to be used to terrorise the civilian population.
Yet at the end of the day, in a civil war, some civilians are armed, particularly when one camp has Kalashnikovs and the backing of half of the nation's army.
So I think we need to put an end to this hypocrisy.
We took brutal action in favour of one camp and against another.
Was that action justified?
Perhaps.
Let me conclude by saying that I do not see how Mr Ouattara can be innocent of the atrocities committed by his troops while Mr Gbagbo is always blamed for the atrocities committed by his troops.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
(FR) Mr President, I would simply like to ask Mr Gollnisch what he believes the outcome of the election signifies and whether it means that Mr Ouattara's victory must ultimately result in him taking power.
This is purely a question of democratic legitimacy.
I went to Côte d'Ivoire as head of the election observation mission and I can assure you that the elections were valid and that there was a clear and unequivocal winner.
(FR) Mr President, Mr Preda, I said that Mr Ouattara might well have won the elections, but I do not think it was as clear-cut as you suggest.
In any case, the Côte d'Ivoire Constitutional Court did not take that view, although the court is drawn up along political lines, just like the French Constitutional Court.
For my part, I would be delighted if we were to focus on the French elections.
I represent a group that has millions of voters, with a leader who reached the last round of the presidential elections, but which does not have a single member of parliament, nor yet a single senator in our national parliament.
Yet you are completely impervious to this particular scandal.
(Calls of 'off the subject' from the Chamber)
(PL) Mr President, the former President of Côte d'Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, is said to have indicated yesterday he is ready to surrender and to have asked the United Nations for protection.
Negotiations over Gbagbo's surrender are in progress.
They are being conducted after forces loyal to the democratically elected President Ouattara took over the presidential residence in Abidjan.
In the opinion of Prime Minister Soro, the end of Gbagbo's rule is a matter of hours away.
I am not certain of this, but I hope this is how it will be.
However, we do know for certain that civilians, including women and children, are also being killed in the armed conflict.
In the clashes between the supporters of the two politicians, around 1 500 people have been killed, and a million have had to leave their homes.
A few days ago, one of Gbagbo's advisers said that even a possible massacre in Abidjan will not convince the former President to admit defeat in the presidential election and hand over power.
It is easy to foresee, therefore, what should happen in Côte d'Ivoire: a quick end to the fighting, the departure of the former President from the country, which will stabilise the situation significantly, the administration of justice to all those who have committed war crimes or murders, and stabilisation of the country.
The European Union should support all these measures.
(FI) Mr President, we certainly hurried to help Libya, but with Côte d'Ivoire, we have remained inactive since November.
The sanctions imposed by the Council are a step in the right direction, but when will they be lifted?
Why have they been used to block the Abidjan Port Authority's export of cocoa beans and to shut down the oil refinery?
If we are not helping, at least we should not cause more trouble.
The innocent victims will be the Ivorian economy and, in the long term, European consumers too.
Laurent Gbagbo must give way and there should be support for the speedy return of refugees to their homes.
The surrounding countries cannot cope with the current volumes of refugees.
The EU must help organise elections and the construction of democratic institutions.
Normal business should not, however, be prevented.
Côte d'Ivoire is the most prosperous economy in West Africa.
Economic recovery and access to EU markets for exported products are the real key to restabilising the country.
I shall expect a response from the Commission.
(FR) Mr President, unlike Mr Gollnisch, I am of the opinion that we cannot allow civilians to die amid general indifference as they are exposed to force and violence employed by an illegitimate Head of State.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1975 authorises the international community to obstruct a regime which uses weapons against its own people.
In the current case, this constitutes progress, in that we are no longer compelled to look on helplessly as civilian populations are subjected to atrocities committed by their leaders.
However, although we should welcome the fact that we can now break through the wall of indifference under international law, we must also ensure that all due precautions are taken to guarantee that military force remains a last resort.
Unfortunately, in Côte d'Ivoire, President Gbagbo has not taken any action to avoid this terminal outcome.
When all is said and done, I dare to hope that Resolution 1975 on Côte d'Ivoire, together with Resolution 1973 on Libya, will serve to dissuade others from citing State sovereignty as an excuse for killing their own citizens.
The combination of the International Criminal Court and the recent stance taken by the United Nations Security Council means that barbarous acts committed with impunity will soon no longer be the rule, but should hopefully become the exception.
(DE) Mr President, in a deeply divided country like Côte d'Ivoire, can a lasting peace be brought about by violent means and can the winner of the presidential election be legitimised?
This seems extremely doubtful, especially as the real causes of the conflict have not been resolved.
The country was destabilised as a result of economic problems brought about largely by the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank.
The sanctions which were rapidly imposed with the aim of weakening the Gbagbo government have exacerbated the situation and given rise to a humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire.
The legitimacy of both claimants to the presidency is in dispute.
The armies of both sides are responsible for massacring the civilian population.
Once again, the West has taken sides and now the United Nations (UN) is waging war alongside French troops to try to ensure the victory of one side in the conflict.
Will European powers once again be deciding the fate of African people as they did in colonial times, but this time with the support of the UN?
What has happened to the principles of international law?
Is this the concept on which the UN was founded?
Instead of aiming for peaceful solutions to conflicts, the UN seems to be supporting civil wars or taking sides in them.
Whose interest is this in?
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise that, setting aside the political crisis in Côte d'Ivoire, we are facing a genuine humanitarian crisis that may well linger on.
The post-electoral violence has resulted in over one million internally displaced persons and refugees.
What is more, the flood of refugees may reignite simmering tensions in the region.
The humanitarian crisis, ladies and gentlemen, will not be resolved by the political agreement that is currently being hammered out.
We must be able to respond rapidly if we are to avoid a worst-case scenario.
Whatever happens, the chaos in Abidjan will last for several months.
I would like to congratulate the Commission for deciding to increase its humanitarian aid budget to five times the original amount, bringing European support to over EUR 30 million.
The European Union must mobilise all the necessary resources in order to help the most vulnerable population groups and monitor how their requirements evolve.
We must also ensure that the greater media coverage devoted to the situation in Libya does not eclipse the gravity of the humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire.
Furthermore, the current security situation is preventing humanitarian workers from operating and reaching the people, which is terrible.
I would like to close by saying that there must be no impunity: we must do our utmost to ensure that justice is done.
(DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my surprise that Baroness Ashton is once again not here.
However, I am pleased that she is being represented by my friend, Mr Németh.
I would like to see him, Mr Füle or another person permanently coordinating the foreign policy of the European Union and not someone who is hardly ever here in the European Parliament.
On the matter itself, I would like to make it quite clear that Côte d'Ivoire, of course, has many problems which need to be resolved.
However, President Ouattara was clearly the winner of the election and he is the person who has democratic legitimacy.
This is the view of the African Union and of many other bodies.
Therefore, we should be grateful that the United Nations (UN) and, above all, the UN Secretary-General and President Sarkozy, have prevented a massacre from occurring like those in other African states, such as in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
For this reason, we should not quibble over this.
Of course, this does not resolve the problems.
However, when Mr Putin starts to criticise the UN and to say that the UN Secretary-General has gone beyond his mandate, this destabilises the UN at a time when it is urgently needed.
The African Union should also not express its opinions so loudly, because it has completely failed to help in this crisis.
The African Union should have helped to bring about democracy in Côte d'Ivoire.
We Europeans have made many mistakes in the past and we are continuing to do so.
However, in this case, the mistakes are someone else's responsibility.
Our services have informed me, and I think it is important to know this, that at the beginning of the year, the Vice-President/High Representative's office sent a list of the plenaries in which she would be able to attend.
It was known from then that she could not be here this time, so obviously if we have a debate that involves issues like that, someone else has to represent her, and that should be clear.
We now move on to the catch-the-eye procedure.
There are three speakers.
(FR) Mr President, the violence is truly escalating in Côte d'Ivoire.
Political conflict between two individuals has, unfortunately, resulted in a humanitarian crisis.
Clearly, the basic democratic principle of respecting election results must be upheld.
Mr Gbagbo's departure is therefore inevitable.
The question is: what comes next?
There is a danger that tensions between the two camps will intensify.
What do we plan to do if civil war breaks out?
We should work towards achieving three things.
Our first priority has to be maintaining peace and stability, which is needed so that the people of Côte d'Ivoire can resume their daily lives: eating, providing care, working and going to school.
An independent commission must be established to investigate the violence perpetrated since the conflict began.
Secondly, the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire and the African Union must continue their activities.
However, we should also consider setting up a dialogue mechanism that will include all parties, both within the country and from the wider international community.
Lastly, let me remind you that the European Union sent an election observation mission.
The Union must now press for the recommendations it made to be taken into account and integrated in the post-crisis process.
Mr President, with the aid of modern technology, I am watching the situation in Côte d'Ivoire unfolding as I sit here.
These pieces of equipment are playing their role in Côte d'Ivoire, just as they have done in North Africa, with people texting for assistance and medical help.
Over the past six months, the patience of the friends of Côte d'Ivoire has been sorely tried: it has been like a car crash in slow motion as we have watched the country slide into the situation in which it now finds itself - and it is always the most vulnerable who suffer.
We have been talking here this week about refugees coming from North Africa to Europe, but we have also heard reports of nearly a million fleeing to neighbouring countries which are almost as poor, or even poorer, than Côte d'Ivoire.
Friends of that country must be on stand-by to help, as soon as we can, to restore it to normality and health and give the people there the prospect of good fortune in the future.
(PT) Mr President, the civil war situation in Côte d'Ivoire remains worrying, with the country paralysed economically, and with high levels of violence that have affected its people and turned it into a humanitarian crisis.
It is time to put a stop to this.
We know that there are longstanding reasons for the grave situation being experienced there, particularly the poverty and social inequality left there by former colonialism or by the structural adjustment plans imposed for years by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
However, these last four months of misery following the elections have shown how regrettable it is that the international community, including the European Union, has not made sufficient use of diplomatic channels for a peaceful and political solution to the crisis.
The role of France in this matter is also regrettable, as it preferred military intervention to persisting with diplomatic channels.
We therefore call for an end to the war and to violence by all parties, and we urge the EU to act accordingly.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to quote the words of a famous Hungarian poet: 'Among murderers, he who remains silent is an accomplice'.
When we are seeing that thousands are dying and people are fleeing in their millions, we must not comfort ourselves with phrases recalling the dove of peace, but must take action.
And before anyone draws parallels between the action in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire and that in Iraq, I would like to remind everyone that the current action is not reminiscent of Iraq or even Afghanistan, but of Rwanda, and of Kosovo, and it is no coincidence that we have been talking so much over the past few weeks about having, as we formulated it, a 'right and responsibility to protect' civilians, citizens.
Accordingly, I would like to repeat that yes, Mr Gbagbo has lost this fight, is alone in his bunker, and is awaiting his fate.
I would also like to stress that the legal grounds for this action is indisputable in the present situation.
The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1975, and this resolution provides a perfectly clear mandate for the action.
Thirdly, I would also like to emphasise that the crimes committed must no longer remain shrouded in obscurity and without investigation.
It is to my great satisfaction that legally elected President Ouattara, as well as the Prime Minister, have consented to and clearly support the UN conducting an international investigation of the massacres committed.
The investigation of these massacres is therefore already a part, and a very clear pre-requisite, of any settlement.
As far as the European Union's contribution is concerned, ECHO has already at this point envisaged EUR 30 million in humanitarian aid and, as I have also indicated in my introductory speech, a package will be prepared by the European Union in the near future which will provide the European Union's support to the economic and institution-building goals of the legitimately elected President and government.
I have received seven motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
(The sitting was suspended at 20:35 and resumed at 21:00)
Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Eastern Dimension - Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Southern Dimension
The next item is the joint debate on the Commission statements on:
Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Eastern Dimension
Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Southern Dimension.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am delighted to have this opportunity to have an exchange of views with Parliament on the European Neighbourhood Policy.
In the context of the current events in the Southern Mediterranean, redeveloping this policy could not be more important.
In fact, over the past nine months, the Commission has undertaken a review of the policy.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Members for their input into the consultation, which took responses from partner countries, EU Member States, academics and civil society groups.
I have read both Mário David's report on the south and Marek Siwiec's report on the east and find them both significant and useful.
I am pleased that our thoughts are along the same lines.
You will have noticed that the results of our previous discussions on Neighbourhood Policy are already reflected in the communication on a partnership for democracy and shared prosperity of 8 March.
Now, we are preparing for the wider communication on the results of the review, which is due to be published in May.
A key outcome of the review is a new emphasis on differentiation of the Neighbourhood Policy, according to the needs and wishes of each partner country.
While the policy will continue to offer engagement to all partners, every neighbour is different and has different aspirations.
Some partner countries want to progress as far as they can towards the European Union - indeed as far as accession - but others prefer to make the most of other benefits of the Neighbourhood Policy.
So it will deliver more for more, in a specific and differentiated way, alongside stronger political steering of our relationship with our partners.
Nevertheless, as both Mr David and Mr Siwiec recommend in their reports, our shared values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights will be at the heart of the revised Neighbourhood Policy for all partner countries.
They should find their expression in stronger joint commitments to the elements indispensable to democratisation.
I am thinking, in particular, of free and fair elections, freedom of expression and association, judicial independence, the fight against corruption and security sector reform.
As highlighted in both reports, the revised Neighbourhood Policy will also recognise and act on the importance of the civil society.
Non-governmental organisations have the expertise and experience to deliver democratic and market-oriented reforms from the bottom up, based on shared values.
A thriving civil society gets citizens involved and helps to hold governments to account, so the European Union will complement its relations with governments with much closer engagement with civil society.
This is also important at a regional and sub-regional level where, for example, the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum has been making good progress.
The forthcoming communication will offer more detail on the approach towards the two sub-regions of our neighbourhood.
It will spell out how we see the Eastern Partnership developing further in the wake of the summit under the Polish Presidency.
In the south, the Union for the Mediterranean has the potential to make a real difference but, frankly, it has not yet done so, and must be revitalised.
Its promise lies in developing concrete economic projects with a focus on employment, innovations and growth.
The Union for the Mediterranean Secretariat is best placed to act as a catalyst and bring together states, international and financial institutions and private companies to work on such economic projects.
I would like to mention briefly three other elements brought to light by the review, which will be key to the revised Neighbourhood Policy: first, the role of trade and economic integration to help advance stability and prosperity in partner countries.
The most significant vehicle to achieve this is the deep and comprehensive free trade area.
A successful DFCTA has a transformative power.
Regulatory reforms made by a partner country are encouraged through trade.
Next, the need for improved mobility between partner countries and the European Union since there is no better way to promote European values than through sharing experience person to person.
The Neighbourhood Policy will seek improvements to mobility without losing sight of security.
Finally, the desire expressed in the consultation by many partner countries for greater political engagement with the European Union.
Closer and more substantial political dialogue across all areas of our relationship will help us resolve difficult issues in a spirit of mutual confidence.
I very much look forward to the coming debate and I will take your views on board.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the historic times we are living through demand firm and determined action.
Like many of you, we have been watching the events unfolding in the Mediterranean region with a mixture of hope, concern and expectation.
I am, however, pleased with the proactive stance that Parliament is preparing to adopt on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) - Southern Dimension, which I hope will lead to a greater EU presence in this area, not only as a customer, but also as a committed partner.
The absolute necessity of advocating our fundamental values in our relations with our neighbouring countries must be stressed from the outset.
We can no longer acquiesce in our defence of democracy, human rights and, especially, social justice.
We can no longer focus on short-term stability at the expense of the best interests of our citizens, of constantly defending them, and of their individual and collective freedom, with a particular focus on women's rights.
In the future, the Union must favour a bottom-up approach to its Neighbourhood Policy.
It is vital that this happens.
Only greater involvement by local communities and civil society will ensure maximum effectiveness in implementing it.
However, I cannot help but voice my frustration: I regret the fact that Parliament and the Commission have not been willing to make the most of this opportunity to differentiate once and for all between the ENP to the east - with countries that could, in the future, potentially become our partners in the Union - and the ENP to the south.
I also challenge the Commission to show, in its review process on 20 April, the ambition that the current situation demands, namely, with a tailor-made Neighbourhood Policy adapted to each state, with clear benchmarks and careful assessment that could lead to a future Mediterranean economic area, incorporating the new democracies of the south.
To finish, Commissioner, we trust that the good atmosphere and cooperation that have characterised work on this subject will lead to Parliament being permanently involved in planning and evaluating this policy.
Madam President, Commissioner, we have reached the final, today, or rather the semi-final, of work in connection with a review of the European Union's Eastern policy.
We might say that the Neighbourhood Policy was once designed as a kind of 'consolation prize' for countries which were not going to accede to the European Union.
What is the situation like today?
What are the countries like which are included in the policy?
It can be said that the policy is a list of successes - different kinds of success - because it is not possible to say in a word what has been achieved in those years by Moldova in comparison with Ukraine and, for example, with the tragic situation in Belarus.
It can, however, be said that in these countries, more European values have appeared, more and better law is being made, greater concern for people is in evidence and economies are working much more efficiently - and we have played our part in this.
This is the effect of Eastern policy, which today is called the Eastern Partnership.
If we are talking, today, about the fact that we want to conduct a review of this policy, then it is crucial to say that we want to see that these countries, in a variety of ways and at different speeds, are going to move towards our values - towards what the European Union offers them.
If it is an à la carte policy, then let those countries show initiative, and let us respond well to those initiatives.
We want, to a greater degree, and this is written in the report, to make Neighbourhood Policy something for the citizens, the elite, journalists and young people.
We want them to see what our life is like, and that it is worth organising life in the way we do.
We want, in the long run, to make it easier to travel to the European Union - we want the visa system to be easier.
Let us also say, as we do in the report directly: yes, this policy needs money.
However, the money which the European Union allocates to this should be better spent, should reach those for whom it is intended, and should sometimes bypass states and any state administration which is capable of wasting that money.
Finally, let us say something about the conflict.
For there is a conflict in this Chamber about the fact that we are not able or do not want to say clearly what the wording is ...
Madam President, always with a smile on your face, Commissioner, from the start of this term of the EP, if not before, we have had a very intensive and lively debate on the urgency of reforming the Eastern and Southern Dimensions of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The need for such reform, which should lead to the interests in these regions being integrated more effectively, has, in fact, become topical and acute; it has become a necessity following the dramatic changes and processes which have unfolded in the region.
The resolution, which was prepared by my fellow Member, Mário David, who is an excellent rapporteur, and which was supplemented by a large number of shadow rapporteurs and Members as the events unfolded, is today a complete document.
It emphasises our responsibility to develop relations with the countries in the region on the basis of modern values, democratic freedoms and human rights.
In this respect, it is no coincidence that we, in particular, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, have, more than ever, emphasised equal treatment of women, recognition of diversity and protection of all minorities.
All of this should become an integral part of the policy which the European Union promotes in its neighbourhood in the future, including through its diplomatic service.
We must be more efficient when supporting those who are fighting for the same causes in various countries: for freedom, for the right to participate in decision making and for a fair exploitation of natural resources.
The resolution draws attention to the urgent need for more operational financial instruments with which we can support economic development, the modernisation of infrastructure and investment in areas, where they are effective ... where the effects may be somewhat less visible, but which will be felt in the long term, for example, in education, integration of research and academic institutions and the introduction of new technologies.
Finally, it is no coincidence that the resolution calls attention to the urgency of reviving the Union for the Mediterranean with a view to development, a dialogue and resolution of outstanding problems in the region.
It is time, ladies and gentlemen, that we opened the box of outstanding issues and frozen conflicts, so that the wave of democratisation can remove any remaining political obstacles on the road to peace, reconciliation and a new development framework in the region.
Madam President, I wonder if Mr Vajgl has considered the cost to the EU taxpayer of these extra-territorial initiatives proposed in the report and which he is also endorsing?
(SL) Mr Dartmouth, if you are talking about the initiative as a whole, as covered by the report, I think that our investments, at any rate, will certainly be very, very beneficial when compared with the damage that might arise if we do not engage more in this area.
This is particularly true of the Union for the Mediterranean where it is evident that we need more elaborate instruments in order to develop some kind of effective policy on the part of the European Union.
Madam President, the Eastern Partnership is still very new.
Therefore, it is important for us to evaluate, as we do in this report, whether our Eastern European neighbours have come any closer to the objectives of democratic reform.
It is clear that there has been progress in this area, but we have also seen setbacks.
For Belarus and also for Ukraine, Russia's autocratic system, which is characterised by a flexible approach to foreign policy and a tough approach to domestic policy, and by oppression and repression, is obviously more attractive and provides more guidance than what the EU has to offer.
However, the experiences and the mistakes made in the Union for the Mediterranean, where the aim was to achieve a state of security by supporting despotic regimes, show that we must rely on forces other than corrupt governments.
Our objective of an active civil society based on freedom and the fundamental values of the EU can only be achieved from the bottom up by promoting and supporting the self-organisation of civil society.
The Civil Society Forum, founded as part of the Eastern Partnership, is a good start.
It is also currently the only body in which the Belarus opposition is involved.
Unfortunately, the seats at Euronest will remain empty while there is no freely and correctly elected parliament in the country.
The Civil Society Forum needs our support, as we have described in paragraph 20 of the report.
However, it will remain a mere declaration of intent unless we back it up with effective measures.
Therefore, I am calling on you urgently to support Amendment 5 tomorrow which provides for continuous financial support and a secretariat for the organisation.
Please support Amendment 5 tomorrow so that we can make progress on developing a civil society.
This really is an excellent approach.
I have experienced myself in Berlin how people can achieve objectives of this kind by working from the grassroots upwards.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the Middle East and North African countries of the Southern Neighbourhood clearly need the EU's long-term political and - where appropriate - financial support.
In countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, we should concentrate our efforts on consolidating nascent democratic awakenings into a lasting legacy of stable, secular and enlightened governance.
In Syria, we should be more supportive of democratic opposition to President al-Assad, who is clearly no friend of the West, as we have seen from his efforts with North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon and his political support for Iran and for terrorism.
Inevitably, the ongoing turbulence demands a refocusing of ENP priorities towards the South.
However, this should not happen at the expense of our partners in the Eastern Dimension.
Some of those countries have also embarked on a long-term process of democratic transition, openness and reform.
It would be perverse to reward them for this progress by denying them the resources and support to maintain their pro-Western trajectory, simply on the basis that the Southern Dimension has more acute need of the EU's attentions now.
On Libya, I strongly support the no-fly zone and the pressing need for regime change.
I support recognition of the Transitional National Council and the unfreezing of EU-frozen Gaddafi assets and releasing the money to the Benghazi pro-democracy forces to buy supplies and, yes, even to buy arms.
I believe that UN Security Council Resolution 1970 only specifically bans the sale of arms to the Jamahiriya and, therefore, not to the Benghazi rebels, though unfortunately the EU legislation appears to transpose 1970 incorrectly, with a blanket arms embargo.
Madam President, Mr Füle, Mr Siwiec, thank you for devoting yourself to this subject.
Parliament's almost unanimous opinion is that Neighbourhood Policy has not produced the expected results.
However, I do not agree with the analysis of the causes.
The results do not meet our expectations because we have not focused on the interests which we have in common with our neighbours.
Instead, we have concentrated on our own interests and on our ideas of how neighbouring countries should develop.
Quite obviously, what we need is a different approach.
We need a policy which makes cooperation between both sides a central principle and which respects the sovereign right of the citizens in the partner countries to shape their future without outside interference.
The content of the policy must focus on our common European challenges and transform partnership policy into a permanent tool for genuine cooperative discussions and for identifying solutions to joint problems.
We will not make any progress in our Neighbourhood Policy unless we change our views and develop new political approaches.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (NL) Madam President, in preparation for this debate, I reread the open letter which Svetlana Alexeyivich, certainly the most important intellectual voice in Belarus, addressed to President Alexander Lukashenko.
She writes, quote, 'Our people are afraid of a revolution, too.
However, nobody wants to carry on living like this anymore.
Before the election, the political dialogue in our society had only just begun, but you blatantly nipped it in the bud straightaway.
Our country has been paralysed by fear again.'
Alexeyivich urged Lukashenko to resume dialogue with the people.
Was that perhaps a naïve idea?
At the end of the day, in an interview given to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 31 January 2011, the writer referred to Lukashenko as holding the entire Belarusian nation hostage and as a dictator with small man syndrome over whom only the Kremlin could exert any real influence.
However, the point is that there is no evidence that Lukashenko is happy to place all his eggs in Moscow's basket.
In view of that, the European institutions could provide a strategic opening, despite the current difficult situation.
I wish Commissioner Füle much wisdom, perseverance and, indeed, the full support of our Parliament in establishing and making the most of responsible contact with Belarus.
(EL) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for his comments.
It is true that the European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Dimension were decisive steps in efforts to deepen relations with our neighbours to the East.
Nonetheless, today, there is an urgent need to give new impetus to this effort.
The crisis which has broken out in the countries of North Africa, which are included in the Southern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, are monopolising international interest, but the Eastern Dimension has faced, and still faces, similar challenges.
Events in Belarus are very clearly a message and wake-up call for the European Union in terms of the responsibilities which it must assume in such cases.
We need a long-term strategic plan for growth and stability in the region.
Consequently, the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - and the Eastern Dimension - must reflect an assumption of greater political obligation on the part of our partners.
It must be clear from the outset that the promotion of, and respect for, democratic procedures, the rule of law, fundamental human rights and the protection of minorities are important points in evaluating the progress made by our partners.
That is why we need clear priorities and quantifiable targets in advance.
Of course, this sort of evaluation should not be horizontal; we need to differentiate our relations with our partners, as each country will need to be judged separately in terms of the progress it has made, based on clearly defined criteria.
Democracy and human rights brook no ambiguity; the European Union was founded on the basis of these principles and, therefore, has a moral obligation to maintain them in the future.
Within this framework, the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy needs to give new impetus to efforts to promote a substantive political framework for cooperation with our eastern partners.
(DE) Madam President, I would like to say something very briefly in response to my fellow Member's objection about the costs, despite the fact that he has disappeared again.
The two rapporteurs, who produced very good reports and whom I would like to thank very much, indicate relatively clearly what the costs would be if we did not have a Neighbourhood Policy.
They would be much higher in terms of human costs, if we look at the refugee crisis in the south, but also, of course, in terms of economic and social costs, if we look at all our neighbouring countries in the south and east.
I would like to say a few words about the Eastern Partnership.
Other Members will be speaking about the Southern Partnership.
It is true that the situation in Belarus is bad, but we must make every effort to contact unofficial bodies, individual citizens, young people and students to encourage genuinely positive and democratic development from the inside out.
In response to Mr Schulz, who earlier said that Belarus and Ukraine were in the same situation, I would like to explain that the differences between them are very great.
In Ukraine, we should look at the problems, but also at what is going well and at the positive changes.
A brief comment on the Southern Caucasus, because it is important for us to focus on this area, too.
The developments in Azerbaijan, where bloggers and demonstrators are being imprisoned, are alarming.
It is shameful for a country like Azerbaijan and for its President to do things of this kind.
We are concerned about a possible new conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
I would like to ask Mr Füle to keep a very close eye on this region and to help the region to emerge from the mess it is in and from this conflict situation.
Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to the frozen conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is an inseparable part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Whenever the Neighbourhood Policies or other policies involving the South Caucasus region are being discussed, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and also of Georgia, should always be kept in mind.
Parliament must respect the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, although it is occupied by the Armenian military forces and, as we know, supported politically by the Kremlin authorities.
This acknowledgement should always be reflected in documents and statements both in Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
All initiatives by the EU side to obscure this fact must be discouraged in order to move towards a peaceful and legitimate resolution of the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and in the region.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the popular movements in the Southern Mediterranean have clearly highlighted weaknesses in our European Neighbourhood Policy.
As I see it, the problem lies not so much with the Neighbourhood Policy objectives, which are set out in Articles 8 and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon on promoting and respecting human rights and democracy - which are also social objectives - but rather in our flawed implementation of those objectives.
Consequently, we need to learn lessons for the future.
This is what is being done in the current work on reviewing the policy.
The first issue, which was raised by Mr Schulz, is our ability to provide real and effective support for civil society in all neighbouring countries, irrespective of their importance in terms of trade or strategy, or their political situation.
When neighbouring countries are in a state of transition, this is extremely useful and necessary.
It is also undeniably easier than when they are labouring under the yoke of an authoritarian regime, as is the case in Syria, but this is a challenge, an issue, that we need to learn to address effectively.
I believe that we will also need to learn to discuss these matters with our partners, not only in forums dedicated to human rights, such as sub-committees, but also at the highest political level.
Yet, at the same time, we must ensure that sub-committee agendas do not become disconnected from the situation, as has happened in the past, or fail to feed into other bodies, such as the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA).
I support the communication on a partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean, which I believe is pivotal.
It seems to me that we should also add a separate target for social justice and combating inequalities.
Naturally, we will also need to rethink our understanding of mobility in the Mediterranean region.
I think that the mobility partnership is a positive feature, but we will also need to learn how to promote the benefits of this mobility for individuals who travel between the Northern and Southern Mediterranean and for both the host nation and the country of origin.
We will also need to factor these changing movements into basic rights for those who cross the Mediterranean and settle in Europe.
(PL) Madam President, the present discussion is taking place at a time when we are adopting a new approach to Neighbourhood Policy.
We would like to bring to a definitive end the times when the concept of stability was used as a bargaining chip, when the concept of stability was used to gain concessions in the areas of human rights and the principles of democracy.
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the holistic approach to Neighbourhood Policy.
Let us not think back over just the last few months; let us also remember earlier events, such as those which have taken place in Belarus.
Today, we are stressing the need to uphold the gentleman's agreement concerning the allocation of one third of the funds available as part of the Neighbourhood Policy to Eastern policy.
We are not thinking about sharing wealth but about sharing security.
This is a matter of fundamental security and the future of cooperation of EU Member States with countries which, in the future, will perhaps also be Member States of the Union.
(FR) Madam President, the Arab revolutions have given rise to a great deal of hope in the countries concerned and beyond.
They have demonstrated that democracy and human rights can be universal values.
However, the people of these countries remain very sceptical about the European Union.
I can understand that in the light of past history and of the support given to dictators.
I can also understand it when I learn that we are incapable of discussing democratic assistance without immediately linking it to an economic approach that ignores the choices made by these countries - and worse, when I see that some governments, including my national government, are still demanding that European aid be conditional on readmission agreements.
This is a strange understanding of mobility.
Commissioner, I wonder whether we could not give a strong signal with regard to Tunisia by calling for a moratorium on the country's debt until a democratically elected government has been put in place, which is due to happen in July.
I would also suggest that we should help them to audit the debt and to cancel the illegitimate debt which benefited the Ben Ali-Trabelsi family at the expense of the Tunisian people.
I would like a detailed answer to my question, Commissioner.
(EL) Madam President, I consider that Commissioner Füle is handling correctly the question of supervision of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the scope of which extends to 16 States, from the underbelly of Africa to the underbelly of Russia.
However, the European Neighbourhood Policy has been tested by recent developments in the Arab world, which have highlighted the dissatisfaction of the people with their autocratic regimes and, at the same time, the failure of the economic and social reforms in these countries supported by the Union.
The autocratic regimes in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and other countries have been in place for years and we cooperate with them.
Now, all of a sudden, we are taking action against them.
We therefore need to review the European Neighbourhood Policy strategy by promoting democracy and human rights and controlling planned financing.
The main factor that needs to be evaluated correctly is that young people in these countries are more educated and, at the same time, unemployed; unfortunately, 7 400 000 European citizens are in exactly the same position.
Madam President, developments in the Southern Neighbourhood have provoked a lot of criticism of the EU Neighbourhood Policy as pursued so far.
We should be critical, of course, but we should also be fair.
The Neighbourhood Policy has contributed a lot to the development of relations with those countries - and not only with those countries but also with their societies, which will be one of the main issues now to be added to the review of Neighbourhood Policy.
These developments, to some extent, follow the engagement of the European Union with those countries.
So, in that respect, we need to review this policy, and to adapt it, but we should not simply criticise what has been done so far.
As such, the EP reports are an important contribution to the ENP review and I hope they will be taken into consideration by the Commission.
I would like to warn against the attempts to oppose East and South, not only as regards refocusing attention, but also, maybe, as regards reallocating funds and resources.
We have to be very careful on this and to take into account the fact that, on the one hand, of course, the challenge is to assist democratic processes in Egypt and Tunisia, and to support democratisation in the South, but it is also to preserve the peace in the Southern Caucuses, for example, and to contribute to the peaceful solution of frozen conflicts and to consolidate democracies.
(FI) Madam President, it is very important that, in addition to the Southern Neighbourhood Policy, we should also be talking about an Eastern Neighbourhood Policy.
There are very many internal administrative problems associated with it, and the administration of Russian programmes, at least, should be transferred to the DirectorateGeneral for Regional Policy.
The reason for this is that the authorities administering the programmes would be able to revise them to reflect more particular regional features and conditions.
This would also be a way to guarantee their continuity.
We have to remember that this change would not, in itself, require any special amendments to the legal basis of the programmes or the EU budget.
It would instead be more a case of an internal decision on the part of the Commission.
At present, there are very many problems within these programmes, and we should effect some structural changes to them.
This would constitute a clear message, and I hope that the Commission will also do what it can to back this decision.
(PL) Madam President, European Neighbourhood Policy and, as part of this, the Eastern Partnership, is a key area and challenge for the European Union.
It is an important political framework for strengthening relations with the partner countries - countries with which we should be moving towards economic and political integration.
In the case of Ukraine, this process should end with the prospect of full membership of the European Union, of course, following fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, and for this, it is essential for there to be greater political commitment from the authorities in Kiev.
Let us not forget the Europeans in Belarus, a country with a civilisation similar to our own, but one which is kept closed by the Lukashenko regime.
Let us do everything we can for Belarusians to see that Europe remembers them and supports their endeavours to gain democracy.
We can give real expression to our efforts by cutting the costs involved in obtaining Schengen visas, facilitating people-to-people contacts between Belarus and the rest of Europe and supporting community and civic initiatives in Belarus.
By facilitating travel and contacts between the Union and Belarus, we can undermine the Lukashenko regime much more effectively than with dozens of statements or resolutions.
Finally, I would like to point out that in many countries included in the Neighbourhood Policy, there are still serious problems in the area of respect for freedom of expression, particularly in the media, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.
As a Parliament in a free Europe, we must ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(CS) Madam President, I hope there is no one here from the countries of the Eastern Partnership, as they might think, on the basis of our numbers here, that we are not interested in the Eastern Partnership.
I, too, would like to stress the importance of, and the need for a debate on, the Eastern Partnership.
It is important because the area to the East of the borders of the EU offers business opportunities which are irreplaceable in terms of maintaining the competitiveness of the Union in the coming decades.
The area also represents a vast wellspring of culture which plays a part in the creation of European traditions and without which it is not possible to understand European identity.
A debate on the Eastern Partnership is also necessary due to the fact that it is not entirely clear that we all accord the same importance to this project.
All of the multilateral initiatives connected with the Eastern Partnership - democracy, stability, economic integration, energy security and contacts between people - are undoubtedly useful, both for the EU and for the six neighbouring states.
Confusion has been caused by the statements of some politicians, who talk of a Black Sea synergy or of a democratic buffer zone.
At this point, the Eastern Partnership ceases to be an instrument ...
(SK) Madam President, the credibility of the European Union as a global political player also depends on its ability and will to promote development and reforms for the stabilisation of neighbouring countries.
The EU's cooperation with the countries of the Eastern Partnership creates an opportunity for these countries to make political progress towards the values of freedom and democracy.
In view of the varying political development of the individual countries, however, the EU must apply a variable approach and provide more help and EU resources to those Eastern partners that are prepared to go further and faster in fulfilling their obligations.
We could do more to encourage Ukraine and Moldova, in particular, to make headway in negotiations and to try and reach agreement on a broad and comprehensive free trade zone.
In my opinion, we should also continue negotiations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Belarus will have to find a form of communications appropriate to the political situation.
The inhabitants of the country must not, however, become hostage to their political representatives, who have decided to implement their own version of democracy.
(NL) Madam President, today, we are laying down an important foundation for the development of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).
I would highlight just one point here, a specific point for the Commissioner on the programmes for external borders, the cross-border programmes.
We have 15 programmes with a budget of EUR 1.1 billion.
However, we keep hearing from all sides that they are not going well.
Development has been slow.
Flexibility is very limited and I understand, from what I have heard today, that the Polish Presidency intends to tackle this.
The Poles really want to move forward and see if any changes need to be made to bring these programmes back to cohesion, to Objective 3, the INTERREG approach, which we have been familiar with for years.
My question to the Commissioner is: how are you going to address this?
Actually, according to the ENPI Regulation, you were already supposed to have carried out an evaluation last year.
I have not seen the documents pertaining to that.
How are you now going to incorporate this into your publications in May and are you perhaps willing to hold a hearing, in conjunction with this Parliament, where we could invite the people most concerned and hear about their experiences?
I have a feeling that some things really need to be modified.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with this review of the EU's neighbourhood policies, we are setting forth on a journey that will not end any time soon.
The events in the Mediterranean signal a process of profound change and they will have lasting consequences, not only for the countries of the region, but also for Europe.
We must be aware that the transition to full democracy will not be easy and that these transitions are accompanied by many risks and uncertainties.
For this reason, there are numerous things we must do and these will take time.
Europe's response must be characterised by a strategy based on immediate and long-term actions.
We must facilitate access to European markets and allow greater mobility.
We should organise a conference to explore the possibility of cancelling or renegotiating the debt of these countries which have chosen the road to democracy; we must make adequate financial resources available and provide assistance to the democratic process by strengthening parliamentary institutions and political parties, ensuring the full participation of all citizens.
This should all happen within the framework of a revitalised Euro-Mediterranean dialogue.
At stake is the strategic, political future of Europe.
I believe that Europe must understand that we have to work to the east and the south, but right now, there is a special priority to the south.
These policies need fundamental change; we must finally open a new chapter.
(PL) Madam President, the Eastern Dimension is one of the most important areas for the European Union's development under the European Neighbourhood Policy.
It includes such countries as Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
The Union has very important economic and financial interests in these countries, and these should not be forgotten, but most importance of all should be attached to matters related to energy.
It is through some of these countries that alternative energy routes to Russian pipelines, such as Sarmatia and the Nabucco gas pipeline, may be built.
In order to strengthen cooperation between the countries I have mentioned and the European Union, the EU trade area should be liberalised, which would allow more business to be done and would bring these countries closer to the European Union, and the Union is, after all, already the biggest economic partner of these countries today.
Ultimately, of course, we should think about a free trade area, which would naturally bring us together in a particular way.
Finally, we must not forget about easing visa obligations, stepping up people-to-people programmes and giving financial support to exchanges of young people from countries in the Eastern partnership with young people from the EU.
(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, we would all like European Union policy to be effective, but for it to be effective, it must be fully consistent both in terms of the Eastern Dimension of Neighbourhood Policy as well as the Southern Dimension.
As for the Eastern Dimension, I would like to draw particular attention to what are known as frozen conflicts, to the situation in Moldova and, in particular, to the situation in Transnistria and in Nagorno-Karabakh, and I would also like to say a few words - particularly as I am the standing rapporteur to the European Parliament for Georgia - about the situation in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia.
A consistent European Union policy is needed on these matters today.
A consistent Union policy must mean shared as well as consistent, a policy which is identical both as followed by the European institutions, including the High Representative in particular, and other members of the European Commission, and also by the Member States.
We must speak with one voice to Russia's leaders, today, and tell them they are not meeting the commitments they made in 2008 and, for example, that the European Union Observation Mission should be given access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as quickly as possible.
(PT) Madam President, the popular uprisings in North Africa reveal the errors of European policy and diplomacy guided by a supposed realpolitik, which has supported dictators and devalued aspirations for freedom, justice and opportunity for all human beings.
As a result, the EU has redefined its priorities for the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) to the south.
I agree with the new orientations, dubbed 'the three Ms': 'money, market access and mobility'.
I do so, however, on the understanding that the support that we offer to our neighbours must be conditional upon a demonstration of political will and concrete progress in democratisation processes.
There is no democracy without political parties.
Supporting the training of democratic political forces in terms of funding and organisation should therefore be a priority, as this will empower the young people and women who bravely began the Arab Spring.
In societies still dominated by the state's religious outlook and run along patriarchal lines, the cornerstone of any truly democratic change will be based on the participation of women and respect for human rights.
This must be a fundamental orientation of EU political support for the Southern Mediterranean.
Finally, the EU should also promote the involvement of all emerging players in the political dialogue, including parties with religious agendas, such as those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, who should not be isolated but rather invited to play the democratic game.
(PL) Madam President, for the policy we are discussing to bring the expected positive result, it will need to have money.
We should, therefore, stick to the gentleman's agreement over a one third to two thirds division of the money available.
This is necessary to be able to pursue the policy effectively.
Secondly, we need a clear diagnosis of the situation.
Therefore, comparisons must not be made of Belarus, which is controlled by a clear, transparent and one might say clinical example of a regime, with Ukraine, which is struggling with the problems of democratisation.
Thirdly, such a policy offers the prospect of membership to countries which are trying to achieve it.
The clear perspective of membership helps to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if societies and those who govern these countries have the impression that full membership of the EU is an attainable goal, then it will certainly be more likely to be achieved.
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, I regret the Council's absence in today's debate.
With regard to the Southern Neighbourhood, I shall make three points.
Firstly, the European Union must support and facilitate the processes of democratic change.
In the past, neighbouring authorities used their concerns over stability as a way of justifying their inaction.
Secondly, I wish for economic prosperity for our southern neighbours; this requires a great deal of reforms, investments, and financial and economic aid, as well as trade, not just with the North, but also South-South trade, which is currently non-existent.
I am concerned about the line being taken by the Commission and the High Representative, Mrs Ashton: in an article published in The New York Times on 18 March 2011, she appears to be advising those countries to specialise in agricultural exports to European markets.
I disagree.
Commissioner Füle is well aware of this, although he seems to be shaking his head.
These countries need diversified economies and agriculture.
I repeat: diversified.
They also need to attend to their domestic food needs and not restrict themselves to a few export products which, in addition, cause concern for European farmers.
We therefore need common sense and prudence on this issue.
Thirdly, we need to revitalise the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and its projects, which can help in the economic modernisation of the Mediterranean countries.
Unfortunately, the UfM is still in deadlock, there is no General Secretary, and it cannot continue to be hijacked by the lack of progress between Israel and Palestine.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are facing a major challenge.
Madam President, the EU Eastern Neighbourhood could prove to be the best test for EU foreign policy.
The Union needs to abide by its own legal framework and particularly the EU security strategy, which underlines 'the need to have a wealth of well-governed countries on its border'.
It should also implement this in its own comprehensive strategy in order to bring about positive change.
However, the most serious impediment for the formalisation of the ENP to the east remains the unresolved conflicts in Transnistria and the South Caucasus, which are the root cause of the region's instability and political and economic problems.
It is enough to mention today's blast in Transnistria, which severely damaged the gas pipeline.
There is an urgent need for the EU to support conflict settlement efforts, including through direct mediation, confidence building and humanitarian assistance to the millions of IDPs and refugees.
That is why the EU should ensure that its considerable financial and technical support in the region is accompanied by a reinforced political presence and a well-defined conditionality.
(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by congratulating the authors of both reports and, in particular, the author of the report on the Eastern Dimension of Neighbourhood Policy, Mr Siwiec.
These congratulations are not offered simply out of courtesy.
They come from my sincere conviction that at last we have reports which show that European Neighbourhood Policy should, to a much greater extent, be based on values which, for us, are the most important: respect for human rights, freedom of the media and democratic governments.
I will repeat what I said here in this Chamber on Monday: the lesson of the events in North Africa and the Middle East proves that the people who live there, particularly young people, are not only demanding more bread; they are also demanding greater freedom and more respect for their rights as citizens and people.
The same is true of our neighbours in the East and, in particular, in a country which is an immediate neighbour of the European Union, Belarus.
I would like to tell you about the scandalous events which have taken place this afternoon in Grodno in Belarus, where a journalist, Andrzej Poczobut, who is accused of insulting the President in articles written for the international press in connection with his work as a journalist, has just been arrested by the KGB to prevent him from talking to us, Members of the European Parliament, at tomorrow's sitting of the Belarusian delegation.
These are scandalous practices.
European Neighbourhood Policy should help us prevent situations such as the one which occurred this afternoon in the case of Andrzej Poczobut.
(SV) Madam President, I am grateful that the Commission has chosen to present this review of the European Neighbourhood Policy's Southern Dimension.
It is certainly needed.
We need to acknowledge that Europe has met dictatorships with tolerance rather than with tough demands for democracy.
That has cost us in trust for Europe.
We therefore need a new policy, a policy that will help to rebuild these countries after decades of misrule.
Europe can do a great deal in this respect, above all, as the region's most important trade partner.
The best approach would probably be to invest precisely in this rebuilding and trade in order to regain the trust that we have lost.
I am therefore pleased that the Commission is talking about the trade dimension in this communication - that we should increase market access for our North African neighbours in order to help them to use trade to bring them prosperity.
However, it is currently the European customs barriers, particularly in the agricultural sector, that are a major obstacle to development.
Take, for example, the minimum prices of agricultural products that mean that the more efficiently that fruit and vegetables are produced, the higher the duties are that have to be paid on them.
That is an obstacle to development and prosperity.
I would therefore like to propose that the first step the Commission could take is to give those countries in North Africa that have begun the journey towards democracy free market access in Europe.
That is something we did for the Western Balkans following the war in Yugoslavia, and why not learn from this example?
We are building Europe's prosperity on free trade in Europe, so why not help our North African neighbours to build their prosperity on free trade with us?
(EL) Madam President, the European Neighbourhood Policy is, without doubt, a successful policy.
However, we need to make it more dynamic and more effective.
The adverse economic climate we face at the moment should not be used as an alibi or pretext for failing to strengthen it still further.
This should apply mainly to its Southern Dimension.
This is now urgently needed in the wake of the recent dramatic developments, the recent dramatic incidents in North Africa.
These societies need our support; they need our essential but discreet support and I stress the word 'discreet' for obvious historic and political reasons.
We need to support civil society in these countries, its democratic action and its demand for more freedom.
In addition, we must not forget that the Mediterranean is turning into an immigration time bomb; this is another reason for us to support stability, democracy and growth in these countries through the Neighbourhood Policy.
Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on the communication on partnerships, which adopted a quick and far-sighted approach.
We are seeing a redesign of the Neighbourhood Policy and the Commission is the guardian of the holistic approach.
I find it fatal to oppose the Southern neighbourhood and the Eastern neighbourhood.
We are redesigning, and while there is good news about what is happening in the South, the importance of this redesign and rethinking goes beyond the South.
It also includes the East.
We should move from government-related or oriented policy towards society-oriented policy, and from short-sighted economic interest policy towards human rights and democracy-oriented policy.
We should become, in our policy, generous towards societies and much more demanding and severe towards governments.
Also, we should not mix up status quo with stability.
We should move into a kind of transitional approach.
Building this new paradigm for a Neighbourhood Policy brings with it the necessity to change the Eastern policy in the same direction.
We should pay equal attention to both South and East.
There should be symmetric financing, as there is a false dilemma in opposing both, and it should be smart financing.
There is structural under-financing here.
Each year, we are paying to the Neighbourhood Policy countries 20% of what we are paying to the rest of the world.
I know how difficult it is to talk about financing today.
But this policy has to be redesigned and that also requires additional financing.
Madam President, at this time, it is important to consider carefully, and strike the right balance between, both the European Neighbourhood Policy factors.
The ENP should become more flexible, proactive and optimised.
If we want to create an area of stability, shared values and progress surrounding in Europe, we should, firstly, no longer limit ourselves with predefined quotas.
Financial assistance should be balanced according to political involvement and the will to move closer to EU values, freedoms and standards.
It should be result-oriented and tied to objective and clear criteria on democratisation and the progress achieved in reforms.
Secondly, we should consider creating a rapid reaction tool within the ENP for prompt and flexible response to political changes in partner countries, as has happened recently in the Southern neighbourhood.
Thirdly, the attractiveness of EU assistance is also important.
The simplification of EU fund allocation procedures and active sharing of expertise by the Member States at the early stages of programming would be an additional incentive.
(RO) Madam President, I come from Galaţi, a Romanian city situated at the European Union's border with the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
This is why I am going to mention specifically the review of the Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
I must stress its importance both to the implementation of the European Union strategy for the Danube region and to the European Union's energy security.
I call on the Commission and Member States to launch a comprehensive European Union strategy for the Black Sea and to provide sufficient financial and human resources to implement it effectively.
I welcome the accession of Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova to the Energy Community Treaty, which will make an important contribution to achieving the Union's energy security objectives and to these countries' security.
On the subject of the Union's priority energy projects, I should emphasise the importance of the Southern Gas Corridor.
I think that the Nabucco gas pipeline, along with the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, the Pan-European Oil Pipeline, the Turkey-Greece-Italy Interconnector or the ...
Madam President, I do support the European Neighbourhood Policy as a meaningful political framework for strengthening democracy in both the Eastern and Southern Dimensions, but I have now asked for the floor in order to pose the following question to all of us: whether the European Union's moral right to show third countries the way towards real democracy is well justified.
Both motions for resolutions recall such ENP values as democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of the media, the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption.
Is the European Union itself a champion in all these fields, taking into account, for example, the situation of the media in Italy and Hungary, mass statelessness in Latvia and Estonia and the suspicion of corruption in our Parliament?
I hope very much that we will maintain a ...
Madam President, neighbourhood is the key word here.
Even in private lives, having good neighbours is a great asset to anybody.
A good neighbour is a person who is friendly, does not interfere unduly with one's affairs, but is willing to extend the hand of friendship in time of need.
That is something that the European Union should practise as a policy.
It is easy enough when your neighbouring countries are equally friendly and stable and democratic.
If they are not, then one has more of a problem.
The suggestion that we should engage with civil society, particularly in these countries, is a very good one.
My colleague, Mr van Nistelrooij, pointed out that we are spending EUR 1.1 billion on border activities and that we need a more cohesive approach.
I agree with that.
Also, the suggestion that we should have regular hearings, especially with civil society from undemocratic regimes, is a good one, so that they can hear what we have to say, and we can hear directly from them.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, in your description of the outlook for the European Neighbourhood Policy in the Southern Mediterranean, you referred to potential catalysts.
However, you forgot to mention one group, to which I myself belong.
In Europe, people like me -immigrants and the children of immigrants - who come from the area that was once colonised by Europe, are still stigmatised.
Yet we are, and we could become, human resources: influential mediators between north and south at this historic time.
Commissioner Füle, what are your thoughts on that option?
Will you take it into consideration?
(LT) Madam President, the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy is one of our most important tasks.
The events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere are remorselessly breaking down many stereotypes in our minds: that most people in the Middle East or North Africa do not care about human rights, and that they are used to living under dictatorial regimes.
The revolution in the Arab world has shown this to be a fallacy.
A few weeks ago, I visited Egypt on the day the referendum was taking place in the country on amendments to the constitution.
Everyone we met talked about freedom, justice and democracy.
Most stressed that they need a different kind of support from the European Union.
Support is needed to strengthen civil society, establish political parties and defend human rights, so that future parliamentary and presidential elections are democratic, free and fair.
The democratic processes taking place there are very fragile and vulnerable, and we must help them in a timely manner.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I appreciate one very important element, namely, that we, the Commission and Parliament, are approaching the review of our Neighbourhood Policy in parallel.
It is not a situation, as with many other policies, where we come here with a product that has already been finalised and then have a discussion.
We entered into the process some time ago and, through interaction, we have been able to take a number of Parliament's good ideas on board already and to explain a number of our ideas.
The long list of speakers who have made a number of valuable suggestions and asked good questions is proof that this approach was the right one.
