English-PolishEuroparl/test-A/in.tsv

This is a worrying situation and it raises question marks concerning the actual respect for the right of expression and information guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
In Romania, the press has been included by the country's president among the threats to national security.
In addition, policy makers are constantly making disparaging remarks about the media.
Such moves away from democratic principles tarnish the European Union's image as a whole.
Due to internal shortcomings, we are at risk of losing our credibility as upholders of respect for human rights outside the EU.
This is why I urge genuine protection at EU level for the freedom of expression and press pluralism.
(RO) Madam President, this is the second occasion that I am presenting before the European Parliament the disastrous situation in Romania's health insurance system.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the negotiations between the GPs' professional associations, the Ministry of Health and the National Health Insurance Office have reached deadlock.
As a result, the health system is being blocked and legal rights are being refused to patients who, although they are still paying their health insurance contributions, can no longer enjoy the relevant facilities.
This situation has resulted from the persistent refusal on the part of the National Health Insurance Office to conduct realistic negotiations with GPs with the aim of drafting an operating framework contract, beneficial to all the stakeholders.
If this situation carries on much longer, the health service in Romania, which has been weakened so much, is at risk of disintegrating.
I would like the relevant European bodies to take note of this situation, monitor it and take action to resolve it as soon as possible.
(RO) Madam President, we talk every day in the European Parliament, from morning till night, about European integration, solidarity, a common culture and about everything which unites us and should continue to motivate us to build a common future for all 27 European Union Member States.
While we are debating European projects, a vice-president of the same European Parliament similarly discusses matters every day, from morning till night.
However, this is about segregation based on ethnic criteria, reducing the influence and undermining the authority of a state within its borders in favour of another neighbouring state, about breaking up territories belonging to one European Union Member State and annexing them to another Member State of the same European Union.
Not only on a personal note, but also on behalf of the Romanian Social Democrat MEPs, I call for László Tőkés to be dismissed from his position as Vice-President.
Madam President, I wish to express my deep concern regarding the medics who have been arrested in Bahrain.
Many of these medics have been accused of trying to overthrow the monarchy and face trial with military prosecutors and possible death sentences.
Yet these doctors and nurses had simply treated injured protestors who were brought to their hospitals.
Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières have also expressed extreme concern over the safety of those involved and indeed the motivation behind their arrests.
I fully support the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and the International Council of Nurses, and indeed a number of Irish doctors, who are adding their voices in condemnation of these awful events.
In the last few days, I have received information from a number of sources which points to torture and inhumane treatment: some medics have been severely beaten and have been denied access to their families and legal advisers.
This kind of action is totally unacceptable.
I am calling publicly on our High Representative, Catherine Ashton.
I have already written to her to ask her to make every effort to intervene on behalf of those medics who simply did what medical personnel do - try to save lives.
Madam President, the new austerity package for Greece, which includes EUR 28 billion of cuts and taxes and the privatisation of an incredible EUR 50 billion worth of state assets, confirms again the role of the EU and the IMF as enforcers for anti-worker austerity policies.
Young people have been on the receiving end of their vicious attacks.
They are now fighting back with hundreds of thousands occupying squares across Europe, bravely facing down brutal repression.
They have correctly raised the call for true democracy.
In my opinion, that can only be truly achieved by breaking the dictatorship of the markets and building a democratic socialist society where people's needs come before profits.
15 June promises to be an important day of struggle across Europe.
A general strike will take place in Greece and a major demonstration is planned in Barcelona.
Big protests should be organised right across Europe against austerity on that day.
To defeat the onslaught against workers and young people in Europe, the power of the organised working class must be mobilised.
A one-day general strike across Europe would send a very powerful message of opposition to the European establishment.
(EL) Madam President, a week ago, Presidents Buzek, Barroso and Van Rompuy met religious representatives to discuss democratic rights and civil liberties.
I wish to congratulate President Barroso on taking the initiative in 2005 to inaugurate this dialogue with religious leaders; I also wish to congratulate the Presidents of Parliament and of the Council for maintaining this dialogue on an annual basis.
At the same time, however, I wish to join forces with the religious representatives who called for the European Union to exert its influence in order to put a stop to the persecution of Christians in countries such as Egypt and Iraq and within Europe, in European Cyprus, where the occupying forces are denying Christians entry to their occupied churches and preventing priests and bishops from celebrating Holy Mass.
Show them, Madam President, that Christian refugees in Cyprus are entitled to celebrate mass in their churches.
(EL) Madam President, immediately after the meeting in Luxembourg on 6 May, which was reported in an article in Der Spiegel, Greece was on the receiving end of a new wave of recommendations that it should leave the euro area and go back to the drachma.
Of course, the official position of the European Union was expressed by Commissioner Olli Rehn, who denied the rumours and the recommendations.
Over and above the views of economists to the contrary and the numerous views of fellow Members in this Chamber, it must be made clear that Greece cannot leave the euro for legal reasons.
Firstly, because the Treaties make no provision for voluntary or involuntary exit from the common currency.
Secondly, if we returned to the drachma without abolishing the euro area and the euro, there would be no legal facility for automatically converting deposits in euros in Greek banks, both inside and outside Greece, to drachmas without the depositor's consent.
When Greece joined the euro area, it was possible to convert deposits in drachmas because the drachma was abolished as a currency and has not existed since.
Now, however, the euro continues to exist and has not been abolished.
Therefore, any rumours and any recommendations are legally incorrect.
(DE) Madam President, whistleblowers are people who no longer wish to keep quiet about illegal acts or deplorable states of affairs, but want to expose them, mostly in the public interest.
Whistleblowers are also mostly providing added value.
For example, in 2005, they returned a total of around USD 10 billion to the US Treasury through repayments.
Clear laws relating to the process of whistleblowing are essential in the fight against corruption.
In the European Union, Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations form the legal basis for whistleblowing, but unfortunately in a very fragmented way, leaving many gaps.
Fundamental elements are missing.
For example, we need a clear definition of whistleblowing, we need whistleblowers to have a right to be heard, we need independent points of contact that can provide information on rights, obligations and options, and not least we also need precise handling deadlines for the competent EU institutions.
The positive aspect here is that the EU Staff Regulations are about to be reformed.
The Commission is to send Parliament a first draft of this in the autumn.
I think this presents a unique opportunity to make improvements here.
I would ask my fellow Members to support this and to work to bring about a reform.
(RO) Madam President, football is truly a religion, but it is a religion in which the devil is more than involved.
This is because a great deal of money is at stake, which is a charge on boredom and loneliness for billions of the planet's inhabitants.
During the current summer days, Romania is being engulfed in the drama involving a very popular football team, Politehnica Timişoara.
This team won the right, through its own, honest efforts, to take part in a European cup competition.
However, now we see that its victory on the pitch has turned into a loss through a random decision.
In specific terms, the mafia in charge of Romanian football has shaken hands with the mafia in charge of international football and decided to impose a drastic double penalty: to remove the team in question from the European cup competition and relegate it to a lower, amateur division.
No matter what financial and legal excuses are being given, this is a draconian penalty and hits hard not only a fine team but also a beautiful city with more than 300 000 inhabitants who do not have too many other sources of joy.
As a member of the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education, I am sounding an alarm bell so as to put an end to this awful injustice which may have significant social consequences.
Credit rating agencies (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mr Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on credit rating agencies: future perspectives.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, credit rating agencies certainly did not cause the global financial crisis, but, in my opinion, they were responsible to a significant extent for its severity.
When the so-called structured financial products were developed in America on the basis of the subprime mortgages, the credit rating agencies supported this process by rating dozens, if not hundreds, of products each day in an almost conveyor-belt fashion.
In so doing, they also accepted conflicts of interests, in that they supported the issuers with advice and help in designing these products.
They continued to claim that they were only expressing an opinion, although they knew very well that their ratings were, in fact, being used as a seal of approval.
My report deals with numerous deficiencies and puts forward proposals in the hope that the Commission will perhaps be able to include some of them in its legislative proposal that it will be tabling in the autumn.
I put forward five proposals.
The first is that the reliance on ratings must be reduced.
In practice, we have found that the regulatory environment has led to the use of ratings being absolutely essential, by banks, insurance companies, pension funds etc. which invest their money.
Basel II made this very clear and, in fact, the credit rating agencies have become regulatory certification bodies.
We need to make it possible once again for market operators, particularly institutional investors, which possess their own expertise to actually take responsibility themselves and not outsource the responsibility for investment decisions.
It needs to be made clear that investors should only invest if they actually understand the product and cannot use the excuse that they can, to a certain extent, automatically make a triple A product the goal of their investment strategy.
Secondly, we must ensure that the information on which credit rating agencies base their decisions is made publicly available, that it is understood, and that the models used are also known.
That will lead to transparency and will also make it easier for institutional investors seeking to invest to make their own decisions.
It will also help to enable unsolicited ratings to be given.
In this connection, we should also consider whether the proposal that the United States is considering is a sensible one, namely, that where only one credit rating agency is chosen by issuers, a second, independent body could be encouraged to give a rating and this second body could be allowed to work on the basis of the information that is publicly available.
Thirdly, we need more competition.
We have a de facto oligopoly.
The three credit rating agencies that exist and operate worldwide control 95% of the global business.
They have a so-called monopoly income of 40% return on turnover, and therefore I am proposing that we set up a European credit rating agency.
It should be based on a foundation model and the start-up financing should be provided by the finance sector by means of interest-bearing loans.
After five years, we will know whether it is working and then this credit rating foundation will also have to pay back the funds that it has received.
However, I am sure that there are also other options.
It would also make sense to perhaps allow national and regional credit rating agencies to operate in the form of a European network.
Fourthly, we still have an outstanding matter with regard to the payment model.
Currently, we have an issuer-pays model.
That is the model that essentially works throughout the world.
Thus, the issuer pays, but clearly there is a conflict of interests here that we could reduce if there was no more advising of issuers and if the staff of the supervisory bodies was genuinely independent.
Other possible models include a subscriber-pays model.
Here, there is obviously the risk of conflicts of interest as well as of this being an invitation to freeloaders.
Therefore, this needs consideration.
The third option would be a performance-based payment, in other words, an up-front payment and then the final payment only once it is clear how good the rating is.
The last, but important, point is that we must introduce liability.
Credit rating agencies must accept responsibility for what they actually do, and therefore I believe that we should make them liable, obviously not for the rating as such, but for failures and negligence in their work.
(RO) Mr President, the credit rating industry has numerous shortcomings, the most important of which are the lack of competition and transparency, as well as the oligopolistic structures.
Competition would be enhanced by creating a regulatory environment which will promote market entry.
This would carry out an in-depth analysis of the current obstacles.
I should emphasis how important it is to monitor the progress of the Basel III system and the process relating to Chapter 4 of the Capital Requirements Directive.
There is a need to increase accountability and the powers for monitoring the internal models and imposing preventive measures.
All rating agencies must abide by the highest standards relating to the publication of information, transparency and management of conflicts of interest.
At the moment, Romania's rating has a stable outlook.
This could improve if the pace of structural reforms and the stability of the financial sector are maintained.
(EL) Mr President, the credit rating agencies lost their credibility a long time ago.
Our rapporteur is absolutely right on that point.
They upgrade and downgrade almost everything: countries, banks, municipalities, even public corporations, absolutely everything, but their ratings are based, for the most part, on undisclosed, unpublished and, hence, non-transparent information.
The issue of the lack of transparency and, hence, of the credibility of the data used by credit rating agencies raises an important question: is it fair, is it logical, is it morally correct for ratings that affect the economy and upset the lives of millions of our fellow citizens overnight to be non-transparent and possibly unreliable?
Obviously it is not.
(SK) Mr President, in the wake of the financial meltdown, the credit rating agencies, which assess financial product safety, were criticised for their unprofessional and self-serving ratings of financial products.
Doubts arose over the fairness and professionalism of their evaluations after the transparency of their operating mechanisms was found to be wanting, and it is therefore time we looked for ways to improve the system for the constant assessment and rating of financial products.
In this light, I consider the report submitted by the rapporteur to be very important, and I think that the processes he has outlined will enable us to modify the apparatus used to assess financial products so that the conclusions that are offered, either by rating agencies or by other mechanisms, will result in more objective ratings of financial products.
(PT) Mr President, experience has clearly shown that credit rating agencies are not credible and that their activities continue to be detrimental to certain countries, whether to their economies or to their sovereign debt.
Today, this is particularly affecting countries that have relatively weak economies.
That is why the intervention of credit rating agencies, which continue to be extremely harmful despite having lost all of their credibility, must be properly controlled.
This control should not be limited to transparency rules, but should go further and exert complete control over the international financial system, while also putting an end to tax havens, properly regulating the financial sector with taxes on the movement of speculative capital, and preventing financial capital from continuing to ...
(EL) Mr President, I absolutely agree with the rapporteur on all five points of his proposals on so-called rating agencies and the exaggerated impact which they have on the global economy and on the European economy.
These firms cannot, at the same time, engage in commercial activities which are similar or relate to their supervisory or rating role.
We are calling for controls on reports by these agencies, for certain basic principles to be adopted, and for liability for compensation to be introduced for losses caused to states which were poorly evaluated or misleadingly evaluated.
I also propose that basic accounting principles be introduced and applied in all the Member States of the European Union, so as to highlight the value, the official valuation of the property of these states, so that we have assets and liabilities and these states cannot be left prey to the whims of rating agencies and the parties they represent.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, Commissioner Barnier is currently in the United States meeting with his counterparts and he has asked me to convey to you the following statement in reply to Wolf Klinz's own-initiative report on rating agencies, which was adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in March.
The Commissioner agrees that shortcomings in the working methods of credit rating agencies are widely recognised today as having contributed to the financial crisis.
In order to address these concerns, and in accordance with G20 commitments, the EU reacted very quickly by adopting - already in 2009 - a regulation on credit rating agencies.
This introduces strict requirements with which agencies must comply in order to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and to improve the quality of rating and methodologies as well as the transparency of the ratings.
As a second step, following the establishment of the three new European financial supervisory agencies, the regulation of credit rating agencies will be strengthened by the introduction of centralised supervision by the European Supervisory Markets Authority.
The amending regulation became effective on 1 June 2011.
We will pay very close attention to the correct application of this legislation.
Nowadays, the European regulatory framework is a model for other jurisdictions.
However, the developments in the European markets following the sovereign debt crisis in spring 2010 make it clear that further review and strengthening is required.
For this reason, the Commission undertook in June 2010 to analyse the topics in depth.
A public consultation was carried out, the Commission services have evaluated the responses and are working on an impact assessment with a view to issuing legislative proposals in the course of this year.
In this context, the Commission will examine measures to reduce excessive dependence on external ratings, improve transparency, promote competition, introduce the principle of liability and reduce the risk of potential conflicts of interest due to the issuer-pays payment model.
We know that these are very complex issues and we want to be sure that we address them correctly.
In this context, we have looked with great interest at Mr Klinz's own-initiative report which covers the topics we are currently reviewing and makes a very big contribution to our legislative initiative.
Last but not least, at a global level, in October 2010, the Financial Stability Board issued a number of principles aimed at reducing the dependency of financial institutions on credit ratings.
In accordance with these principles we intend to introduce measures against excessive dependence on ratings in our forthcoming legislative proposal for the banking sector, the so-called CRD4.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.
Prior to the Lehman Brothers investment bank going bankrupt, it was given the highest rating by the main credit rating agencies.
They also thought that Iceland's three biggest commercial banks were sound a few days before they collapsed.
In addition, the downgrading of Greece's rating has not taken into account the launch of its economic recovery programme.
The economic and financial crisis has highlighted credit rating agencies' oligopolistic structure, as well as their lack of competition, transparency and accountability.
In a world dominated by three such institutions, greater diversity is needed, along with a new way of working.
I therefore support the notion of creating a public European credit rating agency as an alternative to the private institutions of this kind.
It would become compulsory to obtain a rating from the European agency, which would supplement the ratings offered by the traditional agencies, thereby boosting competition for the fairest rating.
Guaranteeing independent impact assessments (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Niebler, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on guaranteeing independent impact assessments.
Mr President, Mrs Reding, ladies and gentlemen, let me perhaps introduce the topic with a few examples.
Greece and other states are heavily in debt, although billions from the structural funds have been poured into these countries for many years.
How can we improve the use of these resources and how can the utilisation of these resources be better controlled?
My second example relates to Eurobonds.
What effect do they have on the European budget?
Thirdly, if we were to introduce a financial transaction tax in Europe, what would the consequences be?
For all these questions, Parliament demands in its reports that a regulatory impact assessment be carried out.
After all, we need facts in order to be able to take politically sound decisions.
That is what my report on improving the guarantee of independent impact assessments is all about.
This is not a new issue.
It has occupied us, together with other issues concerning the improvement of legislation, for over ten years.
However, despite all the efforts of the Commission to improve its impact assessment as well as those that we have made in this regard in the European Parliament, the quality of the impact assessment is still in need of improvement.
My report puts forward proposals for how, with regard to the European Commission and the impact assessments that it carries out, as well as with regard to Parliament's impact assessment studies, we can succeed in bringing about this improvement.
In terms of its content, the report is divided into four sections.
Firstly, there are general requirements for impact assessments at European level.
The second section contains proposals directed at the European Commission and it lists potential areas where improvements can be made.
In the third section, I discuss how we in the European Parliament can better optimise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument.
In the last section, I then propose that we in Parliament create an autonomous impact assessment structure.
With regard to the general requirements for impact assessments at European level, it is important to note that we need to move away from pure cost analysis towards an examination of the economic, social and health-related impact of legislation at European level.
Secondly, I think it is important that we carry out an SME test in connection with all regulatory impact assessments and also examine the effect on industrial competitiveness in Europe.
Thirdly, in this report, we propose the early publication by the Commission of road maps of proposed legislation in order to give Parliament and the stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinions during the consultation period.
With regard to the European Commission, we call, in particular, for the members of the Impact Assessment Board that was set up a while ago in the Commission to be independent and for the parliamentary committees to be involved in the work at an early stage.
With regard to Parliament, we believe it is important for us actually to utilise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument.
Up to now, a few committees have been using it, but I think we need to make much more extensive use of this instrument in our discussions in Parliament.
If we succeed in developing Parliament's own resources and establishing an autonomous structure under the leadership of Members of this House in order to develop a method that allows us to carry out professional regulatory impact assessments within the European Parliament, then I believe we will have achieved a great deal with this report.
I hope it will receive your support tomorrow in the vote.
(FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, impact assessments enable us to perform our role as legislator.
Their bad reputation is partly explained by the risk of manipulation.
We may request them in the light of public opinion.
They may be serious and scientifically correct.
Take, for example, the impact assessment that the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality commissioned for the purposes of the directive on maternity leave.
It was so unusable that we regretted having spent taxpayers' money.
Thank you, Mrs Niebler, for the work you have put into preparing the resolution.
Your efforts help us to legislate better for the benefit of citizens in the Member States.
(CS) Mr President, I am tabling a report on the external dimension of the European Union and on corporate social responsibility.
I took an extremely critical approach when drafting this report because it is very frequently the case that hypocritical positions are adopted during negotiations with countries which are not EU Member States.
If we want to demand that they respect the same principles that we respect within the European Union, then it is imperative that we do the same.
We cannot demand compliance with the International Labour Organisation's fundamental conventions and then allow these conventions to be violated by certain Member States.
I also state in the report that ...
Mr President, I warmly thank our rapporteur, Mr Falbr, for his work, and despite his initial concerns, the report remains very strong.
Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would emphasise once again that the International Labour Organisation's role should be strengthened.
Voluntary corporate social responsibility is a good thing but the primary role in promoting and protecting human rights belongs to states and international organisations.
We do not think that legally binding standards should be avoided in the field of corporate responsibility: in Europe, we should create additional standards for company reporting.
On the other hand, the violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage.
Europe should promote its social model and improve, rather than reduce, social standards both internally and externally.
(DE) Mr President, I apologise for taking the floor once again, but I believe that some confusion has arisen, because my fellow Members are not currently discussing my report, but the report on social responsibility, which will be debated later.
Perhaps we could first finish the debate on the subject of the impact assessment - I believe Mr Baldassarre had asked to speak on the subject of my report - and then we can move on to the next report.
Thank you, Mrs Niebler.
The problem gradually became clear to me, too.
We have a minor Internet problem.
I do not have the correct list of speakers, either.
The display board is also still showing the Klinz report.
That is presumably why some Members were a little irritated.
Thus, we are now debating the report by Mrs Niebler on guaranteeing independent impact assessments.
Mr President, yes I agree, it is very important that we have independent economic impact assessments of EU regulations.
These place a very significant cost on business, on the economy and, of course, on the pockets of ordinary citizens.
Now I recently published the latest addition of my periodic study, 'How Much Does the European Union Cost Britain?', which is available on my website.
Just one element of these costs is, of course, EU over-regulation.
Now, using the government's own figures - the UK Government's own figures - the Open Europe think-tank calculates the cost of just the top 99 directives currently in force at over GBP 20 billion per annum.
In 2006, Commissioner Günter Verheugen put the cost of EU regulation at an average of 3.5% of GDP; 3.5% of the UK's GDP is almost GBP 49 billion per annum.
This is a staggering burden on business and on consumers.
Independent impact assessment should, of course, be carried out at the national level but, outside of the European Union, Britain would be free to decide its own level of regulation and it would certainly not be GBP 49 billion per annum.
Mr President, I shall be very brief.
First of all, I think that this is an important proposal.
This impact assessment is important to us for two reasons.
One is to ensure that we are passing regulation that is necessary and effective, but also to stop blaming something called Brussels for everything that goes wrong.
National governments and parliaments take responsibility when everything goes right, but when it is wrong they blame Brussels.
I think these impact assessments should show just who is responsible and where the blame lies, because it is far too convenient to do that.
Furthermore, when you look back at what happened before we had the European Union, the cost of that was absolutely devastating.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report, as it supports our smart regulation agenda and aims to strengthen the shared responsibility of the EU institutions in this area.
The Commission also welcomes the fact that the report supports some of its suggestions addressed to the European Parliament through the Smart Regulation Communication, but we also know about the few highly problematic proposals.
The Commission has already made clear in its Smart Regulation Communication that it cannot and will not accept requests that would affect its autonomy in carrying out impact assessments - for instance, the externalisation of the Impact Assessment Board - or that would otherwise affect its right of initiative.
Let me recall that the European Court of Auditors, in a recent special report on impact assessments in the EU institutions, has confirmed that the Commission's impact assessment system 'has been effective in supporting decision making within the EU institutions' and in raising the quality of our proposals.