In the Lisbon Treaty, which was also agreed and voted in this House, we set high ambitions.
We agreed to have the European Union as a global player.
Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and I are both of the opinion that we could hardly deliver on this expectation without, first of all, playing a truly constructive role in our neighbourhood and that we could hardly play such a role without addressing the challenges of our neighbourhood, including the protracted conflict.
It was with that in mind that together, we started the review process in June last year.
At that time, our ambitions were, firstly, to reflect on the new instruments brought in by the Lisbon Treaty.
There are big changes with regard to external action with the substitution of the six months' Presidency and its priorities in external relations by the consistent and coherent policy that is guaranteed by a person with a dual role, combining the CFSP Community instrument, and also having for the first time capacities in the External Action Service.
Embassies have also been upgraded in order to represent not only the Commission but also the European Union.
These are huge things.
I know that there are a lot of challenges, questions and even criticisms here and there, but I am confident that these changes will deliver on a more coherent EU policy on external action.
We wanted that to be reflected in our Neighbourhood Policy.
We also wanted to do one of the important things that we sensed was missing.
Looking at neighbourhood, we were lacking the feeling of ownership of these countries in the Neighbourhood Policy.
Some of our partners were saying that the Neighbourhood Policy had been imposed on them and that they had actually never been consulted.
So, they believe that their views were not being taken into account and that there was one scheme that was being applied to all, without taking the specificities into account.
But then the Arab Revolution came.
It has offered us a mirror - which, I think, was very much needed - for asking important questions, such as how ready we are to complement the aspirations of emerging democracies, how far we are ready to go to deal with the situations like the one we face in Libya, and how long we should make compromises here and there and associate stability with autocracy, accepting that we have not always had the values in the same place as our interests.
Our communication of 8 March was an attempt to answer some of those questions - to be absolutely frank with you, the easy questions - because we have actually answered only those that related to the emerging democracies.
We left the more difficult questions for the strategic ENP review.
Many of them still need to be answered.
In that communication of 8 March, we defined three basic pillars, which you will also see reflected in the strategic review.
The first one supports the democratic transformation and institution building in our neighbouring states.
In the second, the focus is on the relationship with societies and support for civil societies.
The third gives support to inclusive and sustainable growth among our neighbours.
Many countries in the South are changing, change which is not limited to those countries but to the whole region.
They are also changing us and the way we react to the situation - the way in which we will proactively react and pursue these new phenomena in our neighbourhood.
It will have repercussions in the East and there is a lesson-learned process in our joint thinking with our Eastern partners.
This reflection on the East is not taking place at the expense of the South and the events in the South and our current interest and focus on the South are not at the expense of our interest in the East.
The ENP review process will strengthen the need for a balanced approach to our neighbourhood, whether it is the East or the South.
There is a new momentum to substitute, sometimes, preferred real politics in our neighbourhood by an ambitious and much more proactive policy based on our values.
There is also a momentum to be clear on what we want to achieve with, or through, the instruments of the Neighbourhood Policy.
A couple of years ago, we referred to the peace, stability and prosperity zone.
It is an important concept, which is still valid, but the partners want more.
In the East, some of them are very clear as far as European aspirations are concerned.
Those in the South want to have a more institutionally defined framework for economic integration.
Should we shy away from offering our thoughts on these issues?
I think we should make it clear that the Eastern Partnership is not a way to keep EU membership from the countries in the East but it is a way for them to build more of the European Union inside their countries.
I think we need to make an offer to those most advanced countries in the South - a kind of framework for them to be a part, not of decision making, but decision shaping.
Do not expect a very technical straightjacket for bilateral relations with our neighbours.
Expect only very few, but very clear and very important benchmarks.
Expect, as a result of this ENP review, a flexible and individually tailored structure and an interaction which works well between political steering on one side and our programmes and technical and financial assistance on the other.
It is not going to be an easy process.
No change is easy but, compared to its predecessor, this is to be an ongoing process where the review capabilities or, if you like, a capacity for feedback or a reality check, will be an important quality incorporated in this review of the ENP.
Many of you talked about money.
The higher our ambitions are, the more resources they will require.
The logic here is very clear.
But is it only about money?
Absolutely not.
It is also about our creativity, our coherence, taking seriously the interests of our partners and being ambitious as far as opening our trade market and tackling the mobility issue are concerned.
The Jasmine Revolution was very much about dignity and equity.
Let us then turn these two issues - dignity and equity - into the principles our policy will be based upon.
Parliament has a very important role to play in this regard.
I have received two motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 April.
in writing. - All European countries which fulfil the EU accession criteria should have the prospect of EU membership.
The ENP Eastern Dimension should clearly value this underlying principle as such, and ensure that our neighbours in Eastern Europe will be able to concretely see a reliable prospect of future membership.
The strongest incentive for democratic and political reforms and creating civil society is, and will remain, the prospect of EU membership.
While future applicants should do their homework in full, the EU has to prove without any doubt that our commitment to enlargement remains valid and credible.
To strengthen this credibility and to diffuse any doubts about double standards, the EU should make it absolutely clear that relations with our Eastern neighbours must be grounded, first and foremost, on democratic values, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
As each country should be assessed on its own merits, the basic values must be equally respected in every country, notwithstanding concrete economic and political interests of particular Member States.
The same principles should be applied to relations with Russia, where the rule of law and human rights situation is worse than in most ENP countries.
I have to confess that I was quite amazed on reading the resolution proposed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The bracketing of the demonstrations in Belarus, where the so-called protesters receive much support from abroad, with the storm of revolt in Egypt and Tunisia caused by rising food prices and unemployment, is quite beyond my understanding.
In my opinion, the absurd conclusion is typical of the absurdity of so-called politicians.
Mr Siwiec clearly did not notice the demonstrations involving dozens of deaths in the monarchies of the Arab world, or the war in Libya.
That is clearly just as it should be.
In point 12, there is no statement on the negative developments in Moldova.
Some Members from the Group of the European People's Party have become so enamoured of Yulia Tymoshenko that a Ukrainian government without her seems undemocratic, despite the fact that the government has managed to improve the economic and political situation of the country substantially over the past year.
In my opinion, the call in point 13 for multilateral support for the development of democratic parties in Belarus constitutes direct intervention in the internal affairs of another state.
It is a pity that we do not see similar efforts to develop democracy in EU states such as Hungary, for example.
I consider point 52 of the resolution to be another gross impertinence, in the same way as the support for various subversive activities such as Belsat or Radio Russia and European Radio for Belarus.
It reminds me very much of the Cold War period, as we know it from the history books.
In today's debate in the European Parliament, we have held a further discussion about the Eastern Dimension of the European Union's Neighbourhood Policy.
We must not forget that its objective should be a strengthening of relations between the Union and its Eastern neighbours, particularly with Ukraine, by the promotion of all kinds of civic, social and economic initiatives.
The young citizens of Ukraine expect support from the Union's Member States and, most of all, they want the borders to be opened so they can move freely between countries, study and develop their passions and interests.
It is very important to ensure better implementation of agreements on simpler visa procedures and an EU-Ukraine free trade area.
We should also extend the stipend system for students from the Eastern countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy and encourage them to engage in greater social and political activity.
I welcome the joint discussion on the two reports on the European Neighbourhood Policy, insofar as we need to adopt a consistent approach to our neighbours in both the south and east.
I want to stress, first of all, that it is counterproductive for us to make both geographical regions compete with each other.
This is not about a competition for resources, but about channelling resources efficiently to those partners which make progress in relation to the common criteria forming the basis of our Neighbourhood Policy.
I am thinking, in particular, about respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
This is why I believe that we need to be brave enough to acknowledge the positive results achieved by our Neighbourhood Policy, as in the case of Georgia and Moldova, but also the adverse developments, as has happened, unfortunately, with Belarus or Ukraine.
Differentiation must be the basic criterion, which also applies to the Southern Neighbourhood.
On the other hand, our demands in terms of our European partners' respect for the Union's common values must be consistent and very high.
When we review the European Neighbourhood Policy, it is important to assess the impact of this policy on migration.
No Neighbourhood Policy can be fully effective in this area without tackling the causes of instability that trigger migration.
This entails regional cooperation, potentially via bilateral agreements, with both the countries of origin and with transit countries.
We must cooperate with transit countries and with countries of origin for migration so as to prevent surges.
We must help the migrants' countries of origin to democratise and attain good governance by giving them access to our values and our experience.
With regard to the European Neighbourhood Policy, we need an economic agenda which can increase levels of employment and trade agreements that can generate real, market-driven, economic development.
Commissioner Füle and High Representative Ashton support, with the 'more for more' formula, the concept of conditions for aid which aim to reward the countries most active in terms of democratic reforms and respect for human rights.
This approach should be encouraged, as it is consistent with our values, effective for development, and does right by European taxpayers.
In the wake of recent events in south-eastern Europe, we must revise the European Neighbourhood Policy in relation to the southern partner countries by providing the means and assistance necessary for a genuine democratic transition and establishing the foundations for deep political, social and institutional reforms.
It is important that the policy review give priority to the criteria of an independent judiciary, respect for basic freedoms, including freedom of the media and the fight against corruption, but it is also necessary to reconsider and to examine carefully the EU's Mediterranean strategy in order to strengthen political dialogue and to support all democratic and social forces.
The crisis of the Arab world has demonstrated that the direction pursued so far in the Neighbourhood Policy has failed.
Financing instruments must be made more transparent, and a result-oriented approach must be applied during the disbursement of aid.
This also holds true with regard to the Eastern Dimension of the policy.
The European Neighbourhood Policy of the future must be founded on cross-border relations between people; this particularly applies to the Eastern Dimension, as the countries involved in the Eastern Partnership also have the prospect of obtaining candidate status.
The matter of the mutual visa exemption between Ukraine and the EU should be treated pragmatically and should not be used to exert political pressure.
The Ukrainian Government has much work to do in the area of reinforcing human rights and democracy.
However, the last people we should be punishing for this are the Ukrainian citizens.
If the European Council supports the Belarusian citizens while imposing sanctions on Belarus, it should not apply a different standard to Ukraine either.
Granting visa exemption as soon as possible - hopefully still in this year - could lay the foundations of the economic trust required for creating a free trade area.
I trust that the Polish Presidency will treat this matter as a priority.
It is unfortunate that the Eastern Partnership summit could not take place during the Hungarian Presidency.
Hungary could have treated the EU's partners in the eastern neighbourhood far more objectively than the Poles, who, due to their historical experience, have been pursuing biased policies in several relations over the past years.
in writing. - The European Neighbourhood Policy should remain European, not French, Romanian or Polish.
A distinction between neighbours in the South and in the East, followed by a transfer of funds from East to South, could benefit the agenda of a sponsor state, but it would put an end to the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The pressure brought to bear by France to fund the South while starving the programmes for the East could set an unfortunate precedent.
Europe should deal with its neighbourhood, and not with prioritised neighbours.
A transfer of funds from East to South would send a disastrous signal to our eastern partners.
It does not make sense to support democracy in the South by weakening it in the East.
The European aspirations and democratic values of Eastern partners could be further damaged by an impulsive visa liberalisation policy.
There is no place for a 'Russia first' policy in this domain.
Russian citizens have a right to free travel, but not before our partners in the East.
Granting a visa-free regime to Russia would transform the Russian passport into a golden document sought after in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
It would internally destabilise these countries.
I insist that the EU should seriously consider these problems.
Use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East
The next item is the Commission statement on the use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we must reject in the strongest possible terms any targeting of violence against women, from intimidation to sexual assault.
These are abhorrent crimes, often perpetrated against the most vulnerable and defenceless people.
Unfortunately, it is a fact that many countries across the world, not only in North Africa and in the Middle East, still lack a proper legal framework to protect women and girls from violence.
There is nothing to encourage the reporting of such attacks.
Much more must be done to deter perpetrators and to hold them accountable for their actions.
Women continue to endure discriminatory laws and deeply entrenched cultural inequality.
In the case of Egypt, for example, the national committee formed to write the new constitution is composed only of men, and even the new cabinet has only one female minister.
This is not sustainable, as was made clear by the courage shown by Tunisian and Egyptian women during the recent events in their countries.
If half the population is excluded from political and institutional reform, it can hardly succeed.
Against this backdrop, we strongly condemn the increasing reports of severe human rights violations including rape, sexual assault and severe humiliation of women activists.
The European Union is committed to strengthening the role of women in political, civil, social, economic and cultural spheres, as well as to fighting against discrimination and impunity.
This is why one of the EU's eight Human Rights Guidelines explicitly aims to 'promote gender equality and combat discrimination against women'.
And the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, specifically reinforces this commitment for the Euromed region.
Gender equality is one of the five-year work plan priorities agreed by the Heads of State at the Barcelona Summit in 2005, held to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
In view of these commitments, the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial conference on strengthening the role of women in society, held in November 2006 in Istanbul, started an innovative and pioneering process.
Ministers (including those from Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria and Tunisia) agreed to embrace a holistic approach based on the following interlinked priorities: first, women's political and civil rights; second, women's social and economic rights and sustainable development; and finally, women's rights in the cultural sphere and the role of communications and the mass media.
Since the 2006 conference, work has been ongoing on implementation of a Common Framework of Action, in particular, through the pursuit of country priorities, with a follow-up mechanism and reports published by the European Commission.
The partners in the Union for the Mediterranean reaffirmed their commitments to this at the second Ministerial conference in Marrakesh in November 2009.
Civil society was fully involved in the discussions.
Increasing awareness and visibility of the process was one of the big challenges agreed by almost all participants in the process.
Beyond this regional framework, the European Union's bilateral dialogue, including through sub-committees dealing with gender issues, is an important method for addressing these pressing concerns.
Let me conclude, Madam President, by saying that the European Union will not tolerate violence against women in any form and we will use every avenue we can to prevent it.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, Commissioner, I really appreciate the Commission's strong commitment to condemning violence against women as a weapon of war - used systematically in armed conflict for a variety of purposes including humiliation, intimidation, political terror, extracting information, rewarding soldiers, and even ethnic cleansing.
Violence against women in armed conflict is largely based on traditional views of women as property.
Because women in many cultures play the role of transmitters of culture and symbols of nations, violence against women is also used as a means of attacking a society's values and its honour.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognises sexual violence as part of an attack against civilians - against humanity - as being a war crime.
Various forms of sexual violence in armed conflict, including sexual slavery, forced marriage and forced pregnancy, are war crimes and should be considered as grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.
Too often, those responsible for acts of sexual violence in war go unpunished; too often, violence against women is accepted as an unavoidable part of war; too often, its perpetrators are granted amnesty as part of peace deals.
It is time to condemn these inhuman practices in any part of the world, and our message today should be that perpetrators of these war crimes can no longer go unpunished.
Madam President, in contrast with reports now reaching us from Libya, where we are seeing only men fighting on the frontline, the images of a month or so ago from the main square in Benghazi, from Tahrir Square, and from the demonstrations in Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Morocco showed women of all ages calling for freedom, justice and democracy.
Women, and particularly young women, had, and continue to have, a key role in the uprisings in North Africa and the Arab world.
Their destiny in these countries, marked by strongly patriarchal and religious traditions, will not only be indicative of but also decisive for the path that these countries follow over the months and years to come in search of democracy and respect for human rights.
The EU therefore needs to prioritise supporting the women who bravely launched the protests of the Arab Spring, including through funding civil society organisations and through political, technical and financial aid for women who want to participate actively, encouraging their involvement in all democratic institutions and organs of political and economic power as members, candidates of political parties, and so on.
It is also imperative that the EU mobilise all its efforts at the highest level to combat attempts at intimidation, reprisals and sexual violence perpetrated against women who dare to raise their voice.
Examples such as virginity tests being forced on women who protested in Tahrir Square on 8 March or the rape and imprisonment of Iman al-Obeidi in Libya are utterly intolerable crimes, as Commissioner Füle has said.
We are expecting the High Representative and the Commissioner to demand an immediate and independent investigation into these cases, making examples of them so that they will not be repeated.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the ALDE Group proposed and initiated this debate, as we want to express our concern tonight at the situation of women in North Africa and the Middle East in the face of the current political change and turmoil.
During the past few weeks, we have witnessed severe violations of human rights in Libya and Egypt, particularly affecting women.
I am not going to enter into the details of all these cases, but let me mention just two symbolic and worrying situations that should be condemned immediately.
Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan woman, has told the international press that she was gang-raped and subsequently detained by pro-Gaddafi soldiers and interrogated for 72 hours before being released.
In Egypt, as my colleagues have mentioned, several female protestors have claimed they were subjected to so-called virginity tests - and also raped by soldiers - and some of them are now being tried for 'failing' such tests.
These cases have provided additional evidence that rape is still used as a weapon in times of conflict in order to terrorise and humiliate the civilian population.
It would be unacceptable not to raise our voices against these terrible atrocities being committed against women.
We call on the Commission and the Council strongly to oppose and condemn the use of sexual assault, intimidation and any other form of abuse of women taking place in the context of the current events in North Africa and the Middle East.
We also need to use all our available policy instruments in order to guarantee that, after the transition of these societies, women's rights will be guaranteed and upheld.
Yesterday, we adopted our report on an EU policy framework to fight violence against women, and it would be unacceptable to have double standards when it comes to our policy action outside the Union.
In this regard, the promotion of women's rights must be fully integrated into the European Neighbourhood Policy, its programmes and projects and, at the same time, specific policies for women's rights and empowerment must be put in place.
Madam President, the forced so-called virginity tests inflicted by the Egyptian army on women protestors in Tahrir Square and the multiple rape of a Libyan woman by soldiers are horrific crimes which have given rise to today's motion for a resolution.
We cannot rule out the possibility of more sexual violence being committed by all sides in the conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
Last November, we in the European Parliament called on the EU Member States and the EU itself finally to take seriously the situation of women in wars and armed conflicts.
At that point, the representative of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, reported on the progress that had been made.
There is now an improved international framework for preventing violence against women in conflict regions and several countries have also adopted national action plans.
The exchange of best practices is very important.
The EU has already provided EUR 300 million for measures including medical provision and a further EUR 200 million has been authorised for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. There are plans to introduce local strategies in conflict zones in 2011.
The training of staff plays a very important role in this respect.
Therefore, it is necessary for all these experiences and measures to be incorporated and taken into account in the implementation of the EU pact for partnership and democracy with the Southern Mediterranean countries.
You will definitely have the support of the European Parliament for this work.
Madam President, we know that women have been participating actively in the uprisings calling for more democracy, rights and freedoms in North Africa and the Middle East.
However, we also know that they are subject to a generalised and systemic practice of rape and sexual slavery, which are recognised as crimes against humanity and war crimes under the Geneva Convention.
In view of this, the reports emerging, whether from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or from Egypt, from Libya or from other countries, are alarming.
We therefore call for effective diplomatic action that vigorously opposes the use of sexual aggression, intimidation and harassment of women in North Africa and the Middle East, or in any other place.
We would also highlight the importance of acknowledging women's role in the revolutions, and stress the need to guarantee their rights, including their participation in the new democratic, legal, economic and political structures of these societies, bringing the centuries-old discrimination that they have suffered to an end.
(NL) Madam President, the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East have also brought opportunities.
The work of rebuilding the country and of establishing democracy in Tunisia and Egypt can really start now.
In the squares and streets of Cairo, Tunis and Benghazi, women have been, and continue to be, an important part of the revolutions.
There are so many opportunities, but there are also dangers.
The claims made on television by a young Libyan woman that she had been raped by Gaddafi's troops shook the general public.
However, these were not the first such reports, and there have been others since.
Sexual violence is being used as a tool for oppressing women and for silencing them, for example, in Cairo, where women have been abused and subjected to virginity tests by the military.
In the war in Libya, violence against women is being used as a weapon.
In the power vacuum which arises in times of lawlessness, there is no control.
Women lose the protection of the law.
We therefore need to send out a clear signal, Madam President, that this cannot and should not be allowed to happen!
We need to send out a clear signal to the new leaders that crimes of this kind must be investigated and punished.
No one with these crimes on their conscience should be allowed to get away with it.
I would also like to emphasise that these women must be protected and that the role of women in the rebuilding of society must not be overlooked.
Women's rights must be enshrined in law and, to that end, women should also be appointed to positions on constitutional committees, in parliaments and governments, so that things like education for women, their rights and the combating of harmful traditional practices are placed high on the agenda.
Economic independence is a key component of the empowerment of women and entrepreneurship should be encouraged, for example, through the use of micro-credits.
Madam President, sexual assaults against women - and, in some cases, also against men - in North Africa and the Middle East are a grave concern and need to be addressed promptly by the authorities in the region, both the new democratic forces and the older regimes.
I would like to call on the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, to discuss the devastating situation with regard to sexual violence in this region with representatives of the target countries in the context of the Southern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, with a view to bringing the perpetrators to justice and securing respect for the human rights of both women and men.
I consider that sexual violence is the worst sort of warfare.
It should be avoided at all cost and should be punished in the harshest possible way.
(GA) Madam President, two months ago, we were talking about violence against women in Europe.
It was stated then that up to 25% of European women had suffered violence.
Now we are talking about sexual violence against women in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
It is a sorry tale and can no longer be tolerated.
Therefore, it is important that we discuss it and do something to prevent it.
Unfortunately, not just in war but also in peace, there is a very archaic attitude to women in the entire continent of Africa.
It is obviously exacerbated in time of war.
However, I agree with the Commissioner that we have to highlight these matters and, in particular, try and bring the people who commit these crimes to account.
In that way, hopefully, at some stage, we may get a change of attitude and an elimination of this abominable practice.
(SK) Madam President, sexual violence does not constitute a violation of female human rights or male human rights.
Rights do not exist in this form.
Sexual violence is a crime against human dignity, which is a fundamental right of every human being, women as well as men.
This holds true not only in Europe, but also in Egypt, Libya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other countries in Africa and the Middle East referred to in this resolution.
Military conflicts cannot be a mitigating factor.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it began with the rape of women, and now men are being raped as well.
Resolutions, however, are mere words.
We must also act.
The Commission must start to monitor worldwide human rights violations in detail and, at the same time, must propose instruments through which Europe can enforce compliance, in case of need.
Failing this, the partnerships in which we are investing so much may as well be called ransom payments.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would say to the honourable Members that the questions and specific cases that they have brought to our attention today are indeed very serious and are a black mark hanging over the developments which have taken place over the recent weeks in North Africa and the Middle East.
I have taken note of the issues they have raised in this debate and of the suggestions made.
As I said, the European Union has a number of instruments in place and will do everything to support greater participation of women in civil and political life, free from threats, intimidation and violence.
I would also like to bring to Members' attention some positive recent developments, such as the creation of a Human Rights Office in the Gulf Cooperation Council secretariat.
We should welcome such steps.
Our support for international organisations, not least United Nations Women, and for civil society, will be instrumental in supporting change from within.
This also shows why our policy of dialogue and engagement is so important and must continue, not least with our new interlocutors.
I have received five motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 April.
Sexual violence is an exceptionally repulsive means of conducting a war and a hideous tool for fighting or humiliating the other side of a conflict.
In the case of North Africa and the Middle East, these practices are particularly cruel, because they reveal a huge scale of cynicism and demoralisation, for the dominant religion in the region has a very restrictive approach to sexual matters.
Those who commit acts of sexual violence break a great many rules and codes of behaviour.
War and conflict often bring unimaginable evil out of such people.
We will fight this and we will never cease our condemnation of this barbarity.
Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
EIB annual report for 2009 (debate)
The first item is the report by Mr Cutaş, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the 2009 annual report of the European Investment Bank (2010/2248/INI).
Mr President, the presentation of this report on the activities carried out by the European Investment Bank is part of an annual democratic exercise which comes under the responsibility the Bank has to the European Parliament.
Although this exercise is carried out on a regular basis, it must not be trivialised as it includes recommendations on important matters for the future of the European Union.
Once the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009, the European Investment Bank became an instrument for supporting the European Union's external policies, while also acting as an important partner for driving the Union's economy.
I would like to thank my fellow Members for the improvements they have made to the report.
I would also like to thank the entire bank's staff for their excellent cooperation, especially President Maystadt and Vice-President Kolatz-Ahnen.
We are all looking for a method of reconciling Member States' growing debts and deficits with economic growth targets set out, for example, in the EU 2020 strategy, which require major investments in education, health, technology, sustainable energy and infrastructure.
I think that the solution to this problem is a European one, with the European Investment Bank having an important role to play in this situation.
I will present here two significant examples of the way in which the European Investment Bank has boosted and will continue to boost the European economy.
Firstly, there are the loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and then, project bonds.
We must not forget that 99% of European businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises.
Investing in SMEs is a means of making a significant contribution to the innovation, research and development activities taking place in the European Union.
The European Investment Bank offered small and medium-sized enterprises funding above its annual target of EUR 7.5 billion in 2009 and 2010.
The European Microfinance Facility was also created in 2010, pooling funds amounting to EUR 200 million, assigned to those who need micro-credits.
However, we notice that difficulties persist at the point where entrepreneurs access the funds.
I think that we need to enhance the transparency of the procedures used to select the Bank's financial intermediaries and for providing loans to them.
It is also the European Investment Bank's duty to offer technical assistance and cofinancing to the convergence regions in order to allow them to absorb the funds available to them at a higher rate.
Another subject which I want to touch on is project bonds.
Are we entitled to place such great hopes on this financial instrument?
I think that we are.
Its purpose is to increase the credit ratings of the bonds issued by companies, by attracting private investments, so as to supplement domestic investments and those made via the cohesion funds.
Thanks to this multiplier effect, the companies will obtain more money for implementing infrastructure projects in the areas of transport, energy, IT and sustainable development.
It is important to focus on certain key projects, such as sustainable development, the road and rail infrastructure, and connecting ports to European markets and those which will allow energy independence, like the Nabucco gas pipeline or the ITGI project.
As we are discussing today possible solutions for exiting the financial crisis, this brings us to the subject of transparency and tax havens.
The lack of transparency from financial intermediaries has taken the specific form of tax evasion and fraud and has contributed to the tough situation we are currently faced with.
It is the duty of the European Investment Bank, as a European bank, not to get involved in operations carried out through non-cooperative jurisdictions, as identified at the moment by various international bodies.
At the same time, these lists are still not enough.
The European Investment Bank can make its contribution in this area by carrying out proper assessments and publishing its results on a regular basis.
Last but not least, I would like to mention the role played by the Bank outside the European Union, in countries en route to joining the EU and those coming under the remit of cooperation and development policies.
In these countries, the European Investment Bank supports the European Union's foreign policy objectives.
This is why I think that we need to both assign more specialised staff in this area and raise the participation level of local actors in the project.
I am happy to listen to the views of those of you in the Chamber and to speak again at the end.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, may I thank you for inviting me once again to take part in the debate on your report on the activities of the European Investment Bank - this is becoming a real tradition.
I should like to thank your rapporteur, Mr Cutaş, in particular.
He had the good sense not to look at matters only in retrospect, but provided guidelines for the future as well.
This is essentially what I should like to talk to you about, if I may.
You mention that our Board of Directors has devised a three-pronged approach to the European Investment Bank's work over the next few years.
We will develop our work in three areas: the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, the fight against climate change and support for EU external policy.
When faced with the financial, then economic, crisis that erupted in 2008, the Member States provided a short-term response: the various national plans, which were intended initially to keep the banks afloat and then to stimulate an economic recovery.
Those national plans, as you know, were supported by the European economic recovery plan, adopted by the European Council in December 2008.
The EIB played its part by increasing the volume of its lending from EUR 48 billion in 2007 to EUR 79 billion in 2009, and by channelling that injection of funds into the real economy towards the areas described as a priority by the Council, in particular, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, as your rapporteur has just emphasised.
However, after that short-term response, which enabled us to avoid the worst, a longer-term response is now needed.
That is where the Europe 2020 strategy comes in, and the critical part of that strategy is the increase in the employment rate and productivity, which must be based on what is often called the knowledge triangle: training, research and innovation.
The EIB is ready to make a significant contribution to the implementation of that strategy.
Back in 2010, it provided more than EUR 4 billion in finance for projects in the education sector and more than EUR 7 billion for RDI - research, development and innovation - projects.
The EIB intends to increase its financing in those areas and, to that end, it intends to continue to implement, together with the European Commission, joint financing instruments on the model of the RSFF - the Risk Sharing Finance Facility - for research, as instruments of that kind give the European budget leverage.
With the same amount of funds, the European budget can bear a much greater volume of investment and, at the same time, these joint instruments relieve the capital constraint on the EIB.
This means that, with the same amount of capital, the EIB can increase the volume of its lending.
I mentioned the RSFF, the Risk Sharing Finance Facility for research.
It is a good example.
At the end of 2010, with a budget contribution of some EUR 390 million and an EIB capital allocation of some EUR 700 million, we were actually able to lend more than EUR 6 billion, which financed more than EUR 16 billion of investment in research.
You can therefore see the two kinds of leverage that such an instrument affords, and so it seems clear to us that the EIB's contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy will be all the more effective because we will be able to rely on pragmatic cooperation with the Commission and with other financial institutions, too.
The second area: the fight against climate change and its sometimes tragic consequences.
This has become a priority for the European Union, and hence also for the EIB.
The Fukushima nuclear accident and the questions to which it gives rise further strengthen the need for huge investment in energy saving, renewable energies and new energy technologies.
In 2010, EIB loans for projects directly contributing to a reduction in the volume of greenhouse gas emissions increased to almost EUR 20 billion, or almost 30% of our total lending.
The loans for renewable energy projects accounted for EUR 6.2 billion of our total lending, and were used mainly for wind and solar power projects.
The loans for energy efficiency improvement projects increased to EUR 2.3 billion in 2010. They will increase further over the next few years, as there is huge potential for energy saving, particularly in public buildings and homes in many European towns and cities.
As for investment to develop urban transport, and hence to reduce pollution from individual means of transport, the EIB provided EUR 7.9 billion in loans in 2010.
Consequently, we are going to continue this effort.
We are going to continue to support energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energies, and we are also spearheading the development of a methodology - an inevitably complex one, given the technical difficulties - to evaluate more precisely the carbon footprint of all the projects that we finance.
This particular effort testifies to our will to make the fight against climate change a major priority.
Lastly, to conclude, the third area: no power can expect to conduct an external policy without financial support.
China has learnt that.
It intervenes financially throughout the world in order to support its external policy objectives.
If the European Union really does want to develop an external policy that has some influence in the world, then it too must have a financial arm.
If the European Union so wishes, the EIB can be that arm.
That is one of the conclusions of the Camdussus report on the EIB's external mandate.
It remains to be seen whether the Member States, which are also shareholders of the EIB, will act on that recommendation and make a clear decision when preparing the financial perspective for 2014-2020.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there you have an overview of the EIB's three-pronged approach for the years to come.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would first like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Cutaş, for his very good report.
I would also like to welcome Mr Maystadt to this plenary because it is very important that the Commission also congratulate him and the EIB for his continued forceful response to the effect of the global financial crisis.
EIB assistance was essential.
The EIB helped us to address the credit shortage in the market and this was crucial, not only for the EU Member States and the candidate countries, but also for our partners around the world.
The EIB was able to significantly increase its lending activity and, at the same time, to target the increase to the key growth-enhancing areas.
The Commission shares the Parliament's view that support for the EU cohesion policy, as well as transition to low carbon economies, are core targets for the EIB.
Consequently, the Commission joined forces with the EIB Group to support convergence regimes with the joint financial instruments which we know very well - JASPERS, JEREMIE, and the new addition, ELENA - to fight climate change.
Moreover, we welcome the increase in lending volume to SMEs and we agree with your call for more qualitative measures to increase the value added and transparency of the EIB Group intervention in this domain.
In this context, an assessment of the optimal division of labour between the EIB and the EIF seems to be necessary.
The huge efforts undertaken by the EIB bring into focus the importance of optimising the use of EIB capital.
It is crucial to strike the right balance between higher volumes and high-risk activities which consume more capital but add more value to the EIB Group intervention.
I would like to say a couple of words on financial instruments.
We believe that the use of innovative financial instruments, together with the key financial institutions such as the EIB, should be extended.
Instruments using instant loans, equity and guarantees help maximise the effects of the EU budget by attracting additional funds from third parties.
In addition, an increased use of joint financial instruments and risk sharing with the EU budget could have the effect of freeing capital and permitting a higher leverage of the EIB own resources and enhancing its reach.
At the end of the day, this means more projects in support of a Europe 2020 strategy and better support for its goals and objectives.
The Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative, which is currently in public consultation, is a very good example.
The EU 2020 strategy calls for large-scale cross-border investment to underpin the EU 2020 flagship actions and develop smart, upgraded and fully interconnected infrastructures.
The project bond initiative would support the financing of specific projects in the area of transport, energy and communications infrastructure, and potentially also in other sectors that can help lay the foundations for sustainable future growth and employment.
I am glad to see your support for this initiative in your report.
In the context of the preparation of the Commission's proposals for the next multiannual financial framework, the Commission is carrying out a strategic reflection and analysis to ensure an optimised use of the new instruments, in dialogue with the EIB and other financial institutions, to benefit from their financial expertise and experience in the market.
To conclude, I would like to make a few remarks on the EIB's external activities.
Regarding EIB financing outside the EU, the Commission supports the increase of the ceilings proposed by Parliament under the mid-term review of the EIB external mandate, in particular a EUR 1 billion increase for the Mediterranean region.
We know how important that is today.
This is essential in order for the EIB to pursue its intervention at a sustained level and support the democratic transformation of our partner countries.
In the same way, we also reiterate the importance for the EIB to reuse reflows from previous investment in the Mediterranean region in order to make risk capital investment in private sector SMEs in the region.
Moreover, we support a progressive reinforcement of the EIB's development capacity because these additional needs would require a gradual increase of staff resources specialised in development aspects.
In line with the Commission's proposal following the mid-term review of the EIB external mandate, the Commission will set up a working group to study the possible development of the EU platform for cooperation and development.
The objective is to optimise the functioning of mechanisms, blending grants and loans involving the Commission, the EIB and other multilateral and bilateral institutions.
The establishment of such a platform would help create synergies and foster cooperation between the EIB and other financial institutions.
In this context, I would like to mention that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission, the EIB and the EBRD was signed early in March.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to applaud the attention you pay to the MEPs, Mr Maystadt, because as the President of an intergovernmental bank, you are not obliged to do so; we appreciate it.
My speech will deal with security and with the communitisation of the European Investment Bank.
On the subject of security, Mr Maystadt, you said that you wish to become the power behind, and the financial arm of, the European Union.
Yes, but with a triple A rating.
Moreover, we in the Committee on Budgetary Control have been saying for years that you should be subject to prudential regulatory supervision.
We propose that this supervision be carried out either by the European Central Bank, or, on the basis of a voluntary approach by the EIB, by the new European Banking Authority, with or without the involvement of one or more regulators, and we call on you, Commissioner, to make proposals.
I shall conclude, Mr President, by mentioning our proposal for the European Union to become a member of the European Investment Bank, so that that intergovernmental instrument can gradually become a Community one.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, I would also like to speak, like President Maystadt, about the future, and would like to raise three points.
First, growth and restructuring is what Europe needs and that means investment and funding of investment.
The legitimate question today is to ask where that funding can come from.
The important element of the response to this question lies with the European Investment Bank and its family of institutions.
I also think that it is important to remember that in the years to come, we will have huge global competition for funding.
We will have national budgets in a mood of further cuts.
We will have also a banking sector with a lot of uncertainties when it resumes normal funding activities and, of course, we will have a European budget that will remain, as usual, too small to be efficient and to solve our problems.
So the EIB will be absolutely essential.
Mr President, my compliments to my fellow Member, Mr Cutaş, on his excellent report on the EIB annual report for 2009.
Compliments also on the overview which he gave us here.
However, I would like to comment on one particular aspect, namely, the relationship between the Council and Parliament.
The European Parliament is a colegislator for the external mandate of the European Investment Bank, for all of the bank's activities outside the EU, in neighbouring countries and in developing countries.
The Council, however, seems to be finding it extremely hard to take this Parliament's proposals on the review of the external mandate seriously.
To my surprise, the Council is making quite a habit of coolly dismissing all kinds of new proposals put forward by this House as 'unacceptable'.
I am talking, in particular, about proposals for the EIB taking an active role when it comes to measures to tackle climate change and for a greater role for the EIB in microfinancing.
Are these proposals 'unacceptable'?
Is it the Council's job to define the scope of the topics which the European Parliament is allowed to discuss?
No, the European Parliament and the Council are colegislators on an equal footing, and, together with and in close contact with the European Commission, should jointly determine the rules governing the EIB's external activities.
That calls for consultation, for joint deliberations, for compromise, for an open attitude on the part of both the legislators.
It is nonsensical and counterproductive, then, to use the word 'unacceptable' to describe proposals which a large majority of the European Parliament believe to be important.
Now, such an out-of-touch attitude on the part of the Council is what is unacceptable, if you ask me.
The fact that no one from the Council is present here is absurd and illustrative of how out of touch they are.
The EIB is an essential tool for the EU's external activities throughout the world.
A public bank, a bank which can contribute to economic growth and the improvement of infrastructure with loans, is indispensable to the development of our neighbouring countries.
The same applies to our relationship with developing countries.
There, too, a public bank is vital.
Such a bank must observe the Treaty of Lisbon and its objectives.
Poverty reduction is one such objective.
The European Parliament wants to lay down that role for the Bank clearly in its external mandate.
I expect an open and constructive attitude on the part of the Council, which will enable us to arrive at that clarification together.
Mr President, Mr Maystadt, I wanted to stress one point.
When we started working on this report, there was already an obvious need for long-term investment because of what had happened in the European Union.
The crisis showed that we were too short-sighted in our work, as Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa would have said.
We genuinely need long-term investment, and your institution plays a major role.
Everything that has happened recently - I am thinking, in particular, of the Southern Mediterranean and of the awareness, perhaps, of a number of difficulties with regard to our energy choices - is all the more reason to encourage you in your work and to support you.
There will always be MEPs in this House who support the work that you do.
I agree, however, with what Mr Audy said: it is also very important to move in the direction of increased supervision, as we have done for a number of institutions.
What I mean is that, although I personally am in favour of project bonds and of many of the ideas that are circulating at the moment, I am very anxious to ensure that we do not rush into the solution of public-private partnerships without looking more closely at exactly how they are set up and what they will ultimately cost taxpayers and all those who are involved in them.
I believe that they could be a very useful tool, but there are also funds in place in Europe at the moment - I am thinking of the Marguerite Fund and of the work of the deposit and consignment offices that have taken initiatives across borders - and I therefore wanted to argue for greater long-term investment and monitoring that are suitable for what we are trying to achieve together.
I believe that that is the very least we should expect.
In any case, we support you and we would like to see all the recent events that have taken place encourage more far-reaching, broader debate.
Mr President, Mr Maystadt, Commissioner, as you know, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is traditionally very attached to the EIB.
We believe that it is an extremely important public policy instrument, and it is because we are very attached to it that we are also very demanding of it - the two go hand in hand.
Our view of the EIB is that, ultimately, it is a bank in its own right, and as such, it is subject to bank constraints, which must be taken into account.
Several of my fellow Members rightly referred to the fact that the EIB ought perhaps to take account of new constraints linked to the banking sector.
At the same time, it is a truly exceptional bank, because it is indeed funded by taxpayers' money.
It is also there to do what the others are not doing, and to adopt rules that go beyond what the private sector can do.
I should like to stress one or two points on which I feel that the EIB could do even better, even though progress has been made in recent months.
The first point concerns the issue of tax havens.
This is an extremely important fight not only for us, but also, I think, for a very large majority of my fellow Members in this House.
The crisis showed that tax havens obscure, undermine and weaken the entire financial system and the world economy.
Therefore, in this report, the majority of MEPs support the idea that you should ensure an even greater degree of transparency with regard to loans that you grant to businesses and which pass through tax havens.
I believe that that practice should be stopped.
I am well aware that you have operational constraints on the ground, but there is a political point here, which is that, if you are the power behind Europe, you have to fight battles. If you fight battles, then I think that the battle against tax havens should be one of them.
As for us, we would obviously like to go further; in other words, we would like you to attach conditions to EIB loans to businesses that are not part of the entire value chain in tax havens and which are, at the very least, on the OECD's blacklist, which is currently being revised.
The second point that we wished to raise concerns the issue of monitoring and governance.
Mrs Goulard spoke about this just now.
I believe that we should extend the choice, that we should increase the level of joint accountability so that the choice of projects involving taxpayers' money is made as democratically and as transparently as possible.
The third point is about measuring the benefits of your action.
You measure them in financial terms too, of course.
As I was saying earlier, you are a bank in your own right, which means that you have challenges to meet in terms of the risk/reward ratio.
However, you aim to provide other benefits too, and that is why public money is used.
You aim to provide benefits in terms of social cohesion, in terms of the fight against poverty, in terms of environmental protection.
I think that you could make still more progress in reporting, in measuring these non-financial benefits, which are at the very heart of your action and of your legitimacy.
I think that, rather than setting the financial benefits against the non-financial benefits, you should carry out as broad an assessment as possible, and not limit it to monetary and financial issues alone.
Lastly, the final point of my speech will relate to climate change.
The report specifically states that you must pursue all the EU's objectives.
One of the official objectives of the European Union is to ensure an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
This will not be possible if we continue to finance coal-fired power plants, which have a 40-year life span and which emit huge amounts of CO2.
Mr President, has Mr Canfin considered that the use of the EIB as a public policy instrument, which is what he and his party advocate, will be at the direct financial cost of EU taxpayers, and in particular British taxpayers?
Has he considered this at all?
(FR) I have a very simple answer to that.
I believe that the EIB has cost UK taxpayers a lot less than other, completely private UK banks have cost them, and I believe that the general interest, just like that of UK taxpayers, is far better served by the EIB than by other UK banks that the taxpayer has had to bail out.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, Parliament has spent many hours in this Chamber discussing how to make the European Supervisory Authorities responsible for our financial services into the most transparent and accountable of organisations.
The result has been to establish ESAs, which are fully scrutinised by this Parliament.
However, in this new age of accountability after the financial crisis, and in the light of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, we need to establish comparable levels of oversight and scrutiny of existing EU institutions, including the EIB.
Given how central the role of the EIB has become in financing EU Member States' strategies and EU overseas activity, it is now time to improve the level of accountability of its activities to this Parliament.
The loan book and the general banking and lending activities of the EIB need to be assessed in the same way as we would assess our commercial banks.
They need to be subjected to rigorous stress testing and all financial activities need to remain on the balance sheet.
When leverage or risk is employed, we should be sanctioning the risk limits, as ultimately any default means that it is the taxpayer who will pay again.
It is time for this Parliament to seek a closer role in scrutinising the activities of the EIB, especially as the Bank's role increases in developing new financial instruments.
Mr President, Mr Maystadt, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the core task of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is to promote the EU's objectives through long-term financing of viable investments.
This also means that the EIB is bound by the EU's values; in other words, by social standards, transparency, high environmental standards, the development of a sustainable economy and the creation of jobs.
However, we are hearing from NGOs involved in the local implementation of EIB-financed projects that it is by no means consistently ensured that these standards are met.
This has already been mentioned by other speakers.
The NGOs criticise the lack of transparency as regards the way in which loans are monitored across the EU and worldwide, how they are used and how they are reported on by the EIB's financial intermediaries.
To what extent is the EIB aware of these criticisms, and to what extent is the EIB actually looking into such criticisms?
That is what we would like to know.
From our point of view, at least some of what NGOs are calling for from the EIB is quite plausible: greater transparency as regards the granting of credit by financial intermediaries and the elaboration of clearer financing terms for financial intermediaries as well as efficiency criteria for the granting of loans.
To improve transparency, NGOs further propose that environmental and financial information on EIB-financed projects be published before these are approved.
In particular, EIB projects in third countries should be subjected to independent sustainability assessments in order to determine the economic, social and ecological impact of the project in question.
However, there also appear to be other problems apart from transparency.
Monitoring of compliance with EU environmental, social and procurement standards has also come in for criticism from NGOs.
Strict monitoring of the meeting of such standards ought to be a matter of course in all the EIB's financial operations.
Projects that do not meet these standards should be excluded from support.
Finally, I would like to make a comment on the subject of energy policy.
It is pleasing that the promotion of a sustainable and safe energy supply is already one of the EIB's current objectives.
In view of the disaster involving the Fukushima reactor, the promotion of forward-looking, renewable, CO2-free and nuclear-free energy production, as well as the promotion of energy efficiency in all areas in which the EIB invests, must be given the highest priority.
(DE) Mr President, the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) has stated that in his visionary view, the EIB could become a driving force in developing countries alongside China.
You have now raised some criticisms of this development cooperation.
Could you be somewhat more specific on this, and what do you think of the basic idea that the EIB could well be a suitable instrument to counterbalance or complement what the Chinese are doing in developing countries?
(DE) Mr President, I think it is difficult to go into detail on this right now in view of the time available.
However, I have a large number of reports from NGOs that I am happy to make available.
I believe that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is also familiar with these.
These reports talk of how development aid is supported locally by the EIB in African and Asian countries and also make some criticisms of this.
I am happy to make the reports available, but I cannot answer the question in detail right now.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, I rise before the House today to mention one or two things which might perhaps be of help.
I spent 35 years as an investment banker, investment manager, investment adviser and economic strategist, and I never bought a dud bank in my life.
I never bought a dud bank for my clients, but over the past few years, I have had the politicians and bureaucrats put a gun to my head, as a taxpayer, and make me buy more dud banks than you could shake a stick at.
These are not even British dud banks, they are foreign dud banks, and I hear today that the British taxpayer is being asked to fork out for Portugal.
If I want to invest overseas, I will buy an emerging markets fund.
I do not want a form of nationalised Mickey Mouse bank investing my money or that of my constituents by force.
I say 'Mickey Mouse bank', Mr Maystadt, because all I have heard from you so far is how you are going to invest money to change the weather.
I have never heard so much nonsense in my life.
I do not know where you get your advice from, but statistically, the weather has not actually changed for about 15 or 16 years, so what are you going to shovel all this money into?
I do not want to invest in your bank and neither do the British people.
I would counsel you, if you want to keep your AAA status, to ignore the pleas of this House - full of eccentrics, greenies and bored housewives - in particular, in relation to paragraph 48 of the report.
Solar panels in the land of the wildebeest, giraffe and bongo drum will lose you your AAA rating in no time at all.
(DE) Mr President, there is something of a reality gap when one listens to the comments just made by the British speaker and then looks at the actual developments that have taken place in recent years in the financial markets and banks in which we are supposed to invest so much trust.
To get back to my specific points: the European Investment Bank (EIB) is an important instrument in three areas.
I believe what Mr Klute says should form part of a strategy in the outside world.
It is appalling to see how Chinese investors, state investors, are increasingly undermining political systems on the grounds that they are involved in a couple of local bridge building projects.
When one looks for the contribution of the European Union, there is practically nothing to be found.
I think you should continue on this path.
My second point concerns small and medium-sized enterprises, which are being wantonly neglected by the traditional banks that are oriented solely towards maximising profits.
Thirdly, there is the change in energy policy.
While the disaster involving the Japanese reactor is indeed a tragedy, it could provide a following wind for you to do something in this respect here in Europe.
(FR) Mr President, Mr Maystadt, Commissioner, after the remarks that I have just heard, which are unworthy of this House, I should like to tell you that the majority of us believe that the EIB's action is very positive.
The improvements made by the Treaty of Lisbon provide new scope for action, which should help the EIB to become even more effective and to provide relevant solutions to the global financial crisis.
As you emphasised, the EIB provides real support to small and medium-sized enterprises and makes a crucial contribution to the EU's cohesion policy convergence objective.
Those actions must be pursued and, if possible, increased.
The EIB must do more to promote strategic investments in Europe, and so I should like to invite you to support those who have taken initiatives to improve long-term financing and, in particular, deposit and consignment offices - the caisse des dépôts and cassa dei depositi - and KfW.
I believe that they should be supported, because the banking regulations and accounting regulations that are developed today do not encourage us to factor in long-term investment and penalise those who opt for it.
Moreover, contrary to what is often said, we need changes and not just adaptations.
Long-term financing is, as you also said, essential in order to open up a new horizon for Europe.
Outside the European Union, you are right to say that the EIB must act as a driving force and hence must propose initiatives, in particular, for the financing of the Mediterranean countries.
In the current turbulent conditions affecting a good many of those countries, the EIB can make a useful contribution to economic development within the context of the Union for the Mediterranean through its targeted financing, and can thus help to establish democratic civilisation in those countries whose future is still uncertain.
I have noted your willingness to make that contribution if the Union asks you to do so, which I hope it will.
(ES) Mr President, Mr Maystadt, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Cutaş for his excellent report.
The European Investment Bank needs to deliver more, better, faster results.
The importance of its role in funding projects across all sectors of the economy in the interests of the European Union has been even further amplified by the economic crisis.
The crisis has made it difficult to access credit, and it has also highlighted the need for a thorough rethinking of our economic model.
The EIB has a critical role to play.
To fulfil this role, it must maintain a high level of solvency and a financial position strong enough to enable it to access funding in capital markets on favourable terms.
It must also have instruments available to allow necessary projects to be undertaken which would otherwise gain no financial backing from commercial banks, and which would find it very difficult to obtain funding on favourable terms elsewhere.
The EIB achieved some positive results in 2009, when its activity increased by 40%, its funding for small and medium-sized enterprises increased by 55%, its funding for less-developed regions increased by 36%, and its funding aimed at combating climate change and promoting energy efficiency increased by 73%
However, there is much to be done and accomplishment of the European Union's strategic objectives still requires sustainable, long-term funding.
The availability of such funding has diminished as a result of the crisis.
We therefore need to promote Eurobonds.
We need to introduce new instruments and new developments in the field of financial engineering, and we also need to create a common platform to include other international financial institutions.
This must also be accompanied by an improvement in the EIB's own governance and a review of its internal mandate.
In short, the EIB should be a bridge effectively linking investment to the needs of the EU.
Mr President, I rise as a British representative who believes we should be in the European Union and changing it.
Mr Bloom, on behalf of the UK Independence Party, does not represent the British people.
His party has no representatives in the House of Commons and no hope of putting any there in the foreseeable future.
I think that in this particular debate, we are looking at pragmatic politics and seeing how to obtain value for money for European citizens in relation to scarce resources.
I congratulate the President of the European Investment Bank on the work he has done over many years to build the credibility of that institution.
My questions relate to the matter of project bonds.
When the document arrives in June, will you be submitting a text separate from that of the Commission, so that we can have your views when we are preparing the multiannual financial perspective, or will everything be put together?
Will these funds potentially be project bonds for purposes outside the Union, or will they simply be the project bonds for transport and other things that the Commissioner has mentioned?
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, will we be able to consider making savings in the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund, given that you are providing supplementary finance for infrastructure, because that will be a key question when we are dealing with a potential freeze on the financial perspective up to 2020?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the activity of the European Investment Bank (EIB) highlights some important and welcome points.
The first of these is the need to focus our efforts more and more on making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to have access to credit.
I also welcome the reference to the project bond initiative, which I believe is a useful tool for growth and development in a sector as strategic as that of infrastructure.
I am somewhat puzzled by the reference to the EIB's external activities, for which more financial and human resources are being requested.
The EIB report for 2009 indicates the countries benefiting from such loans, and I note with disappointment that Turkey receives the lion's share with almost a third of the total granted to all non-EU states.
This figure is also just over a quarter of the amount granted to Italy, one of the main EIB shareholders.
Italy itself is also in need of substantial loans and grants.
I therefore consider this to be an absurd imbalance.
I believe it is unacceptable that vast resources should be granted to a country like Turkey, which is outside the EU and, in my view, should always remain so.
(BG) Mr President, I would first like to say that such a short, precise and clear report on the matter in question is a rare sight in this Parliament.
The European Investment Bank undoubtedly plays a fundamental and very important role in Europe's development.
However, I would like to make a few comments on the report and about what was said in this Chamber.
First of all, I support, from an internal perspective, the European Investment Bank's policy for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises.
I think that this issue is much more important for Europe than climate change.
This is where the bank needs to focus its efforts, and not so much on the development of green technologies. Though, this area will also be developed if small and medium-sized enterprises are supported.
Apart from this, from an internal perspective, I also agree with the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control on possible supervision by the European Banking Authority, which is the new body responsible for taking such actions.
Finally, the data which Mr Morganti just quoted is extremely alarming.
I agree, too, with the view expressed that, especially in the case of foreign investments, it is appropriate also to have parliamentary control because it is unacceptable for external countries to receive more European funds than European countries receive themselves.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree fully with Mr Gauzès.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) has always played a significant and key role in the development of the European Union.
Its role and activity are even more important at a time of crisis such as the present.
Recent reforms in economic governance linked to the effects of the crisis could lead to less funding being set aside by Member States for important projects such as the creation of infrastructures of strategic importance for the development of the Union as a whole.
One example is the TEN-T rail transport project.
I agree with the European Commission's project bond initiative. Project bonds represent an excellent solution for sourcing finance and underpinning the infrastructure Europe needs in order to modernise and to fully exploit the potential of the internal market.
The EIB's role in issuing and managing these bonds is therefore crucial.
The report presses for an increase in funding for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I agree that the EIB's activity must be focused and results-oriented.
Mr President, allow me to say that some critical issues have emerged in relation to the Bank's activity.
In particular, I would like to point out that many small and medium-sized enterprises are often unable to take advantage of the opportunities on offer, as projects receiving funding require huge investment and organisation, which is effectively an obstacle to small and medium-sized enterprises taking part.
The time required for procedures is another problem.
These are often muddled and bureaucratic, and out of step with the activities and requirements of the industry in question.
I do not wish to reiterate the importance of these companies to our socio-economic fabric, and therefore I hope that a dialogue can be initiated with small and medium-sized enterprises that will help speed up procedures and eliminate as much red tape as possible.
The EIB can, and must, have an important role in managing recent events in the Mediterranean.
Europe needs to think beyond the emergency and to implement a long-term strategy in order to ensure that funding and investment is made in situ, based on shared decisions, to promote democracy and development of the social and market economy.
(SV) Mr President, I would like to highlight two main points in this report.
Firstly, the European Investment Bank has a central role in the Europe 2020 strategy.
This relates, in particular, to investments in green infrastructure.
In order for it to be possible for the European economy to be strong and sustainable, more investments are needed in railways and ports.
These must also be linked to road networks in effective transport hubs.
The infrastructure must be made into a well-functioning whole.
The European Investment Bank should be even more active in these key areas.
This requires a new way of thinking when it comes to flexible finance solutions.
European project bonds are an excellent step in the right direction, but these should be supplemented with more new financing options.
Above all, I see an opportunity to develop a model in which there is more productive cooperation at European, national, regional and local level.
Secondly, the European Investment Bank has an important role in the EU's development policy.
There is definite potential for improvement there.
The Bank's activities should be made more transparent, they should be more locally based and be clearly focused on the main objectives of the Union's development work.
Environmental, poverty-related and development aspects should always be taken into consideration in the European Investment Bank's decisions.
Mr President, the EIB is providing up to EUR 1 billion for the construction of wind turbines and other renewable energy projects in the UK.
While this fits neatly within the strategy to fight climate change, I am alarmed that the current criteria governing EIB funding lack transparency and accountability when it comes to the examination and due diligence of these projects.
EUR 6 billion has been provided for wind farm developments across the EU, according to Mr Maystadt, but the EIB simply accepts the applications for funding from the governments concerned without scrutiny.
I do not think that is good enough.
Renewable energy companies in the UK claim that their turbines have a load factor of 30%.
In fact, over the whole of last year, their load factor was only 21%.
They do not work when the weather is coldest and demand for electricity is at its peak.
They are not economically viable and they will double or treble electricity prices for consumers while failing to cut CO2 emissions.
This is an unfolding financial scandal, and the EIB should stop funding wind energy.
Mr President, could I just thank James Elles for his observations in relation to the comments made by Mr Bloom and suggest to my UKIP colleagues that, if they do want to make a point or have a disagreement with colleagues, they do not need to insult us to make that point.
Mr Bloom described Members as eccentrics, greenies and bored housewives;
I would suggest that he tells us what category he falls into.
Now to my more substantive point about the European Investment Bank.
Ireland has benefited, through funding for SMEs, but perhaps the President would comment - or others may comment - on how accessible that funding is, because announcements are made and SMEs are enthused by these announcements, but when they go to look for the credit line, it can be extremely difficult to access it.
I do think this is an issue of practical importance to the SME sector and I would like a response on this matter.
(SK) Mr President, the European Investment Bank (EIB) was established with the objective of supporting the aims and policies of the European Union, both within a Union framework and elsewhere.
The Bank is itself financed through bonds which are guaranteed by the EU Member States.
The rapporteur, Mr Cutaş, has pointed out to us that the guarantees for EIB activities in the EU budget amounted to almost EUR 20 billion by the end of 2009, which is a lot even for the EU, and therefore Parliament is quite justified, in my opinion, in expecting an explanation of the risks associated with this obligation.
It would also be good to know more about how the interest from the loans provided is to be used, and about the administrative fees secured from the EU budget.
The EIB is answerable to the EU Member States, the Court of Auditors and OLAF.
The proposal to introduce possible regulatory supervision, which would involve monitoring the quality of the finances, the financial situation, the precise measurement of results and compliance with the rules of the best practices included in the Cutaş report, looks like a good idea to me, and I would therefore like to recommend that the Commission seriously considers setting it up in the interests of greater transparency in the management of EU resources.
(RO) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mr Cutaş for drafting this very well-structured report.
The European Investment Bank's activities must be better targeted, selective and geared towards concrete results.
The Bank must partner accountable and transparent financial intermediaries.
Strategic long-term investments in Europe need to be increased.
We must focus on an infrastructure and cohesion at European level.
I welcome the Bank's focus on the areas hardest hit by the crisis: SMEs, convergence regions and climate action.
With regard to the loans granted, the EIB must pursue an active policy of providing information via its website.
The spotlight must be on the amounts disbursed, the number of allocations made and the regions which have benefited from these funds.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of the economic crisis, the crisis in the Mediterranean and the energy crisis, with Japan as a case in hand as regards nuclear power, I think that in its capacity as the operational arm of this policy, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has a crucial role to play.
I believe that the EIB needs to act both inside and outside of Europe.
Today, we have the Mediterranean at our disposal in an important new plan which needs to be launched as soon as possible.
How should we do this?
Through new financial mechanisms such as project bonds, as we have often repeated.
Commissioner, please tell us more about the timing and implementation of these project bonds.
I would like to ask the President of the EIB what has happened to the fund created out of what was left over from the Recovery Plan we launched a few months ago.
As time is of the essence at this particular time, tell us something about this principle, as well as about the Marguerite Fund as I do not know what has happened to it.
With regard to these funds, which should stimulate and boost the economy, at this time the crucial factor is the timing of implementation.
(LV) Mr President, in my opinion, the Bank's annual report for 2009 should be both approved and adopted.
Speaking of the future, I agree with many speakers here.
For my part, I think that it would be worthwhile to carry out a strategic review and analysis of investment financing (subsidies not excluded), repayment of capital contributions by Member States to the European Investment Bank (EIB), loans, innovative instruments, financial planning and management aimed at such long-term projects as do not yield immediate results, and improvements to guarantee schemes, the establishment of an investment section in the Union budget, financial consortia between Europe, national and local institutions, political and public partnership, and other possibilities.
That would raise the quality of the bank's activities yet more.
(RO) Mr President, the focus of the EIB's investments on convergence regions, SMEs and actions for combating climate change provides a response to the impact of the crisis in the hardest hit areas.
Convergence regions enjoy considerable support from the EIB.
The role of the loans for the structural programmes is to increase the level of absorption and make more effective use and increase the leverage function of European financial aid resources, especially in the areas faced with low access rates to funds.
The joint initiatives from the EIB and Commission in support of convergence have sought to encourage SMEs to access funding, develop micro-credits with a view to economic growth and create jobs, as well as provide support for sustainable investments in urban areas.
The financial instruments JESSICA, JEREMIE and JASPERS have provided real benefit.
Thanks to their successful use, I support extending their scope and identifying innovative financial products in the future.
I congratulate Mr Cutaş for the excellent report he presented.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Maystadt, this debate is of great importance for the economies of our Member States.
It has shown that those countries that have a healthy balance between large concerns and small and medium-sized enterprises have come out of the crisis best.
Looking at Germany, we have a situation in which 70% of the economy consists of SMEs, and this is enabling us to provide appropriate numbers of jobs and training places.
We need to pass on the message to the various banks in the Member States that this makes it easier to make investments, that small and medium-sized enterprises can be expanded, and that the European Investment Bank provides support for this.
This is very important if we are to return our economies to growth and be competitive vis-à-vis America and South-East Asia in the marketplace.
I therefore consider this initiative by the European Investment Bank to be of the greatest importance.
However, it also needs to be effective in bringing about growth, to bring us out of the economic and financial crisis.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, several honourable Members referred to the issue of proper regulatory supervision.
I would like to assure them that the Commission is giving careful consideration to the question of EIB regulatory supervision.
Indeed, there is a need for an appropriate supervision framework to ensure that the EIB's excellent credit standing can be preserved at all times.
However, the supranational nature of the EIB and the EIB statutory provisions, which form part of the Treaty, should be taken properly into account.
The EIB has recently taken concrete steps to address the situation, in particular, through the enforcement of its audit committee, which has significant banking supervisory experience.
In addition to this, since the EIB has been granted refinancing from the ECB, it complies also with the necessary reporting requirements vis-à-vis the ECB.
On the other hand, we believe that the European banking authority and the ECB cannot ensure the regulatory supervision of the EIB but, of course, we will not rule out the possibility for the EIB to fund other types of arrangements based on a voluntary approach by the EIB with other bodies.
As regards cooperation and the role of the Commission in cooperation with the EIB, here, I would like to underline that the Commission already has a significant role in the governance of the EIB in that it delivers an opinion on all EIB loans, on own resources, and has representatives sitting on the board of directors of the EIB.
I can assure you that cooperation between the Commission and the EIB is exemplary and excellent.
As regards the supervision of the external EU programmes and the related discharge procedures, apart from the EIB activities under the aegis of the European Development Fund, meaning mostly the ACP investment facility, which are carried out under the specific EDF financial regulation, we are not aware of any other EU budget activity carried out in combination with EIB resources which are not subject to the usual discharge procedure.
In response to Mrs Hübner, of course we fully agree with the calls to maximise the potential of the EIB by opening new leverages for increasing the potential to offer credits and help SMEs, especially at this time of post-financial crisis and pressure on credits.
Therefore, we are also looking for innovative approaches on how to do this.
I would just like to remind the House that the EU Financial Regulation has recently been modified to recognise explicitly this call for innovative instruments.
We are already using it, especially in the programmes that are oriented towards financing research and innovation.
I am sure that with the experience gathered from this project, the innovative financing tools can be used in other areas as well.
Mr President, I am grateful to all the speakers for their comments, even though I felt that one of them was particularly inaccurate.
Clearly, in the time I have available to me, I cannot respond in detail to all the extremely interesting issues that have been raised.
Some of them, I think, could be examined in more depth in committee.
In particular, there was the important issue raised by Mrs Hübner.
If you want the EIB genuinely to be able to make a significant contribution to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular, through the development of joint instruments with the Commission, then the regulatory framework obviously has to allow it.
Whilst you are currently debating the new draft financial rules, I think that you should be careful to ensure that the European Investment Bank will actually be able to make that contribution.
The proposal made by the Commission seems to us, from that point of view, to be wholly appropriate.
The Council and Parliament still need to accept it, though.
You therefore have a part to play in reviewing the financial rules.
I think that a more in-depth study would also be worthwhile for other issues that have been raised: the issue of tax havens, which Mr Canfin addressed.
I can confirm to him that the European Investment Bank has a stricter policy than the other international financial institutions on this issue, which also explains why we recently had to refuse to cofinance certain projects with the African Development Bank, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: they failed to meet the stricter criteria that we have in this regard.
Nevertheless, I can tell Mr Canfin that it is out of the question for us to finance a promoter located in a country on the OECD's blacklist, but I am quite prepared to examine this issue in more detail, together with the issues raised by Mr Klute, which included loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and transparency in that regard.
I do not think that there are many financial institutions that are willing to give as much information about allocations to small and medium-sized enterprises, and I would stress that there has been a marked increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises that have benefited from loans granted by the European Investment Bank to intermediary banks.
More than 60 000 small businesses benefited from them in 2010.
I should like to highlight three features that make the European Investment Bank a rather unique institution.
The first is that, contrary to what one of you said, we do not use taxpayers' money.
To be clear, we do not ask the UK taxpayer for one single cent.
(FR) We do not use taxpayers' money; we use the funds that we raise every day on the world's financial markets.
Indeed, that is why it is essential for us to maintain our triple A rating.
We borrow in Asia and the United States, and with the resources thus collected, we can finance projects on favourable terms.
The only budgetary impact is the guarantee that is given concerning the political risk in implementing the external mandate granted to us by the Council and Parliament.
Here, there is, in fact, a guarantee that has a provisional cost for the European budget, since we set aside 9% of all loans granted under the external mandate - we do so two years after the first disbursement - and, of course, this amount decreases as the loans are paid back.
Therefore, since we do not actually have to use that guarantee, there is ultimately no cost to the European budget.
None!
It is important to realise, then, that we are clearly not an institution that costs taxpayers money.
The second feature: we are the only truly European financial institution; our shareholders are all Member States, and they are exclusively Member States of the European Union.
We are the only financial institution that is legally obliged, under the Treaty, to financially support the European Union's political objectives.
Furthermore, we are the only financial institution that cannot finance a project unless it has already received the favourable opinion of the European Commission.
The European Commission delivers that opinion after an assessment by all the services, by all the Directorates-General, from the Directorate-General for Competition to the Directorate-General for the Environment.
We are therefore bound to strictly apply European rules and policies.
We are subject to audits by the Court of Auditors to the extent required by the tripartite agreement.
We cooperate at all times with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and I would add that we are on the verge of agreeing to supervision by the new European Banking Authority.
In any case, as far as the European Investment Bank is concerned, we would be quite happy to submit to an official form of banking supervision.
We are supervised indirectly, for example, by people with experience in banking supervision who we involve in our audit committee.
However, I would confirm once again that we are completely open to proper supervision by this new European authority.
To conclude, the third feature that I should like to highlight is the fact that the European Investment Bank is also rather unique because of the kind of expertise it has developed.
We are an institution that permanently employs more than 100 engineers, plus a number of specialist consultants, which is rare for a bank.
Moreover, we have acknowledged experience and expertise in certain areas.
To give you an example, we are called on to provide technical advice for projects that we cannot finance because they are based in a region outside our mandate.
I therefore think that it would be a shame not to use that expertise.
In certain areas, such as urban transport, energy efficiency, the water cycle and support for SMEs, the EIB has clearly developed expertise that is rather unique.
I shall therefore conclude by saying that it would be a shame not to fully exploit that potential, through cooperation with the European Parliament that is perhaps more systematic and more structured.
Some very valid questions have been asked.
We are financing more in Turkey simply because that is our mandate, decided jointly by the Council and Parliament.
It has set us the task of financing more in the candidate countries, which means that we finance proportionally more in Turkey and in Croatia than in other countries.
We are here to carry out the mandates that are given to us by the European authorities, in particular, by the Council and Parliament.
I therefore believe that this justifies, perhaps, systematic and more structured cooperation with the European Parliament.
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking all the speakers in this constructive debate.
I must admit, Mr Maystadt, that, in spite of a few critical comments, all my fellow Members who took the floor acknowledged the important role which the European Investment Bank can play during the current economic and financial crisis.
We clearly need investments and sustainable development projects in the European Union.
This is why I believe that we must implement and consider ambitious ideas and not be afraid to come up with and propose such ideas.
Last but not least, I want to emphasise the following point, by way of conclusion: do not forget about transparency and better communication with all European institutions.
Finally, Mr Maystadt, I believe that I can say, on behalf of my fellow Members, that you can count on the European Parliament's support in the future.
The vote will take place at noon.
We are aware of the importance that borrowing from the European Investment Bank (EIB) can have for development and social progress, given its low rates and long payment periods.
However, the options which it offers are neither transparent nor clear enough, and neither are the countries and regions that most need to borrow from it those that are most favoured with its loans.
This report, which we support, therefore contains some criticisms, suggestions and proposals.
However, we disagree with transforming the EIB into a mere tool for the EU to implement its policies, as well as addressing the problems of social and economic cohesion and social development, which should be considered in the EU budget and EU structural and cohesion funds.
Obviously, the EIB can monitor and improve these efforts, but it cannot be a substitute for EU budgetary policies.
The most important requirements are that the activities of the European Investment Bank be even more transparent for the European Parliament and that the financial instruments outsourced by it be used in an even more targeted manner.
We recommend for consideration the proposal that prudential supervision be introduced for this institution as well in the interest of the precise measurement of the quality of the EIB's financial situation and its results, as well as compliance with effective and successful business practice.
I would like to stress that we are not making this proposal because we have doubts about the regularity of the EIB's activity but because, in our view, as a general rule, as the G20's London Declaration clearly stated two years ago, 'all systemically important financial institutions, markets, and instruments should be subject to an appropriate degree of regulation and oversight'.
We suggest calling on the European Commission to provide the European Parliament with the legal analysis of the options for the prudential supervision of the EIB by 30 November 2011, because under the effective legislation, no European institution has the right to supervise the EIB.
However, in view of the increased role of the EIB, and also because of the extension of EU guarantees to it, changing this urgently is warranted.
It would be justified to develop increased professional and social supervision, similarly to the practice which has evolved in recent times at other non-bank financial institutions.
The EIB's lending activity needs to become more selective, more effective and more result-oriented in the future, particularly as regards financing SMEs.
To this end, information on loans granted must also be collected and published more systematically.
Vaccination against bluetongue (debate)
The next item is the report by Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongue - 05499/2011 - C7-0032/2011 -.
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, it is with great satisfaction that I can present my report to Parliament on amendments to the directive as regards vaccination against bluetongue, a disease which poses a huge risk to cattle, sheep and goat breeding in many EU Member States.
I am particularly happy since, three years ago in this Chamber, during a previous term of office, I had the privilege of presenting a report on a new strategy for animal health based on the principle 'better prevention than cure'.
Today's amendment to the directive as regards vaccination against bluetongue is a practical realisation of this very principle.
We are improving protection against this disease, and we are contributing to better animal health. Costs relating to their treatment will be lower and the whole vaccination process will be better organised.
The amendment relates to the fact that the current directive from the year 2000 was adapted to conditions at the time and, in particular, to the vaccinations which were then available on the market.
Those vaccinations had to be and still have to be administered, but with certain restrictions due to the fact that there is a danger of the virus being transferred from vaccinated animals to those which have not been vaccinated.
This means that various restrictions are required during the vaccination process, for example, vaccinations being administered in specified areas and restrictions being applied to the movements of animals.
This represents quite a burden for breeders and, as a result, the efficacy of these vaccinations is limited.
Science has taken a step forward.
We have second-generation vaccinations which have been tested and can be administered without any fear of transferring viruses to unvaccinated animals.
As a result, they can be administered without applying the current restrictions.
Therefore, administering these vaccinations will be beneficial for breeders, as they will be less of a burden and certainly more effective.
It will be possible to administer them to a much wider extent.
Procedures are moving very quickly as far as this matter is concerned.
The Committee on Agriculture carried out its work shortly after receiving draft legislation from the European Commission, and is now presenting it to Parliament.
We are hoping that it will be possible to carry out mass vaccinations using the new vaccine during the summer season this year.
This is the reason for the amendments and this is why Parliament, in its amendments to the report which I have tabled, has included timescales within which the legislation of Member States should be adapted to the requirements of the directive, so that the vaccinations can be carried out this year and we will not have to wait until the next season.
I would like to remind you of the controversy which has surrounded the report and the amendments to the directive concerning the correlation tables proposed by the Commission.
In my report, we agree with the introduction of an obligation to include correlation tables which contain information regarding the transposition of the directive into national legislation and which specific provisions transpose provisions of the directive into national legislation.
This is considered to be a bureaucratic requirement by the administrations of certain Member States, but it should be viewed differently.
Thanks to the introduction of this requirement, European law will become more transparent.
It will be easier for citizens to check whether a directive has been transposed into national legislation, and in what way.
I think this is good practice.
As far as I am aware, this is the first, or one of the first, directives to be adopted which introduces this requirement, and I think it does so quite rightly.
This should become standard practice for our legislation.
Once more, I would like to thank you for allowing me to present the report and I feel that we are improving the lot of the breeders as well as reducing the suffering of animals in the EU.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is grateful to Parliament for its support for the proposal to further facilitate vaccination against bluetongue and for its recommendation in relation to this very important issue.
In particular, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Wojciechowski, for his commitment to this cause.
Bluetongue has been the cause of a great deal of concern to all farmers in the European Union.
Until the 1990s, bluetongue was considered exotic to the EU, with outbreaks only occurring sporadically in southern Europe.
However, recent years have brought several epidemic waves of the disease, affecting many Member States, including in central and northern Europe, causing significant losses to livestock production and disruption of the trade in live animals.
The past few years have seen a significant improvement in the bluetongue situation across the EU, thanks in no small measure to massive vaccination campaigns largely cofinanced by the European Union.
The EU cofinanced EUR 150 million in 2008, and allocated EUR 120 million in 2009 and EUR 100 million for the following years.
Under current rules, vaccination is only allowed in areas that are subject to certain restrictions because of the presence of bluetongue disease.
The proposed amendments to the directive introduce the possibility of using inactivated vaccines everywhere in the European Union.
The amendment would allow a wider use of preventive vaccinations against bluetongue and this will ensure better control of the disease and lessen the burden it causes to the agricultural sector.
Parliament's report is most timely and important for the animal health situation in the European Union.
The report rightly recognises the need for urgency in order to give Member States sufficient time to vaccinate animals before the next bluetongue season starts.
We must not lose sight of the fact that, although the bluetongue situation has improved greatly in recent years, the disease has not been eradicated.
The EU remains at risk for new epidemic waves of bluetongue in the future and it is important that Member States have the opportunity to protect animals against the virus when they are at risk.
Member States should be able to optimise their vaccination programmes with the aim of reducing the impact of future bluetongue outbreaks in the European Union.
Indeed, a number of Member States have already indicated that they wish to implement this measure at the earliest opportunity.
The rapporteur refers to the really very difficult issue of the correlation tables, which are very important for tracking the correct, appropriate transposition of EU legislation into national legal systems.
This is a longstanding issue and we have had many debates in this House on how to control and monitor the proper transposition of EU law into national legal systems.
We can see that the correlation tables are the best tool for doing this, monitoring it and assuring appropriate transposition of EU law.
At the same time, we are very aware that, especially with such urgent issues as the one we are discussing today, we need to work very hard to find a solution between Parliament and the Council in order to avoid unnecessary blockages.
I hope that the Council will demonstrate sufficient flexibility so that this legislation can be adopted on time before the start of the season in which bluetongue can break out.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, the proposal for a directive on vaccination against bluetongue is a very important step towards eradicating this dangerous animal disease.
It is a disease that affects ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats. It can result in the animals dying.
The new inactivated vaccines enable the risk of infection to be excluded, so that this vaccine can also be successfully used in areas where the disease has not yet occurred.
This will allow the Member States to use the vaccinations more effectively, significantly reducing the burden on the agricultural sector as a result of this disease.
The new vaccines allow the disease to be combated on a genuinely broad front once and for all, and I hope that the Member States and farmers will take this opportunity.
It provides greater safety, and it is unquestionably a major improvement in animal health.
The more we contain the spread of bluetongue using the new vaccines, the greater the opportunities to export farm animals for the benefit of the economy.
In order that the directive may enter into force and the new vaccines may be made available, it is, in fact, important that we take a decision quickly.
On Monday, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development sent out a clear signal by unanimously adopting the report, and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will follow its lead in today's plenary vote.
I support the rapporteur's call to leave the correlation tables in the report.
After all, we cannot take decisions in Europe without the Member States providing information on how they are implemented.
We also need this transparency - and I say this to the Council very clearly - in order to strengthen the credibility of the EU.
Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his good work and constructive cooperation.
The report will have our support.
Mr President, I have a statement rather than a question.
The vote was not unanimous because I did not vote in favour.
Mr President, bluetongue has been a constant threat to our livestock and, hence, to public health.
Hitherto, we used an activated vaccine to fight this disease, the use of which entails the need to restrict the movement of animals to certain areas in order to prevent the virus from spreading to non-infected animals.
Use of the vaccine, use of vaccination, was therefore limited to areas where infected animals had been detected in the past.
This was detrimental to the farmers affected, who suffered on two accounts: firstly, because of the disease, and secondly, because of the restrictions.
All these problems can apparently be avoided through use of a new inactivated vaccine, which, in addition to preventing potential disturbances in the internal livestock market, will also enable the development of new, further-reaching - which is what really matters - prevention strategies for combating this disease.
It is therefore vital for the livestock industry that we amend the directive to allow the use of this vaccine, and that we do this as soon as possible.
Ladies and gentlemen, adherence to our Treaties, particularly as regards correlation tables, should not be an excuse for not bringing this regulation into force before the summer.
Such a delay would only cause further damage to farmers.
Mr President, I would like to say a big thank you to Mr Wojciechowski for his excellent and efficient work.
Previous speakers have mentioned what this is actually about: a new effective vaccine.
I would therefore like to use my few seconds to point out that this is perhaps the first tangible proof of what will happen in our agriculture when the climate changes dramatically.
In Sweden, where I come from, the idea that we would have a disease like bluetongue in ruminants would have been completely unrealistic four or five years ago.
It was a sporadic disease in southern Europe.
Today, it is a reality and we have had our first epidemic.
It is therefore very important for us now to get going with the vaccination, but it is also extremely important, when we talk about climate, the environment and the future, to realise that it is not only aridity and precipitation that will change.
A major change in climate will also bring something quite different: disease epidemics and epizootics among both people and animals.
We must bring this into the equation when we discuss the Europe 2020 strategy, for example.
What direction do we intend to take?
That is also important for us as legislators to understand.
We can only take decisions on the basis of the knowledge that we have today, but we must have the flexibility to be able to take new decisions when we acquire new knowledge and - in this case - new vaccines.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Wojciechowski for the speed with which he has been able to bring this report to the House.
He has worked extremely hard on this.
I want to go back to the area of the correlation tables.
The Commissioner said that he hoped it would be good enough, but I have to say to the Commissioner that 'hope' is not enough.
This is a very serious disease that we need to get control of this summer.
It is carried by small flies, by what we call midges, and has to be brought under control this summer.
Mr Wojciechowski has done his bit and he cannot be blamed in any way for any delay.
It would be very unfortunate if infighting in Brussels or excessive bureaucracy were to result in a delay.
We certainly need action, because the disease travels extremely fast and we have to be able to vaccinate outside affected areas.
I have to remind the House that on many occasions, as Mr Wojciechowski and others have said, prevention is better than cure.
On this occasion, I think we have got to move, and I want the Commission to give us an assurance that bureaucracy will not hold us back.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, this is a disease in respect of which farmers should make their own decisions, based on their own particular circumstances.
As a UK farmer, I will rely on veterinary recommendation and not the opinion of bureaucrats in other countries.
I appreciate the support of the British taxpayer who funds my vaccines and I am frustrated that the EU needs to be involved at all.
You gave us this disease.
Please do not make matters worse.
We are now discussing this question despite assurances that the Lisbon Treaty did not constitute a fundamental change.
If that is so, why do so many measures, large and small, like this one, have to be recast to conform to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
We do not know how the issue of correlation tables is going to be resolved, and this topic perfectly illustrates the confusion that so-called codecision can lead to.
Whilst the British Government will spend what it takes to conform to your way of thinking, other Member States may view things very differently.
Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur for this report.
While I am generally in favour of the principle behind this report, I would like to add that this vaccine should only be used when the competent authority identifies significant risk to the livestock population.
In Northern Ireland, both farmers and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have worked extremely hard to keep Northern Ireland a free area.
It is important that the Commission and the Council recognise free area status within the EU and put safeguards in place for these areas.
However, there still remains a significant risk within Europe that this disease may spread and, as a result, I believe it is necessary that Northern Ireland has the ability to use the vaccines.
It is imperative that the competent authority monitor movements and impose trade bans where necessary to stop the spread of bluetongue and that good practice is followed by all of the actors.
It is important that all Member States work constructively together to reduce the risk of the spread of this disease and protect the industry from a major outbreak.
Communication between Member States and the Commission is a vital part of monitoring and controlling disease outbreaks.
I would encourage this.
(RO) Mr President, epidemics, like bluetongue, have a serious impact not only on livestock farmers, but also on consumers and the European economy in general, as a result of causing animal mortality and trade disruption.
Animal movement restrictions hit hard the economic resources of the locations or regions where they are imposed.
With a preventive vaccination campaign, for example, under current legislation, a restriction zone must be maintained, even if no incidence of bluetongue has been recorded.
This is why the measure proposed by the Commission is fair and economically beneficial to producers and consumers.
At the same time, the measure is in keeping with the principle of using every scientific advance in agriculture.
I should also mention the important contribution which the European funds have made so far to improving the situation with regard to bluetongue epidemics.
The Union has cofinanced major vaccination campaigns, amounting to EUR 370 million in the last three years, as also mentioned by the Commissioner.
I think that cofinancing of the vaccination programmes should also continue in the coming years, given their effectiveness and the new, much simpler legislative framework which we are debating today.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Wojciechowski and all the shadow rapporteurs for the work carried out on this report, which aims to make the rules on vaccination against bluetongue more flexible.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has made every effort to approve the text as a matter of urgency in order to allow the vaccination campaign to go ahead before the summer.
The European Commission had presented a proposal which did not take into account the approval of the Treaty of Lisbon.
In other words, it left decision-making power solely with the Council, totally excluding Parliament.
After intense discussions, for which I would like to thank Parliament's Legal Service and the secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, we managed to reach an agreement to change the legal basis, in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Treaty; in other words, within the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure.
Now we expect the Council to be equally efficient in accepting our position and including the correlation tables, in order to give a prompt response to European livestock farmers.
Mr President, due to a combination of vaccinations and restrictions on animal movement, the number of outbreaks of bluetongue has fallen significantly in recent years.
The disease causes intense suffering and death amongst the affected animals and has a measurable negative impact on the rural economy and the farming community.
I welcome measures allowing Member States to use inactivated vaccination against bluetongue in areas not affected by the disease, and thank the rapporteur for his work on this issue.
Member States should be allowed the flexibility to be proactive and draw upon technological advances in vaccine production, thus reducing the burden on the agricultural sector posed by this disease and preventing occurrence without negating the disease-free status of the Member States, as was previously the case.
Vaccination represents an effective veterinary measure in response to bluetongue which, when accompanied by further measures such as surveillance, means that eradication of the disease in Europe is a real possibility.
Vaccination in controlling and eventually eradicating the disease will result in reduced economic losses and would be of benefit to European livestock.
Mr President, this legislation will give farmers flexibility, choice and hope, I am glad to say.
For too long, our vaccination strategy has been held back by the fact that we have not developed sophisticated enough products to allow vaccination of animals outside exclusion zones.
Being in an exclusion zone can be disastrous for a farmer's livelihood.
It can also be disastrous not to protect your animals from disease, especially one as damaging and virulent as bluetongue.
The development of new vaccines and the rules changes which I hope the Parliament will agree today will allow the UK to move to bluetongue-free status.
It will allow freer movement of animals and save money in rural areas.
However, it is vitally important that these rules are brought into force as soon as possible.
Farmers in the West Country need to be able to vaccinate before the end of May to ensure that animals are fully protected.
All of us here understand the background to the interinstitutional battle raging over correlation tables, but I can tell you that the farmers I represent do not understand it and they rely on us, their elected representatives, to sort it out for them.
This is an urgent issue and common sense must prevail.
Let us get on with this now, agree a fast track for urgent issues of this kind, and get on and get our livestock vaccinated.
(DE) Mr President, bluetongue is an animal epidemic affecting ruminants that has already caused great damage throughout the livestock and production sector.
Since the break-out of epidemics in a number of Member States in 2000, considerable economic damage has been caused.
As always, whenever economic losses occur, the financial damage affects those at the bottom of the production chain most.
In particular, the flourishing trade in breeding cattle collapsed.
Despite vaccination, exports were completely paralysed in some countries.
In Austria, too, where cattle breeding has a long tradition, many farmers had their livelihoods threatened.
We must take the time now to take preventive action.
The disease has not been eradicated and could re-emerge at any time.
We need to learn from experience and be able to offer assistance quickly.
What was true ten years ago no longer applies.
The old directive on measures to combat bluetongue from 2000 needs to be improved and updated.
The rules on vaccination that applied at that time need to be adapted to technological developments in order to combat bluetongue more effectively and reduce the burden on farmers.
The rules of that time were designed for the use of live attenuated vaccines, which were the only vaccines available at the time the directive was adopted 10 years ago.
Today's vaccines are more advanced.
We need to take account of this fact.
I welcome the rapid action on the part of the Commission and of Parliament and advocate the rapid implementation of the new directive.
As a representative of the farming community, I know how important it is to think in terms of the annual cycle.
Making a decision quickly will allow us to have a usable and uniform ruling by the autumn, which is in the interests of the Member States and, above all, of breeders and farmers.
Many thanks to the rapporteur.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have no real objections to the proposals in this legislative resolution, and I would like to congratulate the Commission for this initiative, which seeks to recognise scientific developments and permit the use of vaccines against bluetongue outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions, as this type of vaccine does not present any risk to the undesired circulation of the virus.
I would also like to congratulate and express my thanks for the work undertaken by the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Wojciechowski, and its President, Mr De Castro, which has allowed the Council and the Commission to come to a swift agreement with regard to the legal basis of this proposal.
Unlike what was initially proposed, therefore, legislative powers are shared by Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has discussed and approved its report in a short space of time so as to allow today's vote here to take place, and so that the next step towards the agreement with the Council can be taken as soon as possible and thus allow the new provisions of this directive to enter into force.
I would therefore like to call upon the Council to come to a compromise with the Commission and Parliament's position, which I am sure will be approved here today by a large majority.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, adapting the rules on vaccination for bluetongue is in accordance with the new EU vaccination policy as expressed in the Animal Health strategy 2007-2013 under the slogan 'Prevention is better than cure'.
A more flexible procedure for the vaccination of livestock is necessary if we are to be able to combat epidemics such as bluetongue more effectively and reduce their impact on farming.
Greater flexibility and prevention would undoubtedly be desirable for a number of animal epidemics.
A strict policy of non-vaccination such as we have long pursued in the EU is no longer relevant.
Consequently, I am of the opinion that we are taking the right step here.
I would also like to support Mrs Paulsen, who said that we must expect to see other animal epidemics in the near future as a result of climate change.
This, in turn, suggests that we need a clear strategy, and here of course, we can correctly practise this.
In this context, I would also like to reiterate that there should be no further discussion of culling in the Commission either.
In the case of bluetongue, we have, of course, benefited from the fact that we supported research and now have an inactivated vaccine and are able to carry out comprehensive vaccination, which was previously very dangerous and very difficult.
We are therefore in a new situation here.
I would also like to thank the rapporteur for having worked so quickly.
Experience has taught us to expect the first outbreaks in late summer and autumn.
The countries therefore need to elaborate vaccination strategies and also implement these.
To Mr Agnew, I would like to say that if you have a good vet, then he will recommend vaccination, because that is what is wanted by the vets that I know and it is what I have heard repeatedly during the discussions.
Naturally, that is not the end of it.
The Commission needs to draw up implementing regulations and adapt these to the new process, and that needs to be done just as quickly as here in Parliament.
I therefore call on the Commission to work quickly so that we can put this scientific progress to use before the end of the year.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to our fellow Member, Mr Wojciechowski, for his report, which reminds us of the importance of appropriate legislation on this matter.
However, whether the vaccine is live attenuated or inactivated, given the current state of our knowledge, blood tests do not enable us to identify how the pathogenic organism entered the animal's blood - in other words, whether it originated in a vaccine or in the wild.
Therefore, unless a marked inactivated vaccine - that is, a vaccine of which the pathogenic organism is of vaccine origin - is developed, it will be impossible to distinguish between a vaccinated animal and an animal infected by the virus.
Yet that is an essential condition if a region or a country is to be declared safe from any contamination.
There is a great risk, therefore, that countries that are protected from any contamination will put up trade barriers between themselves and countries that use that inactivated vaccine.
Hence, the European Union has a duty to encourage ongoing research into a marked inactivated vaccine so as to ensure greater biosecurity within the Union, something which will enable us to combine our health and trade approaches more effectively.
Mr President, it is worth recording the Commissioner's comment that the instance of bluetongue is on the decline: from 48 000 cases in 2008 to 120 in 2010.
That said, we are still not sure what the trend will be in the future, so the development of this inactivated vaccine and discussion of the technicalities around its use are very welcome.
It would be useful if the Council were in the Chamber so that we could address the issue of whether it is willing actually to provide the correlation tables that Parliament and the Commission believe to be essential - and perhaps this is something on which the Council could come back to us quite swiftly.
The prevention of all diseases, and of this one in particular, centres on animal husbandry, on the restriction of animal movement, on protection from vectors and on the issue discussed this morning - namely vaccination.
(CS) Mr President, the problem with using inactive vaccine for vaccinations outside the closed zone is that animals will show positive results in serological tests, and in order to determine whether animals have been vaccinated or are actually sick, it will be necessary to perform a virological test, which is more expensive.
This will create problems as regards trade in, and transfers of, animals.
In view of the fact that it involves the transposition of the directive into national law, the deadline of 30 June 2011 will, for procedural reasons, also be difficult to achieve.
Personally, I also disagree with changing the date of entry into force of the directive from the earlier date of 20th to the day following its publication.
We should also understand that drawing up correlation tables will add further to the administrative burden.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we are taking a step forward in understanding that this is not a problem linked to some areas of Europe, Southern Europe or North Africa.
However, my view of the measure is a positive one.
I would like to ask Mr Tarabella whether he or the Commission does not think that the problem of application to veterinary services should also be tackled immediately, so that there could be a measure which would make it possible to eliminate the problem throughout the European Union.
(DE) Mr President, improving the vaccination arrangements for bluetongue is an extremely important matter.
The new inactivated vaccines allow producers, for the first time, to exclude the risk of infection with this potentially highly dangerous disease, because the vaccines can now also be used in areas in which bluetongue has not previously been found.
In view of this, we must repeatedly emphasise that agriculture - including exports of breeding animals - is an important factor in all the countries of Europe.
Farmers therefore need to be able to take advantage of the latest knowledge in animal health, which has been used to develop these vaccines.
There are two things that we now particularly need.
Firstly, we need a rapid solution concerning practice in the European Union.
Secondly, in my view, we just as urgently need an obligation for the measures introduced in the Member States to be notified; in other words, an obligation on the Member States to report to the Commission.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would first like to thank the House for its strong support for this proposal and also for its recognition of the urgency of the matter and the very speedy procedures.
Several of you referred to the problem of correlation tables.
I would just like to remind you that the Conference of Presidents injected fresh impetus into tackling this issue, and has accorded it greater importance, notably in recognition of the problem of the transposition of EU legislation into national law.
I would like to ask whether it is really so difficult for the Member States to notify the Commission of the legal basis on which they transposed the EU regulation into their national legal order.
Is it really so difficult?
I am sure that when they are considering how to transpose legislation, they must do some preparation and decide how they intend to transpose it.
I think we all recognise the fact - and we have had several debates on this issue - that the European Union suffers when the transposition of EU law is uneven.
In particular, on an issue as important as the one we are discussing today, incorrect transposition could have detrimental effects.
At the same time, as I said in my opening remarks, I would emphasise that the Commission is clearly against unnecessary hold-ups.
We are fully aware of the urgency of this matter.
Therefore, I hope that, through increased flexibility and intensive negotiations, we can find a solution to this problem.
The Commission will try to be as helpful as possible so that we can adopt this legislation before the beginning of the season for a potential bluetongue outbreak.
Concerning the Commission's readiness to implement this measure, I would like to assure Mr Schnellhardt and Mr Uggias that the Commission has done its part.
Our implementing measures are almost complete.
What we need is approval of this proposal by the legislator.
Once we have that, we can proceed very quickly.
Once again, I would like to thank our rapporteur and to thank the House for its strong support for this measure.
Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members who took part in the debate and expressed their support for my report.
Thank you to all the shadow rapporteurs and members of the Committee on Agriculture, thanks to whom we were able to proceed so rapidly and effectively with the report.
It does not often happen that we are so unanimous in adopting a positive document which is obviously aiming to improve the current situation.
Regarding the correlation tables which were referred to in the discussion as a possible source of problems, I think that it would be difficult here to sympathise with the administrative bodies or governments of the Member States.
Creating the tables and sending them to the Commission will really not be much of a problem.
What is certain is that citizens who want to check whether their Member State's legislation accords with European Union law will have greater problems.
They are the ones who will have to put in the effort and research if there are no tables, as has been the case until now.
It is very often difficult to find one's way around EU legislation.
I think and hope that this instrument will be available to anyone who is interested, not only the Commission, and that it will be a readily accessible document which will be available when needed.
It will also be a very useful document.
I appeal to the Council not to take issue with the correlation tables, and if it must, not in this case, so that the new vaccinations can come into force during this season, as expected.
We cannot allow any delays because this would negate our quick and efficient work.
Thank you all once again for your cooperation on this report.
EU tomato imports from Morocco (Petition 1565/2009) (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on EU tomato imports from Morocco (Petition 1565/2009 by José Maria Pozancos (Spanish)), by Erminia Mazzoni, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions - B7-0211/2011).
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question we submitted as the Committee on Petitions shows that our Committee was not satisfied with the answer that the Commission gave to the issue raised by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants.
In fact, the Commission focused its attention on the responsibility of Member States in setting prices, without considering the specific point made by the petition, which was to report irregular imports of tomatoes and other vegetables from Morocco.
These alleged irregularities have, in fact, already been noted for some years by the regulatory body OLAF, which has pointed to the abusive application of the method for deduction provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3223/1994, which establishes three different methods of calculation.
The consequences of this situation are lower revenues for the European Union, unfair competition and breach of market rules, as well as the gradual impoverishment of European producers and exporters, with seriously alarming situations reported, in particular, in Spain, Greece, Portugal, France and Italy.
The Commission is negotiating a new bilateral agreement with Morocco, and once again this agreement seems to not be taking these alarming facts into consideration, but to be continuing along the path towards implementation of a flow of exports from Morocco to the European Union which is totally unregulated and does not comply with European law.
I think this is a subject we should focus on.
It is a subject which relates to and touches on a currently sensitive nerve, which is that of migration flows.
In fact, this great mass of people coming from the countries along the North African coast, including Morocco, to the European Union often involves farm labourers, as the recent events in Rosarno show.
We are struggling to receive them.
Above all, we are struggling as the European Union, and particularly as Italy, to offer them a livelihood.
Further reducing the potential for agricultural production in our countries, and therefore in France, Spain, Italy and Portugal, which are having serious problems at the moment, would cause all kinds of damage.
I would like to know what the Commission intends to do.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, if you will allow me, I will try to answer several questions that were raised in this petition.
I would like to thank Mrs Mazzoni for bringing up this question so we can clarify our position on this matter.
First, I would like to assure the House that the Commission monitors the quantity of tomatoes imported from Morocco closely, attentively, using a cross-checking system based on designation of quantities imported by Moroccan operators and daily import records kept by national customs authorities.
The Commission, until today, does not have any proof of systemic fraud or systemic failure of the system that was put in place.
We have the information concerning one case, to which I will come back a little later.
This is related to the year 2007, when OLAF indeed emphasised that the system as it stands at present could result in opportunistic behaviour but not necessarily involving irregular behaviour.
It is recalled that the application of the entry price system and the levying of possible import duties in connection with this mechanism are the exclusive competence of the customs authorities of the Member States.
Another aspect to this question, which is quite important, is the international context of this matter, something that is really dominated by the Doha Round, which has not yet been completed.
Any change to the entry price system and its current application mechanism could have a detrimental impact on the results achieved so far.
The new bilateral agreement with Morocco preserves the interests of the European producers by maintaining the system of monthly tariff quotas of tomatoes and strict control of the quantities imported.
In addition, the agreement provides for improved cooperation and greater transparency in terms of market data in the fruit and vegetable sector.
The quantitative increase in the tomatoes quota has been limited to 52 000 tonnes, which is well below traditional trade levels, and the increase is progressive and staggered over four marketing years, thereby preserving current market shares and the traditional supply to the European Union.
The Commission therefore considers that any change to the current entry price system must respect the terms of the relevant international agreements.
The Commission ensures that the regulation is properly applied and therefore has carried out the investigation through OLAF.
This is probably the case Mrs Mazzoni is referring to; whether there are irregularities as a result of incorrect interpretation of the implementing regulation.
However, it is the responsibility of the national customs authorities to follow up on the results of the investigation.
Recuperation is in progress but the publication of the data is strictly the responsibility of the competent customs authorities.
As regards the organisation of surveillance; this was one of the items that was raised by Mrs Mazzoni. Here, I have to say that the Commission, as I said, monitors tomato imports from Morocco using a cross-checking system.
The quantities imported and reported by the Moroccan authorities on a weekly basis are monitored.
The data is then compared with the data provided by the national customs authorities, who survey the system, and also by Eurostat.
I think that we have very good and precise information and, if there were some systematic fraud and systematic irregularities, we would definitely spot it and take action.
Mr President, I would firstly like to express my gratitude to the Committee on Petitions for its hard work following the complaint brought by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants, based on the report published by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, in 2007.
I believe this report's conclusions are extremely clear and justify only too well action on the part of the European Commission - which should have addressed this matter a long time ago - to clarify the operation of the entry price regime, at least in relation to the tomato sector.
However, not only having failed to take any action to prevent the different types of fraud made possible by the current Entry Price Regulation, the Commission has negotiated a new agriculture agreement with Morocco without having first resolved the shortcomings of the import regime currently in place.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for the European Commission to take its responsibilities seriously, to start investigating where and how fraud is being committed, and, potentially, to demand payment of any unpaid customs duties.
I believe that there is no way that a new agreement with Morocco should be ratified until all the details we have set out are resolved.
Our aim is not to hinder new international agreements, but to ensure that such agreements will not seriously damage the interests of European producers, and that the rules laid down in those agreements will be adhered to.
Where the new agreement with Morocco is concerned, all the European fruit and vegetables sector is demanding is a guarantee that the terms agreed will, in fact, be observed.
This will only be made possible by reforming the entry price regime.
We cannot have a new agreement with Morocco until we have a new system for entry prices.
We will not be able to ratify the agreement that the Commission has already concluded.
Moreover, if this supervisory role is to be played by the Member States, they should be required to make a significant financial contribution.
However, it is also true that we have long been calling for a European borders and customs system similar to that of the United States, so as to ensure effective control.
According to the Spanish farmers who presented a petition to the European Parliament, underpriced imported Moroccan tomatoes pose a threat to European food producers.
They are referring to the underpriced minimum rate which was set at approximately EUR 46 per 100 kg in a preferential import-export agreement between the EU and Morocco.
According to EUROSTAT, Morocco exported over 70 000 tonnes of tomatoes in December 2010, which is over double the quota foreseen in the agreement between the EU and Morocco.
This is what has caused heavy losses to European producers, never mind the losses from customs payments.
OLAF has already commented on this matter, stating in its 2007 report that there may be irregularities in the importing of tomatoes from Morocco in connection with the underpricing of tomatoes in comparison with the initial price agreed by the EU, which, in effect, allows for the non-payment of additional customs duties.
In adding my voice to that of other members of the Committee on Petitions, I would, however, like to ask whether the Commission has any intention of revising rules of this kind, and of possibly recovering the unpaid customs duties.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, last October, I tabled a written question to the Commission concerning the discrepancies between the figures in the different EU services on the EU import of tomatoes from Morocco.
In 2008, there were about 100 000 tonnes in difference between DG TAXUD and Eurostat.
The Commission answered that it had observed the problem and was solving it, but it is not clear to me whether the Commission will achieve what European citizens and European producers deserve.
In the European Union, we import tomatoes not only from Morocco but also from other third countries.
We should find a way for negotiations to be very fair to everyone and not at the expense of the European agriculture sector.
We should also find a way to control what we are importing from other countries outside the EU, especially in some northern European ports.
Without effective border controls, the European agriculture sector will have a very difficult future.
If European production of tomatoes is damaged by the EU-Morocco Agreement, it will be very difficult to regain production on EU soil.
The rules and the obligations should be applied to everyone, which means fair competition.
What we cannot accept is the application of different rules and duties to a European producer and an agricultural producer outside the EU.
Accepting this means accepting the loss in competitiveness of our agricultural sector and a huge effect on the labour force in Europe.
I am in favour of free trade, but under symmetric conditions of production and information.
If they do not exist, free trade is not fair trade and competition is not fair competition.
Finally, I do not think that Parliament should ratify the EU-Morocco Agreement without the inclusion of clauses concerning the labour market, the social dimension and the environment in Morocco.
If this does not happen, we may lose our European farming activity and our food chain industry.
Mr President, we raised several warnings during the debate on trade agreements on agricultural produce between Morocco and other Mediterranean countries, such as Egypt and Israel.
We warned that if these were concluded, they would further increase the pressure faced by farmers in the EU to lower production prices, especially in countries like Portugal, and exacerbate the additional difficulties in disposing of their products.
We condemn the liberalisation of trade in fruit and vegetables, which are typically Mediterranean products, as this would lead to large supermarkets stocking lower priced products, which are often exempt from the same rules and standards as those imposed on farmers in the EU.
We would like to point out that the liberalisation of trade for agricultural produce promotes models of intensive production for export which favour big agribusiness at the expense of small and medium-sized farming, family farming, and supply for local and regional markets.
All this has negative consequences on the sovereignty, security and quality of food, and on the environment.
This situation was the reason for our warnings, which the Commission has regrettably ignored, and is continuing to do so.
It has ignored the need to defend the interests of EU producers, ensuring fair prices for production and business continuity, especially for small and medium-sized farming.
Moreover, we now know that the Commission also ignored the report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which denounced irregularities in the importing of tomatoes from Morocco, in a report acknowledging the impact of these imports on lowering tomato prices in the EU market.
Not content with this, in the new agricultural chapter in the Association Agreement with Morocco, the Commission has decided to further increase tomato imports to the EU.
When will this liberal fundamentalism, which sacrifices everything to the interests of a few major European corporations and multinational exporters, finally be curbed?
How does the Commission intend to make amends to European producers for the damage that it has clearly caused them?
We will leave you with these questions.
(ES) Mr President, the tomato growers of the Canary Islands, Murcia, Andalusia and the Community of Valencia, all of them European Union producers, need the Commission to take robust action with regard to an unfair situation which is causing them serious damage.
Fraud is being committed, and you know it.
Thanks to its agreement with the EU, Morocco benefits from an entry price to which it does not adhere.
In addition, we should not only look at 2007, but also at 2010.
The Commission is well aware that Spanish tomato growers have to compete with Moroccan growers under unfair conditions, as they must bear much higher production costs stemming from the strict European standards on quality, food safety and workplace safety, as well as restrictions on pesticides which are not required of third countries.