The Court of Auditors also found that the Commission has in place the structures needed for smart regulation and that the Impact Assessment Board clearly helps to raise the quality of our impact assessments.
The Commission will take a position on the report after the adoption of the resolution.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.
I would ask all Members for their forbearance with regard to the current discrepancies, as the display is not working.
Impact assessments have a significant effect on legislative activities, which is why new developments are needed, with the establishment of a mechanism independent of those assessments.
Therefore, they should not justify a legislative proposal, but rather allow for an objective examination of the facts.
This also applies to the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the methodology of which has been called into question on several occasions, and to public consultations, where the wording of the questions may lead one to expect answers that the Commission's services want to hear.
In order to combat these abuses within the legislative process, we call for a clear methodology, an analysis of alternatives and the option not to take any action, as well as maximum transparency and the close involvement of Parliament.
External dimension of social policy (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mr Falbr, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility.
Mr President, as I said in my speech a short while ago, the external dimension of social policy covers EU measures and initiatives aimed at promoting employment standards and social standards in third countries.
Although the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 initiative place a far greater emphasis on social policy than was ever the case before, competitiveness and economic factors are still the centre of attention.
I therefore took a very critical approach to the drafting of this report.
If we want the third countries with whom we negotiate agreements to respect the principles and the very basis of the European social model, we must respect this model within the European Union.
If we want the countries with which we negotiate international agreements to respect the International Labour Organisation's fundamental conventions, then we must respect them ourselves.
It is plain to see, however, that ILO conventions are violated in some Member States.
As far as corporate social responsibility is concerned, it is undoubtedly a good idea, and has been under discussion since the early 1970s.
The problem is, however, that it cannot be enforced.
When we were debating the comments on this report and amendments to it, one of the views expressed was that a directive should be drafted, since some businesses simply do not behave in a socially responsible way.
More than 150 amendments were tabled to the report, but I think that it nevertheless still takes a critical approach.
The European Union needs to do more to support the International Labour Organisation, since it is absurd that, while we profess support, fewer and fewer countries are ratifying and respecting the conventions.
During the last parliamentary term, the Commission even presented proposals, for example, in respect of the Working Time Directive, which ran completely counter to ILO Convention No 1 on Hours of Work, adopted in 1919, which laid down a working week of 48 hours.
I am very glad that Parliament rejected this directive.
That brings my explanatory statement to an end.
There is no need for me to say any more, since this is an issue which everyone understands.
What I want, above all, is respect for social rights, and respect for something we proclaim as a major achievement of the European Union.
(RO) Mr President, according to European statistics, well over half of workers in the European Union, particularly immigrants, do not enjoy social protection.
This is why I think that when it comes to social protection for workers in the European Union, basic common standards need to be promoted, along with imposing penalties if current legislation is breached.
Ratification of the revised European Social Charter would encourage internal social reforms at EU Member State level, while also facilitating the process of harmonising national legislation with EU regulations.
It is important as a political commitment to promoting and guaranteeing social standards and to adapting the legal and institutional mechanisms to the specific standards and values of European democracies.
The social rights stipulated by this agreement comply with Community social law and the relevant standards in European Union Member States.
Mr President, as a shadow rapporteur on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would like our position on this report to be quite clear.
First of all, while we appreciate that the final text may be improved by the votes tomorrow, it is strong enough, and we would simply underline that the role of the International Labour Organisation should be strengthened.
On this we agree with the rapporteur.
We do not think that legally binding standards should be avoided in the field of corporate responsibility.
Violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage and we must insist, in bilateral and multilateral relations with our partners, that decent work standards are properly complied with.
(PT) Mr President, bearing in mind that the World Social Security Report 2010 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) states that over 50% of all workers have no social protection, it is easy to conclude that, in most cases, there is no corporate social responsibility.
Nonetheless, the Commission continues to negotiate free trade agreements that generally only serve the interests of big companies and financial institutions, do not give proper attention to labour rights, and fail to promote freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
They do not take the measures necessary for the effective elimination of discrimination in the workplace or profession, or for the elimination of forced labour or insecure or poorly paid work, including child labour.
This report should therefore denounce all of these issues, but it falls short of what is required, and we hope that the Commission will go further tomorrow in consolidating its approach to these issues ...
(SK) Mr President, it is true that social protection for workers is often a lot weaker than it should be, even within the European Union.
This is particularly true for migrant groups in the population, who travel abroad to work in places where they are often unfamiliar with the language and the local regulations, and are subsequently, of course, unable to keep up professionally with local workers.
Despite this, I do think it is important for the European Union to seek the application of the International Labour Organisation's rules and agreements in international treaties with third countries, because it seems to me, as we learn more about the labour market and working conditions in Asia, Africa and other corners of the world, that we must strive to ensure that significant improvements are made in the status of workers in these regions and areas too.
Therefore, I personally support Mr Falbr and his report.
I am certain that it will also lead to improvements in these rules in Europe as well.
(RO) Mr President, I, too, want to congratulate the rapporteur, while also calling on the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures so that European companies adhere to European principles and values even when they are operating in other countries.
The European Union must promote the European social model.
This is why it is of paramount importance to adhere to the European Union's principles and values.
We regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted in all bilateral trade agreements.
I want to point out, Commissioner, that a horizontal civil aviation agreement between the European Union and Canada was voted on recently.
It is the most ambitious agreement of its kind signed by the European Union, even though it does not provide any social clauses.
Both sides have committed to work and develop things in this area.
Unfortunately, however, I should emphasise that we regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted into international agreements.
Mr President, I congratulate Richard Falbr on the comprehensive approach to international labour standards in his report.
I have been pleased to contribute to his work on the specific question of corporate social responsibility.
Tonight, this gives us a chance to influence the Commission in advance of its CSR communication by asking it firstly to maintain the open definition of CSR latterly adopted by it in the Multi-Stakeholder Forum; to return to the principle of convergence in private and voluntary CSR initiatives, which was its former policy; to make concrete proposals for implementing global CSR standards, specifically the updated OECD guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and the new Ruggie framework on business and human rights; to commit to the principle of integrated financial, environmental, social and human rights reporting by business - indeed paving the way towards the possibility of future legislation in this area; and to advance the responsibility of European businesses in their global supply chain, responding to the governance gaps identified in the Commission's own recent Edinburgh study.
Parliament always likes to help the Commission, Ms Reding.
I hope these suggestions help tonight.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of my colleague, László Andor, I would like to welcome the fact that the motion for a resolution for discussion today addresses so many crucial aspects of social policy's external dimension.
The Commission firmly supports closer cooperation at global level, with employment and social objectives going hand in hand with economic objectives.
In particular, we support the continuation of discussion and the coordination of efforts within the G20.
In this connection, the preparations for a G20 Labour and Employment Ministers meeting provide a good example of the increased cohesion emerging at world level.
The Commission also supports close cooperation with and among international organisations, which - and I am quoting the OECD and the International Labour Organisation - is vital for achieving a level playing field internationally and, in particular, for setting international labour standards.
The 100th session of the ILO began last week: it will focus on a new ILO convention on domestic workers, an issue which this House discussed recently.
Social protection, including the development of the Social Protection Floor initiative, is another area of interest for this year's ILO conference.
We will closely follow the discussions on implementation of the labour standards enshrined in the ILO Convention, and I would point out that the Commission welcomes the emphasis in today's motion for a resolution on the need for the EU to promote the ILO core labour standards and the decent work agenda worldwide, including gender equality and non-discrimination policy as a cross-cutting issue.
The Commission will also continue to promote sustainable development, decent work, labour standards and corporate social responsibility in other policy areas, such as trade and development policy.
In 2011, the Commission intends to present a communication on corporate social responsibility outlining proposals for further action at international level, including promoting cooperate social responsibility in relations with partner countries.
In our view, the involvement of enterprises is also essential in order to address issues such as youth employment, training, workforce skills, health and diversity, responsible restructuring and local development, especially given the current economic and social difficulties facing Europe.
I attach a lot of importance to the activities and initiatives associated with the external dimension of the European Union's social policy, the aim of which is to promote social standards in third countries in order to prevent, among other things, the present-day slavery in which people are treated purely as 'production machines', rather than valuable individuals.
As a result of the prevalent and increasing economic competition in the world, conditions for workers are deteriorating further, with workers' pay being the main victim of cuts and the working age being extended, in an attempt to make profits.
Therefore, in order to change the current trend, we must move from words to deeds and implement the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Decent Work Agenda and the relevant conventions.
If necessary, we must also apply extreme measures - various economic sanctions and restrictions - against countries and companies which consistently ignore them.
Of course, the relevant sanctions should not be implemented lightly or based on the desire to eliminate economic competition.
Violations of labour norms by third countries also contribute to excessively high duties in developed countries and in the European Union's Single Market, so we must not fail to follow the ILO's conditions if we want to be competitive.
The European Union should not point the finger here; instead, it should put forward its own solutions and compromises in order to improve the situation.
I welcome the increase in companies' social responsibility and respectful attitudes towards their own workers.
Yet we cannot accept a situation where the obligations of countries and local governments are shifted onto companies.
This is more the kind of policy associated with the former Soviet Union and present-day CIS countries, where the authorities essentially channel the money of the businesses.
I would like to congratulate Mr Falbr for his excellent work on the report on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility.
A politically and economically integrated EU also needs a social dimension more urgently than ever.
It is important to guarantee the existence of basic services, basic security and decent working conditions for all EU citizens, especially now during this economic crisis.
As the rapporteur says, the approach to social policy that Europe chooses should also be adopted in our relations with third countries.
The Union must insist more strongly that a condition of future trade and investment agreements should be that international agreements are ratified, implemented and monitored.
Furthermore, European companies, too, should be required to be more open with respect to their accounts and subcontracting chains, so that the European Union's strong socio-political values do not remain merely illusory.
Financing instrument for development cooperation (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mr Mitchell, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation: lessons learned and perspectives for the future.
rapporteur. - Mr President, the DCI, the European Union's Development Cooperation Instrument, is a powerful tool.
Covering the period between 2007 and 2013, the EU has at its disposal a budget of almost EUR 17 billion to combat poverty, to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to promote democratic governance in developing countries.
Parliament has closely followed the functioning and impact of the instrument to ensure that the money is spent in accordance with these objectives.
At the end of this year, the Commission is going to present its proposals for the next generation of financing instruments for external action, to cover the post-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework.
Therefore, the Committee on Development has taken the initiative to analyse the lessons learnt with the DCI and to define our expectations for the future instrument.
The Committee on Development was unanimous in supporting the following key principles.
We need a financing instrument which is exclusively targeted at the objectives of poverty eradication as defined in the Lisbon Treaty and which only covers developing countries.
The new instrument must primarily fund measures which fulfil the criteria for ODA (Official Development Assistance) as defined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee.
The ODA quota must be even stricter than in the current DCI.
Let me be clear that we do not question the importance of non-ODA cooperation with developing countries, in particular, the emerging markets and strategic middle-income countries, but this form of cooperation should be channelled through separate instruments to enhance transparency and protect the specific nature of development cooperation.
Funding to improve people's access to basic health and education must be ring-fenced by including a clear benchmark.
At least 20% of funding under the geographical programmes should go into these life-saving sectors of basic health and basic education.
The future instrument must ensure better integration of environmental and climate change issues in developing cooperation.
Assisting developing countries in setting up fair and effective tax systems is another issue to be strengthened.
In particular for the middle-income countries, the mobilisation of domestic revenue is crucial for reducing poverty and aid dependency.
The new instrument must be sufficiently funded.
The EU development budget in the next financial framework should increase in real terms and thus contribute to reaching the collective target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA.
The scarce development resources must be used in the most effective and efficient manner.
Closer coordination between the Commission and Member States is needed and Parliament therefore supports the development of joint strategy papers.
The Commission itself has said that this could bring about savings of greater impact, of approximately EUR 6 billion per annum.
Think of what that could do in the developing world.
Finally, a word on procedure.
When the Commission adopts strategic programme decisions on the new instrument, Parliament must have a say on an equal footing with the Council.
This is the requirement of Article 290 of the Lisbon Treaty, which must be fully respected.
The resolution we are going to vote on this week will provide the guiding line for upcoming negotiations on the next-generation development instrument.
I hope that this House will give broad support to the proposals from the Committee on Development which have been carried out in quiet disquisition but based on our experience of the negotiations we went into - and I remind the House that we merged 14 regulations into one in the DCI.
We want to make sure that the DCI works and that its successor will work in achieving these objectives.
(RO) Mr President, the eradication of poverty is a key international objective of the EU.
Implementation of this instrument helps define the European Union's presence in the UN and achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
In addition, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, the EU has the necessary external powers for meeting this target.
In future, the new fund's geographic and thematic priorities will need to be clarified to make it operate more efficiently.
This means that vulnerable social groups, developing and emerging countries have to be included on the list of financed development objectives.
The strengthening of the SME sector and domestic private sector will be encouraged with the aim of raising the living standard in the countries included in this programme.
This will help reduce dependence on external aid and boost domestic economic growth.
(RO) Mr President, the European Union can help developing countries in their efforts to tackle poverty.
In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, I think that it is vitally important also to take actions which help developing countries combat climate change.
The European Union has taken actions in this respect, targeted at agriculture, adapting to climate change, forestation, the management of marine resources and coastal areas, as well as water management.
The Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund was set up in 2006 with the aim of mobilising private investment for projects supporting energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy sources in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition.
The 'Energy and Climate Change' package also envisages the introduction of the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows Member States to make energy-efficient investments and use the carbon credits in developing countries.
(FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, our colleague, Mr Mitchell, is a recognised expert in the Committee on Development.
That is why his report is so well drafted, and I thank him.
I would just like to emphasise one small point: respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
The greatest gift that we can give is not money.
It is widely known that the Union uses its budget to impose its Western values and standards on developing countries.
We have a duty to demand respect for human rights, but the future depends on respect for the right of nations to self-determination.
We in the West need to respect their values and cultures while providing financial assistance.
(RO) Mr President, just as the rapporteur has also emphasised, the eradication of poverty is one of the main objectives of the financing instrument for development cooperation, launched by the European Union to provide support to developing countries.
At the moment, another challenge needs to be included on the agenda for the debate on the Development Cooperation Instrument, namely, the food price crisis, triggered by the drought and speculation on the global food market.
This requires the European Union to respond flexibly and quickly not only in order to address the sudden changes in terms of requirements and priorities, but also to ensure consistency with the new international objectives due to be defined.
The European Parliament must continue, as part of this process, to support the Commission's efforts in programming development cooperation policies and to enhance its role in the democratic and budgetary control procedure.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's remarks and suggestions.
I am pleased to see that we agree on the majority of issues.
Most of all, the Commission appreciates that the continuing dialogue in the context of democratic scrutiny has produced very good results.
We only regret that Parliament does not feel that some of its resolutions on programming were respected in every detail, although the Commission has taken full account of Parliament's view wherever possible.
Regarding cooperation on global public goods, the Commission would point out that, in general, this may meet the criteria of official development assistance (ODA) and the EU should therefore continue financing ODA-related cooperation on global public goods under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI).
Nevertheless, a separate partnership instrument will concentrate on cooperation of EU interest and will be complemented by a thematic programme addressing civil society organisations and local authorities.
Likewise, projects financed under the thematic programme for migration and asylum generally count as ODA.
Thematic cooperation programmes such as 'Investing in People' will continue to address all the millennium development goals, as we must not neglect the interrelationship between them.
While budgetisation of the European Development Fund does not currently seem feasible, the Commission nevertheless intends to pursue the issue with Member States, taking into account, primarily, the objectives and principles of the Cotonou Agreement.
With regard to the use of delegated acts, the Commission refers to President Barroso's letter of 7 March 2011, indicating that a new architecture will reflect the new institutional context.
One important element will be flexibility in the programming process, so that funding and priorities can adapt to today's rapidly changing world.
This could be done by the introduction of significant elements of the delegated acts procedure, fully respecting the criteria established in Article 290.
In conclusion, the Commission welcomes Parliament's report.
It constitutes useful input in the preparation of the follow-up instrument to the DCI under the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
Progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Wallis, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on policy options for progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses.
rapporteur. - Mr President, we have been talking about European contract law for over a decade; now is the time for action, and if ever there was a time when the Internal Market needed a boost in terms of additional transactions, it is now.
The Committee on Legal Affairs favours an optional instrument, a second EU contract law for all citizens and enterprises.
We believe it could help.
But we have said that there will be tough criteria for the next step.
There must be a high level of consumer protection, higher than in many of our Member States.
It must be easy and user-friendly for SMEs; it must give them a badge of honour to conduct their business under this optional contract and there must be no detriment to national law.
The process must be evidence-based, impact-assessed and with full parliamentary involvement, and on that basis, as I have said, the time for talking is over and we need to move forward.
There are those who are nervous and say, well, let us just use the idea of a toolbox.
Can I say to those who have that idea, be very careful, because I have a suspicion that a toolbox without an optional instrument is potentially actually more invasive of national law than a toolbox with an optional instrument that is voluntary, that respects the autonomy of the parties and is not detrimental to national law.
Let us see something, as we move forward, that offers preventative justice for EU citizens and small businesses; that really gives us an instrument which means justice for growth.
Enough talking, now let us move on.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, for her work and the contents of her report, with which I am in complete agreement.
I believe that only an optional instrument to be adopted by means of a regulation can adequately fulfil the objectives of the whole reform of European contract law.
Moreover, an optional instrument should neither harmonise nor replace national contract laws but rather work alongside them as an alternative instrument that offers freedom of choice to contracting parties.
Therefore, I do not agree with the proposals put forward by those who would prefer to limit the scope of this instrument so that it applies only to e-commerce contracts, as this would create an artificial and, above all, unnecessary distinction between online and face to face transactions.
Our task as legislators is not to limit the legal nature of the regulation on the basis of speculation or market projections but rather to ensure legal certainty and to lay the foundations for a common legal language in the field of commerce.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Reding, the vision of European contract law is clearly a wonderful one.
However, at the end of the day, it has to provide something positive for European citizens, otherwise the idea of European contract law is simply art for art's sake.
Why does the report start with the most vulnerable parties here, the consumers?
The key element of Mrs Wallis's report, the recommendation of the optional instrument, is an unreasonable demand for consumers, to put it mildly.
It is confusing for them, and in practical terms, it will never be the consumers themselves that are able to decide which state's contract law they ultimately utilise, but rather their counterparts in the matter, in particular, big businesses.
In any case, now is not the time to say that the optional instrument is the last word on the matter, but instead we should look more closely at the other options, too - the toolbox that was mentioned and the contract models.
(SK) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Wallis for her bold move.
While I have no idea how it will progress, we obviously need to try to ensure that European citizens, European retailers and European consumers benefit from what I would call equal rules, so that they can buy, sell and hence engage in business on the basis of these same rules.
In view of the complexity of the machinery of European law and national legislation, a single optional system that could be rolled out across the European Union is an appealing prospect, but is probably a Sisyphean task, as we will clearly be hampered by diverse legal systems, protests from the legal profession, and jurisdiction issues.
I fear that it would be very difficult to establish, but let us give it a shot and see what happens.
(CS) Mr President, Commissioner, although voluntary contract legislation may give rise to legal problems regarding its implementation, it represents one way of getting rid of the different systems of contract law, which are one reason for the high failure rate of cross-border purchases by consumers, which is estimated at 60%.
Unfortunately, entrepreneurs face a series of other pitfalls.
It is not only contract law which is not fully harmonised, but also consumer law.
There are significant differences in tax regimes and accounting standards.
Payments often attract extra bank charges, and the cross-border use of digital content is frequently blocked for licensing reasons.
Moreover, consumers in 10 Member States were unable to find domestic offers for at least half of 100 products tested, while consumers in 13 Member States found cross-border price offers that were at least 10% lower than in their own country.
I therefore support the proposal to issue legally binding standardised voluntary contracts translated into all the languages.
At the same time, I would like to call on the Commission to play a more active role in resolving the outstanding urgent issues, in order to put an end to the fragmentation of the Internal Market.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Diana Wallis, together with Hans-Peter Mayer and Sirpa Pietikäinen, for the excellent work on this dossier.
It is very clear that, in the wake of the global economic crisis, the Internal Market needs to be boosted.
We need the Internal Market if we want to have growth, job creation and innovation.
What is the current situation?
Only one in four businesses trade across borders and those who trade limit their operations to only a few Member States.
That means they miss out on the possibility of utilising the Internal Market.
What are the consequences for consumers?
Well, they do not reap the benefits of the Internal Market either.
Many cross-border orders - as many as 61% of the orders on the online market - fail to be completed for this reason.
That means that we have here a non-functioning of the Internal Market both for businesses and for consumers.
That is the reason why the Commission has launched a consultation on policy options in the field of contract law, in response to which Parliament is giving its opinion today.
We have seen that Internal Market failures are due, in part, to the differences in national contract law.
We agree that there are other reasons for failure, but our recent Eurobarometer surveys show that contract-law related obstacles rank first out of eleven obstacles to business-to-consumer transactions.
That is why we need to get rid of those obstacles, one by one, starting now with contract law.
By the way, this Parliament has been discussing this for ten years, but the experts outside have been discussing it for 30 years.
So all the work done to analyse and make proposals is there on the table.
We have never taken advantage of this.
That is why I agree with the rapporteur that it is time to act now and to see what positive action we can take.
I have taken note of the assessment of the report on the policy options presented in the Green Paper and the support for the innovative solution of an optional instrument, which means no harmonisation but giving consumers and businesses a choice of having a Europe-wide system.
I have also seen the support for an instrument applicable in both B2C and B2B transactions, which favours a material scope covering sales contracts, contracts for the supply of digital content and some service contracts.
I have taken very good note of what has been said by Parliament, namely, that any future instrument, whatever it looks like, should give consumers a high level of protection in order not to deprive them of the protection they would otherwise enjoy under national law.
That is a conditio sine qua non.
If we do not have that, we will fail in all of our activities.
Where do we stand at the moment?
On 3 May 2011, the Commission published the results of a feasibility study by the Expert Group on European contract law and we invited all stakeholders to comment.
The Commission is analysing the results of the public consultation and then it will prepare a detailed impact assessment to see what should be the next step that, in times of crisis, will be good for giving a boost to the Internal Market and creating growth and jobs in the Internal Market by expanding the markets, mostly for SMEs, and giving consumers the possibility of better choice and better deals.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 8 June at 12:00.
Even though we have an Internal Market, businesses and consumers do not take sufficient advantage of the opportunities it offers, as the proportion of cross-border transactions remains fairly low.
The Internal Market can be revitalised by encouraging cross-border transactions and I believe that this report will help achieve this objective.