Even so, our growers, with great effort and commitment to quality, continue to work hard to save their crops.
Thus, it is unacceptable for the Commission to ignore the malfunctioning of the entry price regime, whose complexity encourages fraud, as the European Anti-Fraud Office itself does, and for the Commission to look the other way when the tomato quotas agreed with Morocco are being contravened.
It is not enough for the Commission to tell us that surveillance is the responsibility of the Member States.
If they fail in their duties, the Commission must act.
It is intolerable for regulations on Moroccan import quotas to be breached, and for the applicable customs duties to go unpaid, without the Commission taking any action.
The Commission would have us approve a new agreement with Morocco.
Unless we are given assurances that the price system will be modified to prevent unfair competition between Moroccan and Spanish produce, we will certainly not be supporting that initiative.
It is your obligation to ensure adherence to agreements, but it is also your obligation to defend the interests of growers in the Canary Islands, Murcia, Valencia, and Andalusia.
Do it before it is too late.
(ES) Mr President, calls for the Entry Price Regulation to be modified began in 2003.
This Parliament, the Member States, Spain and France, with the support of Italy, Greece, and Portugal, have all requested it.
The reason for this lies in the fact that the regulation is not being properly applied, with certain duties being left unpaid and a biased calculation method being used.
As a consequence, the sector suffers, we have unfair competition, and the Member States receive less revenue from customs duties.
The Special Corps of Fruit and Vegetable Inspectors has verified this, pointing out that Article 5 of the regulation allows a biased application and, as has been said earlier in this House, OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, has stated that the calculation method used enables non-payment of additional duties.
It is up to the Commission to resolve this issue.
A solution must be provided, to the production system and to the Member States.
This situation has been going on for 16 years.
The sector is suffering.
The European fruit and vegetable sector, along with the Spanish fruit and vegetable sector in Valencia, Murcia and Andalusia, are all suffering, and a solution is needed.
Consumers are also affected by this situation.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the petition under discussion today has arrived at a time when Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its Committee on International Trade are debating the new chapter on agriculture in the agreement with Morocco.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) confirms that there have been irregularities in the calculation of duties on tomato imports and that this has been damaging to European producers, the very same producers who are expressing their concern at the expected increase in tomato and fruit and vegetable imports in general that will take place if the agreement is signed.
We are obviously sensitive to the concerns brought about by bilateral agreements where the agricultural element is often sacrificed for the sake of broader industrial interests.
It is not a good way to proceed, and we will continue to repeat this to the European Commission.
However, I would like to point out that the current economic and political crisis throughout the Maghreb area should lead us to consider this agreement carefully and with greater solidarity.
(ES) Mr President, as requested by the petitioners from the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants, the Commission needs to modify - and here I am repeating the request put forward by Spain and other Member States - some of the articles of the regulation to which we are referring.
Focusing on the calculation method for establishing entry prices, one of the three methods currently used, must be removed, specifically the one known as the 'deductive' method.
This is the most necessary change, bearing in mind that importers choose the method that, at any given time, allows them to avoid paying additional duties.
Now that the new agreement with Morocco is pending adoption by this Parliament for its entry into force, the Commission would certainly prove its worth by correcting the system once and for all.
We are calling for this once again today, as properly working entry prices are the compensation that our growers can reasonably expect when its entry into force is agreed upon.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today's debate following the petition presented by the Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants is apt and well-timed, in view of the fact that the commercial agreement with Morocco is being discussed in Parliament at the same time.
It is clear that the petition raises an issue to which the Commission does not yet seem to have provided an answer.
This House strongly calls for the answer to be given before the new agreement is signed, because it is not acceptable that European farmers should continue to pay the price of this desire for free trade that is pervading Europe.
We need to defend and safeguard our farmers, not only with regard to tomato production, but also with regard to all fruit and vegetable production, which would be severely affected by this indiscriminate opening up of the market.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the criticisms that we have heard here this morning in connection with the petition presented are understandable.
I think there is still a long way to go before we can ensure that a possible general agreement on agricultural products with Morocco receives consensus approval.
On the one hand, the agreement must respect the need for balance, and not cause serious difficulties for European agricultural producers.
On the other, it must respect the need for clear and transparent rules of competition on agricultural markets.
This is the path to follow in order to ensure that the relationship between the European Union and Morocco is a positive one.
I therefore invite the Commission to look for suitable solutions that do not lose sight of the producers' interests, but which also do not lose sight of a renewed policy of generosity towards Morocco, particularly in view of the events taking place in the Maghreb.
It would be very useful to understand, and I do not want us to end up effectively importing tomato pickers, instead of agricultural products and tomatoes.
It is therefore important to carry out a thorough investigation in order to create a new European policy.
(ES) Mr President, I believe that the 'business as usual' policy has already been the cause of many misfortunes for us in the past.
Therefore, we must be very cautious, particularly with regard to the current situation in North Africa.
Precisely because of this, I would like to join in with those who have said that, under the current circumstances, it is scarcely appropriate to move forward with the trade agreement with Morocco.
As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, I believe we need thorough clarification of the progress being made in the current framework.
We must also clearly demand that any tomatoes - or any other produce - entering the European Union arrive under the same conditions as are demanded of local growers.
In the absence of this assurance, we should - indeed must - rethink the entire framework, and this is what I hope this House will also do.
Rather than adopting a protectionist policy, I believe there is a need for firm commitment to fair trade.
We must also be free of any doubts as to what the framework is, so that we are able to know and to act as responsibly as possible.
(ES) Mr President, I must thank all my fellow Members who have understood the problem of the Mediterranean region, the Spanish delegation, and all those who understand that we in the Canary Islands, Murcia, Valencia and Almeria, in addition to being frustrated at the Commission's failure to honour its agreements, and to having seen many companies forced out of business, remain the entry point for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, the entry point for Moroccan immigrants, and a buffer against the crisis.
This is because we are currently supporting, at a time of utter economic penury, people who come to work and are able to send money home to their families.
Therefore, I believe that the Commission must also behave responsibly with regard to the competences granted to it by the Treaties.
I believe the Commission has not given any thought to the need to defend the interests of the public, or to the need to prevent an indiscriminate policy which, moreover, makes us import produce grown in extremely dubious phytosanitary conditions.
(DE) Mr President, one of the reasons the internal market was established was so as to provide European consumers with better protection.
Consumers have a right to be able to buy healthy, fairly produced products throughout the European Union.
Opening up the market - in other words, a controlled import quota - must therefore be subject to at least three requirements being met.
Firstly, there must be clear control of the quantity of imports permitted.
This relates mainly to the quantitative aspect.
Secondly, the quality of the products must also be controlled.
This also relates to production standards.
Thirdly, the impact on farmers in the European Union needs to be taken into consideration.
Business that harms third parties - and here, this generally means business that favours industry to the detriment of agriculture - must be prevented.
I therefore ask the Commission to subject the agreement with Morocco to further careful scrutiny and not to sign it until it has undergone a further review.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to thank the Spanish producers who submitted this timely petition to us.
Indeed, for months now, we in Parliament have been warning the Commission of the danger to our internal market of a number of bilateral agreements.
Clearly, we are sensitive to the issue of Morocco's development.
Clearly, we know that creating stability for the Moroccan people in their own country is the best possible solution, and that it will stop us from having to solve numerous immigration problems in the future.
However, when the Commission tells us that a new agreement will simply ratify a situation, we can plainly see, through the reports by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), that the situation to which the Commission refers is not the real solution.
Furthermore, I should like to alert the Commission to another point.
We are told that the negotiated - the renegotiated - agreements will enable us to support Moroccan producers.
Which producers are we talking about, though?
The exporters are primarily large agri-food companies that have set up huge farms in Morocco.
Small Moroccan producers are not the ones who benefit from our agreements, as they do not have the capacity to produce in conditions acceptable to the European market.
Let us not confuse the issue, but do not mislead the MEPs either: that is my request to the Commission.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, if you will allow me, I will start with some figures because they were referred to by several speakers in their statements.
I will use the Comext data for this.
EU imports of tomatoes from Morocco grew from 185 000 tonnes in the 1999-2000 season to 295 000 tonnes in 2009-2010, following the normal trend of fresh fruit and vegetable imports from all over the world.
At the same time, total additional EU imports of tomatoes increased from 242 000 tonnes to 493 000 tonnes.
I have to underline that Morocco's share of total EU imports actually decreased from 76% to 59%.
EU tomato production varies between 16 and 18 million tonnes per year, of which 6.5 to 7.5 million tonnes are destined for the fresh market.
I think that it is very good to bear these figures in mind so that we can keep this discussion and the size of the problem in proportion.
Regarding the new agreement with Morocco, we in the Commission believe that it is modest and balanced.
If it is adopted, the Commission will, of course, ensure that all its conditions and rules are fully respected.
Additional quantities under the tariff rate quota will be kept below the traditional average of supplies to the EU.
The current average annual level is 300 000 tonnes.
With an additional 52 000 tonnes, there will be 285 000 tonnes within the tariff rate quota, so there will still be scope for 15 000 tonnes of imports under the usual erga omnes regime.
Turning to another problem raised, namely, the claim that we failed to act, I really cannot accept that because we did not find any systemic failure in the system.
There was one case that was also presented here today in which OLAF investigated the problem and referred the whole file with the findings to the French court, which did not support the full extent of OLAF's findings, but nevertheless, the partial recovery of unpaid duties has started.
I would also like to assure this House that, regarding control of phytosanitary standards, the Commission is assuring the highest possible control and the highest possible level of standards for every import of fresh fruit and vegetables to the European Union.
At the same time, I have to say that I understand the vigilance of the Members of the European Parliament and the vigilance of the agricultural sector on these very pertinent issues.
I would like to assure them that, if the organisations have concrete evidence of fraud, they are invited to bring this to the attention of the Commission, which will carefully analyse it and take appropriate action if needed.
Vaccination against bluetongue (
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to speak briefly just to underline the importance of the Wojciechowski report on bluetongue for an institutional issue which concerns us all.
As far as the content is concerned, there is no conflict between the Commission, Parliament and the Council.
However, the inclusion of the correlation tables in the text remains a very sensitive issue.
Despite the fact that the Council was totally opposed to it, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development decided to vote for a text that includes the correlation tables, which oblige Member States to report on transposition of the directive.
It is now up to the Council to decide whether to accept the correlation tables and conclude the agreement at first reading, or to answer to European farmers for causing the bluetongue vaccination campaign to be missed this year in order not to give way on this point.
I believe that this report can act as a precedent in future negotiations with the Council.
We must be united and determined in calling for maximum transparency from Member States and in defending total compliance with EU law.
I believe the rapporteur would also like the floor.
rapporteur. - (PL) Madam President, in principle, Mr De Castro has said what I wanted to say.
I would merely add my voice to the appeal that the Council should not throw up obstacles to the rapid implementation of the new directive.
The correlation tables are a start and a precedent which, in my opinion, will create best practice for the future, and will help to monitor more easily the compliance of European law with national law.
Lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan (
Situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen (
Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (
Before the vote on paragraph 16:
Madam President, I would like to include, after 'climate change risk assessment', the words 'which does not harm trade'.
2010 progress report on Iceland (
Before the vote on Amendment 2:
(RO) Madam President, I would like us to replace:
'Urges the people of Iceland to support this agreement' with 'Encourages the people of Iceland to support this agreement'.
Mr Preda, I am sorry but I think you have read the wrong oral amendment.
You have two, could you try the other one.
That would be helpful.
(RO) Madam President, I would like us to replace in Amendment 2:
'Enter into constructive talks' with 'Continue the constructive talks'.
Madam President, I urge all Members not to adopt the amendment, and I urge Iceland to protect its fish stocks ...
(Interruption by the President)
2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (
(EL) Madam President, I wish to submit a motion in accordance with Rule 177 to adjourn the debate, because Mr Zoran Thaler, who acted as the rapporteur for this report, is no longer with us, following the serious allegations made in the Sunday Times.
In my view, he enjoys a presumption of innocence; however, in light of the accusations against him, the present report on FYROM does not enjoy a presumption of credibility.
At best, this report will harbour a seed of doubt.
I therefore move that the debate be adjourned, that a new rapporteur be appointed, and that it be re-tabled in three months' time, in order to maintain Parliament's integrity.
We indeed have a new rapporteur who has taken over the report.
Mr Vigenin, if you care to take the floor, I will allow you to do so briefly.
Madam President, we should not enter into this propaganda exercise.
This report has been discussed.
There was broad agreement between all political groups on this report.
It was adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs by an overwhelming majority.
We had a good debate yesterday, and I would ask you to continue with the vote now.
Madam President, I want to propose that the final vote on this resolution be a roll-call vote.
Let us wait until we get to the final vote and we will see if the House wishes to do that.
Madam President, it says that roll calls may be taken with 24 hours notice.
If there is another rule which supersedes this and says a roll call can be decided by Parliament, would you please tell us what the number is.
Otherwise, we could all request roll calls when we felt like it.
I have the power as your presiding Vice-President today to decide whether we take a roll-call vote or not.
It is Rule 20 that gives me the power, but I am going to ask the House nevertheless.
Let us have a show of hands.
Do you wish to vote by roll-call?
It is clear that the House wishes to vote by roll-call in accordance with my wish also, so I open the vote on the final motion for a resolution.
(Parliament agreed to the request for a roll-call vote)
Situation in Côte d'Ivoire (
Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Eastern Dimension (
Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Southern Dimension (
(PL) Madam President, I would like to ask whether a small correction could be made to the Amendment I tabled.
This correction has, in fact, already been set out in full at the end of the voting list.
The general point is that we should not only refer to the events in Libya, in order not to create the impression that this correction, that our work, has only a specific application. We should also refer to all the events in North Africa and the Middle East and stress the importance of the fact that two thirds of funding (with a split of two thirds to one third) has been earmarked as a gesture of goodwill and as an expression of the fact that the Southern Dimension is important to us.
Use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East (
EIB annual report for 2009 (
*
Madam President, under Rule 110 of our Rules of Procedure, the Commission may, at any time, request permission to make a statement on an urgent issue.
Overnight, we have had the economically calamitous, but unsurprising, news that another country has bitten the dust and that Portugal is going to have to be bailed out.
Can I ask whether you have received any request from the Commission to make a statement on Portugal today?
If not, would the Commissioner say why not?
Does he think that the bailing-out of Portugal is not important enough for this Parliament to discuss, or is he just burying his head in the sand?
Mr Farage, you have made your point and I am sure that Commissioner Šefčovič has heard.
It is the prerogative of each institution to react.
You have been heard and we will see what happens.
Madam President, I ask: is the answer yes or no?
Have you received a request from the Commission to make an urgent statement on the Portuguese situation or not?
Mr Farage, it is the Commission's prerogative and you have had the chance to be heard.
We will now proceed with our votes.
(FI) Madam President, I think it is very important that we voted in favour of this report with a clear majority.
This is just the sort of work that the European Parliament needs to do to preserve the faith of the public in this system.
Why, though, did I want to raise this subject again, now that the vote is over?
Like the rapporteur, I would like to stress that this is an important matter, especially between the institutions, and these correlation tables are an important start.
I hope that this will function until the end, with no quarrelling between the institutions, so that this can be implemented as speedily as possible.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important measure for the agricultural world.
However, the measure needs to be followed up immediately by a commitment from the Council and national governments to adopt it forthwith, before the end of the season, in order to solve this problem which does not affect just the southern part of Europe, but the whole of Europe, as today's vote has shown.
Bluetongue affects the sheep and cattle on our farms.
Therefore, taking action to totally eradicate it is a health policy objective which national governments can best contribute to through this measure by being flexible.
It also needs to be immediately adopted through transposition of the directive.
(FI) Madam President, this was an extremely important subject for debate, and I think that it would have been important if Parliament had sent a clear message that we are very worried about what happened.
We want to show the public that we are doing all we can to make nuclear power plants in Europe and in the world generally as safe as possible.
We also, however, want to show that we can continue with nuclear power when there is greater certainty over the issue.
It is a pity, however, that the majority here voted against this, and that the clear message was therefore not sent today.
(DE) Madam President, I am somewhat disappointed that Parliament was unable to approve this by a majority today in order to learn sensible lessons from the reactor disaster in Japan.
I consider it beyond question that this must mean organising a clear shift in energy policy away from nuclear energy - in order words, the beginning of a phase-out - at European level.
Secondly, it should also be obvious that if we carry out stress tests, then any nuclear power plant that fails these tests is required to be removed from the grid.
Neither of these proposals received a majority in the vote.
I was therefore unable to support the resolution.
I hope that we will soon succeed in organising a uniform energy policy that provides us with safe and sensible energy in the future, which means movement towards energy efficiency and renewable energies.
(SK) Madam President, no one surely doubts that the accident in Fukushima showed the need to tighten up assessments of existing nuclear power plant operations and the construction of new plants.
It will be necessary to review and adjust legislation, as well as the parameters of the stress tests on European nuclear plants, based on common criteria applied throughout the EU.
In view of the fact that this is a global problem which knows no borders, there could even be an intercontinental agreement covered by global authorities.
However, we must not rush into this, as we might throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It is a matter of resolving purely professional problems, the politicisation of which can only do harm.
We witness many demagogic claims that have no professional basis whatsoever every day in the media and also here in the European Parliament.
Since the conclusions of the European Parliament debate fully reflect this conflict of opinions, I have abstained from the final vote on the position of Parliament.
(FI) Madam President, I could not vote in favour of this resolution either, at least not in its present form when we came to vote on it.
In Europe, our citizens fear for their safety, and with good reason.
This should be a priority for us now.
We need concrete measures to increase people's feelings of safety.
This resolution divided opinions right across Parliament.
It should not be a matter of whether we are against or in favour of nuclear power: we insist on minimum standards of safety for Europe as a whole.
The stress tests proposed by the Commission will not be enough on their own to pacify the public.
The Commission should investigate alternative energy solutions for the future, at the same time taking into consideration the different energy needs of the EU Member States.
In my opinion, investing in nuclear power should not mean that there is less research or product development in the area of renewable energy sources.
(SK) Madam President, the disaster in Fukushima has given rise to justified public fears over the use of nuclear energy, and it is therefore appropriate to think about the current situation in the EU, and to take decisive steps to improve safety, with which I agree, as well as transparency in the operation of nuclear plants and the protection of human health.
In the current situation, it is not possible, with the best will in the world, to imagine a functioning, competitive electricity market without the contribution of nuclear energy in a balanced energy mix, whether we like it or not.
The EU and the Member States have a duty to create an energy policy that will ensure the sovereignty, political independence and economic security of every state.
The instruments for achieving this objective include a suitable energy mix, an adequate level of production capacity, a balance between supply and demand, reductions in the energy intensity of the economy and so on.
I am not afraid of emphasising that nuclear energy is an important resource for electricity generation, because it contributes to greater energy security, particularly for states with limited reserves of solid fuels.
I abstained from the final vote because it included a proposal to put through a moratorium on new reactors.
I certainly disagree with that.
Madam President, I voted in favour of the amendment insisting on a nuclear-free future for Europe.
The tragedy of Fukushima underlines the huge danger that nuclear power represents for humanity and for the environment.
The potential for massive catastrophe and the lack of a safe way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel means that nuclear power does not represent a safe means to develop energy production.
The tragedy also underlines the fact that private profiteers cannot be trusted with the vital task of energy production and energy distribution.
Ultimately, the capitalist pursuit of profit, without regard for human life, human safety or the environment, is responsible for this crisis.
I call for the nationalisation of the energy sector under democratic worker control and management.
On that basis, we could develop a rational and sustainable plan for energy production, distribution and use, to provide cheap and safe energy for all, while protecting the environment.
At the centre of that plan, there must be a long-term programme of investment in renewable energy sources leading to the progressive replacement of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power stations.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after the tragedy of Fukushima, we all need to stop and think.
Nuclear power is once more in the spotlight, and I believe we need to think above all of the future, of our children's future.
It is true that we need energy, but we need clean energy and safe energy.
Safety is all well and good, but it is not enough.
A moratorium is not enough; we need to go further than that.
The tragedy of Fukushima tells us that there is no such thing as zero-risk nuclear power stations.
Above all, it tells us that we need to organise a rapid exit from nuclear power and to focus our attention on renewable, alternative power sources.
Europe needs a new energy policy in order to halt the construction of new nuclear power stations because of the terrible impact these power stations could have on safety, the environment, the climate and future generations.
A radical change of perspective is necessary, for a safe future based on saving energy and the use of renewable sources.
(PL) Madam President, I voted in favour of adopting the resolution.
The resolution was meant to be an expression of solidarity with the victims of the natural disaster and the nuclear accident which followed it, and also an expression of gratitude and recognition for all those who are risking their own lives to prevent an even greater catastrophe.
I, too, am full of admiration for the solidarity, courage and determination with which the people of Japan are reacting to this disaster.
I agree with the conclusion that the European Union must comprehensively review its approach to nuclear safety, but we cannot force Member States to abandon activities aimed at ensuring their own energy security, so I am pleased that we have rejected the unrealistic and dangerous provisions in our resolution.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Italian delegation from Italia dei Valori voted against the text of the resolution on nuclear power, because it was not clear enough to indicate a clear no to nuclear power.
Unfortunately, all the amendments that could have improved the text and chosen a Europe free of nuclear power, immediately free of existing nuclear power stations and with no future nuclear power stations, were rejected.
A Europe free of nuclear power is the only possible route if we want to guarantee that our children and future generations will have a future protected from the repetition of catastrophes like Fukushima and Chernobyl.
These lessons tell us that there is no such thing as theoretical safety.
That is why we have to say a clear no to the nuclear option and invest in research and innovation in other sources that are truly green, renewable and clean.
(DE) Madam President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution and I find it deeply regrettable that Parliament has not succeeded in reaching a uniform position today.
I particularly address this to those Members who were demanding more.
I think it would have been better to vote for the compromise, because I am aware that the European Union contains very differing views on the issue of nuclear energy.
It is precisely because environmental effects and the impact of disasters know no national boundaries that I would consider it important to adopt and accept the minimum requirements.
In the first place, we need a uniform safety standard in the European Union.
Secondly, we need to make provision for any future incidents or disasters; in other words, we need a European disaster recovery plan.
Thirdly, we should not continue to neglect research in the area of renewable energies, but also in the area of nuclear fusion and into the establishment of storage facilities and the recycling of carbon fuels.
Madam President, I also am disappointed that this House was not able to send a balanced and reasonable message.
There is no doubt that the damage to the Fukushima nuclear power plant is a disaster, but the final death toll will not be counted in thousands or hundreds, and perhaps not even in tens.
As a result of the world's most severe earthquake recorded in that area, there will be an estimated 30 000 to 40 000 deaths due to destroyed roads, bridges, railway lines and buildings.
Should we demolish all similar structures in the EU, just in case?
Nuclear technology is not at fault in Japan; the location is.
A panic reaction in Europe is therefore not only ridiculous but it could also damage the environment because there is no credible supply of a low carbon alternative to nuclear energy, and fossil fuels will prosper.
Do we really want that?
(FI) Madam President, everyone in Europe must be concerned about safety, and that is important.
We have to build systems that are safe.
Of course, it has to be said that there has been something of an overreaction since Fukushima.
On the other hand, that is only natural.
I remember the time when the Estonia sank: some were of the opinion that all ships should be banned, because they are dangerous.
Well, individuals can have such thoughts.
Now, though, we need to remember that just one out of 54 nuclear power plants did not get through the test to which the tsunami and earthquake subjected them.
Despite that, however, we now need to examine things calmly and remember that you cannot generalise on the basis of an individual case.
In fact, 300 000 Europeans die each year from the effects of fossil fuel emissions, and that is something we should look into first.
It is very important to ensure that nuclear technology is safe, and I know that in Europe, we will also construct plants safely in the future, and attention needs to be paid to this.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no cause for misplaced hysteria on this scale.
Madam President, can I say I abstained on the votes all of the way through on this.
This was not because I am not concerned about the issue, as I really am concerned about this issue, but I realise that it has to be nuanced and there are no easy answers.
I live in Ireland, I represent Dublin, which is on the east coast of Ireland.
Along the west coast of Britain there are five active nuclear plants; I have no objection to them.
However, I do think that in the area of nuclear safety and in the interests of good neighbourliness, it would be a good idea to have some form of joint British/Irish - when I say Irish, I mean North-South Irish - safety overview of the workings of those plants so that we would be informed about the risks, if there are any.
Furthermore, in the event of an accident, we could participate in any evacuation that there might need to be for people in Wales or England, so that we could play our part as a good neighbour.
Within Member States, where there are neighbour Member State countries with facilities of this kind, there needs to be good neighbourly cooperation.
That is the reason why I wished to make this explanation.
(FI) Madam President, in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, people have tried to stand up for human dignity, transparency, fundamental rights and the right to democracy.
The European Union has shown willing and ability in protecting Libya's civilian population and supporting the democratic revolution.
We must avoid double standards and show that we will act in accordance with our values in European Union foreign policy.
The situation in North Africa and the Middle East is a real acid test of Europe's new External Action Service.
A viable, fair society needs genuine dialogue and interaction between civil society and the political decision makers.
The people have to be listened to, and this is something of which we want to remind Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
We are not fomenting revolution.
The satisfaction, safety and welfare of the people are the priority of a state that respects justice.
With this resolution, we are showing that Europe, in its foreign policy, stands by the values for which it was also established.
Madam President, I abstained on the vote on the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
The revolutionary movements that started in Tunisia have inspired and encouraged millions of people across North Africa and the Middle East to engage in popular uprisings against the brutal regimes that have dictatorially ruled those countries for decades.
Those uprisings have once again proven the potential power of the working class and the poor to stand up and defeat their oppressors.
I denounce the hypocrisy of the leaders of the EU and other Western countries who today condemn the brutal repression that is used by these dictatorial leaders, but who yesterday supported, and provided a lifeline for, their regimes.
It is now vital that the masses unite across ethnic and religious lines to clean out the corrupt elites and build genuine democratic societies that can provide decent jobs, decent education and end poverty.
To achieve that, the working class and poor must take control over the economy and wealth that exists in the region and use it in the interests of the majority.
(PL) Madam President, we have recently witnessed mass demonstrations in countries such as Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
The protesters are demanding democracy in public life, the resignation of dictators and also, especially in Syria, the lifting of the state of emergency.
However, the authorities in these countries are using brute force against the demonstrators, killing many people.
It is particularly worrying that the whole region is threatened.
Using force against your own citizens is a violation of every law.
Using live ammunition is indefensible and demands categorical condemnation.
I appeal to the governments of these countries to stop the repression, in the name of human rights, including the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech.
I call on European institutions and the relevant international organisations to set in motion diplomatic measures in order to protect the demonstrators.
I hope that, in adopting today's resolution, we will also contribute to the protection of fundamental human rights in these countries.
(FI) Madam President, the European Union obviously knows that it has to implement its own fundamental values in its policy.
Human rights are one key area; they must be exported to the Middle East.
We really need to present a concept and understanding of what human rights mean.
That is not easy, because Middle Eastern culture is based on different values.
We in Europe have been brought up in a world of Judaeo-Christian values, whilst theirs come from Islamic thinking.
In both, people are treated differently, and the notion of a human being is different.
In any case, Syria has been under emergency law since 1963.
This has allowed the execution of people without trial.
Now, this uprising shows us that in Europe, we really need to open our eyes and see that the only success story in the Middle East is its sole democratic state: Israel, where there are human rights, freedom of opinion and democracy.
We should now exert more of this type of influence on Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, so that they might accept human rights for all and, furthermore, the rights of women and children, thereby, perhaps, taking the path to democracy.
I am not naïve, however, and I know that in the Islamic world, it is difficult to take these values forward.
Nevertheless, as Europeans, we should try to export and promote them.
Madam President, I abstained on the 2010 report on Iceland.
As a result of the financial and economic crisis, Iceland went from being the fifth richest country in the world to being a country racked by crisis, with the collapse of its banking system, where 40% of households could not pay their bills and pensioners lost their life's savings.
Last year, 93% of the Icelandic population, in a referendum, rejected the notion of paying more than EUR 3.5 billion to the governments of Britain and the Netherlands.
Despite some modifications, they are faced with essentially the same deal in the vote to be held on 9 April.
They should not be bullied into accepting this deal; the deal should be rejected.
It is not the responsibility of the Icelandic people to pay for the crisis.
Workers, pensioners and poor people have not created this crisis and must not pay for it; not in Iceland, not in Greece, not in Portugal, not in Spain, not in Ireland nor elsewhere.
Those international speculators who profited massively from the deregulation of the financial markets must pay.
(DE) Madam President, I am always pleased when new members join the European Union, which is why I also voted in favour of this motion.
However, I would like to see all issues being placed clearly on the table during the accession negotiations and being discussed and dealt with beforehand.
Problems that are not dealt with out of misplaced amicability do not go away.
It is often a harder, more protracted process to resolve them subsequently and the result is mutual disappointment.
Let me reiterate: I am always pleased when a new member joins the EU, but every member has not just rights but also responsibilities.
(FI) Madam President, I apologise for the incident before the vote.
You were quite right.
The European Union has promised the Balkan countries an opportunity for enlargement.
I consider that to be the only guarantee of peace there, as Martti Ahtisaari also said before me.
For the second consecutive year, the Commission is recommending the commencement of membership talks with regard to Macedonia.
The European Union cannot hide behind the dispute over Macedonia's name in its accession process.
The formal membership requirements must, of course, be met, and reforms need to be carried out.
The dispute over Macedonia's name would not be the first time a new Member State brought insoluble problems with it.
We should all take a look in the mirror.
Why should we treat Macedonia any differently?
Macedonia's progress, first and foremost, depends on Macedonia itself, but the EU should not shut the door in its face for political reasons like the dispute over its name.
(DE) Madam President, I also voted in favour of this report and of this resolution - in favour of Macedonia.
However, if we are being honest about this, then there is one detail that must be mentioned.
We cannot tell people and ethnic groups in other countries to rename their language because other countries do not like what they call it.
That is laid down in international law, and as Europeans we must be sure that we remain honest about this.
I was consequently very annoyed that unfortunately, one amendment was passed that I voted against, which stated that Macedonian should not be allowed to be called Macedonian.
Macedonia is a country with great prospects in Europe mainly because it also has great economic prospects in the Balkans, a region that has genuine difficulties, is prospering economically, and is conducting the negotiations with élan - which is very positive.
In view of this positive attitude, I would like to thank all the Members who voted for this resolution, as well as all those who worked with the parliament there as part of the European Parliament delegation.
We should make these prospects clear to the people there who want to be part of Europe.
Let us work together to that end.
(PL) Madam President, the brutal battle for power between the outgoing and the newly-elected President of Côte d'Ivoire which has been raging for over four months is in contravention of every principle on which the modern world functions.
Bloody battles have led to the deaths of several hundred people living in the country.
Over a million inhabitants of Côte d'Ivoire have had to leave their homes, and many refugees are still seeking shelter in neighbouring countries.
Everything should be done to bring those guilty of crimes to justice.
Above all, it should be investigated whether genocide and crimes against humanity did take place.
It is also becoming absolutely vital to ensure order and the safety of citizens by bringing all forms of violence to an end.
Intimidation of the local population and of foreign observers cannot be allowed to happen.
The results of democratic elections must be complied with in full.
As a result, the actions of the former president which contravene the will of the nation should be condemned.
Usurping power, inciting violence and violating human rights demand judgment by the relevant international authorities.
(FI) Madam President, I willingly voted in favour of this resolution.
I think that it is very important, in particular, that we adopt a clear and tough position on Belarus, which is an obvious blot on the map of Europe.
We have to implement measures that allow Belarus to find a path to democracy.
In particular, however, and with regard to the vote, I would like to go through Amendment 1 to point 10 tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, where they stated that the EU's partner countries have a longterm opportunity to join the EU.
I voted against that, because I do not think that we should make it automatic, or flirt with the idea that any state can become a member as long as it is a partner.
We know what the public think of hasty enlargement, and, for that reason, proposals of this nature should not be adopted.
That is why I voted against this.
(PL) Madam President, the Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy is a strategic element of the European Union's international relations.
Further expansion will take place in this direction.
Therefore, it is essential to increase expenditure in order to develop the democratic structures of these countries.
Support for initiatives such as Bielsat have a not inconsiderable significance for the independence of the media in Belarus, at the same time as withdrawing assistance for the state-controlled media.
I would call for active support to be given to local democratic authorities in these countries through partnership programmes.
Association agreements remain an important tool in stimulating reform, and the more funding and technical support they can provide, the better their results.
Widening the intellectual base through scholarship programmes also requires additional funds.
I appeal for an increase in funding to support human rights and the development of civil societies.
Deepening social integration will help to influence social and political change, and is a vital investment in the future.
Therefore, I support the resolution.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 21 documentary references, 21 explanatory comments and 63 points summarising Parliament's requests in the motion for a resolution, making a total of 105 points.
That seems far too many to be effective.
On this issue, however, there is no proposal as to how the development of international trade could help achieve stability, and with it tranquillity and peace in the Southern Mediterranean areas.
International trade has become a form of new foreign policy, and could help to create better living conditions throughout the region.
The European Union must not neglect anything that could favour the development of proper trade relations, stimulating production in the various industries.
Any progress in this field will help to promote democracy and human rights, safeguarding the dignity of women, increasing security, stability, prosperity and a fair distribution of income and wealth, and avoiding the tragedy of thousands of people fleeing hunger and emigrating without any real hope.
I am in favour of this report, which amends Directive 2000/75/EC.
Both the Council and Parliament agree on changing the legal basis due to the fact that the Commission's proposal had been submitted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
In my view, these amendments are justified due to the spread of the disease, and because the scientific discovery of a vaccine does not pose the risks that the previous one did.
I voted in favour of the report by Mr Wojciechowski which, through a series of interesting amendments to the Commission's text, seeks to update and make more flexible a dated piece of legislation that is no longer in step with contingent needs.
This would help Member States to make more efficient use of vaccination against bluetongue, thereby reducing the incidence of the disease in the farming sector.
I am pleased with the amendments set out in this directive, which makes the rules relating to vaccination more flexible.
Thanks to the new technology, 'inactivated vaccines' against bluetongue are available, and do not pose any risk to non-vaccinated animals.
It is now agreed that vaccination with inactivated vaccines is the best tool for controlling bluetongue and preventing clinical disease in the EU.
The widespread use of these vaccines during the 2008 and 2009 vaccination campaign resulted in a significant improvement in the health situation.
I would like to call for the amendment of the existing rules on vaccination set out in Directive 2000/75/EC, in order to take account of recent technological advances in the production of vaccines, to ensure that the spread of the bluetongue virus is better controlled, and to reduce the burdens on the agricultural sector caused by this disease.
in writing. - I voted for this report.
However, whilst I believe in the principle of enabling the competent authority, i.e. the Member State, to vaccinate against bluetongue, I am opposed to the principle of including in legislation the requirement to provide tables on transposition into national law.
In the past, vaccination against bluetongue was carried out using live attenuated vaccines, which called for a series of restrictions on vaccination so as to avoid the spread of the virus to unvaccinated animals.
However, scientific advances have allowed the creation of new inactivated vaccines.
Unlike 'live attenuated vaccines', these can be used safely and without any restrictions, as they pose no risk of circulating an active virus.
Given the serious consequences of bluetongue for livestock faming, all measures that make vaccination easier and more effective should be taken in order to protect farmers from the loss of animals, and, ultimately, in order to protect food security.
Bluetongue is a disease that mainly affects ruminant animals such as sheep, goats and cows, and may take the form of an epidemic if the environmental and climatic conditions are favourable to it, particularly in late summer and early autumn.
Although there is no record of any human being infected, it is vital to recognise this disease and seek to implement measures that will eradicate it.
At EU level, this disease was first seen in the south, and then in the centre and north of Europe.
Thanks to successive vaccination campaigns cofinanced by the EU, the use of certain vaccines may not eradicate the disease, but allow it to continue to circulate.
A type of vaccine was therefore developed that ensures the control and prevention of this disease in the EU, but the use of which is restricted under current rules.
A change to the current directive is therefore needed.
Given that this proposal for an amendment to the Parliament and Council Directive 2000/75/EC complies with the Animal Health strategy (2007-2013) and points towards a more flexible approach in the vaccination system, thereby contributing to improved control of major animal diseases, I am voting in favour.
This report aims to update Directive 2000/75/EC, which adopts certain provisions relating to measures for combating and eradicating bluetongue.
Over recent years, advances have been made in the field of animal vaccination.
The risks of the so-called 'live attenuated vaccines' are no longer a threat, as new inactivated vaccines are now available.
These inactivated vaccines, unlike 'live attenuated vaccines', do not pose the risk of an undesired circulation of the virus from the vaccine, and can be used safely outside areas subjected to restrictions.
This is noted in the report.
We believe that greater flexibility in bluetongue vaccination, taking account of the technological developments in producing vaccines, will contribute to better control of the disease and reduce the burdens that it brings to bear on the agricultural sector.
We also believe that the amendments to this directive need to be implemented as quickly as possible, in order to benefit the agricultural sector.
I voted in favour of this report, because bluetongue is a disease affecting ruminants (such as cattle, sheep and goats).
Since the early 2000s, several epidemic waves of disease have occurred in many Member States, including central and northern Europe, causing significant losses in terms of morbidity, mortality and disruption of trade in live animals.
Hitherto, the provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue have been based on experience of the use of live attenuated vaccines that were the only vaccines available.
Those vaccines may lead to undesired circulation of the vaccine virus in unvaccinated animals.
In the last few years, however, new inactivated vaccines have become available.
Unlike the 'live attenuated vaccines', these inactivated vaccines do not pose the risk of undesired vaccine virus circulation and can therefore be successfully used outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions.
This proposal would relax some restrictions, which have become unnecessary in light of the recent developments in vaccine production.
The new rules would help Member States to make more effective use of vaccination to control bluetongue and reduce the burden on the agricultural sector posed by this disease.
As a result of technical innovation, newer vaccinations against bluetongue have appeared on the market which were unavailable when the Commission was drawing up its directive.
This is why I am supporting the rapporteur's view that the regulations governing vaccinations should be updated, which will make it easier for animal breeders to produce healthy animals.
Making the regulations more flexible and liberalising them will allow for more effective breeding, and, above all, will make the protection of animals against unwanted and dangerous diseases more effective.
I also fully support this initiative from the point of view of its nature, as, in order to make the legal system more effective, we should simplify it as much as possible and make it more flexible, and the above report fulfils this aim.
Bluetongue is a horrible animal epidemic affecting ruminants that has caused great damage throughout the livestock sector.
The economic damage and the losses resulting from the trade coming to a standstill are hitting the farming sector hard.
In Austria, too, where cattle breeding has a long tradition, many farmers have found their livelihoods threatened.
It is now important to implement supporting measures and revise the old regulation before the next epidemic breaks out.
The rules on vaccination that applied at that time need to be adapted to technological developments in order to combat bluetongue more effectively and reduce the burden on farmers.
I welcome the rapid action at EU level and advocate the fast implementation of the new directive.
As a representative of the farming community, I know how important it is to think in terms of the annual cycle.
Making a decision quickly will allow us to have a usable and uniform ruling by the autumn, which is in the interests of the Member States and, above all, of those that keep animals.
Bluetongue is a disease affecting ruminants.
Since the early 2000s, it has caused significant losses of animals affected by the disease.
Europe intervened with Council Directive 2000/75/EC to deal with the problem through provisions regulating the use of 'attenuated vaccines', in order to effectively combat the consequences of the phenomenon.
The vaccines used hitherto, which were those to which the aforementioned directive applied, led to the risk of transmission of the virus to unvaccinated animals, which is the reason why vaccination was only allowed in specially designated zones.
Unlike the ones on the market at the time Council Directive 2000/75/EC was introduced, the new vaccines available are 'inactivated vaccines', and do not pose this kind of risk.
I voted in favour of this report because the new provisions will allow Member States to control the phenomenon, thus reducing the negative impact of this disease on a large number of European livestock farmers.
I hope that this will help enable the urgent measures to be adopted as soon as possible within the next few months.
I support the substance of the Commission proposal.
It would relax some restrictions, which have become unnecessary in light of the recent developments in vaccine production.
The new rules would help Member States to make more effective use of vaccination to control bluetongue and reduce the burden on the agricultural sector posed by this disease.
Vaccination against bluetongue was carried out using live attenuated vaccines, which called for a series of restrictions on vaccination so as to avoid the spread of the virus to unvaccinated animals.
However, recent technological advances have led to the discovery of new vaccines without the live virus.
These new vaccines can be used more safely and without any restrictions, as there is no longer any risk of circulating an active virus.
Given the serious consequences of bluetongue for livestock farms, all measures that facilitate good practice in vaccination should be adopted so as to protect farmers from the loss of animals, which can cause damage that often proves fatal for such farms.
Animal epidemics can still destroy the livelihoods of farmers.
One of these is bluetongue, of which there have been repeated epidemics in Northern Europe since 2000 and which can cause particularly great damage.
Cattle and sheep are particularly badly affected by the disease, which is caused by a virus transmitted by the gnat, a type of midge.
An illness has also been observed in goats, but the course of the disease is far less dramatic in these than in the case of other species.
The possibility of vaccination was first permitted in 2000, but was subject to strict rules since untreated animals could also have been infected by the viruses through the vaccine.
However, now there is a new vaccination method that does not pose this risk, allowing more flexible forms of vaccination to be carried out.
I voted in favour of the report because I consider it right and proper to protect our livestock from epidemic diseases.
The flexibility called for will allow farmers to protect their animals.
For some years, there have been repeated occurrences linked to bluetongue, particularly in Northern Europe.
This is an animal epidemic affecting ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats.
The consequences were serious, both for livestock and for farmers.
I voted in favour of this report because it advocates the introduction of an innovative vaccine which, unlike its predecessor, carries no risk of healthy animals being infected as a result of vaccination.
The Commission's proposal on vaccination against bluetongue, which is improved in this report, aims to make the rules on vaccination against bluetongue more flexible, in particular, by allowing the use of inactivated vaccines outside areas subjected to restrictions on the circulation of animals.
The new rules will help the Member States to make the use of vaccines to control bluetongue more effective and to reduce the burden that this disease places on the agricultural sector.
Indeed, since 2004, measures to restrict mobility and marketability have necessitated major constraints on the products affected, affecting the normal trade channels within the area subjected to restrictions and resulting in increased costs for producers.
For this reason, I voted in favour of the report on vaccination against bluetongue.
in writing. - I voted in favour.
Bluetongue is a disease affecting ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats.
Since the early 2000s, several epidemic waves of disease have occurred in many Member States, including in central and northern Europe, causing significant losses in terms of morbidity, mortality and disruption of trade in live animals.
Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 lays down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue, including rules on vaccination.
These rules were designed for the use of 'live attenuated vaccines' that were the only vaccines available when the directive was adopted a decade ago.
For this reason, Directive 2000/75/EC allows vaccination only in specially designated zones in which the disease has occurred and which have been subject to animal movement restrictions.
Unlike the 'live attenuated vaccines', these inactivated vaccines do not pose the risk of undesired vaccine virus circulation and could therefore be successfully used outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions.
In order to ensure a more effective fight against bluetongue and reduce the burden it poses on the agricultural sector, the current rules on vaccination need to be updated.
The report voted on today aims to make the current rules more flexible, as inactivated vaccines have now become available.
These can be used successfully outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions.
The proposal is in line with the new Animal Health strategy for the European Union (2007-2013) 'Prevention is better than cure', as it involves both a more flexible approach to vaccination and an improvement in the current measures for combating the principal diseases in animals.
in writing. - The EPLP wholeheartedly supports the report aimed at amending Directive 2000/75/EC with a view to allowing the use of inactivated vaccines against bluetongue outside areas subject to animal movement restrictions.
The new law ushers in the use of a new bluetongue vaccine for the first time, which takes advantage of developments in science since the previous rules came into force.
The new vaccine will be an 'inactivated' jab and will allay farmers' fears over the traditional 'live' vaccines.
The EPLP is delighted that the EU has brought in this new law, which has real benefits for farmers in the UK.
It reassures farmers who are concerned by the deadly disease and the existing vaccination as the bluetongue season approaches with the warmer weather.
Farmers will now have a new and safer vaccine available and will be given greater powers over their own vaccination programmes.
Until now, farmers would have lost the right to vaccinate their animals if the UK was declared entirely free from bluetongue.
But under the new law, farmers are given the power to keep vaccinating for their own peace of mind, whilst profiting from easier exports.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report which will assist in the fight against bluetongue disease within the EU.
in writing. - I voted to change the rules on vaccination against bluetongue disease in order to allow the use of more effective vaccines and to reduce red tape for farmers.
The new law will have real benefits to farmers across Europe and especially in Wales.
The UK will be granted bluetongue-free status, but farmers will still be allowed to vaccinate their animals against the deadly disease.
Giving farmers greater powers to make their own decisions concerning vaccinations is a welcome boost to the farming industry in Wales and will ensure that livestock can be exported without the current restrictions.
I am in favour of this resolution because its main aim is to ensure the highest level of security for populations following disasters like the one that happened recently in Japan.
The technical aspects of safe energy trapping should be very carefully considered because a situation like the one that we are seeing now can have even more severe consequences in terms of both human health and the environment, in addition to its material impact.
I voted against the resolution on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan.
I voted against the resolution because when voting on the fifth subparagraph, the majority of the European Parliament approved its second part, which calls for a moratorium on the development of nuclear energy and the construction of new nuclear power plants in the European Union.
This provision was adopted, although my group - the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - voted against it.
Having lost the vote on this important issue, I could not vote in favour of this resolution.
I therefore voted against it, otherwise I would have been voting against my own country Lithuania's energy strategy, the main objective of which is energy independence.
For some years, Lithuania has been gearing up for the construction of a new nuclear power plant and preparations have been taking place for several years.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster has had a series of repercussions on European political life.
The first lesson that the EU has drawn from the Japanese catastrophe has been to take prompt action to tighten safety checks at nuclear power installations by means of stress tests.
Every nuclear power installation, whether inside or outside Europe, has the potential to be a weapon of destruction.
I believe that none of us would wish to relive the Chernobyl disaster of 26 April 1986.
The second lesson is that science and technology may make giant leaps forward in all areas, but they always have to take into account a major constraint, which is nature and its unpredictability.
It is precisely because of events outside the control of humans that we should diversify our energy sources, including by leveraging the renewable energy sources available to us.
However, if nuclear power were to be chosen as a source of energy, people should first be informed about the costs, benefits and consequences of such a choice.
It is important not to forget that this choice of technology must be endorsed by popular consensus, and that the opinion of the people must be listened to and respected.
in writing. - I voted against this report because of its several flaws, starting with its approach to the nuclear issue.
After the Japanese tragedy, it is no longer possible to deal with the nuclear argument solely in terms of safety.
The title of the report is 'on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan', but there is no special lesson to be drawn except that confirming the practical impossibility of controlling both the risks and consequences of a major nuclear accident.
A resolution on this subject cannot be centred around the issue of nuclear safety without addressing the most important nuclear safeguard, which is an exit strategy from nuclear energy itself.
We must react to the nuclear accident in Japan.
That does not mean that we should draw any hasty conclusions.
We must hold calm, objective discussions on the state of nuclear power in Europe and on the means to ensure maximum security.
Hence, I support the intention to make European nuclear power stations undergo extensive stress tests, included in the joint resolution.
As regards the broader issue of energy sources in Europe, may I remind you that we need to bear in mind the target of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, as well as the protection of the EU's energy independence.
I voted in favour of this resolution, although not all of the amendments proposed by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats were adopted during the vote.
The resolution text contains particularly important provisions on the nuclear power plants planned for the Kaliningrad region and Belarus.
The resolution notes that there are major problems with the constructions mentioned concerning nuclear safety standards and compliance with appropriate obligations in accordance with international conventions.
These problems are not just relevant for Lithuania, which shares its borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region, but for the whole of Europe.
The document also contains important proposals to ensure compliance with the highest nuclear safety requirements and to undertake comprehensive testing in nuclear power plants already operating in the EU, so that it is possible to assess the true safety status of such power plants.
The EU's response to the disaster in Japan has been the right one: we have responded rapidly, without panicking.
We have immediately cleared the way for a thorough investigation under European supervision.
It is crucial that 1. the stress tests are carried out by independent experts and that 2. the results of those tests are acted on rigorously.
That means that nuclear installations which do not conform to the standards, which continue to fail to make the grade, should be closed down.
Obviously, power plants elsewhere in Europe, outside of the EU, should be subject to the same independent testing, under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Any state which refuses to participate in this will be making itself an international pariah, even in terms of international trade.
Nuclear power has been, and remains, a transitional technology, a technology which we will, unfortunately, have to hang onto for decades to come.
We will even have to make new investments in order to meet our energy needs and, at the same time, consolidate our climate ambitions.
During that time, we must do everything possible to reduce the risk of accidents to a level that borders on zero.
The pro-nuclear lobbies still have a bright future ahead of them!
There is no point in going over the context of this resolution, it was totally obvious.
Yet the European Parliament does not have a position on nuclear power.
That is a real pity.
Several clearly identified issues were on the table: that of a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, the conducting of independent stress tests, the development of renewable forms of energy, and the efforts in the key area of energy efficiency.
However, the initial good intentions of a joint resolution were quickly smashed to pieces: since each parliamentary group took a position for or against, it became impossible, in the end, to vote for this draft, which has no political message.
Let us be clear: I had come to expect much more of the European Parliament.
It is clear that the pro-nuclear lobbies still have a bright future ahead of them and, at the same time, that many MEPs still fail to understand the public's thoughts and feelings on this issue.
It concerns me that the European Parliament (EP) has today failed to approve the compromise form of the resolution on nuclear safety in Europe, following the nuclear accident in Japan.
I consider it shameful that the EP is incapable of offering the public its opinion on nuclear power.
As a result of this disunity, it may be the case that in the forthcoming talks between European bodies over the form of the stress tests for power plants, the EP will be ignored.
The greens and socialists were evidently unable to accept the fact that their proposals to stop using nuclear power, or to close nuclear plants built before 1980, did not go through.
I voted against this joint motion for a resolution.
The compromise resolution was a good starting point, and I supported the amendments in favour of a carefully planned and prepared phase-out of nuclear power, reflecting the fight against global warming.
I also voted in favour of the amendments calling for investment in research and innovation, in order to promote energy saving and greatly increase the number of renewable forms of energy.
However, the outcome of the vote - the incoherent vote - forced me to vote against the amended resolution.
It is now vital to hold an in-depth debate on all these issues and to carry out an energy transition in a spirit of solidarity, taking into account the situation in all the Member States.
in writing. - I am disappointed by the voting on this resolution.
We are debating the lessons for nuclear safety in Europe following the crisis in Japan.
However, my firm conviction is that there is no such thing as safe nuclear power and that the stress tests taking place this year are a distraction from the real issue - the transition to a Europe powered by renewable energy.
Given the most recent studies, it is clear that it is technically possible that 95% of our energy supplies could come from renewables like wind, tidal, wave, solar and biomass by 2050.
With that target in mind, and as we are now making long-term energy choices, we should be phasing out nuclear plants over the coming years across Europe.
I regret that Parliament has not drawn any lessons from what has happened in Japan.
Continuing to deny the great risks of using nuclear energy is not the best way to serve the public.
The plenary in Parliament was not able to adopt a resolution, with the unedifying spectacle of groups cancelling each other out and rejecting one another's proposals without being able to adopt anything in common.
More should have been made of the transnational nature of the risks and consequences of these disasters, and the safety of the people.
The obvious conclusions should have been to step up nuclear security, test weaknesses, freeze nuclear expansion projects in the EU and invest more effectively in clean energy and in energy conservation.
Closing one's eyes to what has happened in Japan and pretending that nothing has taken place is insensitive and dangerous.
Chernobyl and Fukushima have only heightened the call for greater transparency and more information about the risks and the disasters.
in writing. - I wish to place on the record the fact that I did not participate in the vote on the individual paragraphs of, and amendments to, the joint resolution.
Even though I have consistently opposed nuclear power, I feel that the discussion was used by extreme opinion on both sides of the nuclear argument and this ensured that a common ground could not be found in Parliament.
I believe that we must ensure that all facilities are checked to allow for the maximum protection of facilities and, more importantly, for the safety and security of the populations in their locations.
Obviously, we must ensure security of supply of power in a sustainable way and we have an opportunity to look at alternative sources of power which we can exploit whilst, at the same time, helping the environment.
This ideological debate, however, must not take away from the immediate concern of assisting the Japanese people in every way possible to recover from this disaster.
This is why I abstained on the final vote.
I deeply regret the exploitation for partisan ends of the disaster that has struck Japan.
The European Parliament has missed an opportunity to send a strong message to the Member States and the European Commission with the aim of improving the safety of nuclear power plants in Europe and in neighbouring countries, in particular, through stress tests.
For that should be the focus of today's debate, so that we can ensure, on behalf of the public, that a form of energy that is still the main component of the energy mix in most European countries - and will certainly remain so over the next few years until a sustainable, renewable and non-CO2 emitting energy source can replace it and meet our society's electricity needs - is as safe as it can possibly be.
On 11 March, Japan was hit by a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami, that has caused the greatest nuclear crisis in the country's history, with the Fukushima nuclear plant suffering serious structural damage and having been in imminent danger since then of triggering a nuclear disaster of major proportions.
These events led to a wave of reaction in Europe, with Commissioner Oettinger requesting the convocation of an extraordinary meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the German Chancellor deciding to suspend the decision to extend the lifetime of nuclear plants in her country by three months, and the Austrian Minister for the Environment, Mr Berlakivich, demanding that tests be carried out on European plants.
It is vital that all possible lessons are learned from the Fukushima disaster, particularly with regard to the safety rules imposed on EU nuclear power plants, in order to ensure their safety and, ultimately, that of the European public.
Again, at this difficult moment, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences and my solidarity to those affected by the disaster in Japan.
The problems that occurred in the Fukushima nuclear power plant have put the discussion of energy from nuclear fusion on the agenda, since 30% of energy consumed in the EU has this origin, and there are countries where domestic production is 80%, such as France, and also countries without any nuclear power plants, such as Portugal and Austria.
It is therefore imperative that the EU promotes a programme to check security in its nuclear power plants, especially by carrying out so-called 'stress tests'.
These assessments should be based on a model of rigorous and harmonised evaluation, covering all the types of possible risks in a realistic scenario at European level, and they should be conducted by the end of this year, in an independent and coordinated way, encompassing all the existing and planned nuclear facilities in the EU.
At present, nuclear energy is vital for ensuring the supply of energy with low carbon emissions in Europe.
However, we must move towards greater energy efficiency and an increase in renewable energy.
The Commission and the Member States should invest in the modernisation and expansion of European infrastructure in the field of energy, as well as in the interconnection of networks, in order to guarantee a reliable energy supply.
Ensuring the safety of nuclear installations and preventing the risk of accidents in every way possible are important issues addressed in this resolution, which also calls on the Member States to impose 'a moratorium on the development and commissioning of new nuclear reactors, at least for the period during which the stress tests are conducted and evaluated'.
However, we need to ensure that the tragedy that occurred in Japan is not an opportunity for the advancement of lobbies, or for progress to be made today only to be reversed in the future.
Lessons need to be taken seriously and we must learn from this experience in order to diagnose failings and shortfalls in design and operational terms, which could lead to accidents at other facilities.
This experience also needs to be taken into account as part of future energy developments.
Experts from specialist bodies within the Member States and also from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be part of this assessment, while retaining their role, authority, autonomy and independence.
As a technical, autonomous and independent body, recommendations regarding this subject should come from the IAEA with the proper support from the EU, and not the other way round.
It is regrettable that this resolution is being used as a pretext for safeguarding the so-called common energy policy and its objectives of liberalising the energy sector.
This motion for a resolution was not the best.
That is why it was rejected, although it had some positive aspects, which is why we abstained.
Ensuring the safety of nuclear installations and preventing the risk of accidents in every way possible are important issues addressed in this resolution, which also calls on the Member States to impose 'a moratorium on the development and commissioning of new nuclear reactors, at least for the period during which the stress tests are conducted and evaluated'.
However, we need to ensure that the tragedy that occurred in Japan does not serve as a springboard for economic interest groups to open up new avenues, to the detriment of the interests and safety of the public.
Instead, it is important to diagnose failings and shortfalls in design and operational terms, which could lead to accidents at other facilities.
Experts from specialist bodies within the Member States and also from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be part of this assessment, while retaining their role, authority, autonomy and independence.
Lessons need to be taken seriously, and the results of an analysis of this experience incorporated into future energy developments.
We do not agree with interference in the energy policies of Member States or third countries: as a technical, autonomous and independent body, recommendations regarding this subject should come from the IAEA with the proper support from the EU.
Japan is facing its greatest post-war disaster.
The leaders of the country have described the destructive earthquake, combined with the giant tsunami waves and the subsequent nuclear threat, as the worst crisis since the US military dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nature has wrought enormous and irreplaceable losses, especially in terms of human life and property.
However, the situation in the Fukushima nuclear plant remains a threat.
In an attempt to avert similar threats in the future, it would be right to consider implementing so-called stress tests of nuclear plants in EU Member States.
These should show the extent to which the power plants are capable of withstanding similar disasters.
A similar situation to the one in Japan could happen anywhere in Europe.
It is therefore also desirable to have more stringent monitoring of safety systems at nuclear power plants, strengthening their weak aspects and eliminating any deficiencies.
It is in the interest of individual countries, and also within their capabilities, to look for a solution to the nuclear issue - whether through safety improvements, or complete decommissioning.
Cooperation at the European level, however, is essential.
Although Europe is not threatened by giant tsunami waves, there is the threat in the 21st century of, for example, terrorist attacks, attacks by computer hackers on nuclear power plant systems and so on.
From a security perspective, the extent to which power plants can counter such potential threats is very much open to question.
I did not support the resolution, firstly because it did not contribute anything positive in addition to bans, restrictions and a general aversion to nuclear technology.
Secondly, it does not indicate any way out of a completely new situation for energy policy as a whole.
For example, points 19, 20 and 21 could have introduced new ideas and orientations in terms of integrated thinking about energy efficiency, especially efficiency with regard to energy from primary sources, of which we have the greatest reserves, especially fossil fuels.
Thirdly, the radical suggestions it contains require a national referendum, which, in my country, is to take place at the initiative of the left-wing parties.
Maybe such a referendum ought to be carried out at EU level.
Fourthly, my country, as a result of the EU's misguided regulations to date, has been forced to halt essential investments in coal power stations, and now the same lobby is saying that we need to halt investments in nuclear technology.
So what is left?
The resolution points only to energy from renewable sources.
In my country, the total capacity of these resources would cover 13%, to a maximum of 20%, of essential needs.
Maybe in Sweden the situation is different, as it has large reserves of hydropower, but not in Poland.
The case of Fukushima requires a review of the whole of the European Union's current energy policy.
The excitement that overcame certain political groups following the Fukushima nuclear accident, because they hoped to score political points off the back of it, is unacceptable.
I do not remember the communists being so virulent after 1986's Chernobyl disaster.
It is true, then: there is no such thing as 'zero risk' where nuclear power is concerned.
There is no such thing as zero risk in life full stop.
We must do all we can to minimise that risk.
For the moment, however, we do not have any credible alternatives.
Forcing the Member States urgently to abandon that energy source, to stop building new plants and to shut the others, is completely at odds with the outright rejection of fossil energy, on the pretext that its use would contribute to global warming.
Nuclear energy or fossil energy: you may favour one over the other, but you cannot rule them both out.
Neither hydropower nor today's alternative energy sources are capable of meeting our supply needs.
Those countries that have stopped using nuclear power - but not preaching to the others - are, in fact, very happy that their neighbours, from whom they obtain their supplies, have not made the same choice as them!
Stop the hypocrisy.
The parliamentary resolution on the lessons to be drawn from the nuclear accident in Japan contained some very positive points with regard to the safety of power plants, recommending, for example, 'stress tests' carried out in a coordinated manner at EU level by independent bodies working in accordance with the most exacting standards and completely transparently.
Furthermore, like everyone else in the French socialist delegation, I supported the amendments in favour of a carefully planned and prepared phasing-out of nuclear power, reflecting the fight against global warming.
That phasing-out of nuclear power will have to go hand in hand with increased investment in research and innovation, in order to reduce our energy dependence and increase the number of renewable forms of energy in the energy mix of the EU Member States.
I did, however, vote against the motion as a whole, because it was merely a juxtaposition of viewpoints forming an inconsistent motion.
After such a disastrous event as Fukushima, the question of the future of a sector as sensitive as nuclear energy requires more than a hastily put together resolution.
We will now have to take the time necessary to organise a genuinely constructive debate, addressing all of the associated issues while enabling everyone to voice his or her opinion.
This resolution cannot cover every aspect of the debate on nuclear energy in detail.
However, I remain convinced that it must be our aim to progressively phase out this source of energy and to use renewable energy to a greater extent.
Amendment 10 also proposed that in the case of nuclear power stations in border areas, the local and regional bodies must be involved in the decisions on both sides of the border.
This amendment was not adopted.
While some aspects of the resolution are indeed positive, Amendment 10 was decisive for me.
That is why I decided no longer to support this resolution and to abstain.
I am pleased that the European Parliament rejected this resolution.
The lessons that we must draw post-Fukushima include recommending the introduction of stress tests, laying down new common safety standards in the EU, and protecting ourselves from every possible scenario.
However, the introduction of a moratorium on new nuclear power plants for the period during which the stress tests are conducted in the EU is unacceptable.
It will hinder the development of much safer new-generation plants.
The aim here is not to establish whether the merits of this energy source should be called into question, and neither is it to succumb to the idealistic, obscurantist values of those who would like to ban it.
To abandon nuclear energy is to ensure the promotion of highly polluting coal-fired plants; it is to fall back into the hands of the oil companies, with uncertain oil prices and the huge risk of a weakened economy; and hence, it is to spell the end of our energy independence.
I voted against the joint resolution because of the rejection by the House of two key amendments presented by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the development of medium- to long-term strategies for the progressive phasing-out of nuclear power and the definition of binding renewable energy targets.
The vote against the entire resolution by the House highlights the fact that the nuclear issue is no longer just one of greater safety.
It is now vital that we begin to think seriously about the energy issue and about investment in renewable energies.
Japan's tragic experience has shown us just how necessary it is to discuss nuclear power in depth.
In this sense, the European Parliament's vote is the first step towards a change of direction in energy policy choices on both a European and an international scale.
The disaster in Japan has awakened people's concern over nuclear safety.
In the resolution from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, we emphasised that we wanted to make the proposed stress tests mandatory for the Member States and to allow independent experts to manage the implementation of the tests, and that the tests must be transparent.
We abstained from the vote on the joint resolution, as it also contained a proposal for a moratorium on the development of new nuclear reactors while the stress tests were being carried out.
Any problems are primarily associated with older reactors with older technology, not with new nuclear reactors with new technology.
We do not wish to prohibit the development of new technology that will contribute to the EU's objective to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.
We are opposed to a ban on the whole idea of nuclear power.
After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Sweden introduced rules that made it illegal to prepare for the construction of nuclear power plants.
We also believe that Finland and Sweden should invest in nuclear energy research and take a leading role in the development of future generation nuclear reactors.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the disaster in Japan is that we should not run nuclear power plants for so many years.
The disaster can be seen more as an inspiration to build new nuclear reactors.
I voted for the adoption of this resolution and I regret that Parliament was unable to agree on a single motion for a resolution on this topical subject.
I consider that nuclear energy must remain as an important and safe source of European energy.
I support the demand for comprehensive stress tests, which must be carried out both in all existing and all planned nuclear power stations, and satisfactory results in respect of which must be the precondition for their remaining in operation.
I share the concerns expressed in this motion for a resolution that the development of new nuclear projects in Belarus and Russia (the Kaliningrad oblast) gives rise to serious concerns about nuclear safety standards and compliance with the obligations contained in international conventions, and that Europeans, Member States and the European Commission must respond to these concerns in a spirit of solidarity.
That is why our Union must ensure that these stress tests and the nuclear safety standards that will be defined as a result be applied not only in the EU but also in respect of nuclear power stations already built or still in the planning stage in Europe's neighbouring countries.
Following the nuclear accident in Japan, thousands of people died and disappeared without trace.
Significant material damage has also been done and the consequences will have long-term implications for people's health.
Even now, we still feel the consequences of Chernobyl, and therefore today, we must reassess our approach to nuclear safety in the EU and the rest of the world.
As for improving nuclear projects, in Belarus and Kaliningrad, there are huge problems surrounding nuclear safety standards, and compliance with the appropriate obligations in international conventions, because these problems are not just a matter for the Member States that share borders with these regions, but for the whole of Europe, and EU entities and the European Commission must act together, under the subsidiarity principle.
The resolution on the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy states that given the planned development of nuclear energy in the Baltic Sea region, the EU Member States must comply with the most stringent standards of safety and environmental protection, and the European Commission must monitor and check whether neighbouring countries on the EU's external borders follow the same approach and international conventions.
Nuclear power plants under construction near the EU's external borders must comply with international nuclear safety and environmental protection standards.
Today, energy efficiency and energy saving, renewable and sustainable energy, and the introduction of Europe-wide electrical energy networks, have become particularly important.
Moreover, it is important to have a smart power grid able to operate by obtaining energy from decentralised energy generators.
The serious accident that took place at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami, resulted in damage and long-term consequences for health through contamination of the environment.
Following on from warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the state of now obsolete nuclear power installations, it would seem necessary to identify measures able to assess safety levels at installations.
Collaboration and coordination between Member States are crucial, as crises of this type have repercussions not only for the countries in which they are built, but also on a more widespread level.
The events that have taken place show that, in order to prevent disasters on this scale, Europe has to implement a series of very stringent measures in order to assess existing safety levels.
The development of new nuclear power installations in Belarus and Russia requires the Commission to take action by opening up a dialogue with these countries in order to ensure the safety not only of their neighbouring countries, but of Europe as a whole.
In principle, I support this resolution because it calls for a first step towards phasing out nuclear power throughout the European Union.
Where the substance of the resolution is concerned, however, I would comment that - as so often with resolutions of this type - it is a case of too little, too slowly.
In the end, the principle of the lowest common denominator prevails, which certainly cannot be satisfactory in the long term.
The only correct solution would be to phase out nuclear energy completely throughout the European Union, and to do so as quickly as possible.
I will do everything I can to work towards this.
In April, we voted on the joint resolution on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan.
I voted against this resolution, because apart from the bans and the moratorium on nuclear power development and the suggestion of a gradual withdrawal from nuclear energy (which is unrealistic), it does not add anything positive, and neither does it provide any solutions for the future of the energy industry in general.
The situation after the tragedy in Fukushima has completely changed the philosophy of the approach to the future of energy production in Europe and Poland.
In our country, the power industry, 95% of which is based on coal, has already suffered as a result of the adoption of the Climate and Energy Package.
Investments undertaken in order to build two nuclear power plants have also been stopped.
The resolution only stresses the importance of energy generated from renewable sources, which in Poland represents only 13%, and at most 20%, of our needs.
Moreover, a referendum on the nuclear power industry, which is being suggested by the Left, is still to be held in Poland, and therefore, the conclusions drawn from this very resolution are premature.
I welcomed the fact that the majority voted against the resolution.
I think that we need to avoid making immediate, far-reaching political decisions about the role of nuclear energy in the energy mix in the medium and long term.
It is important for us to have a clear picture based on precise data about what happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
We must not lose sight of the benefits of nuclear energy, which produces low carbon dioxide emissions, incurs relatively lower costs and ensures energy independence.
Until now, nuclear energy has been the safest form of energy, statistically speaking, with the lowest number of accident victims, compared to other energy sources (for example, gas and oil).
It is also vital to respect the decisions of Member States in terms of determining the composition of their own energy mix.
Nuclear energy has an important role to play in achieving the European Union's targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy and the energy strategy for the current decade.
I voted against the resolution on nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan.
The reason for my voting against it is the resolution's call for a moratorium to be imposed on the development of new nuclear power plants.
I think that the production of nuclear energy in safe conditions is of paramount importance.
I agree with carrying out stress tests.
However, I believe that imposing a moratorium for an indefinable period is inappropriate.
This period may be extremely important to power plants currently under development, especially from the funding perspective.
The structure of the energy mix is Member States' responsibility.
This is why I do not believe that such a decision can be imposed at EU level.
in writing. - I voted against this resolution because the amendments adopted left us with a text which paid insufficient attention to nuclear safety issues.
The Fukushima disaster reminded the planet that zero risk for nuclear power does not exist.
The danger that nuclear energy represents for humanity is absolutely unsustainable, as are the high levels of risk from the waste produced.
We therefore need to go further in ensuring safety and improving safety testing.
These two criteria would be a minimum condition for reaching an agreement.
No exit strategy has yet been guaranteed with a view towards actual changes to European energy policy, which needs to move towards the setting out of alternatives, and a phasing out will enable the nuclear industry in Europe to be progressively abandoned.
I voted against this resolution as I believe that none of the aforementioned premises are guaranteed.
The Fukushima disaster reminds the world that there is no such thing as zero risk where nuclear power is concerned.
Nuclear power poses an unacceptable risk to humankind.
We must therefore go further than increased safety and safety tests.
We must draft a European plan to phase out nuclear power forthwith.
To phase out nuclear power takes time.
It is a crime against humanity not to start preparing for it now.
I shall not support this resolution if the amendments calling for nuclear power to be phased out are rejected.
This motion for a resolution on nuclear safety in Europe was more than necessary.
It deals with all the dangers posed by nuclear energy and I hope it will provide the impetus for a comprehensive rethink concerning the use of nuclear energy in Europe.
The numerous amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance were necessary in order to directly address the wide range of risks that exist and to call for a rapid phasing-out of the use of nuclear energy.
Since I am convinced that man will never succeed in getting the risks posed by nuclear power plants entirely under his control, I advocate this rapid phasing-out and supported the amendments relating to this.
Since the motion for a resolution is ultimately a step in this direction, I voted in favour of it.
During voting on the resolution on the safety of nuclear energy following the Fukushima accident, I voted against the draft amendment regarding CO2 reduction objectives for three reasons: a) the issue does not relate to the subject of nuclear safety; b) the objectives set out give disproportionate prominence to the role of the EU in the unilateral reduction of CO2; c) such an ambitious - and in truth, unrealistic - reduction in CO2 would only be acceptable if it were combined with a CO2 tax on imports, which could seriously affect the competitiveness of European industry, as well as leading European companies to relocate their production in countries without CO2 restrictions, with serious effects on the EU economy and employment.
I voted against the joint motion for a resolution on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan, for the following reasons: at least seven of the tabled amendments are scientifically unrealistic; many parts of the text are simply sound bites without any real substance, and those speaking out against nuclear energy do not present alternative solutions to using it either.
Last but not least, I must point out that I regret the fact that the European Parliament has not adopted a stance on this issue.
However the kind of stance to be adopted must be balanced, pragmatic and based on scientifically documented realities and on realistic solutions.
It is high time for a rethink as regards the use of nuclear energy in Europe.
We must now start to take action, close down dangerous reactors and, in the medium term, find a way to phase out nuclear energy completely.
We need to reject once and for all the misplaced belief that man has the dangers posed by nuclear energy under control.
I voted in favour of the resolution on nuclear safety because, following the recent events in Japan, we cannot afford not to tackle the issue responsibly and with objective criteria.
I believe it is important for Europe to review its rules on safety in nuclear power installations in order to guarantee absolute safety levels, which can be identified by stress tests, that will show any risks and limits to the use of nuclear power.
The resolution in itself aims to show that, despite everything, it is possible to learn from catastrophes, and to react clearly and effectively in order to ensure that they do not happen again.
It also underlines the need to aim at alternative sources of energy, such as renewable energy, while nuclear power remains an indispensable source of low carbon energy.
I voted against the resolution on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan, because I do not believe that the issue of the future of nuclear power - a crucial one for our fellow citizens - can be resolved by this House in a few hours through amendments adopted without any real debate.
All the issues must be put on the table, and no options must be ruled out, which is exactly why we need time.
At stake are the credibility of our Parliament and the wellbeing of our fellow citizens, who would not understand - and rightly so - if we were to commit them to long-term courses of action that we did not discuss calmly and exhaustively beforehand, taking into account the different national situations and the constraints of our common fight against climate change.
Lastly, I should like to say how sorry I am that, due to extremists on all sides, Parliament has been unable to approve at this time an immediate increase in the safety of nuclear power plants, even though we in our group reached a consensus demanding the most serious, transparent and independent checks possible.
I am angered that the European Parliament has today rejected the resolution on such a crucial issue as the lessons to be drawn from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
As far as our institution is concerned, then, there is no before and after 11 March 2011.
Yet the strong signals were there!
After all, it was not too difficult to agree on some simple principles:
The principle of supporting the Commission so that it can conduct these 'stress tests' with the Member States on the 143 nuclear reactors in operation in Europe;
The principle of submitting by 15 April a precise timeline on the criteria adopted: independent experts, priority given to the safety of nuclear facilities that are intrinsically more dangerous by virtue of their location in seismic or coastal areas, and safety reports for the public;
The principle of immediately shutting down plants that fail the 'stress tests'.
The European public expects our institution to be responsible and sensible, especially on such a controversial issue as atomic energy.
It is, perhaps, ultimately not a bad thing for the choice of energy, and hence the choice of whether or not to abandon nuclear power, to remain an exclusively national responsibility.
in writing. - I voted against.
I am extremely glad that, in the end, the pro-nuclear lobby has failed.
It is completely incomprehensible that the PPE Group and others voted against saying that zero risk does not exist, against a progressive phase-out starting now, against going towards a near-100% energy-efficient renewables economy by 2050, against a nuclear-free future for Europe, and so on.
The final text was absolutely unacceptable, and I am glad the majority of the House supported us Greens in rejecting the joint resolution.
The serious nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power station on 11 March caused the death of thousands of people, as well as unimaginable material damage to the entire Japanese economy.
This carnage is making every country in the world re-examine its position with regard to the use of atomic energy technologies.
Unfortunately, in many cases, these choices are being accelerated as a result of the recent tragic events, and there are calls from many quarters for the total and immediate dismantling of nuclear power installations.
The EU has been reconsidering its approach as a whole to nuclear safety for some time, but it is important to take into account the fact that this technology will continue to be part of the energy mix of various Member States for many years to come.
In the future, it may be possible to meet our energy needs using renewable energy sources, but this is not yet possible, nor will it be possible for a long time.
I am in favour of more restrictive safety measures for nuclear power installations, in line with those applicable to the latest generation installations.
However, I believe the option of stopping nuclear energy production from one day to the next is both short-sighted and pointless.
It is dictated more by emotion than by real need, and could bring the economies of the world's leading industrialised nations to their knees.
After the nuclear disaster that has struck Japan, we have no option but to review the European energy plan.
We need to pay particular attention both to nuclear power stations already in operation and to those in the planning stage.
The European Union has already provided for stress tests to be carried out on all plants, including those in neighbouring states having existing relations with the Union.
This resolution also provides for a moratorium on the construction of new power stations to allow for proper evaluation of the associated risks.
We must be aware that in the decades to come, many countries will still depend on nuclear energy but, at the same time, we cannot allow there to be power plants in Europe that pose a risk to the population.
Power stations predating 1980 must be decommissioned.
In some countries, such as Italy, assessments are being carried out to decide whether or not to abandon nuclear energy, and it is essential to implement common decisions, also, at European level.
What is incredible is the fact that the European Parliament has been unable to pronounce on an issue such as the one under consideration today, which is important and of deep concern to citizens.
In fact, all the resolutions have been rejected, including the joint resolution, which we endorsed.
Speaking a few days ago at a meeting of industrialists, Italy's Minister for Finance, Mr Tremonti, coined a new phrase - the 'nuclear debt'.
The Member States that have invested in nuclear power are the ones with the highest levels of public debt.
How much does it cost to close first- and second-generation power stations?
How much do the stress tests, which we are discussing at such length today, cost?
Once a power station is shown to be 'stressed', how much does it cost to 'destress' it?
Furthermore, how much does it cost to dispose of radioactive waste?
No one has yet told us.
As the European Union, we could begin to think of different options to show the Member States.
Moreover, given that the Commission will have to provide us with a road map, why not begin to think of real investment in fourth-generation nuclear power - clean nuclear, or fusion - or even begin to consider an overall energy plan?
We expect the Commission Communication to outline a road map on this subject and to try to give the European Union a clear direction at last in this sector.
The nuclear accident at the Fukushima power station has caused an enormous disaster, with the radioactive contamination also affecting many people who were in the vicinity of the power station and who suffered injuries.
Many hospitals are refusing to admit and treat them due to the risk of contamination.
Although the Japanese Prime Minister has announced that the Fukushima power station will be decommissioned, the situation remains unresolved: the cooling system for one of the reactors is out of use and a considerable amount of radioactivity is being released into the environment.
In the light of this, it is important to ensure that all the necessary humanitarian and financial aid is provided and to lay down international safety rules that are as reliable as possible, in order to prevent other disasters like that in Japan in the future.
For this reason, I voted against the resolution, because it omitted the amendments calling upon the Member States to draw up possible strategies for abandoning nuclear power and immediately to inform regional and local cross-border authorities of their national programmes if their implementation could have a cross-border effect.
in writing. - Although this is a sensitive period of time just after the enormous problems with nuclear safety in Japan, nuclear energy remains a major contributor to energy supply cross the EU and globally.
The views expressed by those in the House seeking to force early closure and abandonment of the policy in this matter made voting for elements of this report very difficult for pragmatic reasons rather than a particularly pro- or anti-nuclear approach.
I could not support 'aggressive' amendments which could have damaged the energy supply policy of a 'mixed' approach leading to reduced CO2 emissions and the eventual growth in renewables.
We have not reached any agreement today on this resolution, which was intended to draw lessons from the nuclear disaster in Fukushima.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has, for years, advocated the phasing out of nuclear power, because the risks to humans and the environment are unacceptably high and because there are more than enough alternatives.
Fukushima, in particular, has demonstrated that.
It is sad that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe continue to believe in their nuclear dreams, even if, as has now been made clear by Japan and Chernobyl, they will ultimately end in nightmares.
Despite this, there are still many people who are reluctant to wake up from their bad nuclear dream.
The only truly safe nuclear power is no nuclear power.
The amendment which called for the phasing out of nuclear power was voted down.
A majority in this House appears not to understand that it is perfectly technically and economically feasible, over a period of forty years, to generate our electricity completely sustainably through such measures as energy efficiency and reliance on the sun, wind, geothermal energy, water and biomass.
For the time being, the nuclear power lobby appears to be gaining ground.
Hence, my 'no' vote in the final vote.
in writing. - I voted against the resolution in the final vote as I believe we need to debate this issue in the context of the overall EU energy strategy, not in the context of the Japanese nuclear tragedy.
The nuclear accident happening in Japan at the moment must be followed by an in-depth debate on the plants located in France and Europe.
Stress tests must be carried out on all the nuclear power plants in operation, particularly when they are located in seismic zones.
I am thinking, in particular, of the Fessenheim power plant in the Upper Rhine.
Furthermore, I believe that imposing a moratorium with no time limit on the development and commissioning of new nuclear reactors is not an economically viable solution and may threaten many jobs, while also dangerously weakening our energy production.
I voted for this European Parliament resolution on the lessons to be drawn for nuclear safety in Europe following the nuclear accident in Japan, as its objective is to increase nuclear safety in the EU and not to ban the production and use of nuclear energy.
This is why I voted against all the amendments aimed at removing nuclear energy from Europe's energy mix.
Although I did not vote for imposing a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear reactors, I felt that, if such a moratorium were imposed, it ought to be limited only to the period of the 'stress test' which nuclear reactors in the EU will be undergoing.
This would allow the construction of new reactors to benefit from the conclusions of the stress tests, ensuring that nuclear safety will increase.
At the moment, nuclear energy accounts for 30% of Europe's energy mix.
The European Union depends, to a large extent, on Member States' energy mix to fulfil its '20-20-20' target.
We cannot decide to get rid of nuclear energy without establishing what sustainable energy sources will be available which can meet the EU's energy demand in the years ahead, at prices which citizens can afford.
The EU must invest in energy efficiency measures, particularly in buildings and transport, as well as in the use of renewable energy sources.
in writing. - The nuclear crisis in Japan set into motion a number of ideas that amount to an irrational tsunami.
Nuclear energy is now demonised and there is growing pressure demanding a complete switch from nuclear to so-called alternative sources of energy.
But this school of thought is bordering on outright superstition.
The nuclear reactor of Fukushima was hit by an unprecedented combination of catastrophes.
This proves that nature is unpredictable and that tsunamis cannot be banned, but it does not prove that nuclear energy is at fault.
Nuclear energy has a much safer record than any other source of energy.
While oil arguably generates exploitation, dependence, wars and dictatorships, nuclear energy is historically much safer.
Our main concern with nuclear energy should indeed be risk assessment and unitary safety procedures at a European level.
With these criteria fulfilled and observed, nuclear energy could put an end or severely limit the politics of energy dependence.
And while natural disasters cannot be prevented, nuclear energy is not a serious risk per se.
The real danger does not come from well serviced nuclear reactors, but from nuclear reactors under the wrong political control.
In other words, look at Iran, not Japan.
in writing. - I feel that this resolution was a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic situation in Japan, and did not allow enough time for debate of the issues surrounding the safety of nuclear power plants in the EU.
Nuclear power is a vital source of energy across Europe, with some Member States getting as much as 75% of their electricity from nuclear power, and a review of the safety of nuclear power plants should be a priority, including stress tests on existing plants.
This should not, however, lead to closures of existing power plants where there are no safety concerns or prevent the opening of new nuclear installations to replace out-of-date plants.
We need a grown-up debate on these issues to ensure that there is a balanced mix of renewable and other low carbon sources of energy to ensure that the lights stay on across Europe.
in writing. - After the defeat of the joint motion for a resolution, I voted in favour of this text which, while not perfect, struck a good balance between nuclear safety and a pragmatic approach to the issue.
in writing. - I voted for this Verts/ALE Group resolution because all the other resolutions on the subject had fallen.
I backed it to show support for the safety recommendations but was uncomfortable with the more extreme anti-nuclear sentiments it espoused.
in writing. - I voted against this resolution, which I found almost naively pro-nuclear.
I voted in favour of this resolution.
Demonstrators in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen have expressed legitimate democratic aspirations and strong popular demand for political, economic and social reforms aimed at achieving genuine democracy, fighting corruption, ensuring respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, reducing social inequalities and creating better economic and social conditions.
The governments of these countries responded to the people's legitimate aspirations with violent repression, arbitrary arrests and torture, resulting in serious loss of life, injuries and imprisonments.
The violence used by the governments of these countries against their own populations must have direct repercussions on their bilateral relations with the European Union. The EU can, and must, use numerous tools to deter such actions, such as asset freezes, travel bans, etc.
The EU must review its policies towards those countries and make full and effective use of the existing support given through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument for Stability, in order to urgently assist the countries and civil societies in the Middle East and in the Gulf in their transition towards democracy and respect for human rights.
Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were the top news stories at the start of 2011.
However, those states are not the only ones with democratic aspirations.
Large-scale movements have also emerged in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
There too, unfortunately, the ruling authorities have responded through the prism of repression and violence.
A state cannot use violence against its own people and not be penalised by the European Union in the context of its bilateral relations.
Through this resolution, the European Union supports the people of Syria in their aspiration to genuinely lift the state of emergency in place since 1963, expresses its solidarity with all of the people in these countries, and calls on the European Union to redefine its relations according to the progress made in reforms.
I think that the European Union needs to promote democratic values more than ever and show solidarity with the peoples in the Southern Mediterranean countries in their aspiration for a democratic society.
The situation in the Arab countries reminds me of the fall of the Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.
We, too, went through similar events and can understand these peoples' demands, which makes it our moral duty to show our solidarity with them.
The protests which have been going on in these countries for the last few weeks provide clear proof that the undemocratic regimes are not meeting the population's expectations and that they cannot offer these societies political stability and prosperity.
The High Representative and Commission should firmly oppose the use of violence against demonstrators and exert pressure on the authorities in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain to commit to constructive political dialogue with the aim of resolving the situation.
Furthermore, I think that the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Syria should be subject to the Syrian authorities' willingness to carry out reforms aimed at establishing democracy.
The Union has this instrument available and I believe that it should use it as much as possible to support the establishment of democracy in the Arab countries.
The recent protests in several Arab countries show that non-democratic and authoritarian regimes cannot ensure credible stability, and that democratic values have a key role in economic and political partnerships.
I call on the authorities in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen to comply with international law on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is vital that they start an open and significant process of political dialogue involving all democratic political forces and civil society as soon as possible, with the aim of preparing the way for real democracy, for the lifting of states of emergency, and for the implementation of real, ambitious and significant political, economic and social reforms, which are essential to long-term stability and development.
Bahrain is at risk of becoming the site of a confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
In this situation, we cannot overlook the religious element in the developments in the region, at a time when the Shi'ite opposition is supported by Iran, while the Sunni dynasty enjoys the support of the monarchies in the area.
Moreover, the close ties between Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the religious tensions between the Sunnis and Alawites in Syria, should make us exercise caution because there is a huge risk that the escalation in violence will also push Syria towards civil war, with outside interference.
The Hama massacre in 1982, which included 20 000 Syrians among its victims, is a tragic warning in this regard, just as are the failures in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of the way in which the West must act in a region whose very distinctive features cannot be ignored.
I believe that we need more diplomacy and less armed force, more concern for defending human rights and the protection of civilians and less concern for the electoral potential of external intervention, as well as greater attention on the poverty and corruption which these societies are faced with, especially in Yemen.
I voted in favour of this resolution as I condemn the violent repression of peaceful demonstrators carried out by security forces in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
I would like to express my support for, and solidarity with, the people of these countries, who, motivated by legitimate democratic aspirations, are showing great courage and determination.
Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have been rocked by protests, which have been savagely repressed.
I call on their governments to embark on fruitful dialogue with the demonstrators.
The violence meted out to these peoples will not indefinitely stop them claiming what they believe to be theirs by right.
It will only delay them taking up these rights, make positions more extreme, and encourage more demanding reactions in the future.
Machiavelli himself, who theorised at length about how it is preferable to be feared than to be loved, warned the princes of the world that it was unnecessary and damaging to make themselves hated.
It would be better for the authorities in these states to undertake concrete reforms, and to allow their nationals to enjoy standards of democracy, freedom and justice similar to the best in the world.
The example set throughout its existence gives the European Union a historical duty to speak out against all human rights violations and to fight for peoples' right to self-determination, both through denunciation, and through development aid.
The current situation in Bahrain - which is of strategic importance with regard to the equilibrium in the Gulf - and which, underneath the appearance of normality, is very tense, with the ongoing detention of people who are accused of nothing more than violating the right to free expression.
In Syria, protests in several cities have been brutally put down despite EU calls for rights of freedom of expression and association to be respected.
Finally, in Yemen, the situation is deeply worrying and has already been condemned by the EU because of the repression of demonstrators, to which we cannot be indifferent.
I therefore agree with the measures proposed in this resolution, not least the condemnation of those responsible for massacres in these countries, and hope that they have an effect in as short a time as possible so that the humiliation of their people can stop.
I also welcome the initiative to call on the UN Commission on Human Rights to condemn these violations of fundamental rights.
We are facing another example of the hypocrisy of the majority of this Parliament.
Firstly, because they are grouping different situations and countries together in the same resolution.
They are doing this intentionally, proposing transition 'dialogue' to help their allies (Bahrain and Yemen), and pressuring those who do not defend their interests (Syria).
There are marked differences with what happened in Libya, where dialogue was replaced by military aggression, making any possibility of a peaceful solution to the conflict impossible.
The objectives are clear: to camouflage the movement of troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates into Bahrain to assist the oligarchic regime there, with the support of the United States - a country that keeps its main Persian Gulf fleet in Bahrain - and to repress the Bahraini people's fight for social change and democracy.
The same is happening in Yemen, where they are coming out in defence of a regime that is violently repressing its people, and their fight for democratic change and improved living conditions, in order to protect an ally in the so-called 'war on terror'.
This resolution is another example of the hypocrisy of the majority of Parliament.
To begin with, because they are lumping different situations and countries together in the same resolution.
Is there a case for asking why 'dialogue' was not advocated in Libya, rather than bombing?
The same in Yemen, where they are coming out in defence of a regime that is violently repressing its people, and their fight for democratic change and improved living conditions, in order to protect an ally in the so-called 'war on terror'.
There is now an attempt to conceal outside interference in Syria, through the financing and arming of what are being called 'peaceful protests' in a country that has had an anti-imperialist attitude, condemning Israeli and US policy in the region.
I voted in favour of this document, because following similar developments in other Arab countries, demonstrators in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen have expressed legitimate democratic aspirations and strong popular demands for political, economic and social reforms aimed at achieving genuine democracy, fighting corruption and nepotism, ensuring respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, reducing social inequalities and creating better economic and social conditions.
Therefore, the European Union and its Member States should support the peaceful democratic aspirations of people in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and the governments of these countries must not react by increasing violent repression.
It is impossible to justify serious crimes such as extrajudicial killings, abductions and disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture and unfair trials.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution.
I believe the EU must reassess its bilateral relations with Syria, Bahrain and Yemen in the light of their violent repression of demonstrators, and talks on a future Association Agreement with Syria must be suspended.
I am also concerned about the presence of international troops in Bahrain and call for an investigation into the deaths of 54 protestors in Yemen.
Double standards continue to dominate the external policy of the majority who govern the EU.
This resolution is a perfect example of that.
It rightly criticises Ali Abdullah Saleh and Bashar al-Assad, but not the King of Bahrain.
The dead and wounded victims of the repression of the Yemeni and Syrian governments are mentioned, but not those of Bahrain.
There is no justification for showing such respect.
I refuse to support this hypocritical text which, on the pretext of condemning some, pardons the others.
Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have found themselves in the grip of a series of popular revolts that are being forcibly put down.
In my opinion, this is not the best way of handling the situation, as violence only begets more violence.
The governments of these countries need to seek means of dialogue with the leaders of the demonstrations in order to be able to move towards levels of understanding that will prevent deaths and bloodbaths.
The authorities in these states should concern themselves with undertaking concrete reforms that allow their citizens access to democracy, freedom and justice, similar to what exists in most countries.
I voted in favour of this resolution as I believe that the European Union is in a position to endeavour, through diplomacy, to promote a process of democratic and peaceful change in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
I am on the side of the peoples of these countries, who want, as we all do, improved economic conditions, reduced social inequalities, the combating of corruption and nepotism, the implementation of democratic reforms, and the guaranteeing of fundamental human rights.
I support this claim by the EP that strongly condemns the violent repression by security forces of peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and extends its condolences to the families of the victims; expresses its solidarity with the people in those countries, applauds their courage and determination, and strongly supports their legitimate democratic aspirations.
It also urges the authorities of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen to refrain from the use of violence against protestors and to respect their right to freedom of assembly and expression; condemns the interference by the authorities in Bahrain and Yemen in the provision of medical treatment and the denial and limiting of access to health facilities; stresses that those responsible for the loss of life and injuries caused should be held accountable and brought to justice; and calls on the authorities to immediately release all political prisoners, human rights defenders and journalists and all those detained in relation to their peaceful activities in the context of the protests.
The current state of affairs in several African countries, and also in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, is the result of the people's legitimate aspiration for political, economic and social reforms aimed at bringing about a genuine democracy.
It is well known that repressive laws restricting citizens in the exercise of their civil and political rights have always been in force in those countries.
As a result, there is a strong desire among the people for political and social reforms.
Unfortunately, the governments are reacting to these legitimate demands with violent repression and the application of anti-terrorism laws intended to justify the extrajudicial execution, torture, abduction and disappearance of many demonstrators.
Today, the number of deaths, casualties and arrests in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen is extremely high.
The excessive use of force by the governments against demonstrators has violated every single international convention on civil and political rights.
I join with the rapporteur in condemning the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators by the security forces in those countries, crushing their legitimate democratic aspirations.
We must express our complete solidarity and support the courage and determination that these peoples are demonstrating to the entire world.
in writing. - The situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen is an unpredictable ongoing process and not a bloody but unstoppable march toward democracy.
The political background in Syria and Yemen has been, for a long time, authoritarian or outright dictatorial.
Yet this is not making the opposition a fully democratic alternative.
Especially in Yemen, a lawless, fragmented polity, the forces gathering under the opposition umbrella are hosting or could give way to terrorist or radical anti-democratic forces.
In the past, 'stability' in the foreign policy for the Middle East was a substitute for inaction or the status quo.
It was certainly an overrated concept.
Now it could become underrated.
The European and largely the democratic interest would be better served by a rational, non-emotional approach.
The need for democracy in countries with a long record of political oppression should not become the undoing of future democratic process.
This does not mean that the Assad or Saleh regimes should be propped up, but it means that the solution should be a negotiated exit strategy rather than a violent and uncontrolled regime change.
Caution and clear headed policies are much more appropriate in countries and regions that could turn from one system of oppression to another.
The European Parliament today adopted a resolution calling for the EU's relations with Syria, Bahrain and Yemen to be reassessed in order to take account of the popular uprisings in those countries.
If I thought that that was really the intention of the European institutions, it would have my full support.
The key element of this resolution is the call for 'the suspension of further negotiations over the signing of the still pending Association Agreement between the EU and Syria' and the fact that 'the conclusion of such an agreement should depend on the capacity of the Syrian authorities to carry out the expected democratic reforms in tangible form'. Point duly noted.
However, I have to point out, and the resolution itself admits it, that 'the signing of this Agreement has been delayed at Syria's request since October 2009'.
One can only wonder, then, what impact this declaration will really have.
I therefore abstained on this text.
This vote by our Parliament, which follows several resolutions since the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, is proof that the events in the Arab world are a wave, the size and longevity of which no one can predict.
Admittedly, the situation is different in each of the countries, but ultimately, these popular movements are the expression of an unshakeable desire for democracy, freedom and justice.
The European Union must not allow people's legitimate and peacefully expressed demands to be repressed through the use of violence, which unfortunately appears to be the only response of regimes with their backs against the wall.
Europe must express itself firmly, in particular, through the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, so as to confirm its support for the public demonstrations, which are calling for the fundamental values that are promoted and defended by the Union to be respected in those countries.
Our Parliament, which is regarded as a temple of democracy, must reiterate its solidarity with these peoples and must support them in their democratic transition process.
It is therefore essential for us to review our relations with the countries of North Africa, the Near East and the Middle East so that, together, we can successfully build an area of stability, peace and prosperity.
I am voting for this motion for a resolution.
I believe that it is important to increase the effectiveness of development aid, and that there is a need for a coherent policy of support in areas such as trade and development cooperation, climate change, agriculture, etc.
The EU needs to follow a common position towards the least developed countries (LDCs), and should not allow economic and financial crises to compromise the development of partnerships with the LDCs.
It is essential that the global commitment to addressing the specific needs of the LDCs, as regards the sustainability of development in all of its economic, social and environmental aspects, and to supporting them in their efforts to eradicate poverty, be reaffirmed during this conference.
Ahead of the Istanbul conference in May, the EU has reaffirmed its support for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in developing countries, and once more confirmed its commitment to provide specific aid programmes.
Although notable progress has been recorded in some countries and regions, the goal of halving the level of poverty in the world is still far from being achieved.
Eleven million children still die every year from treatable diseases, the greater part of them before the age of five; one person in four has no access to drinking water; 114 million children still have no access to primary education; approximately 600 million women are still illiterate; and just as many people have no access to progress.
The failure to achieve the goals established in 2001 will not discourage the industrialised nations, which, on the contrary, will continue to ensure that countries that need aid are at the top of the international agenda, promoting the supply of new targeted sources of finance and the creation of cooperation programmes.
Raising these countries up again and giving a future to thousands of people requires commitment, great political determination and consistent mobilisation of financial resources, all conditions that the EU satisfies.
in writing. - I voted against the joint motion on the Fourth United Nations conference on least developed countries because the motion is not focused enough on the problem of international aid ineffectiveness.
The motion, and the statement by the Commission during the parliamentary debate, ignore the current critical discussion on the last 50 years of international aid to the countries of the global South, and ignore the lessons to be drawn by past failures and successes.
Why the monumental failure of the aid to Africa?
Why the monumental failure of the World Bank policies on development and poverty reduction?
Why the huge scandal of foreign aid delivery to Afghanistan during the last 10 years?
Why the huge success of the poverty elimination policies in China, Vietnam and Brazil?
If we are not able to answer these difficult questions, we will never be able to use the EUR 60 billion in development aid for the benefit of the least developed countries.
I agreed with this resolution.
The Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries should focus on policy coherence for development, because it is an important factor for reducing poverty.
In addition to the existing challenges, the situation in the LDCs has been exacerbated by the recent global financial, food, climate change and energy crises.
Therefore, this UN conference should be result-oriented, on the basis of clear indicators and the objective of reducing the number of LDCs by half by 2020, combined with efficient and transparent monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.
It is deplorable that 48 countries are currently classified as least developed countries (LDCs), and that 75% of the 800 million inhabitants of these countries live on less than USD 2 per day.
The long-term goal for development cooperation should be that of creating the conditions for sustainable economic development, and the fair redistribution of wealth.
Peace and security are vital to the effectiveness of development policy, and the EU should coordinate its approach better, with the aim of resolving stability problems in the LDCs and supporting efforts to build the capacities needed for the construction of peaceful, democratic and inclusive states.
It is also essential to give priority to food security, to agriculture, to infrastructure, to capacity building, and, in particular, to economic growth and access to technology, as well as to the human and social development of the LDCs.
With the previous conferences having focused on principles, I hope that the fourth UN conference will be geared towards determining results and devising clear indicators for halving the number of less developed countries by 2020.
Out of the 51 underdeveloped countries, where 78% of the population live on less than USD 1.25 a day, only three have moved out of this category in recent years.
The situation is worrying as these countries are the most vulnerable to ordeals such as the financial and food crises and climate change, while also facing extreme poverty, a lack of infrastructure and rising unemployment.
This reality highlights that, unfortunately, the international community has not fulfilled the commitments set out in the Brussels Action Programme.
I hope that during the conference, where I will be representing the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, we will focus on achieving consistency in terms of development policies and methods for implementing innovative funding mechanisms, with the aim of providing more effective help to those countries which need to be encouraged to implement suitable policies.
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution, as I believe that the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries needs to put forward measures to make the integration of these countries into the global economy possible, and to improve their access to EU markets.
The European Commission should consider increasing aid to these countries in order to minimise costs resulting from the liberalisation of their markets.
Despite the technical and financial assistance provided over the years to the least developed countries (LDCs), it is essential to recognise that these countries have not succeeded in lifting themselves out of this status, and still have permanent weaknesses and needs.
It is only fair to mention the exceptional circumstances in Cape Verde, as the adopted resolution does, as the country has succeeded, despite a lack of resources, in overcoming some of the difficulties that it faced, and improving its population's living conditions.
I would therefore congratulate the Cape Verdean people, their government and their parties on this, as they have been able to take action in a responsible and respectable manner: this Portuguese-speaking country is today an example to be followed by the LDCs.
Despite limitations on trade and problems with training and access to information, to resources and to units of production, it cannot be emphasised enough that the underdevelopment of the LDCs results mainly from their decision makers' lack of skill and their institutions' inefficiency, as their people are so capable in other respects.
The Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries (LDC-IV) will take place in Istanbul, Turkey, on 9-13 May this year.
The EU, which has always led the way in supporting developing countries through poverty eradication programmes - for which financial allocations have trebled over the last few years - is very involved in the organisation of this meeting.
Parliament will also be represented by a delegation delivering well thought-out proposals, although its observer status will not allow it great visibility, and I hope that this represents a significant boost in winning the 'battle' of sustainable development and equitable growth for these countries.
Given that all countries have responsibilities for supporting the least developed countries (LDCs), in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals, I agree with the proposals included in this joint motion for a resolution, and I would like to see the goal of halving the number of LDCs by 2020 achieved.
LDC-IV needs to support concrete measures that help to find solutions to the LDCs' development needs, to combat poverty, and to ensure a decent income and existence.
In the context of the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries, it is appropriate to consider the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2000 and to assess their implementation, specifically: eradicating poverty and hunger; promoting equality between men and women; increasing and improving mother/infant health care; combating HIV/AIDS; developing environmental sustainability; and achieving universal primary education.
With regard to development policy, the disparity between the EU's words and actions is clear.
We have the resources at our disposal to eradicate poverty.
These are even increased by the benefits of scientific and technological development.
Nonetheless, what we are seeing is an increase in poverty at global level.
This is the result of the system that dominates the world: capitalism, which is intrinsically unfair and unequal.
We would emphasise the importance of the alternative resolution tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, as well as the amendments tabled to the joint resolution - and unfortunately rejected by the majority - that focus on, inter alia, issues such as: food sovereignty, agricultural development, and the need to put an end to the EU's blackmailing of a number of developing countries on the basis of so-called Economic Partnership Agreements.
It is essential to support the poorest and most fragile countries on the planet, which include nearly 50 countries, whose people are suffering the effects of successive failures to implement the conclusions of successive United Nations conferences.
In most cases, this situation is due to colonialism, and to the exploitation of their riches and peoples.
It is not the inevitability of fate, nor inescapable natural limitations or constraints that make these countries poor.
Quite the contrary: several of them are rich, very rich, in natural resources.
In other cases, it is the continuation of capitalist exploitation, with the injustice and inhumanity of a system - which is the world's dominant mode of economic and social organisation - that is sustained by asymmetrical relationships, which create and sustain inequalities.
It is in breaking with the foundations of this system, and in a genuine and solidarity-based policy of cooperation and development aid, that the possibility of the emancipation of these people and the development of these countries lies.
More than 40 countries in the world belong to the category of least developed countries.
I welcome the EU's attempt to participate actively at the top-level UN conference, and I expect concrete commitments from this.
During the past 10 years, the poorest countries have recorded greater progress than in the previous decade.
Despite this, however, many problems persist: increasing dependence on imported goods, poverty, the low level of human capital and vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters.
These problems must be resolved from all sides, but two points are particularly important.
First, these countries have to get investment flowing into the productive sectors of the economy.
Secondly, it is necessary to help build democratic structures in these countries, enabling them to decide independently on strategic priorities without foreign interference.
Commodity market fluctuations and the consequences arising from these are a specific issue that must be resolved.
From the long-term perspective, the answer is to diversify the economy.
From the short-term and medium-term perspective, it is important to control price shocks, especially in the area of foodstuffs.
With regard to the position of the EU, it is important to focus on coherent external policies.
The Commission document of 16 February is exhaustive, but it must take a more critical approach.
We need to acknowledge that not all EU activities in the area of trade or direct foreign investments are in line with development policy.
In my opinion, they should be subordinated to it.
I voted in favour of this document, because since the Third United Nations conference on the least developed countries (LDC-III) and the adoption of the Brussels Action Programme, some positive steps have been taken, for example, the 'Everything But Arms' initiative and the increases in Official Development Assistance, which doubled between 2000 and 2008, and direct foreign investment, which rose from USD 6 to USD 33 billion, enabling 19 countries to achieve a growth rate of 3%.