We must obviously respect differences between Member States' legal systems and the principle of subsidiarity, which is why I do not regard total harmonisation as the most suitable option.
On the other hand, I feel that the optional application of common rules for cross-border contracts is a viable alternative.
In addition, I believe that if a Member State would like to extend the scope of application of European law to domestic transactions as well, it should be free to do so.
It is very true to say that this is not the solution to every problem.
There are also other obstacles preventing cross-border transactions, in addition to these contract law differences, relating to areas such as tax matters, intellectual property or the availability of electronic payment methods.
However, I think that this optional instrument deserves a try as it may get rid of some of the administrative burden which is currently preventing SMEs from expanding their businesses in Member States other than their own.
Cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Hirsch, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy.
Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow, we will vote on the role of vocational education and training in the Europe 2020 strategy.
In this connection, it is worth taking a brief look at the position we are starting from.
We currently have a level of youth unemployment of 21%, in other words, almost double the normal average.
We have an EU-wide school drop-out rate of over 14%.
The participation of women in gainful employment is still very low.
Many people with disabilities, as well as migrants, are without jobs.
The goal of the Europe 2020 strategy is precisely to tap this potential in terms of workers and to bring them into the workplace so that the EU, too, can deal with globalisation.
Thus, it is also our job to ensure that initial vocational education in particular is of high quality.
The discussion began in connection with the Copenhagen process, followed by the Bruges Communiqué, and now it is up to us to see to what extent this area can also be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy.
An absolutely key element is the fact that young people must have the opportunity, not only in their studies, but also in their vocational training, to undertake part of their training in another EU Member State.
It is a key element because someone who has already worked in another Member State will also take the opportunity later on to regard the European labour market as his or her labour market, with all the opportunities that that offers.
It is therefore an absolutely key aspect that we must pursue.
The second major area is, of course, that of further training.
On account of demographic change, people are having to work for longer and longer - or they can work for longer, but everyone has to take that decision for themselves.
People are living until they are much older and will continue with their careers for much longer, and in order to be able to carry on in skilled work until they are older, they will also need to undertake further training.
There is currently a very low level of participation in further training initiatives.
Here, too, it must be ensured that the willingness of both employers and workers exists and increases when it comes to taking advantage of further training and continuing to gain education by means of lifelong learning.
For this, of course, the options on offer also need to be flexible.
We must take everyone into consideration.
Further training must fit in with other elements of people's lives and it must be possible to do it alongside work and family life.
For that reason, we clearly need to create flexible opportunities in future.
The area of universities has received a great deal of attention - in connection with the Bologna Process, for example - and a similar situation faces us in the area of vocational training, including with regard to mobility.
We could almost say that no one has noticed this.
Nevertheless, alongside the universities, the area of vocational education and training is particularly important and we therefore must not ignore it.
For that reason, I would like at this point to thank my fellow Members from the other groups once again for their very committed cooperation.
(EL) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I welcome the Hirsch report, because it highlights how important it is to always have the capacity to learn and work, alongside mobility and flexibility, in the modern and demanding international labour environment.
It is true that the economic crisis has brought unemployment and insecurity to everyone, especially young people, women and the disabled.
In order to achieve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, we need constant and proper vocational education and training both in the European Union and in the Member States.
We need targeted policies and strategies to reduce the percentage of early school leavers, proper programming of people's needs for training, and closer ties between the education provided and the needs of the labour market.
I am certain that the European Qualifications Framework, the European system of academic units for vocational education and training, transparency and cooperation and comparability of the various education systems will support the needs ...
(RO) Mr President, investment in education is vital to ensure a better future for Europeans.
At the moment, the EU youth unemployment rate has reached 20%, while the average EU school dropout rate is 16%, and in some countries, like Portugal, it has reached 40%.
Lifelong learning is vital if unemployment is to be prevented.
We must give due consideration to the different career paths.
Workers must be made more greatly aware of the need for ongoing further training.
We feel that vocational education and training should be accessible, available and affordable at every stage of life, regardless of people's status on the labour market and their income.
Vocational education and training should create the conditions conducive to labour mobility, both during initial studies and as part of the lifelong learning process.
We call on Member States to simplify the procedures for recognising qualifications.
(RO) Mr President, one of the biggest challenges Europe is faced with is the youth unemployment rate.
At European level, the focus is placed on reducing the school dropout rate below 10% and on actions such as 'New skills for new jobs', whose aim is to bring the world of education and training closer to the labour market.
The distinction between education and training, apart from their context in the workplace, will become even less clear in the future.
In order to achieve a greater level of integration, a vital change will need to be made in the way education and training provision is conceived, not only from an individual perspective, but also at institutional level and every level of administration.
Therefore, I think that system-related obstacles and those in terms of attitude preventing integration need to be removed if Europeans are to learn to make progress in the areas of their skills and values and make an effective contribution to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.
(DA) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who has tabled an extremely good report.
Like everyone else, I believe that we should remember the context in which this report is set, and that, of course, is the youth crisis that we are experiencing in Europe.
We are agreed about the general crisis - soaring youth unemployment and young people who are, in fact, moving out of Europe to find work, and this, in my opinion, will be a very serious threat to our economy and our cohesion in Europe in the coming years.
The second context for this report is the common 2020 objectives that we have set for training, employment and the reduction of the drop-out rate.
This is about Europe's competitiveness.
It is about having a trained workforce, which is something that we know we need.
It is also important to ensure that the new generation has the opportunity for jobs and training.
This is absolutely crucial.
It may be the case that the EU does not have a great deal of competence in this area, but something can be done nevertheless.
In any case, it is a shared concern, and therefore we must ensure that we provide high-quality training and that there is guidance available.
We must reduce the drop-out rate and ensure that there is a strong link between training and work, for example, by means of exchange systems like we have in Germany and Denmark.
We must also ensure that all young people have the right to undergo training.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Hirsch, for her very constructive approach.
I have listened to her with great interest because that was actually my dossier 12 years ago.
I started to bring about the mobility in training which was not on the agenda at that moment, and I am very glad to hear how strongly Parliament is in favour of developing this essential element in the Europe 2020 strategy.
I would also like to say how much we welcome the report, which reinforces and complements the Commission's communication of June 2010.
This communication was an input to the latest review of the Copenhagen Process, and the Bruges Communiqué has now, of course, become the European agenda par excellence for vocational training for the years 2011-2020.
Many of Parliament's suggestions correspond with the actions proposed in the Bruges Communiqué.
The Commission shares Parliament's view because we need to modernise vocational education and training in Europe to make it attractive, to have qualified teachers and trainers, innovative learning methods and high-quality infrastructure and facilities, and, of course, we have to have the mobility.
We have to give the will to young people - and to less young people - to go outside their Member State in order to get the experience which is important if we want to have a real European education and training area.
The Commission also aims to attain gender balance and to help disadvantaged groups through the lifelong learning programme, notably through the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which is included.
So all the help which the Commission can get from Parliament is most welcome.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June 2011, at 12:00.
During the current economic and financial crisis where the unemployment rate, especially among young people, has exceeded the 20% mark at EU level and even 30% in some Member States, improving vocational education and training must become a priority for the European Union.
In this context, youth mobility within the EU, combined with greater flexibility in terms of the labour market and the education and training on offer, are essential elements which ought to be developed at EU and national level.
Ongoing, well-structured dialogue between universities, research centres and businesses can enable a real link to be established between employers' requirements and the skills acquired during education and training cycles.
Furthermore, increasing mobility at European Union level through expanding programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci or Youth on the Move can also help improve the EU's ability to respond better to the demand of the European labour market and to have greater potential for development in this area.
Particular attention must also be focused on socially disadvantaged groups, who need to have fair access to vocational education and training.
The transition from education to work is a structural challenge for employees all over the European Union.
Unfortunately, early unemployment has lasting negative effects.
For this reason, Member States should ensure that vocational education and training is better adjusted to the needs of the labour market, and that vocational education provides employees with the skills needed to take up new, sustainable jobs that will be created in the future sustainable economy.
I consider the role of local governments, entrepreneurial partnerships and educational institutions important in the development of the labour market demands of vocational education and training.
The opportunity for mobility is an important part of vocational education and training, but more emphasis should be placed on a better harmonisation of Member States' different education systems - including mutual recognition of certificates and diplomas - in order to enhance collaboration and support mobility.
High-quality vocational education and training fundamentally contribute to sustainable development.
Better training opportunities must be created for trainers, particularly at regional and local level, with a view to securing the effectiveness of vocational education and training systems, as well as efficient and successful transfer of knowledge.
The possibility to learn in an international context is a prerequisite for a successful working life that will promote the acquisition of foreign-language skills and increased competitiveness.
Cooperation at European level in the field of vocational education is also absolutely crucial for the functioning of the single European Internal Market.
High-quality vocational education and training must both respond to the demands of the labour market and create the conditions for workforce mobility.
Highly qualified and well-educated people represent a competitive advantage for the EU, and support for vocational education should take this into account.
We need to focus on establishing close links with the world of work, and also on facilitating high-quality work experience as part of vocational training, both at home and abroad, within the framework of European mobility programmes.
We need greater coordination at European level between the education systems in the individual Member States, and, following on from this, cooperation on the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications.
The report covers these issues, and, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am happy with its final form.
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training.
It points to an incredibly important issue which has not often been discussed to date, namely, the need for national authorities to take action, in cooperation with the European Commission, to prevent unemployment by tailoring vocational training to the needs of the job market.
Unfortunately, vocational education has been neglected in recent years and has reduced in significance.
This is why it is so important to promote it as an effective tool in the fight against unemployment, and particularly against unemployment among the young inhabitants of the European Union, which has reached 21%.
Apprenticeships, the establishment of advisory services making it easier for workers to plan their training according to the needs of the jobs market and the promotion of lifelong vocational education should be priorities.
That is why I call on the Commission to carry out constant monitoring of the outlook for possible changes in the EU jobs market, so that Member States can continuously adapt their vocational training programmes to the needs of the market.
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training and would like to emphasise how important it is to promote lifelong learning through initiatives and Europe-wide programmes in order to make it possible for workers to have a better future.
These days, workers are at the mercy of frequent and risky employment transitions.
There are many types of transition: from training, redundancy, internships or precarious employment into full-time employment.
The report contains some important points, including increasing the quota of women in work, recognition of informal learning and promotion of languages with the goal of providing mobility programmes.
I am particularly pleased that the focus has been placed on education and training for young people, which is something that I will actively support in the flagship initiatives that follow.
The transition from educational institution to working life must be as smooth as possible and, in particular, tailored to individual needs, because it must also be possible for young people with inadequate training to gain the skills necessary to be able to work in skilled jobs and to earn a good living.
Social background must not determine a person's educational opportunities.
Young people must be given help and support in securing entry to the world of work.
However, the cost of a modern labour market policy must not be borne by our workers.
New skills and competences acquired by graduates of various types of educational institutions have strategic significance for economic growth and open up new possibilities for people, creating a basis for sustainable development.
That is why we cannot underestimate the problem of unemployment, especially among young people.
They are the ones who most often do not obtain permanent work and are forced to accept temporary work which has an inferior level of social insurance and lacks prospects for development.
One of the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy is to reduce the rate of early school leavers to a maximum of 10%, and to enable 40% of young Europeans to complete tertiary education.
The legislative process should focus on facilitating the implementation of vocational traineeships and work experience for young workers, especially in micro-enterprises and small enterprises which find it difficult to fund this type of initiative.
Strong emphasis should also be placed on eliminating differences in men and women's pay by 2020, since this currently stands at about 18%.
I believe that the two most important initiatives in the supranational jobs market are the qualifications framework drawn up within the context of the Copenhagen process and the unified European credit transfer system for vocational education and training.
It is also worth mentioning informal training, which represents an underestimated additional source of skills, and which shapes the character and sense of responsibility of the individual, which is why it should be funded by the EU.
In order to accomplish these many important goals, cooperation between Member States is vital, as is the involvement of all entities, including those at local and regional level.
EHEC outbreak in the EU Member States (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the EHEC outbreak in the EU Member States.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank all of you for this opportunity to inform you about developments in relation to the outbreak of E coli.
I am very concerned about the heavy burden of death and disease that this food-borne epidemic has caused the European population and want to take the opportunity once again to express my condolences to those who are suffering as a result.
In this context, I have to note that the situation is still evolving.
There are now over 1 672 Shiga-toxin-producing E coli cases, and serious complications have developed in at least 661 people.
According to the latest information, this outbreak is responsible for 21 deaths in Germany and 1 in Sweden.
Sporadic cases are reported in 11 other Member States.
Switzerland has also reported 15 cases and the United States 4.
The epicentre of the disease is still the area around Hamburg in northern Germany.
Most of the cases reported outside Germany concern either German nationals travelling or persons who visited this part of Germany.
So what is the European Commission doing to tackle the outbreak?
First, we have immediately activated all our networks responsible for managing crises.
The networks are in daily contact and allow for the timely exchange of information, laying the ground for rapid action.
The Commission holds almost daily meetings with your public health authorities and food safety authorities to discuss the evolution of the outbreak, the health measures taken to prevent infection and the treatment of affected people.
The Early Warning and Response System and the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed have provided a solid basis for exchanging information.
Second, we have asked the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to do a scientific risk assessment, which is being updated regularly as the situation evolves.
We now have an EU case definition which will allow Member States to share the same approach on the investigation of the outbreak.
Patient questionnaires for outbreak investigations are being collected and compared by the ECDC.
The ECDC has also developed, together with the European Food Safety Authority, advice on preventive measures addressed to the public.
This advice is now available in all official languages on the Commission website.
We have asked the ECDC to urgently set up a platform to exchange best practice on treatment, involving both Member States and professional societies.
Our food safety EU reference laboratory in Rome developed in record time a method which reduces the time needed to detect the E coli bacterium in food from about six days to 48 hours.
Finally, let me stress that public perception is extremely important.
In this regard, the Commission draws up daily updates, shared with the Health Security Committee communicators' network and food safety authorities.
In addition, the Commission keeps its website dedicated to this outbreak up to date.
I would strongly urge Members of the European Parliament to support this science-based communication to the public, in order to reduce unnecessary fears and to reinforce our common efforts.
I can assure you that the Commission, together with these agencies, is working very hard with national health and food safety ministries to support them in containing this outbreak.
To do that, we need to pursue intensively the investigation into the source of contamination; the work is taking place as I speak.
During the Health Council yesterday, I asked Germany to reinforce surveillance, outbreak controls and measures in order to identify the source of the outbreak and halt the spread of the infection.
I also asked that the causes of the contamination should be swiftly dealt with.
The German authorities accepted the Commission proposal to dispatch to Germany experts in epidemiology of food-borne diseases from the Commission, the ECDC and the EFSA.
On Sunday, 5 June, the experts started their mission to assist German authorities with the ongoing epidemiology, verify the results and contribute to the ongoing investigations to identify the source.
As we all know, the initial suspicion raised by the German authorities that cucumbers from Spain were the cause has not been confirmed by any test results available.
On Sunday, 5 June, the German authorities notified the European Commission that, based on the epidemiological investigations, they believe bean sprouts are the possible source of the E coli outbreak affecting mainly the northern part of Germany.
The information was transferred immediately to all Member States through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.
The Commission follows any new development closely, and will decide on the appropriate course of action the moment laboratory tests confirm any epidemiological finding.
We do not have any results to date.
Here, I should stress that it is crucial that national authorities do not rush to give information on any source of infection which is not proven by bacteriological analysis, as this spreads unjustified fears in the population all over Europe and creates problems for our food producers selling products in the EU and outside the EU.
While such intensive investigations are going on, we must be careful not to jump to premature conclusions.
In this respect, I want to refer to the latest information coming from Germany regarding the suspicion that sprouts may be the source of contamination; it noted that laboratory tests have not been concluded and that consequently, premature conclusions have to be avoided.
This illustrates that it is important for the Member States to introduce well sustained and scientifically based alerts into the RASFF and to trigger the RASFF when Member States are confident regarding the scientific evidence supporting the alert notification.
You have to act quickly and decisively in order to preserve the Internal Market.
If we manage to do this, then we can learn from the lessons of this crisis and continually improve our systems. I have been repeating: our system works.
We need to learn lessons as we go along.
I believe that this is our responsibility: to be flexible and to be fast in adjusting our processes and procedures to respond to these types of incidents.
Coordination and clear lines of information and communication remain the core of our ability to be effective in such situations.
We have to learn lessons on this front.
Before closing, I would like to raise briefly two more points.
The first concerns references to bans on certain products.
I would like to stress again that the outbreak is limited geographically to an area surrounding the city of Hamburg, so there is no reason, as of today, to take such measures at European level.
In the light of this and of the steps towards the identification of the source, we consider any ban on any product as disproportionate.
Finally, I am also very sensitive to the financial impact that this crisis is having on farmers, particularly vegetable producers.
This is why I am working closely with my colleague, Commissioner Cioloş, to address the hardship faced by this group of our citizens that has also been hit by the outbreak.
In fact, Agriculture Ministers are holding an extraordinary Council meeting today to address E coli.
As I finish talking to you, I will head back to Brussels to be with my colleague, Commissioner Cioloş, during this extraordinary Agriculture Ministers' Council.
In addition, we are in constant contact with third countries, in particular Russia, to ask them to lift their ban, which is considered disproportionate.
The Commission is working hand in hand with the Member States with one common goal: to bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible.
I am insisting to all concerned that, in situations like this, it is not a local problem, it is a European problem.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Commissioner Dalli for focusing on the patients first.
Hundreds of people are severely ill.
Medical personnel in northern Germany are really at their limit.
Twenty-two people have already died.
Yesterday in the Council, a representative of another Member State, Luxembourg, said that financial losses could be recompensed, but human life cannot.
Therefore, I would firstly like to ask for understanding with regard to issuing a warning even if we are not 100% certain where the source is but only have a suspicion - that we also make this information public.
Of course, we still have to find the source.
I see that many people working for the authorities, with the support of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), too - my sincere thanks to the European institutions and to Commissioner Dalli for the fact that the European Union is also helping to investigate this matter - are really working very intensively on this.
Nevertheless, as a German Member of this House, I cannot stand here and say that everything is going well.
There have been a few problems in connection with the crisis management.
For example, the Hamburg Health Senator informed the public, which was the right thing to do, even if there was not absolute certainty with regard to the Spanish cucumbers.
The EHEC pathogen was on the Spanish cucumbers and it should not have been there.
Even the Spanish Members must understand that.
However, she informed the public first and only very much later, hours or half a day later, she informed the European Commission and the Spanish authorities.
That was unacceptable.
In this regard, we in Germany must also consider internally how we could manage this better.
However, together we should concentrate on the fact that the enemy is not in Spain or in Germany, but rather the real problem is the pathogen that we need to get under control and to combat.
My final point is that we adopted a resolution during the last plenary sitting on the subject of resistance to antibiotics.
Even though this pathogen should not primarily be treated with antibiotics, we have the problem that it is resistant to many common antibiotics.
This is a long-standing subject that we now need to tackle more quickly because next time, it could be the case that the pathogen has to be treated with antibiotics but, because it is resistant, it is not possible to treat it.
We need to work on this.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, you are right that this is a public health issue, a very serious one, and our focus should now be on caring for the sick and identifying the source, but then we have to look to the long term and find out how we stop it happening again.
A few weeks ago, I met a representative of the US Food and Drug Administration.
She was telling me about the problems of E coli in fruit and vegetables in the United States and we discussed how this was not common in the European Union.
Now we have had this outbreak, so we have to ask ourselves some questions.
Is it about our farming practices, as Peter Liese just mentioned?
Is it about intensive farming, hot-housing fruit and vegetables?
Is it about overuse of antibiotics in livestock?
Is it about manure spreading?
Would more accurate food labelling have helped us to identify more quickly the source of the contamination?
I note that the Council is not here today, but the Council is resisting proper country of origin labelling on our foods.
I hope they will listen to this debate in the future.
So, Commissioner, we need to investigate thoroughly for the longer term and we need to learn lessons and integrate them into our policies.
Too often, we hear from this Commission and from many in this House about over-regulation, but, as with the banks, I am starting to wonder whether we tend to put the needs of market and supply chains ahead of those of public protection and the consumer.
'Business as usual' is not going to be good enough.
It is not normal that people in Europe go out for a salad and die as a consequence, and we need policy change to address this.
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for having first spoken about the victims and the people taken ill.
Clearly, it is to them that our first thoughts must go, as well as to the farmers who are in a very difficult position, one that we can perfectly understand.
I wish to make three points.
Firstly, we uphold the precautionary principle.
It was applied in this case, so we cannot complain, and the consequences will obviously have to be dealt with.
As Mr Liese pointed out just now, human beings clearly come before economic issues, which can be dealt with at any time.
Death, unfortunately, is permanent.
Secondly, I fully agree with what Mrs McAvan just said about the importance of traceability.
We are discussing labelling today.
It is absolutely vital that we have comprehensive labelling and that we can trace products in order to know where they have originated from.
Thirdly, regarding the absolutely crucial issue at the heart of the problem, we must admit that we do not know everything, that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and, in fact, that we are sometimes completely in the dark.
We cannot know everything.
We cannot challenge those who have taken decisions and, at the same time, believe that we should wait.
In this case, the precautionary principle must prevail.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, first of all, I would also like to express my sympathy to those who have been affected.
Concerning those who have lost their lives: you cannot bring back a life.
We can probably put the underlying situation right in the longer term, but it shows how wrong it is to jump to conclusions at a very early point.
I can understand the anger - if there is anger and I am sure there is - from the Spanish side and from those who have lost their business.
We can probably do something to recompense that, but you cannot give back a life.
We have got to learn from this and to ensure that in future, we have a solid base for response, as the Commissioner has said.
We have to find a resolution as quickly as possible to the present situation and, in the long term, we have got to improve our response mechanisms to this type of situation.
I suppose it is very easy with hindsight to talk about what could or should have been done or what we did not do, but now, with the benefit of that hindsight, we could put mechanisms in place to ensure that this never happens again.
The Commissioner is right.
We must learn from the lessons of this.
You must always learn from the lessons of your mistakes.
If mistakes have been made, let us put them right and ensure that it never happens again.
Mr President, Commissioner, you rightly said that there have been too many deaths and too many people made sick as a result of this EHEC pathogen, and I think that the situation we find ourselves in also shows that neither Germany nor the European Union are prepared for the sort of spread of EHEC that we are currently seeing.
A simple comparison with a few other countries makes it clear that we could be better.
I would just like to refer once again to the example of the United States.
Since the 1980s, huge efforts have been made there with regard to research, there is a reporting obligation and there is a centralised disease control authority in Atlanta that has extensive powers for direct intervention when such an epidemic occurs.