LDC-IV should be result-oriented, on the basis of clear indicators and the objective of reducing the number of LDCs by half by 2020, combined with efficient and transparent monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.
I would stress the need to give priority to food security, agriculture, infrastructure, capacity building, inclusive economic growth, access to technologies and human and social development in the LDCs.
I believe that LDC-IV should focus on policy coherence for development as an important factor for policy shift, at national and international level, and call, therefore, for policy making in all areas - such as trade, fisheries, the environment, agriculture, climate change, energy, investment and finance - to support the development needs of LDCs in order to fight poverty and guarantee decent incomes and livelihoods.
I urge the EU to honour its commitments in terms of market access and debt alleviation and to reaffirm the importance of reaching the ODA target of 0.15% to 0.20% of GNI for the LDCs, mobilising, for this purpose, domestic resources and, as a complementary measure, innovative financing mechanisms.
I believe that the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries needs to put forward the measures necessary to make the integration of these countries into the global economy possible, and to improve their access to EU markets.
However, despite everyone's efforts, the objectives have not been achieved, although Cape Verde stands out here, as it has achieved some success and increased its citizens' quality of life to higher levels than the other least developed countries.
The economic crisis in the developed world has brought in its wake trade restrictions which, in turn, are putting an economic stranglehold on less developed countries.
Families on the verge of absolute poverty have seen a 15% rise over the last six months in food prices which, according to World Bank data, have risen by 29% compared with 2009.
Consequently, the recent official request submitted by the poor countries for export restrictions to be lifted cannot be ignored.
The economic crisis is certainly hampering negotiations; however, tough negotiations on the back of people living in absolute poverty are, at best, morally questionable.
This specific motion for a resolution, which I supported, emphasises and highlights specific policies to reverse this situation, both at national and at international level in numerous sectors, such as trade, fisheries, the environment, the agricultural sector, climate change, energy, investments and the financial sector.
The European Parliament aims to make its contribution to the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries through this resolution.
I support this contribution, as I also believe that this conference should foster coherent development policies by promoting measures in all areas - such as trade, fisheries, the environment, agriculture, climate change, energy, investment and finance - in order to provide strong support for the development needs of the least developed countries (LDCs), to combat poverty, and to ensure decent incomes and subsistence.
Like the resolution that I voted for, I would also like to emphasise that, in 2007, Cape Verde was one of three countries that pulled themselves out of LDC status.
This is a country with few resources, but which was able to work for growth and combat poverty.
I therefore wish to congratulate the people of Cape Verde and their government.
in writing. - In favour.
With this resolution, the EP: 1.
Considers that LDC-IV should be result-oriented, on the basis of clear indicators and the objective of reducing the number of LDCs by half by 2020, combined with efficient and transparent monitoring and follow-up mechanisms; 2.
Believes that LDC-IV should focus on policy coherence for development as an important factor for policy shift, at national and international level; calls, therefore, for policy making in all areas - such as trade, fisheries, the environment, agriculture, climate change, energy, investment and finance - to support the development needs of LDCs in order to fight poverty and guarantee decent incomes and livelihoods; 3.
Urges the EU to honour its commitments in terms of market access and debt alleviation; reaffirms the importance of reaching the ODA target of 0.15 to 0.20% of GNI for the LDCs, mobilising, for this purpose, domestic resources and, as a complementary measure, innovative financing mechanisms.
As of today, there are 48 countries in the world that are classed as least developed, with approximately 800 million people who live on less than USD 2 per day.
Between 2000 and 2010, the average human development index rating for the least developed countries grew by a mere 0.04%.
This feeble increase is progressively distancing them from the eight Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations in 2000.
Fortunately, following the Third United Nations conference, some positive steps were taken in the area of official development assistance, enabling some 19 countries to achieve a growth rate of 3%.
I share the rapporteur's opinion in emphasising the importance of the Fourth United Nations conference.
The principal goals must focus on development policy, agriculture and fisheries, and must seek to obtain concrete results and innovative financing.
I hope that the contribution to sustainable development will also translate into support for health, education and the promotion of democracy, and hold fast to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as essential components of the European Union's development policy.
There are currently 48 least developed countries (LDCs), which means that every fifth country in the world falls into this category.
The category of LDC was created by the UN General Assembly in the early 1970s, which was more than 40 years ago.
Since then, the number of LDCs has increased twofold, and only three (Botswana, Maldives and Cape Verde) have been able to graduate from the group.
This shows that poverty is spreading, and the effectiveness of activities undertaken so far is barely perceptible.
The critical situation has been exacerbated further by the economic crisis.
Its effects have affected LDCs to a large extent and caused a further deepening of the problems occurring there.
These arise, in particular, from debt, high food and fuel prices and climate change.
I therefore supported the resolution on the Fourth United Nations conference on LDCs with full conviction and awareness of its importance.
There is a need for a deep, comprehensive analysis and diagnosis of the situation of LDCs and concrete proposals for solutions aimed at improving the living conditions of the citizens of these countries in the short term, and at leaving the group in the long term.
As a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I would like to draw particular attention to the lack of control mechanisms for work which has been undertaken.
We do not lack the political will and willingness to help, but unfortunately, we do not monitor our efforts adequately, and the result is that they are not very effective.
As one of the authors of the resolution on the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries (LDCs), I believe that it is absolutely crucial for the European Parliament to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the inhabitants of the LDCs.
The increase in the number of states falling into that category (since 1971, the number of LDCs has risen from 25 to 48) requires the international community to redouble its efforts to meet the objective of halving the number of LDCs by 2020.
From this point of view, it is essential to ensure true policy coherence between policies directly affecting the LDCs, such as development aid, trade, fisheries, the environment, agriculture, climate change, energy, investment and finance, in order to reduce poverty and guarantee decent incomes and livelihoods for the inhabitants of the LDCs.
I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries.
In that resolution, the European Parliament upholds the principle of coherence between the various EU policies in the field of development aid and cooperation.
This means that in the EU's relations with the least developed countries, policy in all areas - including trade, fisheries, the environment, agriculture, climate change, energy, investment and finance - must be designed in such a way as to support their development needs.
Furthermore, the resolution recalls the importance of reaching the ODA target of 0.15 to 0.20% of GNI for the LDCs, and warns of the adverse impact of farmland acquisition, such as the expropriation of small farmers and the unsustainable use of land and water.
The principle of coherence is designed to prevent statements of good intentions that are never translated into action, and conflicting sectoral policies.
It now remains to implement it.
I wanted to use my vote to reiterate my firm commitment to the fight against poverty, whether against its causes or against its effects.
An inexorable gap is opening up between the least developed countries and the world economy, creating a vicious circle in which the victims are the populations.
We are all responsible for the delays in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which makes coordinated action by the EU and the UN a matter of urgency.
The priority areas are well known: food security, access to water and healthcare, and literacy.
The solutions are also well known, but I regret that the statements of good intentions are rarely translated into action.
And yet it is by working towards a better distribution of wealth, supporting LDCs on the path to growth and democracy, and combating the frenzied speculation on commodity prices, that these extremely vulnerable countries will be able to escape the vicious circle of poverty.
This is not only a responsibility; it is a security requirement for the Union, because poverty is unfortunately often a source of instability.
I am voting for this report, as I support Iceland's accession to the EU, provided that the government succeeds in securing the support of its citizens for this national political commitment.
I welcome the prospect of Iceland joining the EU, because Iceland has a strong democratic tradition and civic culture, which will enable it to be admitted into the band of EU Member States unhindered.
I believe that Iceland's accession to the EU would enhance the Union's prospects of playing a more active and constructive role in Northern Europe and in the Arctic, contributing to multilateral governance and sustainable policy solutions in the region.
Iceland is already an active participant in the Nordic Council as well as in the EU's Northern Dimension Policy, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and the Arctic Council, which is the main multilateral forum for cooperation in the Arctic.
Iceland's accession to the EU would further anchor the European presence in the Arctic Council.
Iceland can also bring a valuable contribution to EU environmental and energy policies due to its experience in the field of renewable energies, particularly as regards the utilisation of geothermal energy, protection of the environment and measures to deal with climate change.
I voted for the 2010 progress report on Iceland drafted by my colleague, Cristian Preda, because I think the time has come for this state's EU prospects to be assessed.
Throughout the negotiations with the EU, the Icelandic authorities have demonstrated a genuine commitment to this process and a strong political will to fulfil all the accession criteria in good time.
First of all, Iceland has a long tradition of democracy.
The protection of human rights and cooperation with leading international organisations are top-priority items on Iceland's political agenda.
On the economic front, the authorities have already devised a pre-accession strategy to ensure the diversification of their business sectors and their exit from the recession.
I think that Iceland is capable of assuming the obligations which derive from being an EU Member State.
I should mention that at present, the conditions have been met for 10 negotiating chapters.
In this context, I welcome the European Commission's initiative to start accession negotiations with Iceland this June.
This report provides a good overview of the current state of relations between the European Union and Iceland.
Ever since the Treaty of Paris, we have maintained friendly, close and cooperative links with that country.
It has been hard hit by the economic, financial and banking crisis.
Reforms must be undertaken, and we must encourage them.
Since the start of the accession process, we have begun an open and constructive dialogue with the Icelandic Government, which has also expressed a desire to join the euro area.
Enlargement to include Iceland will allow for greater European policy coherence in the Arctic region, especially where fisheries, maritime transport, scientific research and environmental conservation are concerned.
However, Europe is not a crutch or a cure for an economic crisis.
It is up to Iceland to clearly subscribe to a genuine project of integration with the rest of Europe.
I welcome the prospect of having a country with a strong democratic tradition and a solid civic culture as a new EU Member State.
Iceland has been achieving good results in safeguarding human rights and ensuring a high level of cooperation with international mechanisms for the protection of human rights.
Iceland's accession to the EU will therefore strengthen the Union's role in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world.
Through its experience, Iceland may also make a valuable contribution to EU policy in the field of renewable energy, particularly in the areas of the exploitation of geothermal energy, environmental protection and combating climate change.
Iceland's accession to the EU will improve the EU's prospects of playing a more active and constructive role in northern Europe and the Arctic, through contributions to multilateral governance and sustainable political solutions for the region.
in writing. - I voted against this report.
In the rush to enlargement, I fear that this Parliament and the EU institutions are ignoring issues of strategic importance to Member States.
It is very regrettable that, yet again, Iceland and the Faroe Islands have massively inflated their proposed catches of mackerel in 2011, endangering the stock and endangering the viability of our pelagic fishing industry.
This outrageous behaviour exposes the lie that Iceland is at the forefront of sustainable fisheries management.
Last summer, in response to Iceland's intransigent stance on this matter, we were told that the Commission was considering suspending negotiations about Iceland's accession to the EU, yet little seems to have happened on this front.
Iceland's membership of the 'EU Club' cannot and must not be taken forward while Iceland blatantly ignores the rules of that club.
As one newspaper headline put it, are we really going to contemplate Iceland turning from collapsing its banks to making our most valuable fishery disappear?
I voted in favour of the '2010 progress report on Iceland' as I believe that we need to support the accession of one of the oldest European democracies to the EU, provided that the necessary requirements are met, such as the abolition of whaling and the trading of products extracted from whales.
Of all the countries whose accession to the European Union is being proposed, Iceland is the best prepared to do so, and to take on board the values and principles that guide Union action.
I believe that the Union will gain from the Icelandic contribution.
In general, Iceland has the same standards, and in some cases higher, than those aimed at within the Union.
I believe that the adjustments that still need to be made will not be of the kind to delay the accession process too greatly.
This motion for a resolution relates to the 2010 progress report on Iceland's advances towards European Union membership.
Negotiations on Iceland's accession started in July 2010.
I believe that the necessary conditions need to be created for completing Iceland's accession process and ensuring the success of this accession: this is a country with a strong democratic tradition and a robust civic culture, and its accession will strengthen the Union's role in promoting the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world.
Iceland belongs to the European Free Trade Association, and has a market economy that could provide certain advantages to the EU, specifically in the area of renewable energy.
Nonetheless, Iceland needs to provide evidence of real interest, and to cooperate on the resolution of outstanding issues in the fisheries management sector.
According to the report that has been tabled, some progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go, particularly with regard to the fisheries sector.
I hope that these outstanding issues can be quickly resolved, so that Iceland's accession process is a success.
Our position in principle regarding the processes for new countries' accession to the European Union is well known: when this decision is made, it must be based on the will of the people involved, which should be respected.
We therefore await the position of the people of Iceland on accession, so that we can take this position into account in the future.
Besides this principle, we also abstained from this vote because of the fundamental basis of EU enlargement processes, given the capitalist nature of the integration process and the objectives that it pursues.
Once the outlying regions resulting from previous enlargements having been exhausted, there is a need to grow further and to reach new markets.
We are unhappy about some of the requirements that the European Union is making of Iceland, including those in this report. for example, the requirements to liberalise a number of sectors, in particular, the financial sector, which is all the more serious as this was one of the sectors responsible for the crisis that occurred there, escape from which was only possible because of clear state intervention.
We abstained from this vote because of our position on the enlargement of the European Union.
We await the position of the people of Iceland on accession, so that we can take this position into account in the future.
That said, we are unhappy about some of the requirements that the European Union is making of Iceland, including those in this report, which we disagree with entirely: for example, the requirements to liberalise a number of sectors, in particular, the financial sector, which is all the more serious as this was one of the sectors responsible for the crisis that occurred there, escape from which was only possible because of clear state and popular intervention.
We await future developments, specifically the referendum on 9 April 2011, for a clearer position on the country's membership.
I wish to explain why I am abstaining on this text, as I do whenever a report concerning accession negotiations with a European country is voted on here.
It is not because I dispute Iceland's right to enter the European Union; it is because I believe that it is not a good idea for it to join.
Indeed, the vast majority of people in Iceland seem to hold the same view.
The decision to apply for membership was taken in a moment of panic, following the collapse of the Icelandic banking system, in order to benefit from European support.
Everyone knows that Iceland wants to adopt the euro without being a member of the European Union, which is stupid when we know what implications that has, and that Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area and of the Schengen area.
It will be up to the Icelandic people to decide in the end, anyway.
And I hope that if they do say no, they will be heard.
I voted in favour of this document, because accession negotiations with Iceland were launched in July 2010 and it is essential to create the conditions to complete the accession process with Iceland and ensure that its accession is a success.
Iceland can bring a valuable contribution to EU policies due to its experience in the field of renewable energies, particularly as regards the utilisation of geothermal energy, protection of the environment and measures to deal with climate change.
Iceland's accession to the EU would enhance the Union's prospects of playing a more active and constructive role in Northern Europe and in the Arctic, contributing to multilateral governance and sustainable policy solutions in the region.
It is also crucial to give EU citizens clear and comprehensive fact-based information on the implications of Iceland's accession.
Efforts must be made to that end, and I believe it is equally important to listen to and address citizens' concerns and questions and to respond to their views and interests.
I had to give my wholehearted support to the resolution on the 2010 progress report on Iceland put to the vote in Parliament.
In the year just gone, Iceland demonstrated its willingness to comply on many fronts with European policy and with the principles that inspire it.
Its strong civic and democratic tradition, the progress made in strengthening the independence of the judiciary, and the particular attention paid to the economic aspect, which is increasingly on course to meet the criteria laid down by Europe, make it a country whose accession to the EU can only be considered positively, not least because it would strengthen the Union's role within the Arctic Council.
The safeguarding of human rights, the strengthening of the legislative environment with regard to freedom of expression and access to information, and the high rates of investment in education, research and development, aimed at tackling the high level of youth unemployment, demonstrate the industriousness of the country and its firm desire to align itself with Europe.
It will be up to the people of Iceland to have the final say: they will have to vote in a referendum, and I hope that they will opt in favour of joining our great European family.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution which, among other things, 'welcomes the agreement achieved between the representatives of the governments of Iceland, the Netherlands and the UK on the Icesave issue, notably on guaranteeing the repayment of costs incurred in payment of minimum guarantees to depositors in branches of Landsbanki Islands hf. in the UK and the Netherlands; welcomes the approval by a three-quarters majority of the agreement by the Icelandic Parliament on 17 February 2011'; and 'takes note of the decision of the President of Iceland to refer the bill to a referendum and hopes for an end to the infringement procedure which started on 26 May 2010, brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the government of Iceland'.
This text condemns the refusal by the Icelandic people to repay the debts run up by private banks, even though they voted by a very large majority against that repayment.
It obliges them rigorously to apply the Copenhagen criteria.
It welcomes the IMF plans for the country.
It proposes a Commission-led campaign in Iceland, on the model of the Irish campaign, in anticipation of the national referendum on EU membership.
I voted against these repeated shows of strength against the Icelandic people, and the text's crude logic of liberal normalisation.
Iceland has been taking concrete steps towards future EU accession, and is best placed among accession candidates to fulfil the requirements for accession.
However, the recent issue with regard to payment to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of funds lost by citizens of those countries who had investments in a failed Icelandic bank could create obstacles to the country's accession.
Iceland is already cooperating closely with the European Union as a member of the European Economic Area, of the Schengen Agreements and the Dublin Regulation.
Iceland is also achieving very good results where the protection of human rights is concerned.
There is a high level of investment in areas such as education, research and development, which makes Iceland well-placed internationally in these areas.
However, the consent of the Icelandic population is required before we can talk about the accession of Iceland to the EU.
It would be advisable to stop any propaganda by the EU aimed at convincing the Icelanders of the benefits of accession.
In economic terms, an OECD report from May 2010 says that Iceland has succeeded in consolidating its economy and, despite the financial crisis, its per capita income still leads the world.
The project therefore has my support.
First of all, I would like to make it clear that the possible accession of Iceland to the Union is subject to the consent of the Icelandic people.
The decision must be left to the people and must not be influenced further by the EU.
As far as the progress report is concerned, Iceland stands up to international comparison in numerous areas and in others, even leads the field: I am thinking here of areas such as per capita income, education, research and development, and the safeguarding of human rights.
I therefore voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.
Iceland is one of the oldest European democracies.
Of the countries seeking accession to the European Union, it is surely the best prepared country, not only because it has similar democratic principles and values to the Union's Member States, but also because it has the same or higher development standards.
I voted in favour of this 2010 progress report as I believe that, once the necessary accession requirements have been met, among which I would emphasise the abolition of whaling and the trading of products extracted from whales, the EU will gain from the accession of this country.
However, the question of this country's accession should be duly framed within the Union's common policies, the common fisheries policy in particular.
On account of the relative weight that the fisheries sector has within the Icelandic economy, difficulties with harmonising policies intrinsic to the sector may arise.
With this resolution, the EP, among other things: Welcomes the prospect of having as a new EU member a country with a strong democratic tradition and civic culture; underlines that Iceland's accession to the EU will further enhance the Union's role as a world-wide promoter and defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms; commends Iceland for its good record in safeguarding human rights and ensuring a high level of cooperation with international mechanisms for the protection of human rights; supports the ongoing work to strengthen the legislative environment with regard to freedom of expression and access to information; welcomes, in this respect, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, enabling both Iceland and the EU to position themselves strongly as regards legal protection of the freedoms of expression and information.
Iceland has been a candidate country for European Union membership since 2010.
I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because I am convinced that that country has a solid democratic tradition and civic culture, and that its accession will further enhance the EU's role as a worldwide promoter and defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report as I support Iceland's accession to the EU.
I am voting for this resolution, which recommends the implementation of the Association and Stabilisation Agreement with the EU, but regrets that the Council is not considering the opening of negotiations as recommended by the Commission.
I would also like to express my concern about growing ethnic tensions, and about the lack of political dialogue and freedom of the press.
Political parties should put an end to the boycott of the national parliament, and enter a dialogue with the institutions.
I also regret the fact that the dispute with Greece continues to block the country's path towards accession to the EU.
The bilateral issues need to be resolved by the parties concerned in the spirit of good neighbourliness, above all, taking European interests into account.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this motion to wind up the debate on statements by the European Council and the Commission on the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
I believe it is a very balanced motion.
It expresses concern about the current political situation in FYROM, including the boycott of the national parliament by the opposition parties, and about the risk that these developments could adversely affect the country's EU agenda.
The motion also congratulates the country on the anniversary of the Ohrid Agreement, which remains the cornerstone of its inter-ethnic relations, and calls on the government to foster a comprehensive dialogue between the ethnic communities.
I also appreciated the positive evaluation in the motion on FYROM's continuous efforts to stabilise the region.
As a member of the European Parliament's delegation for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I am keeping a close eye on the progress of that country and of its application to join the European Union.
Although it still has work to do in the areas of politics, the judiciary, public administration, the fight against corruption, and freedom of expression, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has made significant progress in areas such as decentralisation, education, and prison system reform.
The bilateral problems between that country and Greece must not hinder the start of accession negotiations.
I voted in favour of opening those negotiations.
Moreover, I would point out that early elections will be held in the country in June.
I therefore call on all the political parties to join together and work in close cooperation so as to ensure their country's accession to the European Union.
I agreed with this report.
In 2005, the European Council granted candidate status to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but has failed ever since to set a date for the opening of negotiations, in spite of the substantial progress made by that country on its path towards the EU.
Despite the progress made, there is still political instability in Macedonia, which could affect the European integration process.
A lack of dialogue between the government and opposition parties in the country is preventing an agreement on the implementation of structural reforms from being reached.
The reform of the judiciary is not fully completed, the media and public administration have been politicised and the unresolved issue of the integration of ethnic groups is preventing Macedonia from achieving further progress and implementing the necessary reforms to ensure the principles of the rule of law and democracy.
I believe that the Macedonian Government must involve the opposition parties more in decision making and ensure an open and constructive dialogue on all the problems that this country is currently facing.
I voted for the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because I think that the Balkans' EU perspective is vital to ensuring the region's stability.
In this context, cooperation with Greece is of paramount importance.
The dispute about the former Yugoslav Republic's name plays a key role in the discussions on the accession negotiations, as it is one of the obstacles preventing the negotiations from starting.
Good neighbourly relations are essential during the process of transition to EU Member State status.
This is why the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece must find a solution to the issue about what to call the state.
So far, Greece has proved itself to be a trustworthy discussion partner with regard to the other chapters.
It is high time for both states to reach an agreement so that the future accession negotiations are conducted with the support of all EU Member States.
In this regard, the call for neutral external mediators may be helpful, such as the involvement of the UN Secretary-General in the dispute.
In line with previous resolutions by Parliament, I regret that the Council has not taken a decision on opening accession negotiations, as recommended by the Commission for the second year running.
The process of EU enlargement is a powerful tool for peace, stability and reconciliation in this region.
I am particularly concerned about the persistently high levels of unemployment, particularly among young people, a problem that is shared by many countries in the region.
I would like to call upon the government to rapidly implement more effective measures to improve public investment focused on employment policies and the use of the workforce in good quality, stable and decent jobs.
I am, however, pleased with the recent adoption of the Energy Act, which is aimed at liberalising the country's electricity market and is in accordance with the relevant European directives.
I welcome the adoption of the national strategy for sustainable development, but more efforts need to be made towards enforcing legislation in the environmental field, and there needs to be adequate funding set aside for this purpose.
I would like to call for closer cooperation on transnational environmental issues based on EU standards, particularly in the area of water quality, waste management and the protection of nature.
The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left is in favour of enlargement towards the Western Balkans in principle, provided that its people so wish.
I abstained from voting on this specific report, because there are problematic points, apart from anything else, in connection with the proposed economic reforms and how the issue of the name is to be addressed.
From experience of enlargement to date, cooperation with the countries of the Western Balkans and their integration process, especially at a time of economic crisis, should contribute towards the sustainable development and economic and social prosperity of the citizens in the enlargement countries and the Union.
However, the report insists on rewarding choices such as the deployment of troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere or the promotion of economic policies, such as privatisations which are exacerbating the recession by increasing unemployment and social inequalities and cutting social rights.
Also, the integration process should be conducted with respect for international law and international procedures.
In this particular case, as regards the question of the name, the report should encourage respect and support for the procedure to find a commonly acceptable solution, under the aegis of the UN.
I voted in favour of this resolution, as it once again recommends that the Council make a decision on opening accession negotiations to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The Council granted this state the status of a candidate country in 2005, but since then, it has not set a date for opening negotiations, despite the substantial progress that this country has made on its path towards the EU.
in writing. - (PT) There have been some delays in the process of integrating the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
In spite of this, Macedonia has made progress in seeking to adopt the Community acquis and to provide its institutions with reliable structures and good practice, as advocated by the EU.
The political crisis that has plagued the country amply demonstrates that much remains to be done and that there is a long way to go before it objectively fulfils all the criteria for a real prospect of accession.
I would like to call upon Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to seek to overcome their differences and show that they are faithful to the generous founding EU spirit, which we all need so very much today.
This motion for a resolution focuses on the progress that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has made towards integration into the EU over the last year.
On 16 December 2005, the Council granted the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia candidate country for accession status.
In 2008, the principles, priorities and conditions for accession were set out, and these are being monitored by the Commission.
Although the assessment was positive, there are aspects that need to be stepped up, such as dialogue with Greece on the status of the new Member State, the reform of public administration and the judicial system, combating organised crime and corruption, respect for freedom of expression, and institutional cooperation.
The current political situation, which includes the boycott of the national parliament by opposition parties, may adversely affect the country's priorities with regard to the EU.
The interested parties have to resolve bilateral issues in a spirit of good neighbourliness.
All players must increase their efforts and show responsibility and determination in resolving all outstanding issues which are hampering the process of accession for the candidate country and the EU's own policy in the region.
I voted in favour of this document because in 2005, the European Council granted candidate status to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but has failed ever since to set a date for the opening of negotiations, in spite of the substantial progress made by that country on its path towards the EU; because bilateral issues should not represent and be used as an obstacle in the accession process, although they should be settled before membership; and because the continuation of the accession process would contribute to the stability of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and would further strengthen inter-ethnic dialogue.
Bilateral issues need to be resolved by the parties concerned in a good neighbourly spirit and taking overall EU interests into account.
All the key players and parties concerned should step up their efforts and demonstrate responsibility and determination to solve all outstanding issues which are not only hindering the accession process of the candidate country, and the EU's own policy in the region, but could also have repercussions on inter-ethnic relations, regional stability and economic development.
The document urges the authorities responsible to strengthen the independence and freedom of the media, applying equal standards to all of them and improving the transparency of their ownership.
I am concerned that there is insufficient dialogue between the government and opposition parties and a general climate of distrust and confrontation.
It is necessary to continue reform of the judiciary in order to ensure its professionalism, efficiency and independence from political pressures, expand the fight against corruption and improve the business environment.
The process of EU enlargement is a powerful stimulus for the encouragement of the peace, stability and reconciliation process in the Balkans.
Macedonia has made significant progress in the democratisation of the state, due directly to the political will to become a full member of the family of European nations.
The European Commission has evaluated this progress and, for the second year running now, has called upon the European Council to open accession negotiations with Macedonia.
Also for the second year running, the Council has not taken this decision.
This gives rise to the impression that one of the unfounded obstacles to the opening of these negotiations are mutual bones of contention, including relations with Greece.
These disputes must not block the accession process for Macedonia, all the more so since continuing the accession process would promote stability and strengthen yet further the dialogue between the ethnic communities in Macedonia.
Of course, Macedonia has a great deal to do yet in order to reform governmental and judicial institutions, successfully combat organised crime and corruption, and develop democratic dialogues in society.
Of course, the acceptance of any new Member State, Macedonia included, into the EU will only take place when all the requirements have been satisfied, and only with the unambiguous agreement of the EU institutions and EU Member States.
That is precisely why it is important to begin the accession negotiation process, which, I am convinced, will encourage positive changes in Macedonia and the region as a whole.
The motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on which Parliament has voted, has been approved by a large majority and with the agreement of several political groups.
I applaud the efforts made by that country to align itself with European standards.
Judicial reform, the fight against corruption, and public administration and prison reform are some of the important achievements as regards compliance with the acquis communautaire.
Equally worthy of praise is the focus on granting local autonomy and adopting an anti-discrimination law, as well as on making a commitment to gender equality.
Freedom of expression and the independence of the media continue to be a problem, however.
Moreover, the growing tensions between different ethnic groups in the country are a cause for concern.
I therefore believe that, despite the positive results, attention must continue to be paid to the institutional question, which is very fragile and is being put to the test.
I hope, in conclusion, that the process of rapprochement with Europe will be strengthened by means of action aimed at filling the gaps that still exist today.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the resolution in order to acknowledge Macedonia's progress towards European integration and highlight the remaining goals to be achieved for the benefit of its people.
It is essential to send Macedonia a positive signal regarding its future within the European Union in order to maintain the European momentum and further the political dialogue that has been initiated.
The name issue existing between Macedonia and Greece is exclusively a bilateral issue that should not interfere with the opening of accession negotiations.
Moreover, under the 13 September 1995 Interim Accord between Greece and Macedonia, Greece agreed not to object to the application of Macedonia to international institutions, this covering also the EU-Macedonia negotiations process.
In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I contributed amendments concerning the public administration, the justice system and anti-corruption action.
The adoption of a national strategy for public administration reform and the creation of the stabilisation and association agreement's subcommittee are positive steps to ensure the capacities and professionalism of the public administration.
I stress that the unification of jurisprudence and publishing of all court decisions are highly important for predictability of the judiciary and public trust in the system.
in writing. - I voted for the report on Macedonia and welcome the continued efforts in the fight against corruption, manifested, amongst other things, by implementation of the second round of GRECO recommendations and the entry into force of the amendments to the Criminal Code.
I encourage the authorities to continue implementing legislation to combat corruption and improving the independence, efficiency and resources of the judiciary.
However, corruption remains prevalent and I call for further intensive efforts to eradicate it.
I stress the urgency of effective and impartial enforcement of anti-corruption legislation, in particular, on the financing of political parties and on conflicts of interest.
I draw attention to the importance of ensuring that the court system functions free of political interference and welcome the efforts to increase the efficiency and transparency of the court system.
I stress the need to build up an enforcement record for prosecutions and convictions against which progress can be measured and call for the unification of jurisprudence in order to ensure a predictable judicial system and public trust.
In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, violation of the independence of the press, of the independence of the judiciary and of the Skopje 2014 urban development plan are everyday occurrences.
At the same time, political dialogue has now ground to a halt.
With the unresolved question of the name being added to this unfortunate internal environment, it is clear that the European prospects of this country are being severely tried.
This resolution calls on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to do its utmost to liberalise its economy and its electricity market.
It gives the country lessons in democracy and even in journalism.
I voted against this arrogant and shoddy text.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has experienced some obstacles on its path towards EU accession.
Despite making progress in the adoption of the entire Community acquis, giving its institutions reliable structures and best practice, there is still a long way to go.
Much remains to be done, as shown by the political crisis that has been plaguing the state.
On 9 April 2001, Macedonia was the first country in the Western Balkans to enter into a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU.
The status of reforms since 2001 can be judged positively in many respects.
Where the judiciary is concerned, legal provisions have been passed to ensure both independence from political pressure and efficiency.
The improvements to the transparency of the court system, particularly as regards dealing with the backlog of cases in most courts, are also to be welcomed.
The country can already be seen to be making progress towards the transition to a functioning market economy, although there is still a long way to go.
Only the dispute with Greece over its name is blocking Macedonia's accession to the EU, and it is to be hoped that this can be resolved in the near future.
However, I abstained from voting because some aspects of the report are very unbalanced.
I voted in favour of the 2010 monitoring report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The process of accession for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has experienced significant delays, despite the political and socio-economic progress that the country has made.
I hope that the existing differences and regional problems can be overcome to the benefit of the common European good.
in writing. - In favour.
This resolution basically says that the EP shares the assessment by the Commission's 2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and regrets that the Council has not taken a decision on the opening of accession negotiations, as recommended by the Commission for a second year in a row and in line with previous Parliament resolutions.
It is concerned at the current political situation, including the boycott of the national parliament by the opposition parties, and by the risk that these developments could adversely affect the country's EU agenda and recalls its previous recommendation to the Council to start the negotiations immediately.
I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the moment has come to open genuine and proper accession negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
In fact, since the European Council of 16 December 2005 awarded that country the status of candidate country for EU membership, no significant steps forward have been taken on the issue.
This must be traced back, primarily, to a series of problems within the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in particular, as regards the opposition parties' boycott of the national parliament.
This and other problems, such as the presence of free and independent media, deemed necessary for the development of a stable democracy, must be cleared up as soon as possible so that both parties can set out once more on the road to enlargement of the EU to the East.
I voted against this particular report because, as I said earlier in plenary, I consider that, given the serious allegations made in the Sunday Times on 20 March against the rapporteur, Mr Zoran Thaler, who initially tabled the text which was then put to the vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 16 March, before the revelations against him, and who may enjoy a presumption of innocence, and the fact that a new rapporteur has been reported, this motion for a resolution does not enjoy a presumption of credibility.
In my opinion, it would be a mistake, for the integrity and credibility of the House, to vote on this motion before the results of enquiries are released following the opening of the conciliation procedure.
I am in favour of this resolution because the crisis situation in Côte d'Ivoire should be brought to a swift end, as it has already resulted in a large number of deaths.
The international community recognises the democratic victory of Mr Ouattara, and it must now redouble its efforts in helping him to take up power in a peaceful manner.
As this is a serious situation which not only jeopardises the electoral choices legitimately made by the people, but also has repercussions on the breaching of human rights, the EU must act in a diplomatic way, with all the mechanisms that it has at its disposal, so as to help to bring the situation back to normal and, most importantly, to prevent more deaths.
I voted in favour of this resolution because over the past four months, Côte d'Ivoire has been plunged into a deep political crisis stemming from the refusal of the incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, to relinquish power to the legitimate President, Alassane Ouattara, despite the fact that the latter won the November 2010 presidential poll and has been recognised as the victor by the international community, following validation of the results by the United Nations.
According to UN sources, hundreds of lives have been lost in Côte d'Ivoire since December 2010 and the actual number of casualties is likely to be much higher, as the violence taking place in the interior of the country is not always reported in the press.
Attacks are being intentionally directed against UN peacekeepers and institutions.
I agree with the need for swift international political action to address the humanitarian situation in Côte d'Ivoire and prevent a new migration crisis in the region.
The Commission and the Member States must coordinate their efforts with other international donors in order to respond to the urgent needs of the population of Côte d'Ivoire and its neighbouring countries.
I support the sanctions, comprising a visa ban and an asset freeze, imposed by the United Nations Security Council, the African Union and the Council of the European Union on all persons and entities that oppose the legitimate President's authority, and the fact that these sanctions are to remain in place until the return of legitimate authorities to power.
I strongly condemn the attempts made by ex-President Gbagbo and his supporters to violently usurp the will of the people of Côte d'Ivoire, and I would like to join in the call for Mr Gbagbo to leave power immediately.
It is regrettable that the people of Côte d'Ivoire have had to pay such a high price in order to ensure respect for their democratic will, which they expressed in the presidential elections in November 2010.
I would like to express my full support for President Ouattara, his government and the people of Côte d'Ivoire in their task of reconciliation, recovery and sustainable development.
I would like to call for the opening of negotiations to restore order, peace, stability and security to the country in the difficult task of promoting national reunification.
I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, condemning the violent attempts by former President, Mr Gbagbo, to usurp power, and stressing the need for him to leave power immediately in favour of the democratically elected President, Mr Ouattara, so as to restore peace and democracy to the country.
Despite the grandiose vision of Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Côte d'Ivoire today is a country torn apart by the conflict between Mr Gbagbo and Mr Ouattara, and which is threatening to go on indefinitely.
The people of Côte d'Ivoire have watched the military advances of the respective factions with concern and dread, fearing for the breakdown of security and the further destabilisation of the country.
Côte d'Ivoire is another example of the danger posed by dictatorial leaderships that continue over time and which leave an institutional vacuum and an absence of democratic practice and the exercise of freedoms once they are gone.
In line with the example that it has given throughout its existence, the European Union has a historic duty to speak out against all violations of human rights and to foster respect for the right to the self-determination of peoples, both through denunciation and through development programmes.
We have recently seen an upsurge in violence and verified massacres in Côte d'Ivoire, where the process of democratisation is not being accepted by all Ivorians.
Parliament has adopted several resolutions on the political situation in this country, especially on 16 December 2010.
Other EU and international institutions, such as the UN Security Council and the Authority of Heads of States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have condemned the violation of human rights in this country following the non-acceptance of the election results, which were certified by the UN, by the deposed President, Mr Gbagbo, which has led to a wave of violence in the country, resulting in hundreds of deaths and about a million refugees.
I therefore agree with the measures presented here and am voting in favour of this proposal, as I believe that Parliament should advocate a foreign policy based on values, and not solely on economic interests.
We did not vote for this resolution, and we remain concerned about the situation of war in Côte d'Ivoire, the country's economic paralysis and the high levels of violence that are affecting the people, which has turned into a humanitarian crisis.
We know that there are longstanding reasons for the grave situation that is taking place there, particularly the poverty and social inequality which were the legacy of former colonialism or the structural adjustment plans imposed for years by the IMF.
These last four months of misery following the elections have shown how regrettable it is that the international community, including the EU, has not made sufficient use of diplomatic channels for a peaceful political solution to the crisis.
The role of France is particularly unfortunate, as it has preferred military intervention to using diplomatic channels.
We therefore insist that the war and violence by all parties must be brought to an end, and we urge the EU to act accordingly.
This resolution is a master class in bad faith.
It accomplishes the amazing feat of never talking negatively about Mr Ouattara's camp, the extent of whose atrocities the United Nations is nevertheless in the process of verifying on the ground.
Yet it is true that Mr Ouattara, a Muslim of non-Ivorian origin trained at the IMF in Washington, can only elicit your support.
The resolution praises the work of the United Nations Operations in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) to the skies, even though the UN itself was obliged to ask France for assistance to safeguard its mission and, in particular, to ensure the protection of foreign nationals.
A fine demonstration of effectiveness and usefulness that is!
As for the attention you are paying to ensuring that the election result is upheld, it would be good if you paid the same sustained attention when European nations reject the treaties that you put to them.
Indeed, you only support the results that suit you.
Such a short-sighted, black-and-white approach cannot be endorsed, and nor can a resolution that is even more badly informed than the European newspaper articles on which it appears to be based.
I voted in favour of this document, because over the past four months, Côte d'Ivoire has been plunged into a deep political crisis stemming from the refusal by incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, to relinquish power to the legitimate President, Alassane Ouattara, despite the fact that the latter won the November 2010 presidential poll and has been recognised as the victor by the international community, following validation of the results by the United Nations.
All diplomatic efforts to devise a peaceful solution to the post-election political deadlock, including those of the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the President of South Africa, have been unsuccessful.
Since mid-February, fighting has intensified both in the capital and in the west of the country, with alarming reports indicating the increasing use of heavy artillery against civilians.
Atrocities have been committed in Côte d'Ivoire, including cases of sexual violence, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against civilians, which amount to crimes against humanity.
Parliament therefore calls on President Ouattara to facilitate peace and national reconciliation.
The serious political and institutional crisis that has rocked Côte d'Ivoire for several months now has given rise to a wave of violence that seems to have no end in sight.
I strongly condemn the attempt by ex-President Gbagbo to violently overturn a legitimate election result, which saw him defeated by Alassane Ouattara.
For some months now, Côte d'Ivoire has been the scene of urban guerrilla warfare between the supporters of the outgoing President and the people.
I believe that Europe, especially in situations such as this, in which basic human rights and the very ideal of democracy are being seriously jeopardised, must make its voice heard loud and clear by condemning such acts and showing its strong disapproval and indignation.
in writing. - I welcome this resolution which urges all the political forces in Côte d'Ivoire to respect the will of the people expressed freely in the results of the presidential elections of 28 November 2010 that were announced by the CEI and certified by the UNSG Special Representative, and which recognised Alassane Dramane Ouattara as President-elect of Côte d'Ivoire.
The resolution asks all Ivorian parties, in particular, to refrain from, prevent, and protect civilians from all forms of illegal coercion and abuses of Human Rights.
The resolution also condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the attempts by ex-President Gbagbo and his supporters to usurp the will of the Ivorian people by fomenting violence and undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
It stresses, in this respect, that results of democratic elections must be fully respected by all participants, including the defeated candidates, and underlines that failure to uphold these results would further put at risk both peace and stability in Côte d'Ivoire;
Respect for democracy is an inalienable principle of the EU.
We must therefore strongly condemn the events in Côte d'Ivoire.
The use of violence against civilians in Côte d'Ivoire by Mr Gbagbo after losing the elections is unacceptable, and he must resign and hand over power immediately.
Those who are responsible must not go unpunished, and we must do everything in our power to identify and prosecute them, at an international level if need be, for crimes against the civilian population, whereby the EU will be able to provide the necessary support for the investigations.
Following the election results in Côte d'Ivoire, President Gbagbo - who had been democratically voted out - was not prepared to accept his removal from office.
Neither attempts at negotiation nor international criticism were successful, resulting in a crisis involving incidents of violent conflict.
It is important to maintain international pressure, for example, by condemning the human rights abuses and crimes against humanitarian law in the strongest possible terms and by imposing sanctions.
Efforts in respect of abducted civilians, who include EU citizens, are equally important.
However, this resolution looks only at the atrocities committed by the troops of the defeated President Gbagbo, and not at the charges made against the troops of the newly elected President Ouattara.
Where acts of violence are concerned, it should make no difference who committed them.
The serious human rights abuses and acts of violence committed by the defeated President Gbagbo must be condemned by the EU in the strongest possible terms.
If humanitarian law continues to be broken, specific sanctions must be imposed.
However, it is also important that violent crimes on both sides are punished; in other words, also those of which the new President Ouattara has been accused.
For the victims of violent assaults, it is of little concern who ordered the violence.
In this respect, I consider the resolution too one-sided.
Given the political crisis, with the serious social consequences which this country is experiencing, I welcome the commitment undertaken by the EU, and expressed by Commissioner Georgieva, to help resolve the humanitarian crisis.
in writing. - In favour.
I join my voice to those who: 1.
Regret that the post election political deadlock was not solved peacefully and all diplomatic efforts to this end have not been successful; 2.
Condemn the tragic loss of life and properties in the post election violence and calls on MM Gbagbo and Ouattara to ensure the respect of human rights and the rule of law; and 3.
Call upon M Ouattara and M Gbagbo to take their responsibility in order to prevent any violence and post battle reprisals in the country and demonstrate their commitment to peaceful democratic transition.
In the last four months, Côte d'Ivoire has plunged into a deep political crisis.
The refusal by outgoing President, Laurent Gbagbo, to cede power to Alassane Ouattara, the winner of the presidential election of November 2010, has sparked off a spiral of violence throughout the country that shows no sign of abating.
Fighting has intensified since mid-February both in the capital and in the western part of the country, and alarming news of the increasing use of heavy artillery against civilians continues to reach us.
Up to now, diplomatic efforts by the international community have come to nought, despite the validation of the election result by the United Nations.
The time has come to condemn the attempts by ex-President Gbagbo and his supporters to violently subvert the wish of the Ivorian people.
Laurent Gbagbo must resign immediately and cede power to Alassane Ouattara, the legitimately elected President.
For four months, Côte d'Ivoire has been plunged in a deep political crisis caused by the refusal of ex-President Laurent Gbagbo to hand over power to the legitimate President, Alassane Ouattara.
This situation is having particularly disastrous humanitarian consequences.
The post-election violence has created over a million internally displaced persons and refugees.
What is more, this mass influx of refugees could reignite the obvious tensions in that region.
This crisis is therefore liable to continue.
While I welcome the Commission's decision to increase its humanitarian aid fivefold, thereby taking European aid up to EUR 30 million, it is essential for the European Union to do all it can to help the most vulnerable population groups and to monitor their changing needs.
I was anxious to support this resolution, which clearly condemns the atrocities committed against the civilian population by the militias loyal to the outgoing Ivorian President, Laurent Gbagbo.
Ending the conflict by diplomatic means would have been preferable, but the level of violence reached in Abidjan and the hard-line, self-destructive attitude of the deposed President demanded UN intervention in order to protect the civilians and to help the legitimate President, Alassane Ouattara, assume power.
This resolution therefore supports the intervention of French forces under UN control, which helps to enforce the law and the election result, and to protect the lives of civilians and European nationals.
When the rule of law has been re-established, the legitimate Ivorian authorities, with the support of the international community, will have to ensure that the losing candidate in Côte d'Ivoire's recent presidential elections, Laurent Gbagbo, together with all the officials suspected of human rights violations, are tried for their actions.
Lastly, I believe the EU must continue to honour its commitment to provide long-term support to Côte d'Ivoire in order to aid national reconciliation and to help rebuild and stabilise the country.
I am voting for this report, as it has important objectives like the liberalisation of visas, free trade agreements, contacts with civil society and the non-use of force as regards EU involvement in conflicts, as well as self-determination and territorial integrity.
Since it was launched in 2004, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has led to a strengthening of relations with partner countries.
The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is a meaningful political framework for deepening relations with partner countries, based on principles of shared ownership and responsibility.
The priorities of the EaP include the development of democracy, good governance and stability, economic integration and convergence with EU policies, particularly as regards the environment, climate change and energy security.
The implementation of the ENP faces certain obstacles; therefore, the ENP review must include clearly defined priorities for action, clear benchmarking and performance-based differentiation.
The ENP must continue to be founded on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and must support the political, social and economic reforms of our closest partners.
I voted for the initiative from the Commission and Council to review the European Neighbourhood Policy - Eastern Dimension.
This policy has produced results thanks to its flexibility and it now needs to be adapted to the new realities in Europe.
This is precisely why it needs to be adjusted better to the specific circumstances of each country included in the programme.
I think that the most important consideration should be the commitment of partner states rather than geographical location.
However, people are at the heart of the reforms carried out in a state.
The countries in the east and south must enjoy the same opportunities, making it necessary to rebalance the Neighbourhood Policy.
Former Soviet states also need cooperation with the EU, a sentiment supported too by Joe Biden during his recent visit to Chişinău.
I should point out that the Republic of Moldova is the leading reformer within the Eastern Partnership.
I voted in favour of this resolution because the review of the Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy includes such major objectives as democratic processes, good governance and stability, economic integration, the environment, climate change and energy security.
The European Parliament is of the opinion that combating corruption, in particular, in the judiciary and the police, should be a top priority for the EU in the development of its relations with the eastern partners.
Furthermore, it is necessary to intensify efforts to combat international organised crime networks and to increase police and judicial cooperation with competent EU agencies.
It is very important for the organisations of civil society to actively carry on their work, particularly in the field of human rights, promoting democratic processes and ensuring media freedom.
I would like to emphasise the importance of freedom of expression and of free and independent media, including the Internet, for the development of democracies.
I would also like to stress the importance of trade unions and social dialogue as part of the democratic development of the eastern partners.
The Commission's reports on the ENP not only depict the real benefits of the policy of good neighbourliness, but also its challenges.
The ENP needs to be revised and a different approach adopted to the way in which the European Union responds to the progress made by neighbouring countries in terms of socio-economic reforms by giving them financial and political support and adapting it to the specific needs of each country.
The Eastern Partnership offers a political framework for consolidating relations between the EU and its eastern neighbours and the continuation of the socio-economic reforms in partner countries.
The progress made by each country must be assessed using a comparative analysis based on predefined criteria, but not without factoring in each country's specific features.
'A European perspective including Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union' could constitute a driving force for reforms in these countries.
Parliament must play an important role both in establishing the assessment criteria and in strengthening freedom and democracy in the neighbouring partner countries.
In the first place, I would like to congratulate my fellow Member, Mr Siwiec, on the excellent work that he has done and on the collaboration, or, better, the synthesis of ideas that we have achieved, on the general principle of the revision of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
Besides what I have already said about the resolution on the Southern Dimension, for which I was the rapporteur, I would like to stress the need for both ENP dimensions to favour a 'bottom-up' approach in the future, and to emphasise that only greater involvement by local communities and civil society will ensure maximum effectiveness in the implementation of the ENP by the EU.
I also hope that the EU will not favour short-term stability at the expense of the best interests and constant defence of the public, and their individual and collective freedom, with a particular focus on women's rights, as I stated in my speech.
Although I am immensely pleased with the results obtained in these two reports, I do rather regret the fact that Parliament and the Commission have not made the most of this opportunity, for once, to differentiate the countries of the ENP to the east from the countries that will potentially become our EU southern ENP partners.
The aim of the resolution on the Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is to recommend that the next strategic review of the ENP strengthens the differentiation between states based on their respective ambition and commitments, when followed by real progress and concrete steps.
The specificities of each partner should be taken into consideration, including its goals and potential.
Fundamental European values, including democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption are the basis upon which the ENP was established, and these should be the main measure for evaluating the role of the eastern partners.
Freedom of the press and the fight against corruption should be a priority for the EU when building relations with these countries, and this should be reflected in the overall framework for institutional development.
The EU's goals are very broad and are based on an extension to neighbouring countries in order to create a large area for the free movement of people and goods.
In these circumstances, the EU's European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has a vital role in its strategy for development and growth.
Several instruments and resolutions have been adopted to this end, particularly the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the crucial choices of the common foreign and security policy.
I am therefore pleased with the adoption of this report and the proposed measures, particularly the strengthening of funding and cooperation from various sectors, along with the holding of a second summit of the Eastern Partnership during the second half of 2011.
I would like to point out the need for the EU to step up its dialogue with civil society organisations in these countries, fostering free trade and promoting stability, encouraging the sharing of experience and mobility between the Member States and those countries, and promoting multilateral dialogue.
I voted in favour of this resolution, because the review of the Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy includes such fundamental goals as democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, a market economy, sustainable development and good governance.
It stresses that the ENP is still a framework of strategic importance for deepening and strengthening relations with our closest partners so as to support their political, social and economic reforms, and underlines the importance of maintaining the principle of joint ownership in the design and implementation of programmes and actions.
The Eastern Partnership has been launched as a political framework for the advancement of the Eastern Dimension of the ENP, which seeks to deepen and strengthen the relations between the EU and its eastern neighbours, furthering political association, economic integration and legislative approximation, while supporting political and socio-economic reforms in the partner countries.
I would like to stress that economic reforms must go hand in hand with political reforms and that good governance can only be achieved through an open and transparent decision-making process based on democratic institutions.
It is particularly important to foster further regional cooperation in the Black Sea space and enhance EU policies towards the Black Sea region, in particular, by launching a fully-fledged EU strategy for the Black Sea and ensuring that there are the necessary financial and human resources for its effective implementation.
in writing. - I have always encouraged the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union and this can be seen from my previous activities.
I endorse the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, mainly because it is needed to make a substantial contribution to ensuring that human rights and political principles are more strongly integrated into the analysis of the political situation in third countries.
It underlines the positive developments concerning human rights and democratisation in some partner countries and some negative developments in others, particularly in Belarus.
I also found important the fact that it pays particular attention to the mobility of students, academics, researchers and businessmen by ensuring that sufficient resources are available and by strengthening existing scholarship programmes.
For all these reasons, I support the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The review of the neighbourhood policy must continue to resolve the specific problems which the regions located at the European Union's border have to face.
I think that significant administrative capacity is required to be able to tackle such diverse problems.
Apart from the demographic challenges, climate change, economic competitiveness and quality of life, the regions which share borders with non-Member States have to deal with a series of consequences resulting from problems which are not being resolved properly.
This is the case with the way in which natural disasters are managed, for instance.
Interventions in emergency situations are extremely difficult if the neighbouring countries do not have the capacity to respond, and no region can respond to the whole situation on its own.
This is why I have proposed that the regions located at the EU border, which have borders with at least two non-EU states, should be regarded as 'platform' regions and supported accordingly.
The neighbourhood policy needs to take into account the capacity of the regions located within the EU, but which have external borders, to tackle the problems which are much more complex.