In Germany, on the other hand, we have two Federal Ministries that are responsible and these ministries clearly could not agree on who was to take responsibility.
We also have regional ministries that want to, and must, assume responsibility, but that are clearly overstretched.
We have communication problems between laboratories and politicians.
Thus, it is wholly unclear when science is to intervene, when disease control measures are to be announced, and when political action is to be taken.
I can understand why a Minister, on receiving the information that the cucumbers are responsible, would issue a warning accordingly, but where is the detailed coordination?
Where is the genuine decision-making authority?
It seems to me - and I say this very cautiously - that action was taken just as prematurely with the bean sprouts as with the cucumbers.
There is something of a discrepancy between scientific findings and political action.
Getting back to what we need to do: we need to establish a reporting obligation throughout Europe, define central laboratories and set up a central body within the European Union with the decision-making power in the event of an outbreak of such a disease.
I think that would be the appropriate thing to do.
I am extremely grateful to Mr Liese for mentioning the antibiotics problem.
Here, too, we are faced with problems that we are actually already aware of.
However, because we shy away from entering into a debate with the medical sector, the pharmaceuticals industry and the intensive livestock farming sector - there is a great deal to be addressed here - we are also not being as consistent as we need to be in the way we deal with the matter of antibiotics resistance.
EHEC and antibiotics resistance are both major problems.
Mr President, the EHEC epidemic is making apparent the flaws in the system of industrial food production in the liberalised Internal Market of the EU.
When profits take priority over the protection of health, then food quality and food safety suffers.
So far, at least 22 people have died in Germany as a result of the EHEC pathogen and there have been more than 1 500 cases of infection.
In more than 600 patients, the dangerous haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) was diagnosed, which can also result in neurological disorders.
After more than two weeks, the source of this life-threatening epidemic is still unclear.
If we had regional production of foodstuffs, it would be easier to determine the source of infection and the effects of the epidemic would be more limited.
As a result of the long transport routes and the anonymous production conditions, it is very difficult to trace the origin of the food.
However, traceability with regard to the origin of the food is essential when it comes to food safety.
Consumers have a right to know how their food has been produced and where it comes from.
The Federal Government in Germany completely failed in connection with the EHEC epidemic.
In the confusion between regional and federal competences, management of the crisis fell by the wayside.
The monitoring authorities were not prepared for this situation.
We need a radical rethink in agricultural policy.
Our food must be safe.
However, agricultural producers should also be protected against incalculable financial risks.
The policy for promoting agriculture and rural areas must consistently aim at a clear decentralisation of the food production and marketing structures.
(ES) Mr President, I should like to briefly raise three points on the current situation concerning cucumbers.
I am the grandson of a German and feel deep affection for that country, but the German authorities have clearly acted hastily and rashly in this particular case.
As for the EU institutions, an analysis of their actions reveals that the European Food Safety Authority and the Commission reacted feebly and clumsily.
They have failed to coordinate or to manage the situation.
Thirdly, the injured parties are entitled to rapid financial compensation.
In the meantime, however, I propose to Parliament that we hold a great show of European gastronomy either in Brussels or here in Strasbourg, allowing cucumber to take centre stage.
We must vindicate the lost honour - an expression much to the taste of the German author Heinrich Böll - of cucumber producers.
Europe is the right stage for this purpose.
(ES) Mr President, one can only express a deep sense of sorrow for the 23 fatalities: 22 in Germany and one in Sweden.
This crisis is clear evidence that the European Union has a long way to go in improving its food safety alert system and its internal coordination.
The Member States involved have been slow, inefficient and inoperative in their reaction, and, at this point in time, with 23 people dead, we still do not know where the problem is coming from.
The European Commission must think hard about the problems it causes with its irresponsible actions or its failure to act at times of crisis such as we are seeing now.
These lead to cases of financial ruin, the destruction of previously stable jobs, unemployment, helplessness and, needless to say, an extremely hazardous public health crisis.
While you in the Commission paid heed to irresponsible statements issued by regional authorities in Germany - statements that were totally misinformed and quite irresponsible - mentioning Spanish farms by their names and addresses, the population remained exposed, without knowing it, to the bacterium.
Thus, in the belief that they were avoiding contact with it, the public were more exposed than ever to eating potentially harmful food.
In the Council of Agriculture Ministers that will be held in Luxembourg at two o'clock this afternoon, the European Commission should propose that a portion of the EUR 2 500 million left over from the common agricultural policy be put to use.
Those EUR 2 500 million should be used to redress, in so far as is possible, the damage that has been caused.
To enable this, a suitable legal solution will need to be found, as was the case in previous instances, for example, the 'mad cow' and dioxin affairs.
One such solution should also be found now.
Commissioners, Ministers, your actions in Luxembourg today must befit the stature of your office.
Furthermore, the German authorities, in view of their reckless accusations, should definitely support this financial solution from the very beginning, and use funds of their own to conduct communication campaigns aimed at restoring consumer confidence in horticultural products, which is now in shatters.
(PT) Mr President, the outbreak of infection in Germany has meant that we are facing one of the most difficult public health, crisis management situations in living memory.
The Commission and Germany, in particular, have not been managing this crisis in the best possible way.
We are facing a massive human tragedy involving the loss of many lives, and a threat to the lives of thousands of others.
This is also a crisis of consumer confidence in staple foods, with economic and social consequences that are hard to foresee.
Society expects a rapid response from the national and Union authorities that sheds light on the causes of this crisis, along with effective action.
However, it is also necessary to minimise the disastrous consequences this is having on another group of innocent victims, namely, fruit and vegetable producers, as has been mentioned here today.
These workers have been hastily and unfairly blamed, and have lost income and seen their futures seriously threatened.
Preventative action also needs to be taken as a matter of urgency so that similar situations do not happen again.
One aspect of this is to increase the effectiveness of supervision and control mechanisms for antibiotics in animals, as I mentioned in the debate held here less than a month ago.
Another area where action needs to be taken is the form of the new common agricultural policy (CAP), which we are in the process of reforming.
It is vital that, in future, incentives be aimed at ensuring quality based on sustainable production methods, as the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has been insisting.
(FR) Mr President, the situation has worsened still further: 23 people have died and more than 2 200 people have been taken ill in Europe.
Clearly, our thoughts are very much with them this morning.
The German authorities have still not succeeded in formally identifying the cause of this epidemic.
In the meantime, no one is touching European vegetables, and this health crisis has turned into a social crisis and an economic crisis too, of course.
The market garden sector is rightly demanding compensation and, as the Commissioner said, the Ministers and Commissioners concerned are due to meet on this subject this afternoon in Luxembourg.
Aside from what has already been said about the precautionary principle and essential traceability - the first point - it is also a question of knowing how this general alert singling out Spanish cucumbers for blame could have been issued without any, or hardly any, proof.
What urgent lessons does the Commission intend to learn from this serious crisis, Commissioner, so that our food alert system is more than ever based on 'sound and well-sustained scientific evidence', as you yourself described it, Commissioner?
(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to express my sorrow at the loss of life and to wish those who are ill a quick return to health.
We have a great deal which needs to be explained.
We have to establish the source and cause of the outbreak, but we must also identify the source and cause of the false information about the outbreak which was spread in Europe and around the world - false and damaging information, which has done so much harm.
We need to look very closely at the causes of the outbreak and, in particular, at industrial animal husbandry, where antibiotics are used on a massive scale.
I agree with those who have just spoken about this.
If antibiotics are used on such a large scale, it is no surprise that strains of bacteria arise which do not then respond to antibiotics.
In my opinion, this intensive farming with the use of antibiotics should be greatly restricted in the European Union, and perhaps even stopped, and the damage which has been done should be repaired by those who caused it.
(DE) Mr President, EHEC is not a new problem, but it is clear that Europe is still inadequately prepared for a crisis like this.
It takes too long for clear guidelines to be issued.
Three weeks is definitely too long.
Consumer protection, we are all agreed, always takes absolute priority over financial interests.
However, it needs to be made clear who is to issue a warning and when, who is subsequently to take over responsibility for the warnings, and when the European Commission is to get involved.
In Germany, the responsibility lies with 16 federal states and two ministries, which is too finely distributed for a European crisis.
Europe must be involved here at an earlier stage.
I do not believe that we have learnt the right lessons from the crises of the 1990s.
That is something that we now need to rectify as a matter of urgency.
When it comes to food, we need transparency and clear traceability with regard to manufacture.
We need clear country of origin labelling.
However, we also need a European reaction force to coordinate the scientific and medical work and to establish control plans.
(PT) Mr President, in view of the flurry of conflicting reports about the origin of this outbreak, it is important to bear some points in mind.
Firstly, I would like to point out that more than 15 days after the first cases had been reported and more than a month after the first instances of contamination had occurred, the European early warning and response units have still been unable to identify the real cause of the contamination.
This has caused a great deal of harm, as has already been mentioned here.
Secondly, it is important to remember that this is a serious, but not isolated, case of a lack of food security in the EU.
I would remind you of the recent debate that we had here on the problem of dioxins.
These cases are inseparable from a common agricultural policy (CAP) that promotes intensive, export-oriented production models, instead of encouraging, as is necessary, local production and consumption, which could ensure much more effective traceability and, consequently, greater food security.
Finally, it is important to compensate European producers for the damage that they are suffering, and not just those in the geographical area of the outbreak of infection.
The CAP is a common policy, so this should be done through EU measures rather than just national ones, given the obvious inequalities that this would create.
Mr President, first it was cucumbers, yesterday it was bean sprouts.
Today, it is not bean sprouts.
The truth is that the experts just do not know, but each time such allegations are made, they destroy livelihoods in countries' economies.
What we do know is that there is something very strange about this outbreak.
There is an unnatural combination of strains and DNA in the virus.
It is affecting unusual groups of people in a way not normally associated with E coli outbreaks.
It has already struck far more people and in far more places than a normal outbreak and, unlike in normal outbreaks, it has not been rapidly traced to one or two food suppliers.
Given all these inexplicable factors and the fact that various countries - including Britain, the USA, Iraq and Israel - have, in the past, been reported as experimenting with genetically manipulated E coli as a biological weapon, should there not be an urgent inquiry into the possibility that this outbreak is, in fact, an instance of, and perhaps a test run for, biological terrorism?
(FR) Mr President, the situation is serious, very serious even, as this EHEC outbreak is a complete mystery.
I can imagine the anxiety of those taken ill, and we can only lament the deaths that have occurred.
This whole affair must force us to take a very rigorous approach to European public health problems and make us see that it is vital to work with researchers and the pharmaceutical industry in order to respond effectively to such a situation and also to give ourselves the means to do so.
The bacterium costs lives, too many lives.
It also costs our farmers a lot of money and dangerously undermines consumer confidence in our agricultural products and agri-food industry, which are still undoubtedly the safest and most strictly controlled in the world.
After cucumbers, tomatoes, lettuce and bean sprouts, what will be the next victim of this health hysteria?
There are serious economic consequences for farmers.
The fact is, the alert system worked very well.
The problem is that the Commission has neither the resources nor the opportunity to check whether information given by a Member State is true or not.
Bacteria circulate more quickly today than they did in the past.
Lessons will have to be learnt, in communication terms, from the way in which this health crisis has been managed.
Feedback will have to be given. Additional checks will no doubt have to be envisaged before the conclusions of a national or regional health agency can be taken as read.
Lastly, this crisis totally justifies a vital improvement in the traceability of foodstuffs.
The obligation to indicate the country of origin or the place of provenance unfortunately only applies in a limited number of cases.
It should be extended to a larger number of foodstuffs.
In the event of a health crisis, this would make it possible to identify the sources of contamination and to warn the consumers concerned more quickly.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, farmers can be compensated, but human life cannot be recovered.
Indeed, our sympathy goes out to all those who have died or are lying in a hospital bed.
This situation is dramatic and it is also unacceptable.
It is unacceptable that three weeks after the outbreak of this crisis, we still do not know exactly where the pathogen that caused the crisis originated.
That really should not happen in Europe.
There are several lessons we need to learn from this.
Firstly, we need to look for the source and examine whether improper practices are still present in the food production sector or in the food supply chain.
We have legislation that has been in place for 20 years, and the standards and codes of practices in the European Union are quite stringent, but it is clear that we are still vulnerable when it comes to foodstuffs.
There still seem to be gaps and shortcomings and we need to learn from this once again.
I also think that the communication on this matter has been chaotic.
Facts about this matter are not communicated well or in the right way.
We clearly need more Europe.
That has already been said by other Members here.
When any regional or national authority issues a warning for the whole of Europe, it can only be a disaster.
In my view, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has done a good job, as far as I can see, but we need a better, modern reporting obligation for determining the causes and also a better system for informing the general public.
Mr President, the German and European authorities are still trying to identify the source of the E coli outbreak.
Today, we still have no concrete evidence about the reason for this spread and all scenarios should be considered, including potential negligence or unintentional entry of the bacteria into the food chain.
How the bacteria were actually created is a different case; research and findings are needed urgently.
However, I would also like to make a special point about the way current events have been communicated to the general public by German and European authorities, with the serious consequences we know for the fruit and vegetable sector, not only in Spain, but in all our Union.
This is not the first time that we have had a problem relating to food safety in Germany.
I propose that the Commission should help the German authorities to enhance the traceability and control of the German procedures, and similar measures should be taken concerning the procedures in other Member States.
Transparency is needed to maintain consumer confidence.
All information should be available but this information should not be communicated in a way that means raising multiple alarms and triggering consumers' fears when evidence has not yet been found.
Let me also point out the responsibility of the media.
Mr President, hearsay can be dangerous.
Did this outbreak start in Germany or some other Member State?
Rumours can be destructive and can even help spread an outbreak.
There are still many unanswered questions surrounding this outbreak.
The only sure thing is that most Member States have reported cases of the bacteria.
To date, we have 22 deaths in the EU.
This outbreak demonstrates the importance of cross-border cooperation in the field of preventive health.
It also brings into play the importance of having a European agency such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to monitor, collaborate and inform the Member States.
We are relatively lucky in the UK to have had only three reported cases, but that is today: tomorrow, things could change, and we must be vigilant.
In addition to finding the cause of the outbreak, we need to keep the public informed and therefore protected.
ECDC is publishing daily updates.
Through cooperation, we can control this outbreak.
If our citizens are informed, they stand a better chance of avoiding infection.
Above all, we need to be calm and measured in our response.
(EL) Mr President, for the second time in six months, Europe is facing a food crisis which has caused serious health problems for many people and has even resulted in loss of life among our fellow men.
Something is not right, Commissioner.
In January, we had the problems of toxins in Germany; now we have bacteria problems, again in Germany.
The first case was covered up, even though it was known about for months; in the second case, the blame has been conveniently shifted to Spanish cucumbers.
This is a problem of recognisability, of traceability and of inadequate controls at EU level.
In the first case, in January, Mr Dalli told us, when speaking about dioxins, that you would take all the necessary measures to ensure that legislation on the food control system was tightened up.
The other day, you said that this was not a problem of recognisability and that there was some other problem.
The Commission's stand is marked by confusion, cover-up and panic and, as a result, we are mourning lives, we are mourning cases of illness and we are mourning the consequences to agricultural production.
(IT) Mr President, the situation we are discussing is very serious, but I think in some cases, we are still confusing things at very different levels.
Lost lives clearly cannot be put at the same level as economic problems; that is not what we are doing.
I would like to stress, however, that it is not by pointing the finger at the causes - which then turn out not to be the causes - that we will solve the problem.
If someone is murdered and an innocent person is put in prison for it, that provides no comfort or justice for the murder that has been committed.
Yet we are doing just that: in an extremely serious situation, with a public health crisis and food safety at stake, we are pointing the finger at people who then turn out not to be guilty, thus causing further victims.
The Spanish growers have already taken to the streets and today, in about 40 minutes' time, direct growers in Italy, too, will be demonstrating in the streets in Milan and the province of Latina, offering consumers fresh cucumbers and other fruit and vegetables to show that they are healthy foods and important for a healthy, balanced diet.
We would not wish to strike German consumers the extra blow of depriving them of foods that are absolutely essential for their diet and their health.
I would also like to point out some data that should give the relevant authorities, in particular, cause for serious thought when they put out certain information that causes alarm, fear and panic.
Data supplied by Eurobarometer and gathered by Coldiretti in Italy show that in a food emergency, 43% of Italians, for example, avoid the foods they have heard about for a certain length of time, whereas 13% cut them out of their diet for good.
We must therefore try to think about what we say and how we influence people's eating habits.
I should like to ask the Commission, therefore, if it does not think there is a case for triggering the European emergency clause and bringing forward the discussion on financial compensation.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Dalli, your colleagues in the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and yourself have done everything right.
The same cannot be said of the German authorities.
The least that we can say is that there is chaos when it comes to communications, and that, perhaps, is putting it mildly.
The fact that Germany's health minister yesterday thought it unnecessary to travel to a Health Council in Luxembourg where the main topic on the agenda was this serious infection crisis shows that he has absolutely no idea what Europe is really about and that he is ignorant, does not recognise the problems, or is still busy with internal party political crises.
What is more, I must observe - and Mr Dalli said it himself - that the German authorities clearly took the view that they would do without European Union experts, patronisingly and arrogantly believing that they had no need for them.
Furthermore, the fact that it took three days for these experts to get into Germany is a scandal, and one that we must be critical of in this House.
At the same time, however, we also have to say that it is our job, in the European Union, to warn consumers when there is a dangerous foodstuff on the market.
I say to you quite clearly - if there are dangerous bacteria on a cucumber or a lettuce that do not lead to death, that may be a good thing, but for me it is not enough to justify a compensation case.
Cucumbers from Spain and other countries did have EHEC bacteria on them.
They were not the bacteria behind this outbreak, but it takes a while to find that out.
For me, that is not the point, either.
Those of you who understand the European Union and know the early warning system also know how the early warning system works.
You know that, in the early warning system, the product and also the name of the producer must be named.
You can also look that up easily in the legislation.
For me, the important question is what will happen in future?
In the future, we need to consider whether slurry use can continue.
Could there still be production methods that are unacceptable?
Who, in the European Union, actually monitors what, when and with what result this is documented, and who has what obligations in that regard?
Mr President, this is a real crisis.
23 people are dead, over 2 000 have been affected, the vegetable markets are in turmoil with prices on the floor, and it is estimated that producers are losing EUR 300 million a day.
Relations between Germany and Spain are strained to say the least, and yet, three weeks into this crisis, we still have no idea of where the source of this contamination has come from.
Commissioner Dalli, I want assurance from you here today that absolutely every effort is being made to trace where the source of this E coli outbreak has come from, because until we trace the source, we cannot start the process of rebuilding consumer confidence.
Secondly, I want you to spell out what actions you intend to take once we get over this crisis to stabilise the market and rebuild consumer confidence.
Thirdly, we do have to hear from you what the Commission intends to do to try and compensate farmers who, through no fault of their own, have seen their markets destroyed and are unable to sell their produce.
Fourthly, I want an assurance from the Commission that a transparent, independent investigation will be set up to establish the facts of what went wrong.
It is only once we have the facts that we can take action to plug any gaps in food safety law.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the health dimension of the crisis resulting from this outbreak of EHEC bacteria is absolutely tragic.
The situation is serious.
There is an urgent need to get help to those affected and to take all possible steps to prevent the further spread of this infection.
All necessary resources must be made available to our research institutes and hospitals.
Rapid action has been the order of the day since this pathogen emerged.
However, the uniform, Europe-wide crisis management right down to a common language regime has not been characterised by professionalism.
The pathological hunt to locate the contamination site led to premature accusations of guilt all round, and these arguments led to days of negative headlines and total uncertainty on the part of consumers.
For the producers affected, this gave rise to dramatic losses of income that threatened their very survival.
Blameless, regionally-produced products, too, are no longer selling.
In Austria alone, sales of fresh vegetables have fallen by 75%.
Growers of vegetables are being faced with these losses of income right in the middle of their peak harvesting season.
The uncoordinated way in which consumers have received information in the course of this event once again raises the demand for universal and cross-sector origin marking and efficient monitoring on the principle of 'marked and checked at source'.
Consumers have the right to know where products come from.
This applies equally to shop shelves and to restaurants and catering.
All the authorities now need to quickly eliminate the prejudices against fresh vegetables, re-invigorate sales of fresh vegetables and breathe new life into trade with third countries.
The EHEC situation has thrust local vegetable growers into an existential crisis completely out of the blue and through no fault of their own.
The Commission must make it possible for there to be compensation for losses, be it through a European agricultural fund, the European crisis fund or measures to promote sales.
Mr Liese is absolutely right to say that human life is irreplaceable and that every death is one death too many.
However, it is also absolutely our duty not to leave our producers high and dry when it is through no fault of their own that they have found themselves in this situation that threatens their very survival.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we all want the German food crisis to end as quickly as possible.
We have to remember the victims, and I hope that once the initial errors have been remedied, it will be possible to identify the source of the infection, for everyone's peace of mind.
However, apart from the health aspect of this crisis, I have to mention the economic repercussions.
The Spanish horticultural sector has estimated the economic losses caused by the fatal errors in communication, which we now know about, at EUR 200 million a week.
I wish to emphasise the responsible attitude demonstrated by this sector and its total cooperation with my country's authorities.
Commissioner, traceability to the origin worked, but how much time was lost in directing attention to the origin, focusing on agricultural production, whereas other forms of contamination, such as handling or distribution at the point of destination, were dismissed?
Why did the Commission echo the hurried information from Germany?
There has been a lack of coordination, Commissioner, and the unilateral closure of borders to Spanish products is proof of the failure to monitor the crisis within the European Union.
I would ask the Commission to activate immediately all the necessary mechanisms to compensate the damage to the Spanish and European sector, both financially and in terms of consumer image.
In the long term, however, it remains to be seen which other measures are adopted in this respect.
Unfounded accusations, improvisation, lack of coordination, millions in losses, attacks on the honour and credibility of a sector: is it not sufficient reason to demand who takes responsibility?
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Dalli for his measured comments at the start of the debate.
There have been some less measured comments in the Chamber because of the impact on human lives, and indeed the add-on impact on producers and consumer confidence.
This is a most serious food crisis, and Mr Dalli has acknowledged that.
We know it is regionalised in a certain part of the European Union, but it is not a German-only problem; it is an EU problem.
The system exists to find the cause and deal with the consequences, but I am afraid that not all parts of the system have been adequately put in place, and I have some questions in relation to timing.
I understand that the rapid alert was given on 22 May 2011: I am concerned that the European experts went into Germany only on Sunday, 5 June.
Why such an incredible time lapse?
I think that this needs to be looked at.
We have, under Article 55 of Regulation 178/2002, the possibility of creating a crisis unit.
Everyone who spoke said this is a crisis, and Mr Dalli acknowledges it is a crisis.
It is one which is growing rather than declining, and I would suggest it is now time for the EU to invoke that regulation and put such a crisis unit in place.
The thing that has been most distressing has been the virtual 'naming and shaming' of vegetables and then declaring them not guilty.
This has shattered consumer confidence not just in fresh fruit and vegetables, but in our system of food safety and control.
Commissioner Dalli, I know that you are nodding in agreement, and I welcome that, but I do believe that now is the time to set up the crisis unit, and I would like you to comment on that in your closing remarks.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I come from the region of Europe where the outbreak of the EHEC pathogen is at its raging worst.
This aggressive bacteria seems unstoppable.
Between mid-May and noon yesterday, 1 733 people were infected, while 23 patients died a torturous death.
The situation in the clinics is extremely fraught.
Intensive care beds are running out, and blood plasma is needed urgently.
No end is in sight.
The people of my home area fear new cases every day.
For me, it is a question of courage and a sense of responsibility to warn about every even potential carrier of this bacterium.
Various foodstuffs have been analysed, but it has not been found.
My understanding of high grade foodstuffs is that they are healthy and that they are placed on the market subject to monitoring.
I am presuming that glaring errors have been made in this regard, and once again, we are finding out that there are loopholes.
However, to claim, in this situation, that the cause is known, without having well-founded laboratory research to back it up, is negligent in the extreme.
In all the understandable panic, there must not, under any circumstances, be a witch-hunt, as that would drive many hard-working farmers throughout Europe to the wall.
It therefore needs to be clear to everyone that we in the European Union need to show solidarity with one another and stand ready to provide mutual assistance in the event of emergencies.
In other words, all the medical experts must sit down together, and economic assistance needs to be provided to those who innocently find themselves facing financial disaster.
(ES) Mr President, first of all, I wish to express my condolences to the relatives of those who have died as the result of this crisis.
Commissioner, informing the public of health risks is a difficult and delicate task and has to be perfectly documented and verified.
It is not a question of finding who is to blame, but on this occasion, major errors have occurred, starting with the foolhardy and reckless assumptions of a regional policy manager, recently recruited to the job, who unleashed social alarm and a very serious, irreparable economic crisis.
Nor would it appear that the Commission has coordinated this crisis very well.
I wonder when the first case occurred, and whether Article 3 of the regulation relating to the rapid alert system - which requires Member States to notify the risk immediately and within 48 hours - was met, and also whether Article 8 of said regulation - which obliges the Commission to check whether the information is complete, true and legible and has sufficient legal basis - was met.
What is certain is that the serious shortcomings of this regulation have been exposed and that it is necessary to review the current legal framework in order to define precisely, among other things, the crisis management procedures used by the competent authorities, to attribute errors or omissions to the perpetrator in the food chain (and traceability is used to this end), to prevent health protection from concealing commercial barriers and to arbitrate compensation procedures for damage to trade and loss of profit.
Commissioner, neither cucumbers or soya are the cause.
As Mr Liese has said, the cause is the pathogen.
The cause is serotype O104:H4 of the bacterium Escherichia coli, which is already described throughout scientific literature and is associated with meat products.
However, in any case, Commissioner, we have to allow the scientists to do their work: they need to investigate the entire traceability system, throughout the food chain, including the handling and distribution of food.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, nothing that we do here or in the European Union is going to bring the dead back to life, but I hope that what is being done will prevent more deaths and halt the chain of people who are ill and who are suffering without having done anything to cause the problem.
Certainly, we do not know the causes, but we do know some things that we have to spell out: there has been negligence in political action and negligence by the German Federal Government; it cannot act as if Hamburg were a city state on another continent.
If Mrs Merkel and her Ministry of Health had translated the arrogance with which they frequently address other States into diligence and efficiency, some of the things that happened would not have done so.
That negligence has had criminal consequences for one State, namely Spain, and for its most important sector, agriculture.
It has ruined thousands of people and small businesses, and has discredited the economy for a long time.
I ask you to go to the Council today and ask for full compensation for those affected, because we cannot ask for life for those who have died.
And I ask for the control systems to be reviewed.
And for Mrs Merkel to accept responsibility.
And I ask her for less arrogance and more diligence.
And that she be held responsible for the damage she has caused.
She cannot ignore the fact that Hamburg is in her country.
She cannot ignore her responsibilities.
She cannot attribute blame to a Federal State when she herself should be held responsible for the damage caused.
A bit more humility, a bit more good management and a little less conservatism would have gone a long way to ensuring that this crisis did not slip through her hands, and that Spain and other farmers in the south did not have to suffer its painful consequences.
Review the controls, review the warning systems and ask for responsibility, because, Commissioner, in Spain we are asking you, the Council and Germany for precisely this.
(NL) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here, but I would rather he was somewhere else, such as on a plane to Russia, for example, in order to make the case at the highest possible level that the ban that Russia has now introduced should be withdrawn because it is completely over-the-top.
I thank the Commissioner for his willingness to communicate with us at this point, but the communication that has taken place thus far, including by the Commission, has been a disgraceful failure.
It was days after the outbreak of the crisis when the Commission held a press conference.
The genie was already long out of the bottle by that stage, however, and the wildest imaginable stories were already circulating in the media.
The Commissioner spoke about a possible source on Dutch cucumbers, even though more than 200 tests had already shown days earlier that that was not the case.
I agree with you that the technical side of the story has worked.
Rapid alert, tracking and tracing have all worked.
There is also the communications side of the whole issue, though, and that side has been abysmal, first of all in Germany, of course, with so many different institutes, authorities and even a number of ministers all giving out different signals.
There was a minister for agriculture who made a senseless comment that people should 'stop eating uncooked produce altogether', even though she had no authority for the matter.
I assume that you are talking to Germany in this regard, as there needs to be a fundamental investigation into how everything could have been handled so shoddily.
I also hope that you will soon argue the case with the agriculture ministers for an emergency fund, to be paid for from the surplus still available in the agriculture budget.
Just as we did with dairy products when a deep crisis broke out in that sector, we need now, too, to call that surplus into use.
In my home country alone, this sector is suffering to the tune of EUR 80 million a week even though the source of the outbreak is elsewhere, and the result is that healthy businesses are now on the verge of collapse.
That cannot be the European Union's intention.
I take it that you will take this strong signal from Parliament with you to the Agriculture Ministers' Council.
(SK) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome this debate.
We are looking at this problem from various angles, and we are looking for the source of the infection, the identity of the pathogen and the possibility of a cure.
I am now just waiting to see which pharmaceutical firm will come forward and say it has a cure for this disease, thus starting another panic.
In my opinion, the area where there is greatest room for improvement is in public awareness.
I think it is inadequate and irresponsible to inform citizens on a given day about which food they should not buy or which food looks suspicious.
It is necessary to inform citizens about what they should do in their everyday lives, and there should be one campaign here at both European Union and Member State level.
If people maintain basic rules of hygiene, and if they maintain their personal hygiene as well as washing or heat-treating their food, that will be enough to protect them from this infection.
This is not a demanding campaign, but I think that there have been and that there will be epidemics and various diseases here, and what has protected people most has been their personal behaviour.
I firmly believe that such a campaign would help prevent disease, as well as helping vegetable growers.
(PL) Mr President, it is important that we are discussing, today, the subject of the threat to patients, food producers and consumers caused by the emergence of a dangerous strain of bacteria, the source of which we are, as yet, unable to identify.
We say we have a good system for monitoring food quality and maintaining high standards.
In spite of this, difficult situations such as the present one continue to arise.
Therefore, it is essential to review and improve our system of surveillance and monitoring.
We need to be ready for situations which are even more dangerous.
We must not release information about sources of origin if the information is not reliable.
This slows down the process of continuing to search for the source, and causes serious moral injury and huge economic damage.
We extend expressions of sympathy to the families of the victims and to those who are ill, but let us remember to provide compensation to the farmers from a number of countries who have suffered losses.
We are talking about the future of the common agricultural policy and about issues of security in the area of access to food and quality of food.
Perhaps this difficult situation will make us aware of how important this area of issues and problems is, because it is one which concerns not just what our citizens eat, but the state of their health.
(ES) Mr President, we are faced with a public health problem - an epidemic according to the Commissioner - and they have been looking for those culpable and not the cause.
The system has not worked: We have 22 dead, 1 600 affected and, three weeks later, we still do not know the cause and, using the precautionary principle without scientific basis - I repeat, without scientific basis - Spain is being blamed.
Ladies and gentlemen, Spanish cucumbers were not contaminated.
They were not contaminated!
I am repeating it because some versions to the contrary have been heard here.
Moreover, so that you can see the impact that these words have had: 300 000 jobs may be affected; a loss of confidence.
An epidemic knows no frontiers.
I am telling you, Commissioner: knows no frontiers!
We ask for responsibility for what has not been done, for what we have to do immediately, because there is a risk of further infection in Germany at the moment - it has the largest number of people affected - but Spain is not to blame.
We ask for compensation.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as you said, the problem is not local, even if it is localised.
I would like you to say so more loudly and clearly, because we seriously need more tools and European coordination on these issues.
The message has been extremely muddled and fraught with consequences, including for Spanish producers, but not just for them, since others have been affected too.
This point was made several times just now.
Striking a balance between early warning, on the one hand, and transparency, on the other, is certainly difficult.
However, precaution or the precautionary principle does not mean that we should communicate information randomly and far too quickly.
Things should therefore be set straight, and those responsible for an early warning should also be the ones who pay compensation.
This is what you will be discussing this afternoon.
This is what is important, even though, like everyone else, my thoughts are clearly, first and foremost, with the victims.
Still, farmers are waiting for the compensation they deserve.
For the rest, resistance to antibiotics and traceability continue to be key issues which we will have to look into further.
Mr President, with 22 people dead in the EU and over 2 000 taken in for treatment as a result of the ongoing E coli outbreak across Europe, it is appropriate that this Parliament extends its sympathies to those who have lost loved ones and our good wishes for a recovery to others.
Consumers demand food that is of good quality, safe and traceable.
The fact that the source of this outbreak is still unclear and that the search for answers has, at times, seemed haphazard, means that consumer confidence is eroding fast.
Economically, it is farmers who will suffer while this goes on - farmers whose food is perfectly safe.
We must also urge calm in such a situation.
National governments have been quick to apportion blame.
In the past, we in the UK have suffered as a result of such scaremongering around our produce, and this speculative blame game must stop.
Can I also say that this House constantly rushes to introduce regulation.
Before it does so, we must have a full and thorough investigation of the facts.
(ES) Mr President, the most important thing, and that which is uniting us here today, are the victims, because nobody should feel as unprotected as we, the European consumers, feel at the moment.
Furthermore, we need clarity and responsibility in respect of the victims.
It is my responsibility to denounce the German authorities, who, wrongly and hastily, accused Spanish cucumbers and, more specifically, the cooperatives of Malaga and Almeria, which were model operations and which will not recover from these accusations.
Thousands of jobless families are wondering why - and they need an answer - and, in particular, they want to know what the future holds for them, not just in Andalusia, but throughout European agriculture.
Therefore, and in the hope that the experts will soon find the solution, I demand that today, when the Commission speaks to the Council, it asks for immediate and moral economic measures for all the producers from Andalusia and from the whole of Europe, who are looking towards us with indignation, but also with hope.
(ES) Mr President, instead of giving priority to the European investigation and cooperation, the German authorities have slandered and prejudiced cucumber producers and others.
Yet nobody in Germany has resigned or offered reparations for the damage caused.
It is Germany that has a serious credibility problem.
The treatment by Mrs Merkel of the southern countries, both with regard to agriculture and finance, is intolerable.
Someone said that Mrs Merkel was a disciple of Adenauer and Kohl.
She is nothing of the sort: she lacks moral fibre.
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, clearly, we need to learn from the mistakes that have been made.
There is the coordination problem in Germany - various German MEPs have also said this, both from the governing bloc and from the opposition - with the two federal ministries, the sixteen Länder and the lack of coordination.
There needs to be a strict national monitoring system, and it needs to be looked at how that operates both in Germany and also, above all, in the other 26 Member States.
At the moment, we are pointing our fingers at Germany, but perhaps it will soon be our own Member States we are pointing at.
We therefore need to ask whether the internal monitoring systems in all the Member States are strong enough.
The European systems that are in place - Mrs Roth-Behrendt was quite right - do work.
There is perhaps a lack of coordination.
At any rate, there was certainly a lack of communication.
That should therefore be the focus of our attention.
I would like to ask the Commissioner, first of all, whether he will respond to the question asked by Mr Leinen and Mrs Roth-Behrendt, amongst others, as to whether you will be bringing forward a truly European solution.
Secondly, can you tell us what you will be doing at the agriculture Council and how you can compensate those farmers who have suffered damages?
(ES) Mr President, it is precisely in situations of crisis that the efficiency of and confidence in institutions is seen.
In this case, they have left much to be desired.
The Commission has said precisely that suspicions about Spanish cucumbers have not been confirmed.
No, Commissioner: what has been confirmed is that the suspicions were unfounded, irresponsible and without objective data; what has been confirmed is that there are 23 dead and that the Spanish horticultural sector has suffered enormous damage.
What has also been confirmed is that the Commission must do what it has not done up to now, which is to act with conviction on various fronts: stop the outbreak; prevent unfounded suspicions from being given a glimmer of credibility, seriously affecting a Member State - in this case, Spain - by taking the necessary measures to achieve this; compensate the damage suffered without delay and restore to the Spanish brand its image of safe, very high quality agricultural products.
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are in the middle of a crisis and, if truth be told, we have more important things to be doing at this point in time than pointing fingers and assigning blame.
When you are in the middle of a crisis, all you should be doing is making your decisions and solving the crisis before doing anything else.
Everything else can be discussed later.
The first priority is to find a treatment for patients for these antibiotic-resistant bacteria and to trace the source of the outbreak.
In addition, we need, above all, to communicate well in order to walk the tightrope between keeping the patients, consumers and producers informed and doing right by all of them.
We can then turn our attention to the question of how our crisis management is actually going.
This will certainly not be the last crisis.
Who is in charge?
Too many authorities are involved, and somebody needs to take the lead.
That is what the conversation today with you and the Council must be about.
What will be the situation with leadership in future, and who will take on the role?
The use of antibiotics is indeed a thorn in our sides, for both animals and people.
There are major differences between the Member States.
Last but not least, there needs to be compensation for the damage done.
To sum up, there needs to be clarity and drive.
(DE) Mr President, EHEC is the term of the last week.
First of all, our sympathy, clearly, goes to the victims.
In the interests of public health, the authorities have the obligation to provide them with information.
The well-being of the people must come first.
In the United States, they have an early-warning system to that end.
The fact is that there have been over 2 000 infections and more than 20 people have died.
People have to be told where this bacterium is.
It was on Spanish cucumbers, where it certainly should not have been, as a faecal bacterium has absolutely no place on a foodstuff.
When it comes to economic compensation, those responsible must pay, certainly not everyone else.
Finally, I would like to observe that the Council was absent for the whole of the debate on this issue.
(PL) Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak in such an important debate.
The citizens of the European Union need the European institutions to be effective in many areas, including in prevention of the spread of every kind of disease in every part of the European Union, and this is understandable. However, above all else, preventative agencies working in the area of health and food safety should be ready with ways of preventing panic.
These institutions should be completely independent of the administrations of Member States, and should even be empowered to act with executive authority in the event of a crisis.
We did not manage to prevent panic this time.
This has resulted in losses running into millions, and Polish farmers have also been affected.
The price of vegetables on the Polish market fell by two thirds in the course of a week.
Every day, vegetable producers incur losses of PLN 2 million.
Several months ago, we raised the alarm concerning swine flu. The European institutions did not pass muster then and were not able to prevent panic from spreading across the European Union.
Now, something similar has happened.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, solidarity must prevail: that is one of the European Union's founding principles, but solidarity must not be an excuse for the various stakeholders to shirk their responsibilities.
It is not right that the German authorities failed to defer, from the start, to the European Union in a tragedy that has transcended their borders ever since the end of their first press conference, when they wrongly blamed Spanish cucumbers.
It is not right to make unsubstantiated accusations, to communicate uncertain information and to cause such confusion.
It is not right that all the principles of crisis communication have been flouted in this way.
Because of this, the crisis has turned into hysteria.
These rumours and witch-hunts fuelled by those same authorities have caused enormous harm; they indicate a lack of responsibility.
The bond of trust between consumers and producers has once again been broken.
Let us ensure that this tragedy is not a terrible waste, too, by learning important lessons from it: we need to decide on the best ways of implementing a robust cross-border traceability system and establish a European communication unit and a crisis management unit.
If we do not learn the lessons of this failure quickly, 23 people will have died for nothing.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank you and also all the Members who contributed to this debate.
I will not have time to react to every single interesting comment that was made, but I can assure you we have taken note of the feeling expressed in this House.
Today, as I said, I will be attending the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
Tomorrow, I will be in Berlin to participate in a coordination meeting between the food safety sector and the health sector, together with the experts we have in place there.
My main preoccupation is to stop hospitalisations: that is my first and foremost objective.
I am concentrating on mobilisation and on speeding up the identification of the cause of the outbreak.
We set up the crisis unit on 30 May 2011 and, at Commission level, we were fully mobilised at that point.
My public health department mobilised the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the ECDC has activated its crisis mode in order to make scientific assessments as rapidly as possible.
The Commission immediately asked the ECDC to carry out a scientific assessment.
In daily meetings with Member State experts, the Commission has coordinated assessment measures: the establishment of common case definitions, case reporting, patient questionnaires, sharing perspectives on treatment, and hygiene advice to the public are some of the outputs we have achieved in a very short time span.
We have to be very careful and we have to keep everything in perspective.
It is easy for all of us to sit in judgment with hindsight and to make statements, rather than being in the eye of the storm when a crisis is happening.
We have to be careful in our statements and criticism because, while insisting - as I do - that decisions be made on the basis of well-sustained evidence, we should not terrify those who are called upon to take risky decisions, sometimes in very difficult situations, fearing that afterwards they will be put in the dock and everyone will pass judgment on their decisions. I think this aspect of situation management is very important.
The same goes for checking and controlling the information that is circulating.
We have a system in Europe that allows for fast communication and, in order to have fast communication, we apply the subsidiarity principle - looking to the lowest possible level as the base from which communication should start.
We have to be careful because, if we begin to add layer upon layer of controls and checks to verify the information circulating, then we will defeat the purpose of speed, and in circumstances where health is concerned, and where life and death is sometimes at stake, speed is of the utmost importance.
As regards information, we are supplying continuous information as we receive it.
In this respect, we at the Commission agree that coordinated and rapid communication is an essential element of risk management.
If you remember, in 2009-2010, as a result of our H1N1 experience, we set up a system to coordinate public health communication, and our EU Health Security Committee has a network of communicators.
We will need to involve regional actors more effectively in this process, as well as the World Health Organisation (WHO).
As recently as yesterday, I was on the phone with Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, about this aspect of coordinating information and ensuring full coordination before any communication takes place.
We will study what happened, and undertake closer investigations and analyses.
Once we are confident that the contamination has been stopped, we will concentrate on what happened in the information sector, with regard to investigation protocols and in terms of coordination across the board when the crisis occurred, and we will then reflect on whether we need more tools and closer European coordination.
That may be part of the answer but, as you say, it is going to involve a lot of discussion both here in Parliament and also at Member State level.
On the issue of compensation, this will be discussed this afternoon in the AGRI Council, and I am sure that my colleague, Commissioner Cioloş, is doing his utmost to identify and develop ways and means of compensating our farmers who have been suffering as a result of this problem.
in writing. - (HU) The latest German food safety scandal has directed our attention to the deficiencies of adequate regulatory supervision once again.
Consumers' faith in the diligence of food producers and, not least, in the professional operation of supervisory authorities, was shaken once more.
In a well-functioning rule of law state, consumers have good reason to believe that the food that ends up on their tables and that they give to their children is safe to consume.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this faith has been shaken.
It is enough to think of the poisoned tomato scandal in Hungary, but we might mention January's dioxin-contaminated pork scandal in Germany as well.
All these sad events call our attention time and again to the fact that the state must strengthen regulatory inspections, and act against all deficiencies or abuses in the strictest possible manner.
It is, after all, absolutely impossible to expect citizens to carry out this work instead of the state.
We cannot get trained to become food scientists or install laboratories capable of inspecting food in our homes.
Instead, the right solution is to impose the strictest sanctions against those who violate regulations, and not be afraid to even shut down businesses.
First and foremost, I would like to express my solidarity with the families of the victims.
For the immediate future, the EU and the Member States should focus their resources on finding the source of the contamination in order to end the outbreak and the deaths that it has caused, and to restore consumer confidence in the food chain, as without this, it is impossible to put an end to our farmers' desperation.
In order to do this, the European Food Safety Authority and the Member States' health ministers need to work together.
This has been slow to happen due to Germany's disastrous management of the crisis.
The EU cannot neglect its farmers in this situation.
It needs to create a mechanism to compensate them rapidly for the massive negative impact of this crisis, which is already jeopardising the survival of many farms.
The absolute priority is consumer protection, but we need to correct our procedures.
It is vital to establish who is to issue a warning, and when and how they should issue it, in order to prevent the information chaos we have been witnessing.
This has had disastrous consequences, while the source of the problem has not even been identified.
We also need to see clear action from bodies of a pan-European nature.
Our concern is, first and foremost, for the victims of this epidemic and their surviving dependants.
This abominable situation must not be repeated; we need to learn the lessons from it quickly in order, in future, to be able to more quickly detect where the cause is and to communicate in a more efficient and more coordinated manner.
This area, communications and the poor consultation between the Member States in that regard, has been a pitiful failure.
A very great deal of economic damage has been wrought that would have been perfectly preventable if more care had been taken with communications in the crisis.
The operators affected are entitled to damages.
We are therefore arguing the case for the establishment of a European emergency fund.
Additional national support measures are like a sticking plaster for a broken arm, and, moreover, hardly provide evidence of serious European solidarity.
As Commissioner Dalli said here this morning, this is not a national problem for Germany; it is a European problem.
Let us therefore also tackle it in a European context.
This crisis is also an opportunity to make clear to European citizens that Europe will not leave the victims of a public health disaster of this kind in the lurch.
Research into the source of the E coli outbreak is proving complicated.
Bean sprouts are presumed to be the source of the infection and to have caused the deaths of 20 people in Europe and a further 300 or so serious cases diagnosed in Germany alone, but the latest test results on bean sprout samples have been negative.