Commensurate financial support must be provided for this.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution and encourage the countries in the region to cooperate more closely with each other and to engage in an enhanced and prolonged dialogue, at all relevant levels, regarding areas such as freedom, security and justice and, in particular, border management, migration and asylum, the fight against organised crime, trafficking in human beings, illegal immigration, terrorism, money laundering and drugs trafficking, as well as police and judicial cooperation.
The resolution recalls that good neighbourly relations are one of the most important preconditions for progress by ENP countries towards EU membership.
The new European Neighbourhood Policy that we have been promised is just more of the same, with a few extra glimmers of democratic lucidity.
When it comes to the Eastern Dimension, everything is there: free trade areas, support for the Nabucco and AGRI projects, and outsourcing the 'management of migration flows'.
Nothing has changed.
The EU is neither a state nor a democracy, yet it is already behaving like an imperialist power.
Originally, the three countries of the South Caucasus were excluded from the European Neighbourhood Policy and were only included in the action radius of the Neighbourhood Policy.
Action Plans to deepen bilateral relations are an important instrument of the European Neighbourhood Policy which are brokered individually for each country, since in practice, every country follows its own path.
The region of the South Caucasus, in particular, is characterised by a series of conflicts, the final solution of which is judged even by experts to be extremely difficult in some cases.
In this context, it is important to repeatedly make it clear that the EU's Neighbourhood Policy does not automatically lead towards accession (as in the enlargement process).
Rather, it is concerned with security policy aspects and increasing stability.
This is not expressed sufficiently in the resolution, which is why I did not vote in favour.
The European Neighbourhood Policy is an instrument for ensuring stability and promoting peaceful and democratic structures, as well as for deepening bilateral relations with the countries surrounding the EU.
In the countries of the South Caucasus, in particular, there is much to do, especially since the region is repeatedly the subject of conflict.
What the European Neighbourhood Policy is not, and nor should it be, is a preliminary stage of enlargement policy.
I feel that this is not made clear, and consequently, I cannot support the motion.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has shown itself to be an effective foreign policy instrument, promoting the strengthening of relations with third countries, with certain tangible benefits.
The ultimate goal of an effective neighbourhood policy is to guarantee peace.
The Eastern Partnership is a political framework which is important for deepening relations with and between partner countries, based on the principle of shared duties and responsibilities.
I voted in favour of this resolution as I also believe that strengthening relations between all countries, as is recommended here, requires greater common commitment and further progress towards good governance and democratic standards.
I voted in favour of this resolution, which reaffirms the need to revise the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) based on upholding the EU's fundamental values and principles and on greater involvement by civil society and local communities, and which highlights the importance of the ENP's Eastern Dimension as an instrument for strengthening EU relations with its neighbours to the east, with a view to supporting political, social and economic reforms in those countries and deepening its commitment to shared values and principles such as democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance, within the context of European integration.
I join my voice to those that welcome the progress in relations between the EU and neighbouring countries within the ENP and reaffirm the values, principles and commitments upon which the ENP has been built, which include democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, a market economy, sustainable development and good governance; consider that the ENP is still a framework of strategic importance for deepening and strengthening relations with our closest partners so as to support their political, social and economic reforms, and underline the importance of maintaining the principle of joint ownership in the design and implementation of programmes and actions.
Under Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness.
As we have seen, European Neighbourhood Policy has very much led to a strengthening of relations with partner countries and brought many tangible benefits for the common good.
Challenges still remain, however, and the focus should now be on the priorities for action, with more effective benchmarks, in particular, as regards the Eastern Partnership.
The partnership with our Eastern neighbours represents a political framework of great importance for Europe's wellbeing, and its work platform is focused on four themes: democracy, good governance, economic integration and convergence with European policies.
Unfortunately, at this time, the conflicts that have arisen in these countries are seriously undermining their economic, social and political development, and constitute a serious obstacle to cooperation and regional security, as shown by the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
I should like to see a strategic review of European Neighbourhood Policy that is based on the Union's values, which are against oppressive regimes, and that supports the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Eastern peoples.
Since its creation, the European Neighbourhood Policy has brought tangible benefits to all parties involved.
It creates a framework for cooperation, which is of strategic importance for supporting the political, social and economic reforms of our closest partners.
The Eastern Partnership is focused on the development of democracy, good governance and stability, economic integration and on achieving closer relations with EU policy.
Since the creation of the ENP, progress has been noticeable in the field of human rights, the democratisation of public life and economic reforms in many partner countries.
It is only Belarus that participates to a limited degree in the cooperation with the EU, and its further participation in the ENP should be conditional on its willingness to respect the fundamental principles of democracy and freedom.
Attention must be paid to the fight against corruption, electoral law and the way in which elections are held, so that they are in conformity with the standards of international law.
Support should be expressed for the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly by highlighting its role in strengthening democracy and the development of cooperation with the countries of the Eastern Partnership.
The resolution of the European Parliament on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy is to meet the challenges that have emerged in recent months in our neighbourhood, both in the Eastern and the Southern Dimension.
These events have demonstrated the inadequacy of the existing EU involvement in the neighbourhood.
The paradigm shift proposed by the European Parliament from 'stability first' to 'democratisation and human rights first' in EU policy is necessary.
There should be no more pretending that the political status quo, i.e. maintaining authoritarian regimes, is better for Europe and its security.
The time has come for solidarity with our neighbours.
Despite the differences, most countries in the neighbourhood share common characteristics: limited freedom, or no freedom at all, and a lack of success in modernisation.
The allocation of additional, generous funds in order to build a stable EU neighbourhood seems unavoidable.
The ENP should therefore continue to be founded on the principle of conditionality, bilateral and multilateral cooperation and should be extended by the pursuit of institutional integration, liberalisation of the visa regime, opening up the European market and support for civil society.
It is worth recalling again the position of Poland, the advocate of the EU's successive enlargements, which urged the Member States two years ago, in partnership with Sweden, to strengthen the Eastern Dimension of the ENP in the form of the Eastern Partnership initiative.
In the face of current events, Poland's role takes on a symbolic meaning.
Poland, which has historical experience in transformation of its political-economic system, may serve as a good guide and model for both eastern and southern EU neighbours in the current policy.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has shown itself to be a key EU foreign policy instrument, fostering closer relations between the partner countries and providing benefits for both parties.
The amendments that have resulted from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are intended to give greater consistency, efficiency and legitimacy to the EU's external dimension.
However, it is vital to review and point out the mistakes of the past.
The review of the ENP and the Eastern Partnership should set out priorities for specific action from each partner, along with benchmarks and differentiation based on performance and the results achieved.
A 'bottom-up' approach, with support for civil society and the processes of democratisation, is a prerequisite for long-term sustainability and growth.
A strong focus on training, education, research and mobility is needed in order to address the socio-economic problems of the region.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the support that the EU has given to Belarusian civil society in the strengthening of democratic and social reforms so as to enable its participation in the ENP and other sectoral policies.
I am in favour of the statements that make the commitment that new developments, past mistakes and support for democratic transformation should be taken into consideration, along with economic and social reforms in the region, combating corruption, and the promotion of human rights and basic freedoms.
Most importantly, a multilateral dimension should be developed and synergies created between the bilateral and multilateral dimensions of this partnership, including the revitalisation of the Union for the Mediterranean (UFM) and the strengthening of the role of trade unions among the civilian population.
It is also important to point out the need to increase the funds allocated to this policy, and to make better use of them.
We need to rethink our policy on the Southern Mediterranean.
The European Neighbourhood Policy was supposed to promote the values of democracy and human rights, yet the events that have been taking place in the Southern Mediterranean since the start of the year show that we failed on that score.
Admittedly, cooperation in areas such as education and modernisation of the economy has borne fruit.
The same cannot be said of good governance, judicial reform and democracy, which are nonetheless headline objectives of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
This text has the merit of proposing solutions for radically rethinking this policy.
I hope that the European Commission and the Council will be able to take inspiration from it.
Important strategic amendments were made to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) today in the plenary debate in Strasbourg.
This has shown that Europe can be proactive if it wants to be, and that it can remain united around an ideal.
We have proven this once again today.
I am pleased to see this, in a resolution for which I had the honour of being the rapporteur.
Indeed, I was pleased to notice that Commissioner Füle welcomed almost all of our proposals, as the whole Chamber could see during the debate which preceded this vote.
I now challenge the Commission to demonstrate the ambition that this moment demands in its review process on 10 May, with a neighbourhood policy that is tailor-made to each state, with clear benchmarks and careful consideration.
This will allow a future Mediterranean Economic Area with the new democracies in the south, and I hope that the good atmosphere and cooperation that have marked the work on this subject will lead to the permanent involvement of Parliament in planning and evaluating this policy.
I think it is absolutely vital that the EU should favour a bottom-up approach in the future for its neighbourhood policy, for the reasons outlined in this resolution.
in writing. - I voted against this motion.
Whilst it is essential that we try to encourage peace and democracy in the Mediterranean, it is absolutely clear that the strategy behind the European Neighbourhood Policy has so far failed.
This policy costs taxpayers in the region of one and a half billion euro per year, yet it has manifestly failed to deliver.
We are currently facing a refugee crisis in the area and many regimes are turning on their own people.
There is no doubt in my mind that we will soon be asked to approve further funding.
Without clear objectives and a programme of work, this muddled policy will continue to fail the most vulnerable in the region.
It is equally clear that the High Representative has been ineffective in coordinating a response to the continuing security and humanitarian situation.
The recent events in the Southern Mediterranean region, which began with Tunisia in December 2010, have brought a new urgency to the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
Parliament should monitor the processes of democratic transition in the Southern Mediterranean countries and, along with the other European institutions, support this transition as swiftly and peacefully as possible, providing important support through the instruments at its disposal, which are aimed at promoting political, economic and social reforms.
The strengthening of democracy, rule of law, good governance, the fight against corruption and respect for human rights and basic freedoms are essential elements in the political dialogue between the EU and its southern neighbours.
Given these events, the Union for the Mediterranean deserves to be revived, and should be strengthened with a view to the Southern Dimension of the ENP.
I am pleased with the quality of this resolution and its adoption, and I would like to offer my congratulations to my colleague, Mr David.
The EU's goals are very broad and are based on an extension to neighbouring countries in order to create a large area for the free movement of people and goods.
In these circumstances, the EU's European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has a vital role in its strategy for development and growth.
Several instruments and resolutions have been adopted to this end, particularly the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the crucial choices of the common foreign and security policy.
However, the review of the ENP now has a greater importance in the context of the events in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.
The EU should draw lessons from the events in the south, particularly in Tunisia and Egypt, and revise its democracy and human rights support policy so as to create an implementation mechanism for the human rights clauses in all agreements with third countries.
The revision of the ENP should give priority to criteria relating to the independence of the judiciary, respect for basic freedoms, pluralism and freedom of the press, and the fight against corruption.
In the light of the recent events in the Mediterranean basin and of their direct and indirect consequences for European countries, we must carry out a swift and thorough review of European Neighbourhood Policy.
Europe's new strategy must be based on a redefinition of the resources available for the Mediterranean, provide for an increase in financial commitments to facilitate political, economic and social reform in the countries of the region, and press for resources relating to immigration.
Moreover, as regards the radical changes affecting our southern neighbours, I believe that the moment has come to adopt a new European approach with the aim not only of defending democracy but also of taking concrete measures to alleviate migratory pressures and to guarantee the security of energy supply.
In this context, it is essential to lay the foundations, as soon as possible, for a new and strengthened partnership with our neighbouring countries to the south: a partnership aimed at promoting the stability, economic development and democratic transition of the area.
With this in mind, I believe that the European Union must play a key role in the geopolitical context of the region.
I voted in favour of this document because it highlights the importance of setting up a task force, involving Parliament, in response to the calls for monitoring of the democratic transition processes made by actors for democratic change, in particular, as regards free and democratic elections and institution building, including an independent judiciary.
It also calls on the EU to lend strong support to the process of political and economic reform in the region by using all existing instruments within the framework of the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy and, wherever necessary, by adopting new ones in order to assist in the most effective way possible the process of democratic transition, with a focus on respect for fundamental freedoms, good governance, the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, thus responding to the needs and expectations of the peoples of our southern neighbours.
We must ensure that we provide better targeted assistance, particularly aimed at civil society and local communities, in keeping with the bottom-up approach.
However, any increase in the funds allocated should be based on an accurate assessment of needs and consistent with an increase in the effectiveness of the programmes implemented, tailored and prioritised according to the requirements of each beneficiary country.
in writing. - I voted for this resolution which recalls, in the light of current events in the Southern Mediterranean, particularly in Tunisia and Egypt, the ENP's failure to promote and safeguard human rights in third countries; urges the EU to draw lessons from those events and to revise its democracy and human rights support policy so as to create an implementation mechanism for the human rights clause included in all agreements with third countries; insists that the review of the ENP must prioritise criteria relating to the independence of the judiciary, respect for fundamental freedoms, pluralism and freedom of the press and the fight against corruption; and calls for better coordination with the Union's other policies vis-à-vis those countries.
The new European Neighbourhood Policy that we have been promised is just more of the same, with the addition of a few necessary democratic considerations.
For the rest, the agreements negotiated with dictatorships are set to live on: free trade areas, outsourcing the 'management of migration flows', the EU's energy security - everything is there.
The EU could not care less about burgeoning democracies.
For some years, the EU has focused in its neighbourhood policy on economic liberalisation, hoping that this will have positive political side-effects.
The dynamism of economic reforms has long been undermined by authoritarian regimes by means of increased state repression.
Whether the European Neighbourhood Policy can really contribute to greater stability is questionable in view of the escalation of events in Libya.
In the Maghreb countries, it seems that the hopes of the Barcelona Process may be fulfilled in part, albeit with side-effects that the EU had not anticipated and for which it was not prepared - even though they are commonly associated with processes of transformation.
The Barcelona Process in itself is a good thing, and I also took this into consideration when voting.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has shown itself to be an effective foreign policy instrument.
Through the interparliamentary delegations and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean, Parliament should assume its responsibility to promote the idea that the stability and prosperity of Europe are closely linked to democratic governance and the economic and social progress of the southern neighbour countries, and to promote political debate, real freedom, democratic reforms and the rule of law in neighbouring partner countries.
For these reasons, which were expressed in the resolution, I voted in favour.
The recent protests in several countries in the EU's southern neighbourhood, particularly Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, have clearly shown the need for the EU to amend its neighbourhood policy, giving it more ambitious and effective instruments that will allow it to encourage and support the political, economic and social reforms which are being demanded.
It is therefore vital that the revision of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) reflects these developments and allows an adequate response to the challenges that these present, with an emphasis on the uncompromising defence of democratic values and fundamental rights and freedoms, with a commitment to greater involvement by civil society and local communities.
Mr David, the rapporteur, states this very well in his report, and I would like to commend him on his excellent work.
The EP reaffirms the values, principles and commitments upon which the ENP has been built, which include democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for women's rights, good governance, the market economy and sustainable development, and reiterates that the ENP has to become a valid framework for the deepening and strengthening of relations with our closest partners so as to encourage and support their political, social and economic reforms, which are designed to establish and consolidate democracy, progress and social and economic opportunities for all; emphasises the importance of maintaining the principles of shared responsibility and joint ownership in the conception and implementation of ENP programmes; considers that since its launch in 2004, the ENP, as a single policy framework and through its performance-driven differentiation and tailor-made assistance, has brought tangible benefits both for ENP partners and the EU.
Under Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness.
Respect for, and the promotion of, democracy and human rights, especially those of women, are fundamental principles of the European Union and must constitute common values shared with partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
Today's popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are the consequence of the people's general discontent with their own totalitarian regimes, and it is spreading throughout the entire eastern region.
In view of this changed social and political landscape, the EU must make effective adjustments to its neighbourhood policy in order to give effective support to the reform process in the areas of human rights and democracy.
The EU must define in detail the strategic priorities pursued in the partnerships with its eastern and southern neighbours.
I should like to see the Union take action sustained by the will to initiate a process of democratisation, in particular, with regard to greater participation by women in public life and better planning of socio-economic development.
I voted in favour of this report because current events should encourage us to reform the neighbourhood policy, not just to refocus it.
In economic, trade and political terms, respect for rights and freedoms should be, at the same time, conditions and objectives of our cooperation.
The financial assistance that the EU provides to this end should be markedly increased and should fulfil those same conditions and objectives.
We should also relaunch the Union for the Mediterranean on a moral basis in terms of its requirements and on a practical basis in terms of its achievements.
Our cooperation should no longer be restricted to exchanges with the ruling authorities: the European Union should make it a priority to speak to the various members of civil society and to encourage the emergence and organisation of political pluralism in that region.
By encouraging the introduction of legitimate, organised changeovers of power, we will not face a dilemma between unconditional support to governments for the sake of stability and chaos.
Moreover, by basing our cooperation on values this time, we will give it the popular legitimacy and the continuity necessary to meet the historic challenges of that region.
In today's vote, I supported the resolution concerning the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy with respect to both the Eastern and Southern Dimensions.
These resolutions are particularly important given the recent course of events in the southern region.
In particular, we must take into account the strong demands from the public in several southern neighbours of the EU for the overthrow of dictatorships and for pursuing democracy.
The strategic review of the European Neighbourhood Policy must fully take these events into account and reflect on them.
Both resolutions, in relation both to the Southern and Eastern Dimensions, are important for mutually beneficial cooperation between the EU and its various neighbouring countries in order to ensure the necessary developments in relation to democracy, human rights and also the economy and security.
Europe's stability and wellbeing are closely tied to the success of the ENP's southern neighbours in democratic governance as well as their economic and social success, and it is therefore important to support the principles of political debate, full liberties, democratic reforms and the rule of law in the partner countries of the neighbourhood policy.
The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya came as such a surprise to Europe that everyone agrees that it ought to review the terms of its cooperation with the countries of the Mediterranean.
Several options are already open to us when it comes to providing long-term support for the democratic transition, economic development and regional integration of our southern neighbours.
The EU has two tools at its disposal: the Union for the Mediterranean and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.
Both have shown their weaknesses, but a genuine political commitment could rectify our mistakes.
I therefore support this resolution, which provides a clear framework and specific objectives for the next European Neighbourhood Policy.
I would, however, draw my fellow Members' attention to the cross-border dimension of this policy.
Accounting as it does for a mere 5% of the ENPI's total budget, it is overlooked by central government and its programming is subject to alarming delays.
However, this dimension may act as a catalyst for many structural initiatives for cooperation in the Mediterranean.
Establishing a genuine EU-Mediterranean partnership means not only taking the aspirations of the peoples into greater account, but also providing real investment in concrete projects.
I supported the resolution on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Southern Dimension.
From the position of a member of the Committee on Women's Rights, I would like to draw particular attention to the importance of gender equality policies as an inseparable element of human rights, which is also a fundamental principle of the European Union.
Women's rights must be a priority item in talks with the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
According to the resolution, women's rights should be included in revisions of codified law (constitutional law, criminal law, family law and all bodies of civil law), and should be included in the dialogue on human rights conducted with the ENP partner countries.
We should also focus on measures which will deepen the social integration of women.
We need programmes that promote the education of women, and we need to promote their employment and increase their participation in public life.
The effects of measures to improve gender equality in the ENP countries should be continuously monitored and supervised, and failures in this area should be categorically condemned, and even punished.
I opt for not strengthening the EU's relations with those third countries that do not sufficiently incorporate women into their policies and institutions in matters related to the organisation of civil society (in particular, human rights organisations and women's organisations).
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report, which has significant importance, given recent events in the EU's southern neighbourhood.
It is vital that the renewed policy supports democratisation and genuine reforms in the countries concerned.
The events in North Africa and the Middle East are indicative of the ineffectiveness of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), but also of the new challenges facing the EU as a regional player.
The creation of an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness based on EU values should continue to be the basis for relations with ENP partner countries - in this particular case, with the Mediterranean countries.
In the first place, I believe that it is essential to review the indicative programmes for 2011-2013, taking into account the most urgent needs and, at the same time, making the financial instruments, in particular, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European initiative for democracy and human rights (EIDHR), more flexible in order to provide direct support to civil society organisations.
I would also like to call for the Union for the Mediterranean to be strengthened both in terms of funding and in terms of commitment by the Member States, as a favoured forum for the exchange of best practice, where a clear Mediterranean policy should be established, based on partnership policy, the principle of 'ownership' and conditionality.
Lastly, I believe that solutions urgently need to be found to bring an end to the war in Libya, and also to prepare a package of measures for rebuilding the country after the conflict has ended.
I welcome the adoption of this resolution by our Parliament, which is taking stock and deciding on the future direction of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.
My commitment to a rapprochement between the two shores of the Mediterranean led me to make a number of proposals, which I am delighted to say have been approved by my fellow Members.
In particular, I stressed the need to review the European Neighbourhood Policy in the light of the events in the Arab world, by stepping up dialogue with civil society, encouraging the exchange of good practice, guaranteeing respect for human rights in our association agreements and supporting the democratic transition process in those countries.
The ENP offers us a wonderful opportunity to promote our values and to strengthen our relations with the countries on Europe's doorstep.
For that reason, I hope that our partnership with our neighbours in the Southern Mediterranean will become a priority of our foreign policy.
I shall be vigilant in ensuring that we work on an equal footing and that sufficient resources are devoted to achieving our goal of making the Mediterranean region an area of peace, prosperity and cooperation.
I am in favour of this resolution because it upholds the most basic civil rights, particularly those relating to freedom of expression.
This type of behaviour should have consequences for the relationship between the EU and any state that perpetrates such attacks on freedom.
Without strong political pressure on these countries, it will be difficult to bring about peace.
The EU should always be at the forefront of combating these kinds of attacks and should remain alert to future developments in the region.
I voted in favour of this resolution on the use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
Women who have actively participated in the uprisings for more democracy, rights and freedoms in North Africa and the Middle East deserve our respect and support.
The European Union cannot be silent when these brave fighters for democracy and freedom are cruelly treated.
We therefore call on the Commission and the Member State governments to strongly oppose the use of sexual assaults, intimidation and targeting of women in Libya and Egypt, because these countries' incumbent regimes have resorted to sexual violence against women as a weapon in the conflicts that arose during these revolutions.
The Egyptian authorities must take urgent steps to end torture, investigate all cases of abuse against peaceful demonstrators, and stop prosecuting civilians before military tribunals.
I strongly believe that the changes taking place in North Africa and the Middle East must contribute towards the end of discrimination of women and their full participation in society on equal terms with men.
The acts of violence committed against women and children in the last few weeks, during the conflicts that have broken out in North Africa, are no surprise because, unfortunately, women living through armed conflicts have increasingly become a target for humiliation, torture, possession and control, the intention being to wholly or partly destroy a particular group.
It goes further than that, however: no one has the right to violate the dignity of women merely because they have the courage to demand the right to express their thoughts, actively participating in the construction of a peaceful and democratic world and demanding, above all, the right to gender equality.
Inflicting inhumane and degrading treatment, such as electric shocks, 'virginity tests', physical and psychological violence, rape and slavery, is an unacceptable practice to which we must say 'Enough'.
As far as the events in these North African countries are concerned, it is only right that the people responsible for these serious violations be punished, as in any other conflict in the world, because we are dealing here not just with civilians but, what is more reprehensible still, also with soldiers.
I sincerely hope that the EU will succeed in applying pressure so that these countries rapidly ratify a series of international judicial instruments, including the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
I voted in favour of this resolution because there is an urgent need to halt the use of violence and sexual abuse against women.
The European Commission and the Member States should strongly condemn sexual abuse, intimidation, torture and violence against women in Libya and Egypt.
We must call on Egypt's Supreme Military Council to take immediate measures to stop these violent crimes against women.
We must ensure that all security and armed forces are clearly instructed that crimes and torture cannot be tolerated, will be fully investigated, and the perpetrators held accountable.
Furthermore, everyone should be able to express their views on the democratic future of their country without being detained, tortured or subjected to degrading and discriminatory treatment.
Women have had a key voice in the riots calling for more democracy, rights and freedoms in North Africa and the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the regimes in Libya and Egypt use violence as a way to intimidate and degrade women, making them more vulnerable.
I strongly condemn the acts committed by the Egyptian army against female protesters arrested in Tahrir Square.
Immediate steps must be taken as a matter of urgency to put a stop to this degrading treatment, and to ensure that all the security and army forces are clearly told that torture and other forms of ill-treatment will be the subject of a thorough investigation.
It is up to the Egyptian authorities to take urgent measures to put a stop to torture, investigate all cases of abuse against peaceful protesters, and to bring an end to the trials of civilians before military tribunals.
I urge the Commission and the governments of the Member States to vigorously oppose the use of sexual aggression, intimidation and harassment of women in Libya and Egypt.
I voted in favour of this resolution as it strongly condemns the regimes in Libya and Egypt for resorting to sexual aggression in the course of the conflict which is part of the current revolutions.
Women have played a key role in these riots, fighting and risking their lives for more democracy, rights and freedoms.
It is vital to ensure that the changes that are happening in North Africa and the Middle East contribute to bringing an end to discrimination against women, and to their full participation in society, on an equal footing with men.
Unfortunately, we are all aware that periods of upheaval and armed conflicts exacerbate situations of violence against women and children, and lead to a rise in cases of sexual abuse.
This practice is absolutely reprehensible, as are the use of torture, gang rape, 'virginity tests', threats and abuse, whether physical or psychological, directed at women as a way of intimidating or frightening them, or limiting their rights to political participation, as is happening in Egypt and Libya.
The EU, and Parliament in particular, should be a bastion of protection for fundamental rights and human dignity, and clearly and unequivocally denounce all violations of these values.
I strongly condemn the practice of violence against women, and also children, in the recent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, and I would like to call for the most appropriate measures to be taken to protect their most fundamental rights and dignity.
The fight against the violation of human rights is the main goal of the EU and its institutions.
In view of this, the use of sexual violence in any conflict has given rise to the strongest renunciation and condemnation by these organisations.
Indeed, many resolutions have been adopted by Parliament denouncing violence against women.
This joint motion for a resolution focuses on this violence, in particular, sexual violence, perpetrated against women in North Africa and the Middle East.
The reports of violence in the context of war and repression that have reached us are utterly gruesome and have caused great disgust and indignation.
The perpetrators of such behaviour cannot go unpunished, even when protected by dictators or under the pretext of backward mentalities.
I am therefore voting in favour of this report, which condemns any kind of violence against women in any region, calls for severe penalties for the perpetrators, and establishes EU support for the process of empowering women as a priority, especially those who have had the courage to participate in the so-called 'Arab Spring', and encouraging their full participation in civic life in the countries where they live.
In the discussion which took place on the use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East, the Commission pledged to steadfastly advocate bringing an end to sexual violence and slavery, which are recognised as crimes against humanity and war crimes under the Geneva Convention.
As stated in the draft resolution that we submitted, it is vital to insist upon effective diplomatic action that vigorously opposes the use of sexual aggression, intimidation and harassment of women in North Africa and the Middle East, or in any other place.
We would also like to stress the importance of recognising the role of women in the revolutions, and stress the need to guarantee women's rights, including their participation in the new democratic, legal, economic and political structures of these countries, ending the centuries-old discrimination that they have suffered.
I voted in favour of this resolution on the use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
It calls on the Commission and the Member States to strongly oppose the use of sexual assaults, intimidation and the targeting of women in Libya and Egypt.
I believe that everyone should be able to express their views on the democratic future of their country without being detained, tortured or subjected to degrading and discriminatory treatment.
The role of women in the revolutions and democratisation processes should be acknowledged, and the specific threats they face and the need to support and defend their rights should be underlined.
in writing. - I supported this resolution, which calls on the Commission and the Member State governments to strongly oppose the use of sexual assaults on, and intimidation and targeting of, women in Libya and Egypt and strongly condemns forced 'virginity tests' inflicted by the Egyptian army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square and considers this practice as unacceptable, as it amounts to a form of torture; calls on Egypt's Supreme Military Council to take immediate measures to stop this degrading treatment and to ensure that all security and army forces are clearly instructed that torture and other ill-treatment, including forced 'virginity tests', cannot be tolerated and will be fully investigated
In warlike conflicts, it is often the women and children who are the real victims.
It has long been known that rape and torture are frequent occurrences.
The situation is no different in Libya and Egypt, according to reports from foreign journalists concerned.
In Egypt, female demonstrators were arrested and subjected to virginity tests, which were also documented.
In Libya, soldiers carried out rapes and torture.
A further aggravating factor is that the women who told their stories must now expect severe reprisals, such as being accused of defamation.
Once again, a severe abuse of human rights is taking place here about which something should be done, including by the Western powers.
I voted in favour of the resolution because the EU must not close its eyes to these atrocities either and it is only right to demand of the governments in Egypt and Libya that these cases are investigated without exception and the perpetrators held accountable, in order that the countries may continue along the path towards democracy and freedom.
In the course of the unrest in Egypt and Libya, there were reports in the international media of tragic assaults and acts of violence repeatedly being carried out against women.
Torture and rape often go unpunished because the authorities quietly drop the cases or, worse still, accusations of 'defamation' are made against the women themselves.
The roles of victim and perpetrator are reversed for the benefit of a patriarchal society.
The EU must not stand idly by; the EU must do more to protect women and children, as well as the principle of the rule of law for everyone, in Egypt and in Libya.
I therefore voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.
The joint motion for a resolution on the use of sexual violence in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East roundly condemns the crimes identified in Egypt and Libya.
The targeting of women in both countries and the complaints about 'virginity tests' conducted by the military on women rounded up in Tahrir Square and subsequently subjected to rape and torture, so that they could then be tried before military courts for failing 'virginity tests', are inhumane and criminal acts in complete breach of the Geneva Convention on crimes against humanity and war crimes.
In addition to its round condemnation, the motion for a resolution, which I supported, calls on the Commission and the governments of the Member States to strongly oppose the use of sexual assaults on, and intimidation and targeting of, women in Libya and Egypt and to take specific and coordinated action to put an immediate stop to these practices.
I voted in favour of this resolution as it condemns gender-based violence and, of course, the use of sexual violence in conflicts.
I agree with the need expressed in the resolution to give priority to human rights in measures taken under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) as an integral part of the democratisation process, and also with the need for the EU to share with these countries the experience that it has in equality policies and the fight against gender-based violence.
The uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have seen women play an active role in demanding their shared desire for democracy and fundamental rights.
Unfortunately, the regimes in power in Libya and Egypt have resorted as ever to sexual assault as a weapon with which to target women.
We must denounce the use of sexual violence as an instrument for intimidating and humiliating women, without forgetting that the power vacuum that has now emerged could lead to a deterioration in their rights.
One significant case is that of a Libyan woman who, in March, told some journalists in a Tripoli hotel that she had been a victim of gang rape by soldiers.
Today, that young woman has been sued for defamation by the same men who raped her.
We must act by strongly denouncing the disproportionate impact of armed conflicts on women and enhancing their peace building role.
I trust that the EU's denunciation of violence against women and children, particularly during armed conflicts, and of all forms of discrimination against them, within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, will be made in the strongest possible terms.
I wholeheartedly supported the resolution on combating sexual violence in the conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
Mass sexual violence against women is a permanent part of armed conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) gives, among others, the example of Kenya, a relatively stable country, in which pre-election riots led to a doubling of the number of victims of sexual violence in a matter of days.
Sexual violence is becoming an epidemic.
In fact, it has become one of the tactics of war.
The European Union must not remain neutral on this issue.
It is therefore essential to include gender mainstreaming in the mainstream of European Neighbourhood Policy and in the centre of our efforts towards creating an effective and structured approach to gender equality in the countries covered by the policy.
Human rights, an inseparable element of which is the equality of men and women, should constitute an essential element of democratic processes in third countries.
It is shocking that despite the prevalence of sexual violence in Africa, governments do not include fighting it among their priorities, as we can see, for example, in the case of South Africa.
The EU should focus its efforts specifically on women.
The proposals included in the resolution for the enhanced social integration of women, the promotion of their employment, the fight against illiteracy among women and traditional harmful practices are very important.
Education for women and girls must include knowledge of the rights to which they are entitled.
During the recent events in North Africa, the ruling regimes in Libya and Egypt used sexual assault as a weapon for intimidating and persecuting women who took part in the uprisings there.
It is vital, firstly, that the perpetrators of these acts are tried for their crimes and, secondly, that the women who suffered such atrocities are protected from any reprisals.
I myself have been to the Kivu region in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, where this heinous practice is regularly used by soldiers and members of armed groups.
I can testify to the extreme suffering of the women rape victims and to the impunity of the perpetrators of these atrocities.
The international community must do everything it takes to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes do not go unpunished.
The revelations concerning the honour crimes and the humiliation suffered by women during the uprisings in the Arab world have shocked and disturbed me, and I am pleased that our Parliament has denounced the atrocities committed against them.
Europe cannot allow such violations of human rights and of its most fundamental values to be committed with impunity on its doorstep, in partner countries, and against the backdrop of peaceful demonstrations.
I therefore insist that these barbaric acts be investigated and that those responsible be punished.
Our resolution addresses an essential requirement for the future of those countries: that of giving women a central role in the democratisation process in Arab societies.
Women played a leading, silent, underestimated even, role in the liberation movements, and I think it was essential to pay tribute to it in this text.
Europe has pledged to support the countries of North Africa, the Near East and the Middle East in their democratic process.
It is now up to us to ensure that we include in that approach guarantees with regard to respect for human rights and equality between men and women.
I am in favour of this report, which deals appropriately with important issues such as the new Statute of the European Investment Bank (EIB) following the Treaty of Lisbon, project bonds, the implications for the planned financing of the EIB during the economic crisis, its financing after 2013 and its activities outside the EU, in particular, development projects, greening projects and how to be stronger with respect to offshore financial centres.
The European Investment Bank plays a critical role in supporting SMEs, particularly during this financial crisis and economic downturn.
Given the huge importance of SMEs to the European economy, it was agreed that from 2008 to 2011, SMEs should receive loans totalling over EUR 30 billion.
The European Progress Microfinance Facility was set up in March 2010 with some EUR 200 million in funding from the Commission and the Bank.
However, SMEs still face difficulties trying to obtain credit.
As stated in the Bank Watch report, SMEs, particularly those in Central and Eastern European Member States, are unable to take advantage of the assistance intended for them.
The EIB must lay down clear financing conditions and more strict lending effectiveness criteria for its financial intermediaries providing loans.
National financial intermediaries were given a period of two years to provide loans, but as the report states, some financial intermediaries granted only a small portion of the loans or did not grant any at all, although the financial resources were in their accounts.
Furthermore, the EIB's website still lacks publicly available data regarding the use and beneficiaries of allocated funding.
I believe that the EIB must enhance transparency in its lending through financial intermediaries and report annually on its lending to SMEs, including an evaluation of the accessibility and effectiveness of this and lists of loan beneficiaries.
In the first place, I would like to congratulate the European Investment Bank (EIB) on all the work that it has carried out, particularly its support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through funding that has steadily increased since 2008, and also through the creation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility in March 2010.
I also believe that the commitment to the idea of project bonds, which is aimed at enhancing the credit rating of bonds issued by companies themselves, and where these bonds are used to finance European transport, energy and IT infrastructures, is a positive step.
At this point, it is desirable that both the Commission and the EIB should submit concrete proposals for project bonds.
It is also worth highlighting the important work that the EIB may carry out under the EU 2020 strategy, by simplifying procedures and maximising multiplier factors in order to attract public and private sector investors.
With regard to EIB financing outside the EU, I believe that a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the EIB, the EBRD and the Commission is desirable, so as to strengthen cooperation in all the countries where they operate, with the dual aim of making their lending policies both consistent with one another and consistent with the EU's political objectives.
The European Investment Bank (EIB), created in 1958 under the Treaty of Rome, is a financial community of the EU which primarily aims to contribute to the balanced development of the EU through economic integration and territorial cohesion.
I welcome the changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which give greater flexibility to EIB financing.
I recall the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, clarifying the aims of the funding granted by the EIB to third countries, which should support the general principles governing the EU's interactions with the rest of the world, as specified in Article 3(5) TEU, and which, under that assurance, should support the objectives of EU external action.
This financial institution is obliged to submit a document with the balance of its activities to Parliament every year.
This motion for a resolution focuses on the analysis of the 2009 report.
This document refers not only to the improvements that resulted from the adoption of the new statutes, but also to the activities of the EIB.
We recognise the importance that borrowing from the European Investment Bank (EIB) can have for development and social progress, given its low rates and long payment periods.
However, its options are not always sufficiently transparent and clear.
In addition, neither are the countries and regions that most need to borrow from it those that are most favoured with its loans.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) currently plays an irreplaceable role in providing finance in the EU and elsewhere.
The submitted report takes a positive view of the fact that the EIB acted correctly in supporting SMEs in the EU during the crisis.
It is true that the bank formally committed EUR 30 billion over a four-year period to supporting SMEs.
However, the problem is that not all of the money even reached the SMEs.
In specific terms, only about half of the funds committed reached SMEs in the V4 region in the first period.
The EIB gave banks an inexplicably long period of two years to distribute the funds, and also failed to stipulate any sanctions against banks in the event that this deadline was not met.
The banks of Central Europe, hard hit by the crisis, were only too pleased to 'hold on to' these funds.
What was billed as support for SMEs therefore became, in reality, support for the Central European branches of foreign banks.
There is reason enough to think that this was not by accident, but by design.
To conclude briefly - the EIB is also having problems in the area of development.
It needs to take on more employees specialised in development.
The EIB is currently under-staffed, despite its impact on so-called developing countries.
I also agree with the rapporteur that the EIB must make strict changes to its funding via intermediaries, as this may end up in tax havens.
I welcome the fact that the European Parliament appraises the annual report of the European Investment Bank (EIB), albeit from a distinctly bird's-eye view.
The EIB is playing a decisive role in fighting the crisis.
For me, however, the issues of transparency and measurable results remain doubtful.
The EIB's activity focuses on the three areas where the crisis hit hardest: small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), convergence regions and climate action.
SMEs play a key role in the recovery of the European economy and the fight against unemployment, and therefore it would be expedient to make it easier for them to access the capital required for developments.
In this respect, it would be useful if we could see an assessment of the accessibility and effectiveness of the loans in question every year, which would ensure the transparency of the final purpose of the loans and improve the administrative process.
Also in this respect, I believe it is vitally important that the EIB updates and tightens its policy on offshore financial centres.
The EIB plays a very important role in enhancing the European Union's convergence, and due to the technical aid and cofinancing offered by it, the regions under the convergence objectives are able to use an ever larger proportion of the funds available to them.
For this reason, I believe that further increasing this role is practical and to be supported.
Lastly, I suggest that the proposal that transparent regulatory supervision should be introduced in the interests of the quality of the EIB's financial situation, the precise measurement of its results, and compliance with effective and successful business practice, deserves consideration.
I approve of the fact that in this period of crisis, the activities of the European Investment Bank should be focused on helping small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our society.
The involvement of and dialogue with local financial intermediaries is welcome.
What is very important in my opinion is the emphasis placed on renewable energy as regards the candidate countries.
For this reason, I am voting in favour of the report.
I voted in favour of this resolution because the European Parliament welcomes the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, allowing more flexibility in EIB financing, including: equity participations as a complement to the ordinary activities of the Bank; the possibility to establish subsidiaries and other entities, in order to regulate the so-called special activities and to provide wider technical assistance services; and the strengthening of the Audit Committee.
It recommends considering the suggestion that prudential regulatory supervision should be introduced concerning the quality of the EIB's financial situation, the precise measurement of its results and compliance with the rules of sound business practice.
It also welcomes the idea of project bonds, aimed at enhancing the credit rating of bonds issued by companies themselves within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and which are used to finance European transport, energy and IT infrastructures and the greening of the economy.
Such project bond issuance would impact positively on the availability of capital for growth- and job-enhancing sustainable investments complementing national and Cohesion Fund investment.
in writing. - I voted for this report which recommends the following steps to strengthen the EIB's role in development: (a) the allocation of a greater number of dedicated and specialist staff with expertise in development issues and developing countries, as well as an increase in the local presence of staff in third countries, (b) increasing the share of the participation of local actors in the projects, (c) additional dedicated capital in the area of projects targeting development, (d) the allocation of more grants, (e) exploring the possibility of grouping the EIB's activities in third countries together under a single separate entity.
I should like to record my satisfaction that the Cutaş report on the 2009 annual report of the European Investment Bank (EIB) has been approved.
I would emphasise the excellent work done by the EIB in support of small and medium-sized enterprises in a period of economic difficulty and difficult access to loans.
I am, moreover, in favour of the development by the EIB, in conjunction with the European Commission, of project bonds for use in financing large infrastructure projects relating to transport, energy and telecommunications, which are essential for achieving the goals of growth and cohesion within the Union.
The 2009 annual report of the European Investment Bank (EIB) highlights the essential role which the EIB has played in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially at this time of financial crisis and economic recession.
The EIB has focused on three areas which the crisis in Europe has hit hardest, namely: SMEs, convergence regions and climate action.
The importance of the SMEs for the European economy is unquestionable, so I welcome the increase in EIB financing for the SMEs in the 2008-2010 period, which totalled EUR 30.8 billion, and the establishment of the European Microfinance Facility, which has been granted about EUR 200 million by the Commission and the EIB.
Although it is not a text that we, as Greens, would have drafted ourselves, we thought the text acceptable enough to vote in favour of it.
The document that has been approved today highlights the clear need for additional support by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in areas strategic to the recovery of the European economy: small and medium-sized enterprises, midcaps and infrastructure and other key growth- and employment-enhancing projects as part of the Europe 2020 strategy.
The report urges the EIB to invest in freight transport in the European railway sector as well as in other Trans-European Networks of freight transport with a focus on the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Baltic Sea ports, in order to link them definitively to European markets.
The EIB should, moreover, provide more support for the building of the TEN-T network, with the aim of generating a leverage effect for more investment, from both the public and the private sector.
In order to achieve this objective, project bonds can act as a complementary investment instrument alongside the budget in the TEN-T fund.
The case of Ai Weiwei in China
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on the case of Ai Weiwei in China.
author. - Mr President, this is the first time that I have participated in a Thursday afternoon debate, so there are some lessons I think I can pick up for the Conference of Presidents with regard to making the plenary session more attractive.
I am pleased that this point has been put on the agenda, because the case of Mr Ai Weiwei is quite dramatic, as the latest information we have is that there is certainly no intention on the part of the Chinese authorities to release him.
The best thing we can do is to approve the urgent resolution we have agreed together with all the groups so that we can increase pressure on the Chinese authorities.
I have to tell you that I have my doubts that this resolution will change anything in the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese authorities.
What we are, in fact, doing on human rights with the Chinese is a game.
We are talking about human rights, they are saying they will open a dialogue and we think that things have changed.
Nothing shall change.
That is the reality.
We have the Nobel prize-winner who could not attend the meeting in Oslo.
We now have Mr Ai Weiwei, who is a well-known artist and was one of the last dissidents who had the possibility to say something.
The only thing we can say is in an urgent resolution in which we deplore what is happening.
In any case, I had hoped that we could ask why we should continue to participate in fora that the Chinese Communist Party organises with our political parties.
I deplore that there was not enough support from the other groups to come to an agreement on that.
We could at least have agreed on a principle of not continuing to participate in fora with the Chinese Communist Party, if Mr Weiwei and other dissidents were not released.
For that reason at least, I hoped for the support of all the groups here - with the other amendment the Greens tabled, even if the best part of it was eliminated.
Yes, it is true, they tabled a fantastic amendment and then eliminated the best part!
OK, it was not their fault, but apparently the fault of others.
(Interruption by the President)
I may be taking a minute more than I usually do, but for Mr Ai Weiwei, it will take ten years longer, apparently.
If we can speak in favour of somebody who may be in gaol for years, one minute longer is not too much, Mr President!
(DE) Mr President, I do not know how often Mr Verhofstadt is here.
I wanted to ask him whether he should not perhaps come more often, since he would then see that the sessions here are always very attractive.
It is just that unfortunately, there are some people who do not come, but that is something that can be changed.
The sessions are extremely attractive.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vividly recall the first time that I saw a work by the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei.
At that time, in about 2000, I was a lecturer in Art History in Lisbon, and there, in an anthology of modern artists, was his enormous chandelier, the size of a room, overturned and broken.
It was at once extremely beautiful and somewhat poignant and sad.
This image somehow also reflects an image of China: able to show itself as sumptuous, rich, developed, and capable of presenting itself to the world, as in the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.
It is a sophisticated China, yet one with something seriously broken inside.
That something is the will, free speech and the spirit of the Chinese people themselves.
Today, we have met to discuss the case of the artist Ai Weiwei, and we have asked the Chinese authorities to release him, to let him speak with his lawyer and his wife, and to make any accusations, if there are any which are true, and not charges trumped up on the spot.
Above all, we have gathered here to say that this artist's spirit of creativity, imagination and humour will surely survive much longer than that of his gaolers.
author. - Mr President, once again, we are debating China, and its government's intolerance of dissent.
As we know from our debate last month on the Communist regime's vandalism of the ancient city of Kashgar, China vigorously tries to suppress cultural expression that does not conform to what its Communist rulers deem appropriate.
Ai Weiwei is an heir to China's magnificent and ancient artistic traditions.
He has also used his artistic talents to raise awareness of China's dismal human rights record and dearth of political freedom.
Clearly, there is also a lack of freedom of expression in China.
How else can the regime explain Mr Ai's arrest on economic crimes and because he failed to complete the correct departure procedures for travelling to Taiwan.
This is plainly a smokescreen.
In fact, the real reason was later elucidated by the state-run Global Times newspaper in a menacing editorial, which said that Mr Ai would pay a price for his resistance.
We abhor the Chinese Government's disgraceful treatment of this distinguished artist.
We in this House call for his immediate release, and we express regret, once again, that China goes to such extreme lengths against those who dare speak out for their basic human rights.
Mr President, more than a year ago, we spoke in this Chamber about Liu Xiaobo being sentenced to prison.
Here we are now discussing a second signatory of Charter 08 who has been detained by the Chinese authorities.
As has already been said, Ai Weiwei is not only a very famous artist, but also one of the biggest critics of the Communist regime.
He was arrested on Sunday and there is no prospect of his release.
Indeed, in addition to this, we saw today that the Chinese authorities maintained that his arrest was an economic and not a political matter, which is blatantly a barefaced lie.
As is well known, Ai Weiwei was prevented from attending the Nobel Prize award ceremony.
His arrest is part of a wider trend in cracking down on human rights activists.
We have included in our resolution a whole list of people whom, I believe, Lady Ashton must mention whenever she has the opportunity.
I believe that we need to reassess our dialogue on human rights more generally.
author. - Mr President, it is no coincidence that the increasingly repressive measures against Chinese journalists, dissidents, human rights activists and lawyers is taking place in the aftermath, or during the turmoil, of the North African revolutions.
The word 'jasmine' has been banned from the Chinese Internet recently.
Today's news, which Mr Preda highlighted, is very significant because now, we see how dictators copy from each other and compare notes.
We can see that the methods that Russia used against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have been used by Venezuela and Kazakhstan against businessmen who come too close to political influence, who want to establish opposition parties: they are all punished in the name of economic crimes.
Punishment of economic crime is the name they give to political repression.
We have to be aware that this has not happened much before in China: this is a turning point that does not bode well.
It is important that Members of the European Parliament raise the persecuted activists' names when they travel to China and when meeting their Chinese counterparts, and that they insist on a prison visit.
We know that many of those who are persecuted suffer terrible torture in Chinese prisons, sometimes in what we call 'black gaols' which are completely unidentified places.
This is a reminder to all European Parliament delegations that all of them are entitled and obliged to exercise their duty in respect of human rights when they visit countries.
We call for the immediate release of Ai Weiwei.
The disappearance of Ai Weiwei must be understood within the context of the increasingly desperate political repression carried out by the Chinese authorities.
All this is happening due to their fear that the revolutionary spirit of the Arab world will infect Chinese society.
However, the EU can make a difference.
Violations of human rights by the Chinese authorities must be a constant theme in its political dialogue with China, and this dialogue should be rethought to ensure that there are concrete results, in particular, the review of court rulings that have kept human rights activists in gaol.
Negotiations on the new framework agreement cannot leave aside the issue of human rights, subjugating everything to commercial interests.
When pursuing its economic interests, the EU itself has a responsibility to support activists like Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo and Hu Jun, who have fought courageously for urgent political reform in China, against oppression, and for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
China, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has particular obligations regarding human rights, contained in the UN Charter, and it must be accountable for these not only to its citizens, but also to the rest of the world.
Mr President, I am very pleased that we in the European Parliament were able to add a current breach of human rights so quickly to the list of urgent petitions.
As we know, the case of Ai Weiwei is not actually the only serious breach of human rights of which the Chinese Communist Party is continually guilty, but, as Mrs Hautala has already previously mentioned here, the democracy movement in China has received a new boost from the uprisings in North Africa.
Over the past few weeks, officials have stepped up their surveillance of critics of the government and many dissidents, activists and human rights lawyers have been either put under house arrest or taken into police custody.
As Amnesty International has said, Ai Weiwei's arrest is an alarming turn of events in the increased incidence of counterblows against dissidents by the Chinese authorities.
Economic interests must not now be allowed to blur the issue of human rights and prevent the call for the immediate release of prisoners of conscience.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Beijing's justification for the arrest of the artist Ai Weiwei for economic crimes is not convincing, and neither is the need to treat a free, dissident artist so harshly.
It is not convincing since this arrest is one of hundreds of arrests of opponents and part of the systematic repression of all signs of dissent.
At a time when uprisings are breaking out in the Arab world, we think back to the images of cruel violence in Tiananmen Square against young Chinese who, just like today's Jasmine revolutionaries, were demanding freedom and democracy.
China has opened up to the West in economic terms without, however, linking production to respect for the environment and safety at work, and it is unable to embrace democracy and pluralism in any form whatsoever.
This is not interference on our part in Chinese internal affairs, as Beijing maintains, but the appeal of men and women, of movements and parties that intend to build a world free of intolerance on every continent.
The Beijing government should watch what is happening in the world to grasp that, if it does not change, it will be historic events and Chinese citizens that will change China.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, reports on the worrying human rights situation in the People's Republic of China have become more and more frequent.
In Parliament, we have this issue on our agenda for almost every session.
Like the usual cycles of repression, the recent crackdown has already lasted for a while, which might be signalling a power struggle between reformers and hardliners in the Communist Party.
The Chinese Government has made it harder to access foreign websites, blocked encryption software used to jump what is colloquially known as 'the great firewall of China', obstructed access to Googlemail and intensified arrests, including that of the internationally renowned artist and critic of the regime, Ai Weiwei.
Resolute action is needed.
I therefore call on the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, to make a démarche with Beijing.
Ai Weiwei must be released now.
Mr President, Ai Weiwei was - and this is the very sad truth - one of the last remaining courageous critics of the Chinese leadership.
His arrest was, without doubt, not just the culmination of a whole wave of arrests of critics, but also a message to all the others that not even international prominence can provide protection from being put back in prison by the Chinese authorities or from even disappearing completely.
At the same time, our representations are regularly ignored in the human rights dialogue that the European Union is conducting with the Chinese representatives at all levels - with a friendly smile, but ignored and dismissed nonetheless.
For us, the question arises as to what strategy we can use in response to this.
I believe we must respond in our own China delegation and make it very clear on our next visit to China that we want to visit these critics too, that we want to see them - for otherwise there is no longer any point in continuing our human rights dialogue.
We have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, I condemn the arrest of Ai Weiwei and call for his immediate release.
His detention is part of the most severe police crackdown in China in decades.
Since 2008, China's internal security budget has, incredibly, grown larger than its military budget.
It now stands at an incredible USD 95 billion.
This pays for a massive apparatus of State repression, including over 40 000 policemen whose sole job is to police the Internet for dissent.
This repression is being stepped up because the regime fears the spread of revolution from the Middle East and North Africa.