The immediate consequence of the outbreak has been a noticeable drop in fruit and vegetable consumption throughout Europe.
Although, at the moment, no precise figures are yet available on the extent of the losses in the European market-gardening sector following the E coli crisis, the economic damage caused to this sector will clearly not be negligible.
Given that I have already tabled a parliamentary question on this issue, I take the opportunity in this Chamber to stress the need for the Union to commit itself to supporting European producers in this sector with instruments appropriate to the seriousness of the crisis.
I also draw the Commission's attention to the fact that it should consider introducing measures to improve the preservation of fruit and vegetables and increase controls on their packaging.
With food safety in the EU in the news for the second time in six months, and with such a high death toll, this is not a food scandal; it is a food crisis.
Two weeks later and we have rushed to point the finger and created a credibility problem before we have even established the cause.
We have undermined producers who, even though they did their job properly, have found themselves in the position of scapegoat and are still paying the price today.
We have undermined the confidence of European and other consumers.
We have created a rupture in our trade relations and in internal cohesion.
This crisis calls the European agricultural model itself into question and tests the functioning of the Internal Market.
It is no longer enough to say who and what is to blame.
The Commission should take permanent corrective measures, one of which is traceability and should be a priority objective.
Several important points should be raised in connection with the issue we are discussing, and I am relaying here the concerns of my fellow citizens.
Firstly, European consumers must be able to know what they are eating.
Hence, it is vital to ensure that agricultural products can be traced from farm to fork at European level.
Secondly, we must call on Germany to do everything it can to locate the origin of the bacterium.
In this respect, I welcome the Commission's decision to send experts to Germany.
However, the Commission must carry out its work on a wider scale and check whether all the control, analysis and research systems have been adhered to properly, because we must improve and strengthen our food alert mechanisms.
Thirdly, audits should be carried out across Europe so as to ensure that the monitoring systems are effective.
Fourthly and finally, let us not forget the farmers who have been treated badly: they have been wrongly suspected without having done anything!
And there will be many more of them yet who suffer from the lack of trust among consumers.
Europe must therefore unite in support of proper compensation measures.
In relation to the debate on the EHEC outbreak in the EU Member States, I would like to call attention to the fact that as a result of decisions made by EU and non-EU countries, borders have been closed in order to protect the market from an influx of vegetables from countries which harbour the supposed source of the infection.
The information being received from vegetable producers is disturbing.
Dealers are recording zero interest from customers in buying cucumbers, tomatoes and other vegetables.
They are incurring huge financial losses because they are being forced to throw away entire deliveries or let them go for significantly less than the price they paid for them.
Producers are turning away from growing vegetables, which involves changing production to something else, and this, in turn, means worker layoffs.
If the forecasts are going to continue to be disturbing and we do not find the source of the infection, businesses will be forced to stop trading because of a lack of liquidity.
I think the European Union does have administrative instruments which allow it to react quickly to such cases, so we should consider how to improve the system to make it more effective.
Since we do have these tools, we should find the source of the infection as soon as possible, so as not to expose vegetable producers to further losses.
Society must now slowly get used to the fact that there will be some kind of epidemic every year - first it was avian influenza, then swine influenza, and now it is bacteria in fresh vegetables.
This epidemic will also result in victims and enormous financial losses.
The main difference from previous epidemics, in my opinion, is that we have still not definitively identified the source of the infection - first it was (Spanish) cucumbers, and now it is (German) bean sprouts.
Questions are also being raised about the mistakes made by Member States.
By this I mean the mistakes made by Germany, which refused help from the Commission and tried to solve this crisis by itself.
The false accusations caused enormous financial losses to Spanish farmers, and not only them but probably the entire agricultural sector as well.
The European Commission yesterday proposed compensation of EUR 150 million for vegetable growers who suffered damages as a result of the intestinal infection in Germany.
In my opinion, it is very important to negotiate compensation in relation to mistakes, such as in the case of Spain.
The latest developments indicate that the only damage to occur was the financial loss for European farmers.
We must not forget, however, that the highest price that we paid for this epidemic was in the dozens of victims across many Member States of the European Union.
It is our duty to take action so that similar errors and outbreaks do not occur.
The first clarification which needs to be made, because a remark was made about this in the Chamber, is that, faced with such a crisis, agricultural policy is not the problem but rather the solution.
European consumers have become used to having confidence in the food which they find on supermarket shelves precisely because European producers are obliged to comply with the highest quality standards in the world.
However, this crisis has highlighted that the European system is not infallible and that we are extremely vulnerable.
Indeed, we must now turn our thoughts primarily to the victims. What has happened is a tragedy.
At the same time, we must also think about the support measures which are required to prevent the loss of thousands of farming jobs and, above all, the destruction of an entire sector.
The new food scandal, with the emergence of a new, hyper-toxic bacterium which has already caused dozens of deaths and serious damage to the health of thousands of workers, adds to the long, seemingly endless list of food scandals in the EU.
This is, in fact, a crime by international companies, which are poisoning the food chain and sacrificing human life and the health of the workers in order to increase their profits.
The new food epidemic illustrates that the EU neither can nor will protect human life and public health because, as a transnational union of monopolies, it has promised to serve and protect the profits of capital, not the lives of the workers.
The sole objective of the unsubstantiated accusations - for which there is no scientific basis - made by the German authorities against small and medium-sized holdings in the Member States in the south of the EU, which the EU hastily adopted, thereby causing very serious damage to farmers in those countries, was to cover up and conceal the anti-grassroots and dangerous nature of the CAP and the responsibilities of the EU, the bourgeois governments and the monopoly groups, which have no hesitation in feeding the workers highly toxic foods which are dangerous to their health, provided that they maximise the profits of capital.
The manner of the response to the EHEC outbreak in northern Germany raises important questions.
First of all, we need to reflect on the causes of this outbreak and the factors that have stood in the way of fighting it.
Are there too many antibiotics in cattle fodder?
Is it the case that the over-intensive nature of agriculture does not do us any favours?
To what extent do we need better labelling and tracing?
These are important questions, especially now, when the review of the common agricultural policy is on the horizon.
In addition, it has also become clear that there are substantial weak points in the European crisis management system for crises in foodstuffs.
Particularly given the nature of this situation where, as well as the federal government, there are also two competent ministries per region, there is too much fragmentation and too great a lack of clarity in the approach towards, and communications regarding, the crisis.
In crises of this kind, it is of crucial importance, both for consumers and for foodstuff producers, that a European coordination cell be set up as quickly as possible to look after both communications and the coordination of the scientific investigation.
This will enable quicker and more efficient investigation into the causes of an outbreak by also exploiting the expertise of other European researchers and laboratories to the full.
Charging of heavy goods vehicles (debate)
The next item is the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (15145/1/2010 - C7-0045/2011 - (rapporteur: Mr El Khadraoui).
Mr President, Commissioner, when, hopefully, the plenary session shortly approves the agreement that we negotiated between the institutions with a large majority, we will be playing our part in a significant moment for the transport sector in Europe, a milestone that could signpost the direction for policy for decades to come.
The immediate tangible impact on the ground will, of course, depend on the political willingness of the Member States to exploit the new opportunities or otherwise.
We are not imposing anything.
We are only making things possible, specifically, the application of a principle that we, Parliament, have been arguing for for a number of years, namely, the 'polluter pays' principle, the internalisation of external costs.
A number of old stagers amongst us know that we have already been fighting hard for this since 2006, when Mrs Wortmann-Kool led the previous review.
This was followed, in 2008, by a Commission proposal which we have since been working on for three years.
Those who have followed this dossier from close quarters know how laborious a job it was to get to this result.
It is a compromise, a compromise between the institutions, but also a compromise between the institutions that, for instance, was backed by the minimum possible majority in the Council, and that also has its opponents here in Parliament.
Some people think it is not ambitious enough, while others believe that it goes much too far.
It is to the credit of the negotiating team and, specifically, of the shadow rapporteurs who, together with myself, Council staff and the Commission, reached this fragile equilibrium.
I ask all of you to support this package that we have achieved as a step in the right direction.
It provides the Member States, for the first time, with the ability to also charge for noise and air pollution over and above the existing infrastructure charges which, in addition, are not consistently levied everywhere at the moment, and in a way that could stimulate the likes of fleet renewal.
At the same time, it gives the Member States the ability to greater vary their charging depending on the time of day at which a lorry uses a road.
This gives the governments control options in order to improve mobility.
At the same time, there is also a strong commitment - the strongest possible commitment - on the part of the Member States to reinvest the income generated into the transport system in order to make it more sustainable and to reinvest at least 15% of the income into the trans-European transport network.
At the same time - and this was also an important issue for the European Parliament - there is clarity about the transparency requirement.
Member States have to specify what level of income they obtain from the charges and what they are going to do with that money in order to bring about a better transport system.
The package is also due to be applied to a larger part of the fleet, specifically, all vehicles of 3.5 tonnes or above.
That is the principle.
That is the standard.
This is what has been agreed.
It is also to be applied to the entire motorway network.
We put a strong emphasis on the importance of the interoperability of the system.
This will mean one little box per goods vehicle to cross the whole of Europe, rather than 25 or 26.
That is cast in stone in the legislation.
Finally, I have one more point to make, and it concerns the correlation tables.
There has been quite some discussion about this.
The solution that we came up with, taking the form of a number of declarations from the three institutions, would seem adequate to avoid setting a precedent.
To conclude, the Eurovignette is no miracle solution.
We will not solve the mobility problem completely on the back of it, of course not.
It is, however, an important part of a solution to bring about a more sustainable transport system.
Cost incentives will make up an important element of this, but we will also have to do much more.
What it is, though, is a step in the right direction and it is for that reason that I and those who worked with me are asking for your support.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr El Khadraoui, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of the Hungarian Presidency, we made a promise to work for a strong Europe, one in which people are in the centre.
I am very glad that we are now ahead of adopting a directive which will clearly improve the quality of life of European citizens.
As such, I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that we have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the European Parliament on the Eurovignette Directive.
The objective of the proposal concerning tolls imposed on heavy goods vehicles for using certain infrastructures is to set the charges used in transportation correctly, so that they reflect more accurately the actual costs of air and noise pollution, traffic congestion and climate change effects caused by heavy goods vehicles.
It is a fact that commercial road transport is one of the determining economic sectors of modern societies.
It is also a fact that the extent of problems that can be associated with road transport, such as air and noise pollution, as well as traffic congestion, are becoming ever more severe.
This is why innovative and professional policy measures, such as promoting the use of environmentally friendly vehicles or developing route planners, are playing an increasingly large role.
As a result of measures that aim to internalise external costs, economic efficiency is likely to increase and negative environmental effects will decrease.
The fair road charge system proposed in the Eurovignette Directive will allow us to use our scarce resources in a more sustainable manner.
This measure is also very important in connection with the Commission's recently published White Paper, the 'Road map to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system'.
The measure is the first step on the road leading towards the internalisation of external costs of all transport methods.
According to the view of the Council, this proposal is one of the most important measures in the area of transport.
We know that Parliament agrees with us on this matter.
We have worked very hard together to reach the compromise.
This is why the Hungarian Presidency would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui, in particular, for being prepared to cooperate constructively with the Council and for making a committed effort to achieve success.
The last open question of the negotiations was related to the correlation tables.
The Presidency was pleased with the solution found for this issue, and I would like to read the respective statement of the Hungarian Presidency, which is supported by the next Polish, Danish and Cypriot Presidencies.
In order to avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding, let me read it out in English: 'It is hereby declared that the agreement reached between the Council and the European Parliament in the trialogue of 23 May 2011 concerning the directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, Eurovignette, does not prejudge the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on correlation tables'.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an extremely important issue, one that will clearly influence the everyday lives of our citizens.
Therefore, we welcome the agreement reached between these two institutions.
I believe that in the area of transport policy, this is one of our most important results during the Hungarian Presidency, and we are awaiting tomorrow's vote with optimism, hoping that the majority of representatives will support this directive.
Thank you once more to all those who helped create this compromise, not only the rapporteur, but also the shadow rapporteurs, as well as our legal professionals, for helping to find a solution for the difficult matter of correlation tables.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable Members, after three years' negotiations, we are now close to the adoption of the amended directive on charging heavy goods vehicles, the so-called Eurovignette Directive.
This is part of a wider strategy to internalise the external costs of transport in all modes to get transport prices right.
I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for unblocking this file in the Council.
The Hungarian Presidency skilfully negotiated with a very narrow majority in the Council.
Let me thank, in particular, the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui.
Together with the shadow rapporteurs and members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, he managed to significantly improve the text at second reading.
I look forward to Parliament adopting this directive for two main reasons.
Firstly, to achieve our goals of a more sustainable green transport system and thus implement the 'polluter pays' principle.
The directive will authorise Member States to charge tolls on lorries not only for infrastructure costs, as is the case now, but also for noise and air pollution.
It will also allow more efficient varying of tolls to ease congestion during peak hours.
Secondly, at a time of scarce public funding, the charging for external costs provided by the new directive will generate revenues and make new financial resources available for transport infrastructure.
The Commission supports this agreement.
I have noted your declaration on the correlation table.
I fully sympathise with you on this issue.
On behalf of the Commission, I will also make a formal statement:
'The Commission recalls its commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures they adopt to the EU directive and that they communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU legislation in the interests of citizens, better law making and increasing legal transparency, and to assist in the examination of the conformity of national rules with EU provisions.
The Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, which aimed at rendering the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.
The Commission, in a spirit of compromise, and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of that proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with the relevant recital encouraging Member States to follow this practice.
It will inform Parliament within 12 months of the adoption of this agreement in plenary and produce a report at the end of the transposition period on practice in the Member States, in order to draw up for themselves - and in the interests of the Union - their own tables illustrating as far as possible the correlation between this directive and the transposition measures and to make them public.
However, the position followed by the Commission in this file shall not be considered as a precedent.
The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding, together with Parliament and the Council, an appropriate solution to this horizontal institutional issue'.
Mr President, the Eurovignette Directive is important because it lays down the European ground rules for a per-kilometre charge and thus ensures a level playing field for road transport within the European Union.
For all that, I have no intention of hiding the fact that my group had major problems with the original Commission proposal and also with the rapporteur's position at first reading.
Fortunately, the rapporteur took some major steps in our direction and we should certainly also thank the Council and the Hungarian Presidency, who succeeded, ultimately, not only in achieving a solid majority in the Council, but also in getting Parliament to support this position, too.
The majority of my group will also be endorsing this agreement, as it represents the first steps towards actually introducing the 'polluter pays' principle, and it does so in an intelligent way.
First and foremost is the idea that there should be incentives to stimulate sustainability, not just higher duties.
The arrangement of higher duties during peak hours, compensated for during off-peak hours, is now much better elaborated than in the Council position.
That will mean that total toll levels remain the same.
The exemptions for EURO V and EURO VI are also positive, as well as the fact that the Member States have again committed to regulating the interoperability of toll systems, as it is a thorn in our sides that that is still not the case.
Parliament also finds the earmarking important.
We would have wanted more of it, but it is definitely an important step, and in that I mean not only the percentage that will now be earmarked, but also the reporting obligation on the part of the Member States.
Hopefully, that is a first step towards further earmarking of this money.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following a negotiations marathon, Mr El Khadraoui and the representatives of the Council and the Commission managed to tie up an improved package of measures for road charging for heavy goods vehicles in Europe.
I am very grateful to those involved and, in particular, to our rapporteur, for what they have achieved.
Through the recognition of the principle of internalising external costs, the partial earmarking of funding for the transport infrastructure and the incentives provided for fleet renewal, we have succeeded in realising important objectives from the Transport White Paper.
I also believe that we must not overlook the obligations for transparency, which ultimately must also apply to the Council.
I find it highly regrettable that several Member States attempted, even after the conclusion of the trialogue negotiations, to throw a spanner in the works - they really did try - in connection with the correlation tables in order to block this directive.
Nonetheless, I would like to conclude by calling on all my fellow Members to accept the compromise achieved and not to jeopardise the results of these long and laboured negotiations, as all that would achieve would be to help the wrong people.
You have my thanks for backing this compromise.
Mr President, we will not be winning any beauty prizes with what is on the table, despite the persevering and unbending efforts of the rapporteur, who, by the way, I congratulate in that regard.
The most important and trickiest point, for me, was earmarking.
What will the Member States use the income from these charges for?
Will they use them to make their transport economy more efficient?
Are we going to oblige them to do so?
We did not succeed in doing this.
We thus did not achieve what we were hoping for in this regard.
It is somewhat perverse that Member States are seeking to keep the way open for retaining this income, just as the external costs are also retained.
With this charge, we really should be limiting external costs as far as possible and preferably reining them back to zero.
Thus, the things that this money should actually be used for are the likes of improved infrastructure and research into cleaner goods vehicles.
There is one issue that continues to bother me, which is, if you have variable charging for peak hours, how do you tackle traffic jams if you do not treat all those responsible for causing them in the same way?
This is an issue that we had in black and white at first reading, but the Council did not want to know.
The efficiency of some of the things that we do is thus not 100%.
What we do have here - and Mr Ertug has already pointed this out - is more transparency.
The Member States have to produce a report stating how much income these charges generate and what they have done to improve the system.
I thus hope that a discussion arises between the payers, the road freight sector and the government on the use of this money and efficiency.
That is one of the positive elements.
I am no enthusiast, but I did defend this in my group because we now have an important principle - the internalisation of external costs - incorporated into European legislation for the first time.
That means that we can make a start on the process of charging for all external costs for all modes of transport in order to improve your economy along with your sustainability.
The Commissioner included a number of measures in the White Paper for which this step is necessary.
If we do not approve it, then we will also be stuck on a number of issues in the White Paper.
It is quite rare, after all, that it is persistently so difficult to reach agreement in the Council - and, Madam President, I am not blaming the Hungarian Presidency of the Council here, it did its best.
This is an important - and essential - first step in a long process.
Mr President, I should also first like to thank the Council and Commission for coming to this compromise but, in particular, Mr Saïd El Khadraoui for the proper way in which these talks were concluded while not losing sight of their goal.
The Group of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) will support the compromise agreement because many of the solutions that were worked out are, in reality, fine achievements.
On the Council's side, this compromise was very fragile, and it is understandable that some issues such as the scope of the directive or collection and distribution of the allocated funds to Member States were sensitive issues even up to the end of the talks.
I believe that further compromise talks would lead to a worse result or would end in no result at all.
The most important thing now is to continue forward, to implement the 'polluter pays' principle regarding the collection of road tax.
The damage done to the environment must be compensated, and the infrastructure must be improved, and, as Mr Sterckx has stated, this is the first piece of legislation at European level where this principle has been incorporated.
This principle and the taxes should be implemented in all Member States.
Unfortunately, many states have not yet implemented the Eurovignette 1 infrastructure payments and, most likely, these same states will be very tardy in implementing Eurovignette 2.
This distorts the market in haulage flows and, in fact, whereas the roads are maintained by payments by taxpayers in these Member States and the European Union taxpayers, the benefit is gained by third-country carriers, the infrastructure stays undeveloped, and external costs are not recovered.
Let us hope for some willingness on the part of the Member States.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Eurovignette and the results of the negotiations represent an example of how the Council is currently attempting to place limitations on and water down all Parliament's proposals, particularly in the field of transport policy.
The transport policy of the Member States' transport ministers consists of demanding a sustainable and forward-looking transport policy for the European Union every Sunday while doing everything under the sun during the week to actively prevent such a policy from being realised.
One thing is clear, and that is that noise and exhaust gases are to the detriment of both people and nature.
They give rise to costs, and those costs are currently borne by the taxpayers, rather than those responsible for the costs.
Parliament's proposal, which was already a very tame one and a difficult compromise between the countries at the centre of Europe and those on the peripheries, was still watered down even further.
Thus, for example, the allocation of external costs became voluntary, rather than compulsory.
Costs are not apportioned for all the deleterious consequences caused, only for a small number of factors.
In the end, what remains of the allocation of costs amounts to little more than a couple of hot dogs and a beer for a whole leg of the journey.
I find that very little.
The arrangements apply only in a qualified way to goods vehicles weighing over 3.5 tonnes.
Germany got its way with the 12-tonne proposal and in mountain areas, the only goods vehicles now subject to taxation are those that you do not even find there because they cannot get up the large inclines.
In the end, Italy wanted to derail the whole thing on the basis of a bureaucratic detail.
When it comes down to it, that is a prime example of how transport policy, sadly, is still not taken seriously enough.
We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will still vote in favour, as we want to take our place in a majority that at least rescues the principle of the charging of external costs for a future where more reasonable people occupy the role of transport minister in the Member States.
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for completing a very demanding piece of work.
'Eurovignette' is one of the directives that should enable road and rail transport gradually to be put on an equal footing.
Rail transport has been disadvantaged for years in the EU's Member States due to the fact that users have to pay to use transport routes.
In the case of the road network, payments for using the infrastructure have so far been rather symbolic.
If we look at the matter in purely technical terms, disregarding any other factors, we discover that the highest category roads, in other words, motorways, expressways and category one roads, are best adapted to the operation of heavy goods vehicles.
The directive does not go so far as to follow the logic outlined above and set the highest fees for the lowest category roads, in other words, local roads.
On the contrary, it focuses only on charging for some external costs, based on the 'polluter pays' principle, and only in the case of the highest category roads, in other words, motorways, expressways, category one roads and dual-carriageways.
The payments should include as few exemptions as possible, and should apply to the so-called external costs of road transport, including noise and, above all, emissions.
I am frankly curious as to how the individual states will justify their unwillingness to introduce payments, at least under Table 1, which is a very watered-down version of what genuine environmentalists want.
Despite these conflicts between logic and the version of the recommendation discussed here, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left supports the position of the rapporteur.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question from Mr Leichtfried under Rule 149(8))
(DE) Mr President, Mr Kohlíček, it could be that I have misunderstood you.
There is something that I would like to clear up.
It is relatively clear, after all, that this is a tame compromise, that heavy goods vehicles will continue to hold the advantage on the roads, and that the charging level overall is far too low.
However, you did start by saying that this directive could now potentially lead to a level playing field between road and rail transport.
I do not believe that such a level playing field will result.
It could be that I have misunderstood you in this regard.
I would ask you to clarify this.
(CS) Mr President, in my opinion, this is only the first step towards putting things on an equal footing, because if I pay a lot for infrastructure on the railway ... (the speaker continued in German)
(DE) ... it is the first step towards equalising the conditions for the railways with those of the roads as, at the moment, you have to pay for distance travelled on the railways, but only a very small amount for the roads.
This is thus a small step towards harmonising the conditions for the railways and the roads.
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for doing such an immense and very important job.
As you know, the transport sector plays a key role in guaranteeing mobility and socio-economic development in Europe and, in order to address the challenges of economic growth and sustainability, it is necessary to improve transport sector infrastructure.
We are all concerned about the effects of climate change, environmental conservation and various issues relating to health and social well-being, which are inseparable from the rational use of transport.
I agree that applying the 'polluter pays' principle, as well as trying to safeguard the public interest, results, and must result, in measures primarily aimed at reducing environmental pollution, noise pollution, damage to the countryside, and social costs that arise due to poor health, because these generate substantial economic costs that are borne by the public at large, and thus by Europe's citizens.
It is good that in the area of transport, we are finally striving to apply the 'polluter pays' principle.
Undoubtedly, this will give Member States additional possibilities to make their national road charging systems more efficient, which means that a better transport-demand-management instrument can be developed.
However, I still believe that the instruments we are discussing today, which will be adopted in the near future, are not exactly adequate and are only economically beneficial for central transit European Union Member States, and are not entirely favourable, or significantly less favourable, for a large number of European Union Member States situated on the EU's external borders.
While basically welcoming the project, I believe that it would be worth fully re-evaluating this aspect, weighing it up again and only then adopting it.
Mr President: So the EU seeks to raise EU revenue by taxation on trucks?
Well, I ask UK voters what they think of the EU and the usual answer is 'I do not think we should join'.
The UK has been politically taken over.
UK law is made in Strasbourg, a monster red-tape factory is closing industry, and now we have tax but, because it is not football, the people are not informed.
The UK media avoid EU reality, brains are fed with TV soaps and reporters say the EU does not affect local issues.
The EU is not news.
This report seeks to raise tax from tolls on trucks, partly funding the trans-European TEN-T project, which includes linking high-speed EU trains.
So, when the EU raises taxes in the UK, will the people respond by kicking the EU in the ballot box?
No, because they are not informed.
The final EU superstate takeover by stealth will be a taxpayers' sleepwalk into Europe.
The defences are down, the press do not care and the UK is asleep, so get those unfortunate truckers taxed.
(DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate and thank the rapporteur and my fellow Members who were involved for their work.
It was not easy to reach a compromise on this issue.
That is also due to the fact that many people, including in this House, naturally do not agree with the result 100%.
Some people were for it, others against.
However, I would like to caution, from the outset, against the absurd situation whereby those who expect more link up with those who expect nothing and between them, they collapse the whole deal.
I therefore hope that those who want costs to be internalised, and who even view this deal as very small progress, will support this compromise here.
That is, to a large extent, the view of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), if not all the delegations, as we support the internalisation of the costs in all types of transport and we also support the use of resources to promote mobility.
For us, that was one of the most important points.
For us, it is not about making transport more expensive, as has just been claimed.
Making transport more expensive does not make it more efficient.
For us, this is about having a proper balance, so that those resources that are partly earned in relation to mobility are also invested in that area.
Another important factor for us is interoperability.
We do not want technically different charging systems across Europe - the idea of 27 different systems in future is unacceptable.
I hail from a border area, and driving around the area for half an hour, you can face road tolls six times!
That is not sustainable.
The Council needs to be somewhat more flexible in this regard than it was in the past.
We are also putting an emphasis on environmentally friendly goods vehicles.
That means that we are also indicating a course of direction in this connection and, as has just been said, what we have introduced in this regard is not mandatory, with the result that those who favour the internalisation of costs are certainly not satisfied in that respect.
I personally would also have liked this to have been mandatory in all Member States.
We have had this debate so many times in this House.
What do we want tomorrow?
Do we want 27 different charging systems, or do we want all the Member States to work to the same rules?
Or do we have to wait for further crises before we hear the call for action at European level again?
For me, the Eurovignette, too, makes one thing clear, namely, that only Europe brings the answer.
Different charges in individual Member States do not.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that there has been one major success story in this discussion, and that is the rapporteur.
I really think that, with this dossier, the rapporteur had so much resistance to overcome and that he thus managed to extract the absolute maximum possible from this entire issue.
The fact is that, in this House, there is not really a majority for a real greening of transport.
The first thing you have to do, then, is cope with that.
It is absolutely clear that there is currently a majority of transport ministers in the Council to whom environmental interests are of no concern.
It is equally clear that there is a majority in the Council who do not care about those who live and work along roadways and that there is a majority in the Council who support consumers purchasing any old junk, that has been transported far and wide, rather than high quality regional products.
Given that situation, I would say that the very best result has been achieved.
First of all, we have the principle of external costs.
That was a major step, a difficult step, facing all that resistance.
We now have the ability, for the first time, to charge for exhaust gases.
We have the ability to charge for noise.
Of course, these are too limited and at far too low a level.
If you look at the tables, this really is a drop in the ocean.
It also proved possible to expand the corridors, so to speak, but we did not manage to put a tax on CO2.
That is inexplicable.
Transport is one of the largest producers of CO2 emissions in Europe and it is not charged for this.
These points leave me really dissatisfied.
That said, I endorse what has been said by other Members, who believe that we need to vote in favour of this, as otherwise, everything will go down the drain.
I am voting in favour, with a heavy heart, and the thought that it is a good thing that we have come this far, but there must be much more progress in the future.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the White Paper, Commissioner Kallas sets out various possibilities for the future of transport.
For instance, he describes how there is a need for incentive systems in order to give transport a more environmentally friendly form, and he also states that new sources of funding are needed, including, for example, in order to be able to work according to the 'polluter pays' principle.
The Eurovignette Directive that we are debating today is one way that both of these points really can be achieved.
This was a major Belgian effort, I believe we can say, begun under the Belgian Presidency of the Council with three important Belgians involved and, above all, because of the rapporteur, who succeeded in opening a door to the new routes.
As it happens, I would have wished Belgium's major effort greater success than what we now have.
What we actually managed to achieve is a small and weak compromise.
Although we do now have earmarking to a very limited extent - 15% of infrastructure costs and 15% of external costs must go to the TEN-T networks - it is really far too little.
All national transport policy representatives say that we need considerable resources in order to be able to sustain our infrastructure networks.
It is self-evident that the resources collected in this area should also be able to be invested there.
That is a point on which we can all fail to be satisfied.
The fact is that, in this connection, we have nonetheless taken a step in a direction in which we will be able to move further at a later date.
That is also the reason why we intend to vote in favour of this compromise.
It was a tough struggle, though.
It very definitely could have been the case that we ended up with nothing at all on the table, since a few Member States would have preferred to have nothing at all.
This is therefore a success, and it will have our backing in the vote today.
(CS) Mr President, in the directive under discussion, the Commission has put forward the possibility of charging for external costs such as air pollution, noise and traffic congestion, based on an attempt to internalise external costs in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle.
I support this principle because I consider it important from the perspective of the impact on the environment and human health, as well as the use of more methods of transport at national, regional and local levels.
This is also in the interest of municipalities, which are often harmed by the negative impacts of transit traffic in particular.
With regard to the continuing economic crisis and the increasing financial burden on transport operators, I also firmly believe that Member States should be given the option to spread out the introduction of charges for external costs over time, and according to individual types.
The new system should also make it possible to replace obsolete fleets through the use of reduced rates for external costs when investing in environmentally friendly vehicles.
(FR) Mr President, there is nothing to be pleased about today: a green transport system is still a long way off, as has been said.
What is in this text?
What does it say?
Quite simply, it permits the Member States, on a voluntary basis, to use a 'polluter pays' system.
Furthermore, the system is so restricted and so limited that, at the end of the day, the cost will only increase by around three to four cents.
How can people think that a three or four cent mark-up will actually have an impact on modal shift?
In other words, it is not a great success from an environmental point of view.
This is what this famous principle of internalisation of external costs has become, after being put through the Council mill - sorry, Mrs Győri - after so much resistance, and despite the considerable efforts of the rapporteur.
Nevertheless, we shall vote for this principle because it is an important one.
It is a principle like others - we spoke earlier about the precautionary principle, which has made its mark in the European directives.
We shall vote for this principle.
It is just one principle; a whole battle remains to be fought, and we will continue to fight it in order to effect a genuine modal shift and to establish a greener transport system that protects people's health and combats climate change more effectively.
(NL) Mr President, the current proposal for the Eurovignette is based on the idea of Europe's efficient road transport system subsidising its inefficient railways.
The most disconcerting fact, however, is probably that this Parliament sees this proposal as just a first step.
It would be a first step, it should be noted, in the wrong direction that would mean that the Member States' current right to implement this legislation would become an obligation, that the charge per kilometre would only rise and, above all, that car drivers would soon be next.
This Parliament talks of a single system among the Member States.
However, adopting this proposal will mean that hauliers should get ready for a new box in the cabs of their lorries, with associated new taxes, of course.
It is clear that, with this proposal, the European Parliament is strangling the life out of road transport as a result of the hysteria about the climate.
The transport sector has it hard enough as it is, and is not expecting more taxes imposed by Europe.
(IT) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr Kallas, first of all, I acknowledge and applaud the work accomplished by the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui, who has done his utmost in searching for a possible compromise.
Precisely because of that, I think we should go through the ritual procedure.
This dossier should really have gone to conciliation, though, because the correlation tables were not included in the final agreement.
That could have been an ideal opportunity to reach a comprehensive agreement.
Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, that is not a mere detail.
The 'polluter pays' principle is right, valid and agreed upon and, to avoid any doubt, I am in favour of the greening of transport.
However, this instrument - Eurovignette - is too partial and ineffective, as well as unfair.
At a time of great economic difficulty such as we are experiencing now, the only purpose of this decision to strike at an economic sector that underpins our market is to make money, even if hardly any of this money is then used for transport infrastructure.
In my view, a very complicated mechanism is being introduced, not least for calculating the amount to be charged.
I am therefore critical of this dossier because I believe the way it penalises the geographically more peripheral Member States is unacceptable in this Europe of economic and territorial cohesion.
The effectiveness of this instrument has not been demonstrated, and the modulation of transport flows creates problems for current and future financial planning because the charges are shifting and changing all the time.
In this respect, I am told that the Member States are free to apply this extra charge or not.
In the case of cross-border transport, however, we also depend on the decisions of others and so we need to reach an agreement.
Therefore, I am convinced that an agreement reached at any price, at the expense of the haulage industry, cannot be considered a success.
I really think there is still a very long way to go, especially as regards fair charging.
(ES) Mr President, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the tenacity of the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui, though I also have to say that from the beginning, I did point out the particular sophistry of the peripheral countries, with the scandalous lack of alternatives to the road - look at the continuous obstacles in the Pyrenees, between Spain and France, to establishing regular cross-border rail traffic.
Now, moreover, - and I take advantage of the fact that Mr Kallas is here - the Commission is placing in doubt the future central crossing of the Pyrenees in the future core network.
In other words, with these problems of a railway alternative, the truth is that the agreement on the Eurovignette is now imposing even greater burdens on the transportation of products by road, which, in the peripheral countries, particularly in the south and in the east, are products of little or limited added value.
In creating at this precise time - as a rumour, shall we say - the problem of adding even a few centimes - four cents do not appear anything at all to Mrs Durant - right now, when we have just passed through the crisis, or are still in mid-crisis in the case of the cucumber, and due precisely to these irresponsible and false accusations which are without proof, they have dealt a brutal blow to thousands of Spanish families, not just farmers, but also hauliers, because just these few centimes, on thousands of kilometres and products like the Spanish cucumber, will generate a major problem in terms of transporting them to the central market, which is precisely where these accusations originate.
No, Mr El Khadraoui, at the beginning, some initial accounts appeared, from which it was clear that, through the problems of the tax burden, there was an increase, and then they simply disappeared.
I have always asked why those studies disappeared, but the truth is that it was worrying, so they have told us time and time again.
Even so, I - and they also - would be prepared to make the sacrifice if the problems were to be resolved, important problems like congestion.
However, in the current agreement, we have to say that the car does not seem to be included in the congestion.
I am referring to major problems, such as the state of the infrastructure and the fact that things are improving, including in terms of reducing noise or other pollution.
Even now, we know that it is not going to be possible because we do not have any alternatives at all to this.
Therefore, the Spanish socialist delegation sees itself obliged to vote against this agreement.
(FR) Mr President, two words sum up the general tone of our work and the mood in Parliament: 'finally' and, on the flip side, 'a bit of a shame'.
'Finally' because, after very lengthy negotiations, we have reached a compromise and the 'polluter pays' principle is now genuinely beginning to take shape in this dossier.
'A bit of a shame' because, even though the public finance situation in the Member States is complicated, we should have done everything in our power to reinvest the revenue collected for the benefit of, for example, trans-European transport network (TEN-T) priority projects.
Mr Kallas, it will be up to the Commission to exercise close scrutiny.
'A shame', also, because I personally regret this minimum agreement where the desire to ease congestion is concerned: although the proposed agreement retains the off-peak concept, the methods by which the Member States must implement it are 'weak'.
The Commission must provide impetus on this issue as well.
Thirdly, although the current directive stipulates that 3.5 tonne heavy goods vehicles must be included from 2012, we provide for the possibility of exempting them in the agreement.
This is a harmful concession.
Here too, Mr Kallas, it will be up to the Commission to play a key role.
In short, although it is a modest compromise and a small step, it is a step nonetheless.
We shall therefore vote for it.
(PL) Mr President, Mrs Lichtenberger said that there are some reasonable ministers in the European Union's Member States.
I would be grateful to her if she could give me their names, although I do realise it would be a very, very short list.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very thorough work, although it is good that we can debate it, because it does contain a number of things that are extremely controversial.
Lorries are to pay more, which means that the owners of transport firms are to pay more.
This is a problem for firms during a crisis, and we cannot pretend otherwise.
The question is: how will the money be spent?
There is a real dilemma here, because if the money goes on yet more foolish projects of marginal groups, that will be a bad thing.
It should be spent on the transport sector, on the development of transport, in which case the increases would be understandable.
Otherwise, it is a kind of extortion, and this with the sanction of the European Union and the European Parliament's stamp of approval.
I think this is something which really is controversial.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transport in Europe is too cheap.
Only environmentally friendly transport is too expensive.
All of this is brought about by policy choices, and this directive will not change that.
We have unfair competition. The tax privileges that heavy goods vehicles enjoy are not being curtailed.
Every lorry causes 60 000 times as much damage as a car but, of course, it is not charged 60 000 times as much.
We have had a mandatory rail toll within the European Union for decades.
Every locomotive - whether it transports passengers or goods - must pay a rail toll for every kilometre it travels.
On the roads, the toll is voluntary.
It is capped.
It mostly applies only on motorways and only to vehicles weighing 12 tonnes or more.
On the railways, there is no limit.
That is unfair, and it hinders the environmentally friendly railways while relieving the environmentally unfriendly roads.
We know that we need a change in mobility in order to protect the climate.
We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance want to protect the climate and secure mobility for the future, and that is why we need fair competition.
This Eurovignette is only a tiny step forward towards that goal.
Mr President, HGV haulage is integral to the supply process essential to a good economy.
If added charges are levied across Europe, the extra cost is ultimately filtered to the consumer.
The UK Government is looking into HGV charges to bring us in line with Europe by 2015.
We do not have a network of toll roads, nor do we lay additional charges on heavy goods vehicles after road tax.
We face unfair competition from an increasing number of foreign trucks taking up more than their fair share of cross-border haulage.
Foreign operators pay nothing to use our roads but UK diesel duty is as much as 23 pence a litre higher, giving competitors a 15% advantage.
However, under EU law, the UK cannot introduce a charge applicable only to foreign vehicles.
If this directive expands its capabilities, any move by the UK Government to introduce HGV charges will be overshadowed by an unwanted indirect tax which the Commission also reserves the right to make obligatory in 2013.
As the proposals relate to taxation, it should require unanimity at Council level, yet the legislation is being ushered in via the transport provision of Lisbon.
It is an underhand way of introducing indirect taxation and should not be voted through by anybody with a democratic bone in their body.
(FR) Mr President, in its Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union set itself the objective of making our economy greener and our transport more modern.
All the European institutions, including the majority of our Parliament, have broadly supported this objective, as have almost all the Member States.
It is a pity, then, that several Member States should have gone to great lengths, since 2008, to strip the proposal for a new Eurovignette directive of its content and to block this dossier.
Today, however, thanks to the tenacity of our rapporteur - and I should like to pay tribute here to Mr El Khadraoui - and of the shadow rapporteurs in their negotiations with the Council, we have a compromise before us at long last.
Admittedly, this text is far less ambitious than the initial proposal, but it will enable us for the first time to implement the 'polluter pays' principle and to internalise external transport costs such as noise and CO2 emissions.
In order to ensure that this Eurovignette is not just a tax but actually helps improve transport in Europe, the Member States are also encouraged to reinvest the revenues they collect in the modernisation of transport modes.
Parliament has also successfully ensured that real progress is made on the interoperability of toll systems and that stronger incentives are given to use less polluting heavy goods vehicles.
In order to remain consistent with the policy objectives that our institution has set itself, I sincerely hope that we will be able to endorse this compromise that is being proposed to us at second reading and thus pave the way for a more sustainable transport policy.
(FR) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at last we have something to be satisfied about: the toll charge for road transport, which is capped by this new Eurovignette Directive, may, in the future, include the costs of noise and air pollution.
Another cause for satisfaction is that, with this report by Mr El Khadraoui - and I congratulate him on his tenacity - we are clearly expressing our desire to see the 'polluter pays' principle factored into the costs of road transport.
We must remain vigilant, however: after three years of interinstitutional negotiations, we need to convince certain Member States that a policy for genuinely protecting the environment and an economic policy for successfully developing Europe's rail network are both achievable thanks to the balance struck in this trialogue.
We must also ensure that part of the revenue collected is actually allocated to infrastructure and trans-European transport network projects as indicated.
May I also say how sorry I am that the binding nature of the 'polluter pays' principle has been left out of this compromise.
Leaving aside our rapporteur Mr El Khadraoui's tenacity, on which I congratulated him, Commissioner, the European Commission has once again lost the fight to certain nationalist positions and sentiments.
(SV) Mr President, I would like to say a big thank you to the rapporteur for his excellent work on a very difficult subject.
As many people have pointed out, the new rules merely contain calls for the Member States to use the revenue they receive to improve the environment and it is therefore important, just as Mr Sterckx said, that we here in the European Parliament continually remind our governments of the importance of following these recommendations.
The intention is clearly not that our drivers and hauliers should pay for the noise and environmental impact if we do not, at the same time, introduce measures aimed at solving the problems, such as road treatment and other noise-attenuation measures.
It is very important to prevent these charges simply becoming a new tax on heavy goods vehicles, as some Members here have pointed out.
We must continue to work to improve the environment and reduce carbon dioxide levels in Europe, and it is therefore of central importance that we ensure that environmental charges are genuinely used to reduce and eliminate the environmental problems that arise.
(NL) Mr President, with the decision on the Eurovignette, Europe is taking a step in the right direction in order to be able to apply the 'polluter pays' principle to road transport.
Ultimately, we now have the agreement to pass on the costs for the use of infrastructure, for noise and for air pollution to the carrier.
I hope that many EU Member States will adopt this system, including the Netherlands.
The Rutte government in the Netherlands is sensibly planning to pull 'paying for mobility in a different way' out of the hat.
Those plans fit in well with today's agreement.
I hope that the Commission will bring forward proposals to also charge these costs to other means of transport in a phased manner.
Of course, in so doing, account must be taken of the specific properties of each sector.
Thus, inland shipping is not the only user of river water, something that is abundantly clear during these days of extreme drought.
Agriculture, after all, currently has its sprinklers wide open.
However, we have now taken an important step forwards and we need to push on even further.
(ES) Mr President, it is no coincidence that Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and other countries are all reluctant to accept the so-called Eurovignette.
This common critical stance stems from our position as peripheral countries since, at the end of the day, it will be us who will pay this quite singular levy and the Member States enjoying a geographical location in the centre of the European Union who will collect it.
The reasoning that underlies the Eurovignette is beset by major contradictions and the discourse that supports it becomes weaker every day.
Even accepting the rationality of internalising external costs as a valid starting point, it is ultimately untenable to penalise heavy goods vehicles only and not ordinary cars with the aim of mitigating traffic congestion, just as the old 'polluter pays' principle is applied in a clearly discriminatory way.
In addition to this, ladies and gentlemen, only 15% of the funds collected through the Eurovignette - which was conceived as a funding source for infrastructures - will finally be used to fund trans-European networks, and not as a requirement but merely as a recommendation.
Thus, finance ministries will allocate the funds as they see fit according to the interests of their countries, within the wide sphere of infrastructures.
The ultimate result will be yet another setback for road freight transport, which, the way things stand today, is the only means enabling the operation of the Internal Market.
This is reality, ladies and gentlemen, a reality that is a lot starker in the context of an economic crisis.
If European products are to be competitive in global markets, we cannot afford experiments that may result in even further damage to an already weak European economy by imposing yet more additional costs.
Lastly, the food crisis, which has recklessly been blamed on Spanish products, has led to unfair penalties and huge losses for those penalised by the Eurovignette: freight carriers and prime crop farmers.
It is for all these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, that the Spanish delegation of the European People's Party shall vote against this draft directive.
(EL) Mr President, the general principle introduced in the directive on goods transport, by which I mean the internalisation of external costs, is very basic and of symbolic importance.
This is a modern and, at the same time, flexible framework for the application of the 'polluter pays' principle and a tool to moderate the congestion problems on major national motorways.
That is precisely why the concerns expressed by many speakers about the imbalance in terms of the repercussions of its application in the regions of the Union and in the road transport sector - some of which are justified - need to be overcome.
The aim of the compromise text, which is due in large part to Mr El Khadraoui, is to achieve gradual application of the charges in question, so that it is accompanied by gradual renewal of the European fleet.
However, the way to overcome the objections and to pave the way for the acceptance and efficacy of the framework of the Eurovignette is to ensure, firstly, that the directive is applied strictly, transparently and quickly to all the Member States and, secondly, that all the revenue is channelled, as contributory resources, to transport infrastructures and is not used to plug well-publicised gaps.
(DE) Mr President, as we all know, this directive is a compromise.
However, it is, without doubt, also a good compromise, as it accommodates both sides, at least to a certain extent - both the carriers and the citizens, who have to suffer the noise and the exhaust gases.
What are the advantages of this directive?
For me, there are three.
Firstly, there is the earmarking of the revenue from road charges for investment in improved transport infrastructure, which is in the public economic interest and provides increased safety and better transport routes.
Secondly, there is the standardisation of collection, which lowers costs and prevents traffic congestion.