The regime is right to be afraid.
The revolutions there demonstrate that a risen working class and the risen poor are more powerful than even the most brutal repressive methods, the most repressive regimes.
Mass struggle is needed, in particular, the creation of independent, democratic mass organisations of the working class.
The struggle against dictatorship must be linked to the struggle for genuine socialist change in China, whereby the vast wealth and resources in China are taken into democratic public ownership and the economy is democratically planned to raise the living standards of ordinary people.
(DE) Mr President, as an artist, Ai Weiwei has given faces to the child victims of the Sichuan earthquake.
As a civil rights activist, he has given a face to Charter 08.
He is now giving a face to those people who have disappeared into the gaols and prisons of China - thousands of them anonymous.
A hundred of them are known to us and here in this House, we must give a voice to these people who stand up for human rights but who have been temporarily silenced.
I therefore say quite clearly that of course, these human rights debates and the dialogue are necessary.
I understand those who say they have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall.
If we stop talking to this brick wall, however, then the dictators will have got what they wanted.
There was a great reformer, Zhou Enlai.
Zhou Enlai was no democrat, but he was a Chinese patriot and he opened up his country.
What we need is a democratic Zhou Enlai to arrange for a democratic opening up of his country.
If the country fails to implement democratic reforms, it will end up in the same sort of crises as it suffered in the 1930s.
It is in the Chinese interest to help bring about a breakthrough in human rights and we must therefore support these initiatives as well.
(FI) Mr President, the artist Ai Weiwei, who has achieved international recognition, is someone who has enriched Chinese culture and art.
Instead of rewarding him and treating him with respect, China has locked him up in prison.
Human rights are not just a European concept: they are universal principles underlying human dignity.
The representatives of the European Union's External Action Service and the Delegation of the EU to China must highlight the case of Ai Weiwei with the Chinese authorities at the highest diplomatic level.
The human rights dialogue with China, however, must not simply be allowed to remain at the level of diplomatic speeches.
Given the repeated breaches of human rights and a human rights situation that has failed, the European Union must draw its conclusions and reconsider its relations with China.
The human rights dialogue must not simply be empty words: positive steps need to be taken, and there must be followup and twoway discussion.
Besides, culture and art are a resource that enriches society and takes it forward, both here in the West, but also in the East, the South and the North too.
A Uachtaráin, China is an enigma.
On the one hand, it has modernised and taken on many Western practices, as we saw at the Olympics, which I had the privilege of attending, and indeed they were a great success.
But while it has westernised in some ways, it is archaic in others, in particular, in relation to fundamental rights, especially freedom of opinion.
The case of Ai Weiwei is a perfect example.
Here is a world-renowned artist, arrested on 3 April for no apparent reason.
Nobody has heard much about him since and this, of course, is totally and utterly unacceptable.
We call here today for his return to his wife, his friends and assistants.
Because one thing is for sure - and the Chinese should take note of this - Ai Weiwei will be remembered and renowned long after those who were responsible for his arrest are forgotten.
(DE) Mr President, I think that what the Chinese are doing here is a deliberate political provocation, or to put it another way, a political test.
It is intended to test the strength, the resolve and the credibility of democratic countries.
It is an attack on human rights.
It is true that there must be dialogue, but precisely for that reason we must make it clear to the People's Republic of China that further economic cooperation must go hand in hand with further democratisation of their country.
We therefore demand the release of Ai Weiwei.
By the way, whenever dictators want to avoid being accused of political trials, they always play the tax evasion or economic crimes card.
It was the case in the former GDR, it is the case in Russia, and unfortunately, it is also the case in the People's Republic of China.
That is why I emphatically endorse this resolution.
(DE) Mr President, I would first like to agree with Mr Verhofstadt.
It is indeed shameful that these human rights debates, which are actually very important to us Europeans who believe in values, always take place on Thursday afternoons when most people have already left.
I would like that noted in the record once more.
It is something that we must change.
Right now, however, we are talking about China and there we are more or less powerless, as has already been said.
Mrs Lichtenberger spoke of a brick wall.
Mr Posselt, I do not believe by the way that it is really in the Chinese interest - as you said - to help bring about a breakthrough in human rights.
It is apparently not in the interest of the Chinese Government, although it is undoubtedly in the interest of the Chinese people.
We are talking today about many people: Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobo have already been mentioned.
We have frequently debated in the past how we can bring about a human rights breakthrough.
It is not just a matter of instructing Baroness Ashton to speak out against the human rights abuses in China at every opportunity.
All our foreign ministers and representatives must do so, and we need to stick together.
I think that is the only way that we can actually have a small influence on China.
Otherwise, as a strong economic power, China will play us off against each other and we will achieve nothing whatsoever.
That would be a very bad thing, especially for the people concerned.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the detention of the distinguished Chinese artist, Ai Weiwei, at Beijing Airport on 3 April as he was attempting to travel to Hong Kong, has rightly drawn international concern.
The delegation of the European Union to China and a public statement immediately condemned the increasing use of arbitrary detention against human rights defenders, lawyers and activists in China, and underline the EU's concerns regarding Ai Weiwei.
At the moment, we have no information concerning Mr Ai's whereabouts, and I wish to emphasise today that the EU's view on arbitrary detention and disappearance is that it constitutes a grave violation of human rights and is unacceptable in all circumstances.
We call for the immediate release of Ai Weiwei.
Moreover, as the resolution before this House makes clear, the detention of Ai Weiwei is only one among many recent incidents of arbitrary detention and disappearance in China.
Several prominent Chinese lawyers who frequently act for defendants in human rights cases are reported to have been arrested by police officials since February and have not been seen since.
Concerns about their treatment are only intensified by the ongoing disappearance of the lawyer Gao Zhisheng who, with the exception of a brief reappearance in April 2010, has now been missing for over two years.
The High Representative is worried about reports based on interviews with Mr Gao in April 2010 that during his initial period of disappearance, he was detained incommunicado in a variety of unauthorised places of detention and subjected to improper treatment.
There are, moreover, reports that in recent weeks, a significant number of bloggers and political activists have either been charged with criminal offences, such as subverting state power, or have been detained without charge.
I can assure this House that the Vice-President/High Representative, Catherine Ashton, is following developments very closely and will raise these issues with the Chinese authorities at the earliest opportunity, and that the EU will also make known its concern to the Chinese authorities at the next round of the EU-China human rights dialogue, for which we have proposed dates in May.
Allow me to support the statement by Mrs Meissner that what is really needed is one voice, a unified message, which comes not only from the EU institutions, but from all EU Member States.
Ban on the elections for the Tibetan government in exile in Nepal
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on the ban on the elections for the Tibetan government in exile in Nepal.
Mr President, I believe we have all been following with approval and admiration the efforts of the Tibetan people to win the right to run their own country.
The many attempts of the government in exile or the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetans, to find a sensible solution through negotiation with the Chinese ruling power, have always ended in failure.
The Chinese clearly do not regard the Tibetans as partners in a shared state, but as an obstacle preventing them from taking full possession of an occupied territory.
The position of the Nepalese Government is therefore complicated.
On the one hand, it must comply with its international obligations and guarantee universal rights to the Tibetan community, but on the other, it cannot disregard the opinion of its enormous neighbour.
The position of the Nepalese Government vis-à-vis the elections to the Tibetan Government in exile clearly tells us who is the real global player in this region.
For the Nepalese Government, it is China.
We Europeans can make symbolic gestures and declare our reservations regarding the weak Nepalese Government.
However, if we really want to bring about a change the position of the Tibetan people, our partner in the dialogue must be the Chinese Government, as it is the political leader in the region, influencing the rules of regional politics.
We can, of course, make a declaration to the Nepalese Government, but that will not solve the problem.
author. - Mr President, since the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy and the election of a Maoist-led government in Kathmandu, Nepal and China have inevitably grown much closer.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the Nepalese authorities prevented Tibetan refugees living in Nepal from voting for a prime minister and a parliament in exile.
Indeed, a similar election plan for last October was disrupted by Nepalese police, undoubtedly in response to pressure from Beijing.
The fact that China has sought to interfere with an unofficial election taking place in another sovereign neighbouring state is an indication of its leaders' contempt for democracy and their paranoia about Tibet.
It is obviously irrelevant to China that time and time again, the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, has stressed that he seeks maximum autonomy for Tibet, not independence.
I hope that the High Representative - who is not here today - will raise this episode with China and also with Nepal, whose own nascent democracy is kept afloat partly by EU taxpayers' money in the form of financial aid.
I also wish to take this opportunity to salute the courage, fortitude and peaceful resistance of the Tibetan people whose example is an inspiration to us all.
Nepal is indeed in a delicate position, geopolitically and geographically speaking, but it should seek inspiration from its democratic neighbour to the south, India, rather than from the repressive dictatorship which exists to its north, namely the PRC.
Democracy will, I hope, one day be the norm throughout the whole of Asia.
Mr Tannock, you used only one and a half minutes.
Next time, I will give you an extra half minute!
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, obviously it is not enough that the suppression of Tibetan culture within China has been increasing more and more since the 2008 Olympic Games.
Since then, things have, in fact, only got worse.
There has not been a single step forward.
Now pressure is also being exerted abroad to make it as difficult as possible, or downright impossible, for Tibetans to exercise even their right to vote for a parliament in exile.
We have seen for some years already how enormous pressure is being exerted on Nepal - whether this concerns accepting refugees or matters such as voting rights for Tibetans.
However, we should be pleased that such things are guaranteed.
The European Union should learn from this.
The Chinese leadership is exerting pressure on its sister party, even on Nepal as a whole, in order that action is taken against the Tibetans - and Nepal caves in.
We must concentrate our efforts to counter this, and that includes the withdrawal of any aid.
author. - Mr President, there are three points that I would like to make concerning the ALDE amendments to this resolution.
First of all, the justification for the amendments is based on the causal nature of the occupation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in the thwarting of the Tibetan elections in Nepal.
Although the resolution addressed the issue of the ban on elections for the Tibetan Government in exile in Nepal, it cannot be ripped out of the wider context of the status of Tibet.
Secondly, if there were no reference to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, which is the very cause and reason for Beijing putting pressure on the Nepalese Government, it would be like talking about the First World War without mentioning the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
Finally, the call for meaningful autonomy for Tibet is the only constructive proposal that the European Parliament can make to avoid a reoccurrence of the ban on the Tibetan elections in Nepal.
I call on colleagues to support it.
Mr President, the country I come from has a great deal of rich experience when it comes to governments in exile.
Between 1939 and 1990, a total of 15 Polish prime ministers and six presidents ruled from political exile.
Poles did not give up the pursuit of democracy, and finally the red colour of solidarity was able to combine with the white of the ballot paper to give birth to a new, democratic state in 1989.
Today, the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, too, has a chance for a new beginning thanks to the constitution, which will come into force on 28 May.
It would be a pity if Nepal spoiled this celebration by continuing to limit the rights of the Tibetan minority and got a red card from the international community as a result.
I consider preventing the participation of Tibetans from Nepal in the recent elections of the Prime Minister in exile an unacceptable violation of fundamental civil rights.
The European Union should use all diplomatic and financial means in order to neutralise the pressure on Nepal by China and, in the long term, to ensure that the Tibetans have the right to vote, associate and demonstrate their views.
Just as in the case of Poland, where it was not possible to prevent the work of the 21 representatives of government who were in exile, so will the Dalai Lama's successors, I am convinced, not stop their activities.
Nepal and China should bear this in mind.
Mr President, on 20 March, around 80 000 exiled Tibetans worldwide participated in the direct election of a new prime minister and the members of the government.
Members of the European Parliament, including members of the European Parliament Tibet Intergroup, attended as election observers.
My experience in Switzerland was the same as that of my fellow Members in other countries: the elections were conducted fairly, in secret and absolutely in accordance with democratic rules.
The only exception was in Nepal, where security forces - under pressure from the Chinese Government - prevented tens of thousands of Tibetans from taking part in the elections.
In so doing, they continued the deliberate measures taken last year, when ballot boxes were confiscated and voting sites shut down.
Yet Nepal is not a vassal state.
The government in Kathmandu must prove that it can liberate itself from Chinese influence.
Basic rights include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and, not least, electoral freedom.
Commissioner, the European External Action Service must insist vigorously that these human rights are upheld.
Mr President, the ban imposed by the Nepalese authorities on organising the elections for a Tibetan government in exile raises a question mark about the human rights situation in this state.
I would like to point out that members of the Tibetan community organised this process with the aim of making their institutions democratic.
Such an initiative must be facilitated, wherever it might take place.
It is now time for Nepal to show that its democracy is working both domestically and internationally, especially so that the votes cast can be sent to the Central Electoral Commission by 15 April to be validated.
I appeal to the Nepalese Government to take advantage of this opportunity to remedy the situation on fundamental rights in its country.
This aspect is vital for ensuring an effective neighbourhood policy.
Mr President, Commissioner, we must fight for democratic rights everywhere, not just in our own neighbourhood, not just in North Africa.
We must have a standard European policy towards non-democratically elected governments, against governments which do not respect democratic rights.
Mr Verhofstadt said that, to a certain extent, we are hypocrites.
It is true because, often, we do not rank any principles above trade.
One typical example is the Mercosur agreement, in which, for the sake of opening up trade, we are happily sacrificing 11% of the Amazon and millions of European farmers.
The Commission is to blame in all of this, Commissioner.
The Commissioner for Trade is often indifferent towards other European policies.
However, if we continue like this, we shall continue to be hypocrites.
Nepal must respect the democratic rights of refugees from Tibet and the European Union must use every means at its disposal and must raise the issue within all frameworks, not just in connection with human rights.
This is not only Baroness Ashton's affair; it is also Mr De Gucht's and the entire Commission's affair.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, bullied by the Chinese authorities for too many years, today it is Nepal that is depriving the Tibetans of a fundamental political right: the right to vote.
If one thing is certain, it is that Beijing has found a new ally in its harassment of the Tibetan people, and that new ally is Nepal.
In reality, though, all this goes far beyond the elections because, for several years now, the Nepalese Government, under pressure from the Chinese authorities, has been placing ever more restrictions on the freedom of expression of Tibetans living in exile on its soil.
Last June, Kathmandu handed over Tibetan refugees to the Chinese authorities.
Preventive arrests and the ban on demonstrations, assembly and even movement, have become a common occurrence for Tibetans living in Nepal.
Our Parliament must therefore stop being hypocritical and not just be indignant but also strongly condemn these acts of repression by Nepal and, more generally, the very many - too many - violations of human rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Moreover, we call on Nepal to stop this harassment and ill-treatment of political refugees, and simply to respect their rights.
When we consider Nepal's history as a host country - something which it has always been for Tibetans until recently - it is ultimately very sad to see what that government is inflicting on political refugees.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I believe it is simply outrageous that the Tibetans living in Kathmandu did not get permission to vote in the elections because of pressure from China.
The pressure China is putting on Nepal, preventing refugees from enjoying a minimum level of rights under international law, is something that we as the European Union should condemn.
We should also express our concern at the fact that the Chinese are preventing another country from providing people with humanitarian aid.
It is important that the High Representative, through the EU delegation in Kathmandu, should closely monitor the situation.
This is something we have been requesting for a long time now.
Bearing in mind the current situation, we cannot wait any longer.
The pressure from China is something that we have to do everything we can to counter, and if we do not do it right now, when we are trying to launch this dialogue with the Chinese, I am afraid that we will never do it.
Mr President, I believe that it is bad enough that the Tibetans do not have the right to self-determination in the land of their birth, but there is also pressure for them to be denied their most basic democratic rights outside their country, as many of them painfully chose exile, or were forced into it.
One of the arguments that was always used by those who were critical of Tibetan resistance was that this resistance, focused on the figure of the Dalai Lama, had many non-democratic aspects.
Now that the Tibetan resistance is in the process of democratisation, it is extremely unfortunate that Nepal, a country where so many Tibetans live, has prevented the democratic elections from being conducted in a normal way.
However, I would also ask you to appreciate one thing: often, our governments are the first to yield to pressure by the Chinese Government to create a reality that agrees with the dreams and wishes of the Chinese leaders.
We have to understand that in Nepal, the government probably wanted to do the same thing.
Therefore, if we want to put pressure on the Nepalese Government to act differently, we also have to start by putting pressure on our own governments to show that they have some backbone in their discussions with the Chinese authorities.
(RO) Mr President, the Nepalese authorities prevented, under pressure from the Chinese Government, around 20 000 Tibetans in Nepal from voting in the elections for the prime minister of the Tibetan Government in exile.
The right to vote, as well as the right to free elections and peaceful demonstration, are fundamental rights for every individual and for communities.
The more obstacles there are preventing people from exercising these rights, the greater their determination to exercise them.
I firmly believe that the desire of Tibetans in Nepal to elect their Head of Government in exile is also greater.
Indeed, the attempts by the Nepalese and Chinese authorities to rule them by fear have had exactly the opposite result.
I call on the European Union's High Representative to express clearly these demands and measures from the European Parliament when in dialogue with the Nepalese and Chinese authorities.
(FI) Mr President, China has increased its pressure on the Tibetan Government in exile.
Over 10 000 Tibetans in Nepal were not permitted to vote for a prime minister and members for the parliament of the government in exile.
Under pressure from China, Nepal's main parties support the socalled One China policy, and they consider Tibet to be an inseparable part of China.
For these reasons, the Tibetan refugees in Nepal are kept under strict control at all times.
Although this resolution deals with the election ban, in the background is China's occupation of Tibet.
China's authority and the pressure it exerts are growing all the time as its economic influence grows.
This, like the previous resolution on Ai Weiwei, shows how dismal the policy being pursued by the Chinese Communist Party is.
As the Commissioner said, Europe must be unanimous in its policy towards China.
Mr President, I was not going to take the floor on this, but because the Dalai Lama will visit my country next Thursday and will speak in my own constituency in the University of Limerick, where I am sure he will have much to say on this and other issues.
Obviously, the behaviour of the Nepalese home ministry in confiscating ballot boxes is totally reprehensible.
As for what happened in Kathmandu - a place renowned in song and story, and that even makes it sadder - up to 10 000 votes were not allowed to be counted.
All we can hope is that we in the European Union, by expressing our voice unanimously, can bring some pressure to bear, not just in Nepal, but on their masters, the Chinese, to try and be a little more understanding, especially in relation to Tibet and the Dalai Lama.
Finally, I want to say that he will be as welcome in Ireland as the Queen of England and President Obama, who are also coming.
(FI) Mr President, the right to participate in democratic elections is a universal fundamental right.
The elections now under way are important for the preservation of Tibetan identity and culture.
The Tibetans are voting for a new spiritual leader, as the current Dalai Lama steps down.
Back in 2009, we agreed that the EU would support democracy and participatory governance in its foreign relations.
We need to be consistent and stand behind this policy of ours.
Obviously, Nepal is siding with China, under pressure.
Nepal needs to be reminded of its international human rights obligations to safeguard the democratic rights of the Tibetans, and it should not prevent free elections from going ahead.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, as you know, some 20 000 Tibetans live in Nepal, most of them from the old days.
They have enjoyed freedom of economic activity, the right to reside in Nepal and, until recently, also some political space to debate the future of Tibet amongst themselves.
The recent elections on 20 March were an important event for the community outside Tibet and represent a significant step forward in a long reform process envisaged by the Dalai Lama.
Against this background, we note with concern that the Nepalese authorities are tightening their grip on the political activities of Tibetans in Nepal.
On 20 March, more than 10 000 of them were effectively stopped from voting by the authorities.
This is not the first time this has happened.
During an earlier round of voting in Nepal on 3 October last year, the polls were subject to a crack-down by the Nepalese authorities, which seized ballot boxes and closed the Tibetan community's voting sites.
The European Union, through its delegation in Kathmandu and the embassies of the EU Member States, has been monitoring these developments in close contact with the Tibetan community and the government.
The EU takes the view that Tibetan refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to freedom of association in accordance with international human rights standards.
This should be done in a way which permits the smooth implementation of these rights.
Access to Nepal's territory should be maintained, and the gentlemen's agreement between the government of Nepal and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees should be honoured.
New Tibetan arrivals apprehended by the Nepalese authorities en route to Kathmandu should be transferred to the UNHCR's care promptly and without hindrance.
Pre-1990 Tibetans who are recognised as refugees by the Nepalese Government should be provided with adequate Nepalese registration.
I would like to ensure this House that the EU will continue to raise this issue with the authorities and continue its monitoring and reporting on future developments.
Tibet's Dalai Lama has taken a decision to retire from political life and continue as the spiritual leader of his people.
He is, of course, one of the best known of all leaders, and people all over the world have derived strength and consolation from his ideas about goodness, understanding and pacifism.
His spiritual role will remain in place, but his political duties will now be transferred to the Prime Minister of Tibet's government in exile.
That, however, will not be without its problems.
Owing to growing pressure from the Chinese Government, the 20 000 or so Tibetans living in Nepal have not been allowed to vote.
The Nepalese Government has said that the demonstrations by Tibetans go against the 'One China' policy and has confirmed that it will not allow 'antiBeijing activities' on its soil.
It has therefore imposed a voting ban on Tibetan groups.
This comes as no surprise, since the Nepalese authorities have been repeatedly guilty of breaching the freedom of expression and human rights of Tibetans in exile.
This is despite the fact that Nepal has signed the UN international human rights agreements relating to civil and political rights.
From its delegation in Kathmandu, the European External Action Service should carefully monitor the political situation in Nepal and, in particular, the treatment of Tibetan refugees, and ensure that their rights are being respected.
Adherence to democratic principles is important if Tibetan identity is to be preserved and strengthened, both within and outside Tibet.
The whole world is well aware of how complicated the situation of the Tibetan people is, who, for decades, have been demanding not so much independence any more, but at least respect from the Chinese Government for the fundamental rights of autonomy.
A nation with such a rich and unique culture lives under a constant threat from a powerful neighbour.
Now that the Dalai Lama has resigned from political leadership in favour of a new generation of democratic leaders, the Tibetans have been faced with an opportunity to strengthen democratic traditions, despite the fact that the Tibetan Government is still forced to operate in exile.
However, thousands of Tibetans living in Nepal have been deprived of this right.
The pressure from China seems to be very effective, and what have so far been peaceful demonstrations in defence of freedom of expression and fundamental rights may become a situation which is difficult to control, and this will certainly have international repercussions.
After all, we can imagine how effectively the Chinese Government will want to deal with those who 'disturb the peace' in Tibet.
Recent events should remind the world that the rights of the Tibetan people are constantly being violated and that the issue of Tibet is not a closed chapter, because the Tibetans will certainly continue to insist on respect for their independence, and they will do so with ever-increasing clamour.
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on Zimbabwe.
Mr President, this is not the first time we have discussed the method of governing employed by Robert Mugabe and his party.
In July 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution implementing sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his entourage.
The reason for this decision was, just like today, serious violations of human rights by the ruling administration.
New cases of intimidation, arrests and also the uninvestigated disappearance of political rivals of the ruling party confirm to us that Robert Mugabe and his political party know that a fair and transparent political contest would strip them of power and raise the prospect of penalties for terrorising the population and pillaging the wealth of the country over many years.
We can surely all agree on the adoption of the draft resolution, in the hope that measures initiated by the EU may assist the people of Zimbabwe, who are terrorised by their government, to reverse, with the assistance of civic and opposition leaders, the current difficult situation in the country by means that are as peaceful as possible.
For the European Union to accredit an ambassador of Robert Mugabe in this situation would surely be seen as an affront to decent people.
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, let us try, at least through our political behaviour, to promote important political changes in Southern Africa.
author. - Mr President, since I have been in this Parliament, some twelve years now, we have been trying to help the people of Zimbabwe have better lives and greater optimism for the future.
We have been clear on two points.
Firstly, that as long as Robert Mugabe remained in power, protected by a small self-serving element in Zanu-PF and the security forces, pillaging the nation's wealth for their own enrichment, there was little prospect of real change.
Secondly, that it was up to the people of Zimbabwe, with the support of their African neighbours - and here I name South Africa in particular of course - to bring about the necessary change.
Maybe, just maybe, there is at last some movement in the right direction.
You know when Mugabe is worried: he starts to panic.
His police and militia start attacking anyone they see as opponents.
The MDC is supposed to be in a power-sharing coalition, but in the past few days, MDC Ministers and MPs, as well as human rights activists, have been beaten up and arrested.
I suppose Mugabe is increasingly nervous on two counts.
He has seen what has happened to his friend and main bankroller, Gaddafi; and just a week ago, on 31 March, the Southern African Development Community, which includes South Africa and all Zimbabwe's neighbours, at last voiced its grave concern at the resurgence of violence in Zimbabwe.
It has called for an end to that violence and for all elements of the global political agreement to be implemented.
It has appointed a team to work out a road map to peaceful, free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, and today, that team is in Harare.
We are calling on European governments and the EU to intensify their engagement to use all their political influence in Southern Africa to help bring about rapid change for the better in Zimbabwe and pave the way for properly monitored elections to be held in an atmosphere free from intimidation.
Until there is evidence of real change, the restrictive measures specifically targeting Mugabe and his close allies must remain in place.
In this regard, there is no way that the EU should accredit Mugabe's unilaterally appointed envoy as ambassador.
Once the people of Zimbabwe have their freedom restored, and genuine democracy and the rule of law established, I feel sure that the international community, including the EU, stands ready to come forward with generous assistance.
Mr President, I have been involved with the situation in Zimbabwe for some ten years now, by my reckoning.
I used to work for a development organisation in Amsterdam and, every now and then, we would bring Zimbabwean human rights activists to the Netherlands, to Europe, in order to give them some breathing space.
Not just so they could get to know other activists and swap stories, but also to give them an opportunity to get away from Zimbabwe for a little while.
One of the people I met at that time was Abel Chikomo, whom we have also mentioned in this resolution.
A human rights activist who has never lost his enthusiasm, his motivation, for the cause in all these years.
It is because of people like him that we are adopting these kinds of resolutions because, to be honest, I do not think that Mr Mugabe is losing any sleep over this.
What these resolutions are about is ensuring that he and his colleagues from the MDC have renewed motivation to continue their work.
What could we possibly aim to do with these resolutions other than enforcing sanctions?
I would therefore insist that we tighten the Kimberley Process for the trade in conflict diamonds to such an extent that diamonds from Zimbabwe are prevented from being offered for sale at all, because they are the reason why the government has been violating human rights, oppressing people, using child labour and so forth.
Our involvement in Zimbabwe is well known, but we should continue to mention it, again and again, precisely because of people like Abel Chikomo.
author. - Mr President, it is a matter of grave concern that the human rights situation in Zimbabwe has worsened during the last months in particular, and this concern relates to Zanu-PF's deliberate obstruction of the Zimbabwean government of national unity.
The European Parliament must demand an immediate end to the persecution of the political opposition to Zanu-PF, of civil activists who are being arrested and tortured, and of NGOs, which have been raided and whose members have been detained arbitrarily.
The EU should keep its restrictive measures against individuals and entities with links to the Mugabe regime in place until there is real evidence of a change for the better in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean people should also be given freedom of expression without the fear of violent persecution, arbitrary imprisonment or torture, and those who have been committing systematic political harassment should be prosecuted.
The wave of oppression that is breaking over Zimbabwe is a clear sign of the trouble that will precede the coming elections.
The international community and, in particular, the political players in the region, such as the Southern African Development Community, cannot tolerate the harassment and arbitrary arrests carried out by Zanu-PF and the security forces against civil society activists and members and supporters of the MDC, and they have to demand greater respect for human rights before the elections take place.
Police raids on offices of human rights organisations, such as the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum and several others, allegedly in searches for subversive material, and the arrests of various NGO workers and members of the MDC itself, along with students and young activists, which have intensified since February, are tactics in an unacceptable campaign of intimidation.
Instead of launching a campaign of terror against those who refuse to sign a petition against the restrictive measures imposed by the EU on leaders linked to Mugabe, the leaders of Zanu-PF should pay more attention to the lessons to be drawn from the Arab Spring, and allow truly free elections to take place.
deputising for the author. - Mr President, firstly, I want to say that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Alain Cadec, who was to be the speaker here this afternoon.
Of the three topics we are discussing, this is by far the worst and probably the most recurring, as speakers have said.
Robert Mugabe has been strutting the world stage for far too long now and has been behaving in a most dictatorial and brutal fashion towards his own people, and particularly towards opponents within his country.
The government of national unity, which was set up in 2009 to bring about democracy, is obviously not working, due to his efforts to ensure that it does not.
The intimidation, arbitrary arrests and disappearances - which is probably another way of saying summary executions - of opponents, particularly in recent months, is quite unacceptable.
Even NGOs have not escaped: their offices have been raided and their staff have been detained, so it is quite obvious that action needs to be taken against this dictator.
As Mr Van Orden said, at least the African Union is now beginning to form some class of opposition to him, and that gives us here in the European Union an opportunity to side with it and to bring every possible diplomatic force that we have at our disposal to bear on this issue to ensure, firstly, that Mr Mugabe stops the arrests and the executions, and secondly, that the constitution is accepted for the freedom of the Zimbabwean people, which will lead to free elections and the establishment of a truly democratic government in Zimbabwe.
Mr President, we all know that the 2008 agreement, implemented in 2009, for the sharing of power between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, or between Zanu-PF and the MDC, was not an ideal agreement, nor was it an agreement to bring about an ideal world, but it was the only possible agreement to try to improve the situation of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe.
The fact is that Mr Mugabe and his allies have done everything they can to ensure that this agreement does not work.
They have used pressure and intimidation in attempts to break the opposition movement, which now has a majority in the lower house of parliament.
Just a few minutes ago, it was reported that there have been attacks and violence towards people who had gathered around a memorial where there were MDC militants.
It is vital that the EU does not avert its gaze from what is happening in Zimbabwe, that it does not allow Mr Mugabe to get away with this final trick of appointing an ambassador without going through his country's constitutional mechanisms, and that it also ensures that the sale of diamonds does not profit Mr Mugabe and his allies.
Mr President, not everyone in Zimbabwe will be happy about today's debate, since in a few days' time, 18 April will be Independence Day in Zimbabwe.
Those who do wrong things in this country will have their celebration spoiled.
Agreements concerning the distribution of power are often problematic.
This is due to the fact that generally, they do not reflect the result of a democratic decision of the citizens, but a compromise forced by the situation.
This was precisely the case in Zimbabwe.
However, agreements on the power sharing can be acceptable and may have a positive impact on society if certain conditions are met.
One of them is the improvement of the human rights situation.
That is why we are dealing with human rights in this country.
For example, it is questionable whether the restrictive measures represent a necessary and effective tool. However, we must not allow people who do not want to sign a petition calling for the abolition of these measures to be beaten and harassed.
That is why we defend those who struggle for human rights.
Mr President, Mugabe's party and its mechanisms, as my fellow Members said, are currently threatening, torturing and striking out against anyone fighting for democracy, democratic freedoms and the transition to a smooth democratic regime in Zimbabwe.
We are responsible for what is happening in Africa.
We have intervened on numerous occasions in the history of democracy on this continent, especially at the beginning when these new countries were being created, and we have obstructed democratic procedures when they threatened our interests.
As such, we have a double duty to help Zimbabwe acquire a democratically elected government.
Emotionally, this situation is extremely important to Greeks.
We had a very harsh dictatorship from 1967 to 1974 and, at that time, any condemnation from the Council of Europe or an international organisation gave hope to the citizens fighting in Greece.
That is why we must not brook any relations with illegally appointed representatives of Zimbabwe and former associates of the Mugabe regime, and the European Union, together with the countries in its region, must guarantee the transition of Zimbabwe to democracy and the application of the Kimberley Process.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the EU supports the Kimberley Process, which aims to eliminate African conflict diamonds - or so-called blood diamonds - from the global market.
However, recent developments in Zimbabwe are worrying.
The Chairman of the Kimberley Process, Mr Mathieu Yamba from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has decided unilaterally, and without consultation, to allow the marketing of diamonds from Zimbabwe's Marange mine.
This mine, which was debated in the House last year, was seized by President Robert Mugabe and his cronies.
Hundreds of people were dispossessed of their homes and there are reliable reports of his security forces torturing, raping, and even killing, local residents.
The sale of diamonds from the Marange mine will help Mugabe to further consolidate his tyrannical hold on Zimbabwe and, indeed, enrich his Zanu-PF thugs.
I therefore urge the European Union, as a party to the Kimberley Process, to raise this scandal at the highest level and insist on the restoration of consensus-based decision making in the Kimberley Process.
More generally, I have long been calling for a similar system, a certification, to cover other natural resources extracted in Africa in order to prevent brutal governments or guerrilla groups from selling minerals to fund arms purchases.
I am pleased to be working alongside the London-based, internationally renowned, human rights NGO Global Witness in this endeavour, in which the US Administration is leading the way with the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act.
(RO) Mr President, let me begin by saying that whenever I hear talk of Robert Mugabe, I see the Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceauşescu, before me.
In actual fact, in the 1980s, Mugabe was a regular guest of Ceauşescu's, along with Gaddafi.
I am grateful to Mr Van Orden because he reminded me of the link between Mugabe and Gaddafi.
In fact, I think that Mugabe has learnt something from Ceauşescu, namely, hatred for civil society activists.
The 46 members of civil society who were arrested on 19 February by the security forces in Zimbabwe are currently charged with treason.
They are now at risk of being sentenced to death.
This is the penalty.
Their only 'crime' is that they discussed what happened in Egypt and Tunisia.
The solution for the Mugabe regime is basically to hold fair and free elections.
Let us hope that this will be possible on this occasion.
(FI) Mr President, in February, the EU Foreign Affairs Council adopted conclusions concerning the situation in Zimbabwe.
The period for EU sanctions to be in effect would be continued, because no adequate progress had really been made in the country's internal reforms.
The lifting of restrictions will require tangible progress to be made in the implementation of the political power sharing agreement of 2008.
That apparent power sharing agreement was unable to prevent Mugabe's security forces from continuing to persecute his opponents, and right now, they are being arrested, tortured and murdered, even right up to ministerial level.
Since EU sanctions are not targeted at the people of Zimbabwe, the EU at present is still the country's biggest provider of aid, which it grants, in particular, for agriculture and food production.
The EU must continue to put pressure on Mugabe, and if there is a decision to hold elections, the EU should be involved as an observer.
(PL) Mr President, since our last debate on Zimbabwe in October last year, the situation in this country in southern Africa has not changed.
Unemployment has reached 90%, average life expectancy is 44 years, and the citizens of this country have no access to basic healthcare services.
It is obvious that the political agreement reached two years ago by President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai has failed to meet the hopes placed in it and that a new, fully democratic solution is needed.
The internal situation in Zimbabwe has not changed in the last six months, but the external situation has.
Today, we are debating a country in the context of the 'Spring of Nations' in Africa, and although Harare is 6 000 kilometres away from Tunis, the most recent case of Côte d'Ivoire shows that sometimes, democracy knows no barriers at all.
The European Parliament therefore urges the government of Zimbabwe to take into account the current international situation and the strong reorientation in domestic politics and, above all, to cease repression of the political opposition, to release its representatives from the prisons and allow them to participate in the elections.
Six months ago, I said that a poor country like Zimbabwe cannot afford to look for alternative problems.
Today, I think that the African 'Spring of Nations' puts an additional strain on the political debt of President Mugabe.
(RO) Mr President, as a member of the Delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament, I firmly believe that the European Union, and Lady Ashton in particular, should take a strong stand against the actions of the Mugabe regime involving the intimidation and harassment of human rights activists, and encourage respect for public rights and freedoms, including the freedom of expression and assembly, which Zimbabwe has formally committed to at a global level.
Zimbabwe must abide by its international commitments, including the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, by repealing all its national laws which contravene the international texts on the protection of human rights.
I also sincerely believe that countries in the region, and mainly South Africa, could get involved in supporting the return to democracy and respect for human rights in Zimbabwe.
(RO) Mr President, the events currently going on in Zimbabwe sound an alarm bell for the human rights situation on the African continent.
With the prospect of the elections in June, President Mugabe is conducting a campaign of intimidation against his rival candidates.
Hundreds of government officials, human rights activists and opponents of the regime have been arrested during the last two months.
This situation is unacceptable.
In addition, the drafting of a democratic constitution has been postponed for a year by Mugabe.
The new fundamental law would have guaranteed that the elections were held in transparent circumstances.
I should point out that the country's economic situation is deeply affected.
The President supports nationalisation of the mining sector, which is the main economic sector in Zimbabwe.
Such a measure is harmful as it is precisely the foreign investments in this sector which have maintained the state's stability in the wake of the economic crisis.
(FI) Mr President, in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF Party have not managed to keep to the terms of the Global Political Agreement concluded in 2009.
Zimbabwe has been unable to move towards democracy.
On the contrary, in the past few months, there has been a clear increase in the intimidation of political opponents and the number of arbitrary arrests and disappearances.
Efforts to create stability will not bear fruit in a political climate like the present one.
Zimbabwe is still a country where you can be abused or tortured for your political opinions.
The legislative system, which suppresses free and open journalism, restricts the right to freedom of speech.
Journalists are harassed.
Everything should be done to support the country's progress towards genuine democracy and economic development.
It is only right and fitting that, in February this year, the European Council decided to extend restrictive measures concerning people and organisations connected with the Mugabe administration and to keep a record of the blacklist.
I also think that these should be continued until there is real evidence of genuine change in Zimbabwe.
However, the measures should only be targeted at Zimbabwe's corrupt government and must not be allowed to exacerbate the plight of the Zimbabwean people.
(DE) Mr President, back when I was a child, I received letters from what was then Rhodesia.
Three of my grandfather's sisters were Catholic nuns in the then Rhodesia and in South Africa.
They never wrote of the people of Rhodesia having to go hungry.
What we hear from this country today is simply intolerable.
Rhodesia, and later Zimbabwe, were the bread basket of southern Africa.
Mr Mugabe - a communist socialist dictator - has managed to turn this bread basket into a famine zone.
I would like to thank all the fellow Members who have put this matter back on the agenda.
It is intolerable that this dictator, Mr Mugabe, has been allowed to terrorise the people of Zimbabwe for so long.
I believe that the key to ending this lies in southern Africa.
I regret to say that for as long as South Africa fails to put this dictator in his place, he will continue to terrorise his people.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I think we would all agree that Zimbabwe and its human rights violations have been on our agenda for far too long.
Every glimpse of hope of some positive development is immediately crushed by outbursts of political repression and violence.
This is exactly what happened again just a couple of months ago.
The European Union therefore had to proceed to renew its restrictive measures, for the eighth time, in February this year.
By this clear gesture, we wanted to underline the critical importance of an agreement between the government parties on the necessary steps leading to elections in the country.
In this context, the EU emphasised its willingness to revise its decision in response to further concrete developments on the ground.
The EU is deeply concerned at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent months in Zimbabwe.
On 11 March, together with 21 embassies and representations, the EU issued a statement to express its concerns over the increase in what appears to be politically motivated intimidation and violence.
In this context, the EU welcomes the outcome of the recent SADC summit on 31 March 2011.
The SADC communiqué calls for an immediate end to violence, intimidation, hate speech and harassment, and calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to complete all necessary steps to hold an election.
It offers assistance so that elections can be organised in accordance with SADC principles and guidelines governing democratic elections.
For that reason, the SADC will appoint officials to join the South African facilitation team and work with the joint monitoring and implementation committee.
The EU believes that strengthened facilitation and mediation efforts by SADC and South Africa are key to preventing further instability in Zimbabwe.
The EU welcomes the region's efforts to mediate in the Zimbabwean crisis.
South Africa, in its capacity as facilitator, together with the SADC, as guarantor of the Global Political Agreement, has decided to accredit the Zimbabwean Ambassador.
At this point in time, keeping a formal channel of communication open with Zimbabwe and maintaining a dialogue with the inclusive government is vital, and we should not jeopardise the position of the EU Ambassador in Harare.
The EU will act and proceed in close coordination with all EU Member States.
The EU remains the largest provider of development assistance to Zimbabwe.
We want to clearly express that we are tough on the regime, but we try to assist the people.
With the disbursement of approximately 365 million since the establishment of the Global Political Agreement in 2009, we are - as I said - the largest donor.
Resources are only channelled through UN bodies and specialised NGOs.
Since 2009, the EU has also supported governance reforms, as stipulated in the Global Political Agreement, including the constitutional reform process.
The EU also funds human rights programmes, including programmes from human rights defenders.
We just have to hope that all the international pressure will finally lead to free and fair elections in Zimbabwe and to the gradual normalisation of the very difficult situation in this country.
In recent months, many opponents of the Mugabe regime as well as NGO representatives have been arbitrarily arrested by the Zimbabwean authorities.
Mr Mugabe's party has systematically prevented Zimbabwe's government of national unity, formed in 2009, from paving the way for a democratic transition and credible elections.
There must be an immediate end to all political violence perpetrated by Mr Mugabe's supporters.
The European Union and its Member States must actively engage with the African Union and the Southern African Development Community so as to ensure that future elections are not held in a climate of intimidation and violence.
I welcome the fact that the European Parliament resolution calls on all Zimbabwe's political parties to work together in drafting a new democratic constitution, acceptable to all the people of Zimbabwe, prior to the next elections.
Once again, we see that intimidation, arrest, violence and even torture are the weapons used by Mugabe against his political opponents and civil society.
The forces loyal to Mugabe have intimidated opposition ministers in the government of national unity.
They have harassed leaders of human rights organisations and arrested 46 representatives of civil society on the charge of treason, with some of them having been beaten and even tortured while under arrest.
A sustainable structure cannot be built based on fear and terror or against civil and political liberties.
I call on the European Union's High Representative to support the efforts to hold free elections in Zimbabwe, devoid of violence and intimidation.
A legitimate government is required which will respect rights and fundamental freedoms, in other words, show respect for human beings.
Tightening the European Union's restrictions on Mugabe's people must be one measure.
The case of Ai Weiwei in China (
Ban on the elections for the Tibetan government in exile in Nepal (
Zimbabwe (
(The sitting was closed at 16:30)
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 7 April 2011.
I would like to start by making a few comments.
Today we are celebrating Europe Day.
I have spent most of the day in Florence which, as you know, is the home of the European University Institute and where the Festival of Europe is taking place.
A conference on the subject of the state of the European Union took place there too, and I met students from the European University Institute.
We are celebrating the 61st anniversary of Robert Schuman's momentous declaration which paved the way for the creation of the European Union, and we have now achieved a great deal together.
Robert Schuman would have been proud of our accomplishments.
Our founding fathers knew that crises exist in order to be overcome and to help us build solid foundations for the future, so today, 9 May, remembering the past, we are working on the present and looking forward to the future with hope.
Secondly, the European Union is, today, a full participant in international affairs.
This was confirmed on 3 May by the United Nations General Assembly, which accepted the participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations by an overwhelming majority.
Representatives of the European Union will be able to speak at the General Assembly and submit amendments agreed by the Member States of the EU.
This is a joint achievement of the Member States, the Commission and Council, but also of the European Parliament.
Our voice and actions must remain united.
Our joint action is particularly important, as we face the need to decide on further action in North Africa, where tensions are rising, as well as in Syria and Bahrain.
Item three: on 17 May, we will be observing the International Day Against Homophobia in the European Union.
The European Union is fighting discrimination on all fronts, in Europe as well as beyond.
Homophobia is not an exception.
Unfortunately, people all over the world are still being persecuted, tortured and even killed.
The obligation to protect the discriminated is embodied in our most important legal acts - in the Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
We will keep to this obligation.
And finally, item number four: the European Parliament totally condemns the execution of one of the men sentenced to death by the army tribunal in the Gaza Strip for cooperation with Israel.
The European Union is always against the death penalty.
A return to carrying out executions undermines efforts for a lasting reconciliation in Palestine.
Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity
Now for some administrative announcements.
Mr de Magistris has submitted two requests for the exercise of immunity and privileges in two court cases in which he is involved in Cosenza and Milan respectively.
Mr Uspaskich has submitted a request for the exercise of immunity and privileges in a court case in which he is currently involved in Vilnius.
Mr Tudor has submitted a request for the exercise of immunity and privileges.
Pursuant to Rule 6(3), these requests will be sent to the committee responsible, the Committee on Legal Affairs.
(IT) Mr President, this is not a point of order;
I simply could not understand what you just said.
If I am right, Mr de Magistris has requested the defence of his immunity.
There must be some misunderstanding.
Since Mr de Magistris is the champion of the battle against immunity in my country, it was probably misinterpreted.
I think it unlikely that Mr de Magistris would have requested the defence of his immunity.
I must have misunderstood and I should therefore like some clarification on this matter.
As I said, it was a request to defend his immunity.
It will be decided by our committee as usual, pursuant to Rule 6(3).
(ES) Mr President, I am sure this is because of how recent it is, but you have not mentioned yesterday's serious event in Cuba: it seems that a Cuban dissident, Juan Wilfredo Soto García, was murdered by the police in a public park in Santa Clara, Cuba.
Mr President, I believe, given Parliament's sensitivity to the issue of human rights, that you should demand, at the very least, an independent investigation to shed light on the murder of this Cuban dissident.
If such an event has indeed taken place, we will adopt the same position as you have suggested.
Thank you for calling attention to this.
The final draft agenda, as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at a meeting on Thursday, 5 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.
[Wednesday]:
There is an amendment which will shortly be presented by Mr Speroni.
Regarding the debate on foreign, security and defence policy, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group has requested that the statement on the situation in Syria and Camp Ashraf by the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission should include the Coptic Christian community in Egypt.
This is an amendment for Wednesday, for the morning session at 09:00 when Mrs Ashton will be present.
Mr Speroni will now present the amendment. Thank you.
Mr President, we did not want to fundamentally change - or rather propose to fundamentally change - the order of business by adding or replacing an item; we are simply asking to expand the topic on which the Vice-President will be reporting.
We are simply asking that Syria, Camp Ashraf and the matter of the Christian minority, and, above all, the Coptic minority, in Egypt, be added to the topic under discussion.
We are talking about a sensitive area and a topic that concerns the protection of minorities, which is why I ask my fellow Members to approve this proposal.
(FR) Mr President, I fully support that request but I asked you for the floor in order to speak about Tuesday's order of business.
I do not know whether you can give me the floor now or whether you wish to give it to me after the decision on Mr Speroni's proposal.
We must now close our initial discussion on the point regarding Wednesday.
(IT) Mr President, I am taking the floor in order to support Mr Speroni's request, precisely because the situation dominated by clashes involving the Coptic community is an illustration of the risks associated with what is happening in Egypt.
I therefore call for this request to be supported, precisely because this is not a question of defending the Coptic community's demonstration of its identity.
Rather, it is proof of the complex situation in Egypt.
I therefore believe that close monitoring by the European Parliament - especially through Commissioner Ashton's statement - is absolutely necessary.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone has been shocked at what has happened in Egypt.
We have to be sensible, though.
Six points are going to be discussed with Baroness Ashton.
You have Syria, Ashraf, you have the Gualtieri report, the Albertini report, you have the problem of Europe as a global actor in the United Nations.
It really does not make sense.
I believe that we should ask the Committee on Foreign Affairs to discuss the situation in Egypt, including everything that has gone on between the minorities, to draft an own-initiative report, and then simply to hold a debate on Egypt with Baroness Ashton one month later.
We need a proper debate on what is happening in Egypt.
If you add a sixth point, one person will discuss it, and the other people will discuss something else.
You will not focus the debate on Egypt by discussing six points with Baroness Ashton.
Therefore, I understand your emotion, but to add something that will not be discussed on Wednesday morning anyway is not the solution.
(FR) Mr President, I shall be brief: the Conference of Presidents has scheduled a vote on the possible lifting of my parliamentary immunity for tomorrow, Tuesday.
I do not wish to elaborate on the matter but, on the specific issue of the order of business, I would even so like to say that I am a little shocked - to put it mildly - that, as no debate has been scheduled, I cannot present my point of view to the House, even for two or three minutes.
I believe there is a case for presenting it, because it seems to me that the rapporteur has recycled the argument cited last time by Mrs Wallis, who concluded that my parliamentary immunity should be lifted, something that the Court of Justice condemned in very clear terms.
That is not a point of order.
(FR) Mr President, I call for a debate, I call for two or three minutes' speaking time.
That is an item on the order of business as far as I am aware.
Two or three minutes to defend an MEP's honour: that is all that I am asking for.
Is it possible that, one day, this Parliament might respect the right of defence of one of its Members, and not just in Guatemala or Indonesia, but inside this Chamber?
Mr Gollnisch, we are acting in accordance with Rule 7(8) of the Rules of Procedure, and it states there quite clearly how to proceed in such matters.
Any comments that you may have concerning the order of business must be submitted at least one hour before the session which we have just opened.
I repeat, this is in Rule 7(8) of our Rules of Procedure.
(FR) Mr President, the Conference of Presidents has scheduled a debate on Wednesday afternoon on the Italian and French Governments' proposal to cast aside the Schengen agreements.
Please excuse me, it is actually scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, at 15:00.
The Conference of Presidents decided that Mr Barroso should attend, and I should like to know from the information available whether he will be there.
Why is this very important to us?
It is important because the first person to have adopted a position after the summit meeting between Mr Sarkozy and Mr Berlusconi was the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, whereas the Commissioners subsequently expressed a different view.
Given that it is actually the job of the Commission President to represent the Commission, we are anxious for Mr Barroso to be present at 15:00 on Tuesday afternoon.
I apologise for having mixed up Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr Cohn-Bendit, thank you for your remarks.
I will check it.
I have no other information right now but I can check it for you.
A special gesture!
I declare the order of business for the week adopted.
European fisheries sector crisis due to rise in oil prices (debate)
the oral question to the Commission on the crisis in the European fisheries sector arising from higher fuel prices, by João Ferreira and Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - B7-0306/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on the European fisheries sector crisis due to the rise in oil prices, by Alain Cadec, Antonello Antinoro, Jim Higgins, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Werner Kuhn, Ioannis A. Tsoukalas, Crescenzio Rivellini, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Vito Bonsignore and Salvador Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - B7-0307/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on the crisis in the European fisheries sector owing to higher oil prices, by Philippe de Villiers and Juozas Imbrasas, on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group - B7-0308/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on the European fisheries sector crisis due to the rise in oil prices, by Britta Reimers, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B7-0310/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on rising oil prices and support for fishers, by Josefa Andrés Barea, Kriton Arsenis, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Estelle Grelier, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Guido Milana, Ulrike Rodust, Antolín Sánchez Presedo and Catherine Trautmann, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - B7-0311/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on the crisis in the European fisheries sector due to the rise in oil prices, by Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B7-0313/2011).
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, Parliament has only one seat: Strasbourg!
Since February 2011, the price of oil has been steadily rising, and has recently exceeded the USD 100 mark.
Fishermen in every European coastal region are being hit hard by this oil price rise.
Indeed, fishing operating costs are soaring while the price of oil is rising.
Small-scale fishing, in particular, is severely affected.
Fishermen's incomes are also dependent on the price of oil.
Professionals everywhere are telling me that they are concerned about the rise in oil prices.
I want us to act together to ensure that businesses can carry out their work despite the rise in operating costs.
With this question and the resolution that will follow, I call on the Member States to help fishing professionals, where necessary, to continue their work without distorting competition.
Hence, I am calling for the de minimis aid threshold to be increased from EUR 30 000 to EUR 60 000 per firm.
This in no way means increasing Parliament's budget or the European budget.
De minimis aid is aid that the Member States may grant to their businesses if they believe it will not distort competition.
I am calling for a little more flexibility for the Member States.
I am also calling for the Commission to analyse my request thoroughly and to understand the concerns of an entire sector, which must be preserved and developed.
The fishing community consists of men and women who need a decent income, whom we must support.
As a result, among other things, of the rise in imported fishery and aquaculture products on the European market, that sector is becoming increasingly fragile.