Thirdly - and very importantly - there is the fact that it gives the Member States the ability and the freedom to factor costs such as noise and pollutant emissions into their road charges at a future point.
These, then, are control mechanisms.
Those who steer clear of rush hours and traffic jams will pay less and those who drive clean and quiet goods vehicles will enjoy lower costs.
I hope that these incentives will mean that, in future, traffic jams will be avoided and goods vehicle fleets will be renewed.
All in all, we are aware that not all wishes could be satisfied in the negotiations, but these positive aspects that we were able to achieve in the negotiations thanks to Parliament's strength should lead to the desired positive effects.
I also hope that there is not too much bureaucracy in the implementation, as that would harm the whole.
(RO) Mr President, the inclusion of a charge based on external costs in the toll charge allows Member States to introduce it for using the trans-European road network, or certain sections of it, as well as any other additional sections of their own motorways which are not part of the trans-European road network.
We do not support the deliberate introduction of tariff barriers which will increase the costs of transport operators from peripheral Member States and, by extension, the prices of the products transported.
Although the directive should not allow discrimination based on the haulier's nationality, Article 7k permits Member States which introduce a system for charging tolls and/or users of the infrastructure to offer suitable compensation for these charges, which may distort competition.
I think that the income generated from the charge on users of the infrastructure and from the charge based on external costs must be used to support the trans-European road network, improve road safety and provide safe parking areas, which are an absolute necessity for compliance with the applicable social legislation.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree on the need to make goods transport more sustainable, but this result is achieved mainly by investing in infrastructure and gradually renewing the existing fleet.
In reality, behind the environmentalist spirit of Eurovignette and the 'polluter pays' principle lies a major competitive disadvantage for some countries compared with others, with serious repercussions not only on their section of the haulage industry, which is, to a great extent, made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, but also on their national systems.
All that will happen without the mandatory reallocation of sufficient resources to improve transport infrastructure and the efficiency and environmental performance of the haulage industry, something that should be an essential outcome of this directive.
The negotiations have led to a few minor positive results - I am thinking of interoperability and mini-hire marketing in mountain areas - but the overall outcome is unsatisfactory.
I think a possible conciliation procedure would be the best way to smooth off the sharp edges that still remain unresolved.
Mr President, the proposed directive might be the last straw to break the back of the British road haulage industry.
The industry has been declining steadily over the last decade.
Drivers with operating licences have fallen by 8% in the last three years.
Foreign lorries now control 80% of cross-Channel business.
In the last decade, 20% of domestic business has been lost to foreign hauliers.
There is a large and growing resident population of foreign hauliers using foreign vehicles and paying only their own countries' modest vehicle charges who are taking more and more domestic business.
It might appear that British hauliers are simply losing business as the result of competition, a favourite word in the EU lexicon.
However, the competition is not fair competition.
The British road fund licence is much greater and fuel tax exceeds that of other countries.
Foreign hauliers work in the UK on fuel brought with them in 1 000-litre tanks.
Whilst the proposed charges will apply to all vehicles, the burden on the British industry could be fatal.
This directive must be resisted.
(DE) Mr President, it is beyond doubt that the Internal Market is one of the major achievements of our Union and that efficient transport structures are part of that.
However, I personally live on a stretch across which over 50 million tonnes of goods a year are transported, and I believe that, alongside people's right to efficient transport, there is also a right for those living alongside to be protected from the impact and effects of this transport.
This proposal is therefore certainly a small step in the right direction if it is used in such a way that investments are made to improve noise protection, provide modern heavy goods vehicles and, above all, to bring about modern rail networks and modern rolling stock.
It is also a positive thing that a supplemental rate can be charged in mountainous areas.
I do find it particularly questionable, however, that we are planning to proceed in this area according to the principle of voluntary action, in other words, such that, as before, States that do not wish to be involved in this Eurovignette simply do not have to implement it.
That will not only lead to discrimination within Europe but it is also extremely questionable with regard to the impact on the people.
Mr President, the general trend of this proposal is positive because we are in an era where we have to tackle climate change, etc. in every possible area; all methods which lead to pollution have to be dealt with.
Certainly, the focus on the heavy goods vehicles makes sense regarding the use of tolls, etc.
The one point which we need to expand on in particular is that we should be able to develop technology that produces engines that require less and less fuel, in other words, that travel more and more miles for fewer miles to the gallon.
Certainly that is one area where much research needs to be done; many efficiencies could be made, not just for heavy goods vehicles, but also for all other vehicles.
That is something which is not being mentioned and promoted and researched enough.
(FR) Mr President, the fact that the taxation of road freight transport and the Eurovignette have finally been addressed is, in itself, good news for all Europeans.
That said, we still have a long way to go before road freight transport bears a reasonable proportion of the costs it represents for our societies: wear and tear of infrastructure, pollution, public health and accidents.
As someone who lives in a city through which millions of heavy goods vehicles pass each year, I can confirm that the suffering of the populations concerned is rarely taken into account.
Then there are the issues that no one wants to address in this House: the very low wages paid to drivers, the terrible working conditions and the unacceptable driving times that compromise everyone's safety.
It is no exaggeration to talk about slaves of the road.
So yes, it is necessary to impose a maximum rate of taxation in order to encourage short journeys, piggyback transport, maritime transport and inland navigation, and it is necessary to make the entire Union and its neighbourhood strive for the best possible social conditions.
However, it is important to have intelligent taxation, so that the ones paying are not transport SMEs, drivers and still less consumers, but large shippers and major customers such as the large-scale distribution sector.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank honourable Members very much for their comments and I would like to make some remarks.
Firstly, Eurovignette is not a European tax.
This must be made very clear.
In that sense, it is a bad name.
On the contrary, it is a directive which limits and regulates national charges.
We have 22 countries with different tolls and charges for different types of vehicles - heavy vehicles and private cars.
All users from different countries pay these tolls if they appear on this network.
Secondly, please accept the compromise.
This is much bigger and more complicated than it looks.
There are two fundamental continuing fights behind this.
The first is a fight about principle - who should pay for the use of infrastructures and what specifically they should pay for.
So it is going in the right direction.
The 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' principle will inevitably continue.
This is the direction that things are going.
The second fight is much more continuous and sharper.
It is a conflict between the countries which have heavy transit traffic, which, of course, want more flexibility to address problems with their infrastructure, and clearly want to share the burden for the use of infrastructure between taxpayers and all users - I stress all users: there cannot be any discrimination.
Of course, there is a group of countries who are fiercely against it.
This was also very visible here during the debate.
I must just remind you that on 15 October, the Council agreed on the political compromise.
It was just short of a blocking minority and the fight continues here now.
Mr El Khadraoui has done tremendous work to reach a good compromise and to have a good proposal for this compromise.
I sincerely ask you to please support this compromise.
It appears to have a lot of details that are not satisfactory in different parts and to different people but it is a really big step.
This issue has been up in the air for years and years.
Now we are taking a step forward.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank you for this valuable debate, which included a great number of arguments and counterarguments.
This also shows, as the Commissioner has also mentioned, that a compromise has been reached.
After great difficulties, problems and struggles of course, I am nevertheless convinced that this is a European success, as has already been mentioned by Mr Leichtfried.
Thank you also for the appreciation expressed to the Hungarian Presidency.
As with every other compromise, a serious balancing act was carried out.
We had to balance environmental and economic sustainability.
I reject the notion that the Council did not attach any importance to environmental protection.
Had it not been important, this directive would not exist.
We also had to create a balance - and I would like to say this to Mr De Grandes Pascual as well - between the centre and the periphery.
It is true that heated debates took place in the Council on the best ways to ensure that peripheral Member States do not feel locked out, and eventually a qualified majority was formed in the Council, and I hope - and I believe that the discussion has shown this as well - in Parliament, too.
We could say that this is just a drop in the ocean, but I believe - and I am happy that this has been acknowledged by many during the debate - that we have made an extremely important first step towards internalising costs and re-circulating revenues into the sector, even if, as with every compromise, it is not the most perfect one, and I am certain that we will be able to take further steps in the following years.
I would like to mention three specific issues which attracted several questions.
The first one is the utilisation of revenues, and I would like to return to the comment made by Mr Sterckx.
The agreement contains a detailed recommendation for Member States, precisely with respect to the utilisation of revenues, and states, inter alia, that 15% of generated revenues - and I emphasise this for Mrs Meissner in particular - should be used to finance trans-European transport projects.
I would also like to add that this is the result of an adequate compromise and, as Mr Dirk Sterckx has also mentioned, a good and adequate one, although perhaps only a first step in the right direction.
The second specific question was also asked by Mr Sterckx, with respect to showing the costs of traffic jams and congestion.
Well, the agreement reached with the European Parliament extends to this problem as well, since it makes it possible for Member States to determine road usage charges in a differentiated manner on the basis of location and time.
As you all know, Member States have the opportunity to levy higher infrastructure charges during peak periods.
This increased differentiation of infrastructure charges gives us an alternative for fighting traffic congestion, and even if we only include air and noise pollution in the calculation of external costs, the differentiation mechanism introduced in the directive can still make an efficient contribution to the reduction of traffic jams typical of European roads.
Finally, I would like to address your third question, specifically the question posed by Ms Lichtenberger concerning the external charges.
The Council has already adopted its first-reading position on 14 February of this year, and we subsequently inserted a provision in the directive at the request of Parliament, to the effect that we will give a political signal to citizens concerning the environmental characteristics of heavy goods vehicles.
To this end, we have included the possibility that in addition to the surcharge applied in mountainous regions, an external charge can be added in the case of Euro 0, 1, 2 and 3 vehicles.
Since Euro 3 vehicles are less polluting than the other most polluting vehicles in the Euro emission categories, the double charge system will apply to them only from a later date, while it will already be applicable to the other categories from the effective date of the directive.
Furthermore, the agreement reached with the European Parliament also provides incentives in respect of the least polluting vehicles in the Euro 5 and 6 categories, in order to promote the renewal of the vehicle fleet.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has become very clear from our debate today that we have made an extremely important step forward for the transport sector with the Eurovignette Directive.
The specific recommendation regarding heavy goods vehicles is important not only in itself, but it also carries a symbolic significance.
It is the first to apply - and I am glad that you have confirmed this in your comments - the 'polluter pays' principle, and launches a lengthy debate and implementation process, which leads to the internalisation of the external costs of all transportation methods.
Mr President, the Hungarian Presidency is very pleased that this agreement was reached with the European Parliament, and I am sure that the measure debated now and awaiting adoption by Parliament can lead to an increase in economic efficiency and a decrease in the negative environmental impacts in the transport sector, and that as a result, European Union citizens will be the winners of this directive being adopted.
Mr President, I thank each and every one of you for your expressions of support and your comments, and that includes those who opposed the report, by the way.
The transport sector is important for our economy.
It does, however, also give rise to costs - infrastructure costs, but also other costs such as fine particulates in the air, noise, traffic jams and so on.
With this revised directive, we will finally be creating a European framework that gives the Member States the opportunity to get the costs partly paid back by those who actually gave rise to them.
At the same time, this method also enables the Member States to generate resources to reinvest in the transport system in order to make it more sustainable so as to actually reduce these external costs.
In this way, we can make our society more liveable, increase the efficiency of the sector and also contribute to a more level playing field between the different modes of transport, so as, in so doing, to also provide greater opportunities for the railways and inland waterways.
I stressed earlier on, in my introduction, how difficult it was to reach this compromise.
The aim in the Commission's White Paper, by the way, is to achieve the mandatory internalisation of external costs by 2020.
That promises heated discussions over the next few years.
In the meanwhile, I hope, first of all, that this plenary grants sufficient support to enable us to get going and to demonstrate that Europe can also take decisions that are good for our citizens.
Secondly, I hope that a number of Member States will now really get on with making use of the new opportunities and will also be able to tempt other Member States to join in on the strength of their good results.
That will enable us to build a wider support base to also go further.
In the meantime, this directive provides the Commission with an awful lot of homework to be getting on with.
Over the forthcoming years, the ideas of also internalising other external costs, making internalisation mandatory and including other types of vehicles, also need to be looked into.
These are things for the forthcoming years, however.
We must first take this step forwards.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12:00.
I think completion of the work today at second reading on the directive on charging heavy goods vehicles - the Eurovignette Directive - is extremely important.
The basic and most important issue is the provision which establishes the 'polluter pays' principle, according to which heavy goods vehicles which cause more pollution and are noisier than those fitted with engines which comply with the Euro V or Euro VI standards will be subject to tolls for using road infrastructure.
In addition, allowance has been made for the possibility of a certain dependence of tolls on vehicle movement (road congestion) at peak hours - for a maximum, however, of five hours a day.
I think that this solution will successfully encourage avoidance of the use of some sections of road during peak hours.
Furthermore, the Member States will be able to specify the use to be made of revenue generated from tolls collected, but at least 15% will have to be used for financial support for TEN-T projects, in order to increase transport sustainability.
I am delighted to say that the Eurovignette Directive has reached the end of its second reading.
This report introduces the key phrase 'the polluter pays', which means that the change to the rules on road transport tolls will allow us to add the real costs of air and noise pollution by lorries to the taxes and fees collected when heavy goods vehicles use motorways.
In addition, the directive stipulates that money collected in this way should be used to finance effective and environmentally friendly transport systems.
At the same time, 15% of the fees collected must be invested in pan-European transport networks: not just road transport, but also rail and inland waterway transport.
Although the directive will apply to all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, I think that this provision goes too far, because such vehicles mainly operate regionally, and this should not be regulated at European level.
At the same time, a Member State has the right to exempt vehicles under 12 tonnes, an option which I hope Estonia will use.
Speaking of Estonia, I think that this directive will bring to an end the situation in which our lorries pay in other countries, while vehicles from other countries do not pay to drive on our roads.
I hope that the government will put an end to this type of unequal treatment and set equal conditions for all.
The directive also provides an incentive for fleet renewal: the newer and lower-polluting the vehicle, the less tax it must pay.
This requires large investments from transport companies, which will actually pay off relatively quickly, both in terms of lower road tax and in terms of lower fuel consumption.
The revision of the Eurovignette Directive is crucial in order to integrate more effectively the cost of pollution caused by road transport, something which will now be possible thanks to the opportunity for the Member States to take into account air and noise pollution, as well as congestion of certain routes, when setting toll charges for heavy goods vehicles.
In regions such as mine, where international freight vehicles clog the Alpine roads, this is a long-awaited measure.
This revision is also a first step towards the reintroduction of fair competition between European road hauliers, since some Member States, such as France and Germany, already apply the 'polluter pays' principle and want the EU to extend it to all the others.
What matters now is that the revenue from the Eurovignette actually goes towards projects to improve infrastructure, cut pollution and protect the environment.
I therefore welcome the Member States' undertaking to reassign part of this revenue to the TEN-T, a major project designed to guarantee Europe's territorial cohesion and to improve access in regions such as those of the Alps, where the infrastructure is not sufficient to ensure a modal shift from road transport to other forms of transport.
I am convinced that the European Union needs harmonised guidelines which enable Member States to make charges for external costs created by the road transport sector.
However, we must remember that transport firms, particularly during a crisis, will not be able to afford to change their fleets quickly and buy vehicles which comply with the Euro V and VI standards.
We cannot, therefore, punish hauliers for external factors over which they have no influence.
In my opinion, we need to try to achieve a maximum extension of the period during which incentives apply to the ecologically cleanest vehicles.
Transport firms which invest in low-emission technologies must have the right to an appropriate period during which their investments are guaranteed, when they would pay the lowest charges or be exempt.
Finally, we very often emphasise in Parliament that people are the most important.
Let us remember, therefore, that the transport sector around the Union not only represents excessive noise or CO2 emissions but also represents, above all, hundreds of thousands of jobs and an important component of GDP in many Member States.
(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)
Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (H.G.Wessberg-SV) (
Request for the waiver of Agnes Hankiss's parliamentary immunity (
Proof of origin for certain textile products (
rapporteur. - Mr President, just briefly, I was very honoured to be a rapporteur when we had the chance to repeal, instead of adopting, a piece of legislation.
This is a redundant piece of legislation.
I think it fits perfectly with our long-term goal, which is to legislate and to regulate better, so I can only recommend all of you to support this repeal.
I would like to thank you for that in advance.
Participation of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (
Extension of scope of regulation on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur, and on behalf of the political groups that are in agreement, I call for the vote on the two reports on the transport of funds to be postponed.
I am referring to the report that we are discussing now and to report, which is the fifth item to be voted on after this one.
This postponement is justified on procedural grounds and is designed to ensure the best possible collaboration with the Commission and the Council.
I therefore invite you all to vote in favour of postponing the vote on this report and the one that follows five items later.
I will now ask for two statements.
I will ask for a statement from one person who would like to support the proposal.
Mrs Bowles, you have the floor.
Chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Mr President, I would like to clarify that the committee has asked for this to be deferred because we have been the subject of a procedural violation.
A recital that was agreed in a written trialogue procedure - and about which there can therefore be no doubt - was removed in the Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives) text.
We have also been told that the Commission Legal Services will not agree to a text that is not wholly in accord with the common understanding, even though the common understanding is not legally binding.
We cannot accept this unilateral change as a precedent in any way, and therefore we will not vote until the matter is resolved.
We cannot allow the interinstitutional agreements, or common understandings or anything else, to restrict the power of this Parliament that has been conferred on us by the Treaty, and therefore this text cannot be allowed to proceed.
Before we go ahead, we will also need to have a clear understanding that this cannot be repeated.
(IT) Mr President, I am not against the proposal as such but, since we approve the order of business for the whole week on Monday afternoon, I wonder why this proposal for deferral was not made yesterday but only now, just before the vote.
Transport applications of the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (
International air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon (
Charging of heavy goods vehicles (
European environmental economic accounts (
Seventh EU programme for research, technological development and demonstration (
(PL) Mr President, I have informed the Secretariat that I would like to table an oral amendment which would involve the deletion of paragraph 27, because it contains untrue information concerning an important scientific project named INDECT.
I would like to inform the House that this project has been endorsed by an ethical review.
It underwent this review on 15 March 2011 in Brussels, with the participation of specialists from Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom.
The ethical audit concerning the work of this project produced a positive result and this has been certified.
No problems have been found with the ethical aspects of the project.
The ethical aspects of the report have been continuously monitored by the European Commission from the very outset.
I want to stress this and to ask the House to take care that our report does not contain information which does not have a basis in fact.
This is a very important scientific research project which is being conducted by the AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków and a number of European institutions of research and higher education.
Above all, the proposed candidate has political experience, and also auditing and financial experience, although the latter is perhaps not as strong as might be hoped.
I am voting in favour of this candidate, but I believe that more thought needs to be given to the type of qualifications that Members of the Court of Auditors ought to have.
I supported the nomination of Hans Gustaf Wessberg as a Member of the Court of Auditors because he has over 30 years of professional experience of high level management in public institutions as well as private enterprises in Sweden.
A large part of his career has been devoted to improving conditions for private enterprises in Sweden, as manager in organisations representing industry interests in public life.
He also has extensive experience of public service, as both a politician and civil servant.
He has served as director general of the Swedish Companies Registration Office, an independent government agency, and as state secretary on several occasions.
That is why I am convinced that he has the qualities required for this post.
The curriculum vitae submitted by H.G. Wessberg for his nomination as a member of the Court of Auditors shows skills and experience that are certainly in line with the technical and scientific standards required by the position.
In particular, Mr Wessberg's commitment to the private-sector business fabric makes the candidate particularly suited to ensuring the balance between EU law and the specific demands of both the market and the people of Europe.
I therefore voted in favour of this proposal for a European Parliament decision.
in writing. - I voted for Sweden's nomination of H.G. Wessberg to join the European Court of Auditors and replace Lars Heikensten.
When the Budgetary Control Committee interviewed Mr Wessberg on 24 May 2011, MEPs praised his past performance in both the private and public sectors.
Once appointed, H.G. Wessberg will serve until the end of Sweden's mandate, that is until March 2012, and could then be re-elected for another mandate of six years.
I wish him all the best in his new role.
I wish Mr Wessberg every success in the important office for which he has been chosen, and I am convinced that he will carry out the functions for which he has now been appointed with complete dedication and competence.
As expected, the hearing of the Swedish candidate for membership of the Court of Auditors was unproblematic.
As was evident later in the vote, the final result was marginally in favour of the candidate.
He has ministerial experience, as well as experience of working in the private sector.
He has also worked in the area of defence, has handled finances and budgets at a high level and was also a supporter of Swedish membership of the EU.
in writing. - I voted to support Sweden's nomination of H.G. Wessberg to join the European Court.
Mr Wessberg will replace Lars Heikensten, who left to become executive director of the Nobel Foundation.
Mr Wessberg will take up his duties following his formal appointment by the Council of Ministers, scheduled for Friday, 10 June 2011.
The Court of Auditors is an institution that inspects the European Union's income and outgoings in order to verify their legality, as well as verifying good financial management.
It operates in complete independence.
In this spirit, the nomination of the individuals of which it is composed must be governed by capability and independence criteria.
Mr Wessberg, from Sweden, has submitted his curriculum vitae, completed a written questionnaire and has been interviewed by the Committee on Budgetary Control.
He has argued his case well enough to justify his appointment to the Court of Auditors, and to perform his duties capably and independently.
in writing. - The European Parliament,
having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0103/2011), having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 24 May 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors, having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control,
whereas H.G. Wessberg fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,
delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of H.G. Wessberg as a Member of the Court of Auditors; instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
I voted against because I think that it is possible to find a more suitable person for the position offered, from a professional point of view.
I voted in favour of the report on the nomination of Mr Wessberg as member of the Court of Auditors.
My decision is based on all of the information presented for this choice, including his responses to the questionnaire for candidates for membership of the Court of Auditors, annexed to this report, as they indicate compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the need for members of the Court of Auditors to be fully independent.
I therefore welcome the nomination of Mr Wessberg.
I voted for this report because I believe the Court of Auditors may benefit from Mr Wessberg's experience in the financial management of institutions.
The candidate fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and his curriculum vitae shows a series of high-level positions in financial management and budgetary control in public institutions and private enterprises.
The candidate's answers to the questionnaire show that he is serious and highly motivated.
in writing. - I was pleased to support the Swedish candidate for the Court of Auditors.
Bearing in mind that the accusations date back to 2004, which means that they were made before Mrs Hankiss became a Member of this House, I am voting in favour of waiving her parliamentary immunity.
I support the rapporteur's recommendation to waive Mrs Hankiss's immunity in the case in question.
The case pending against her has its origins in an incident dating back to early 2004, when she was not yet a Member of the European Parliament.
Evidently, therefore, the rules of procedure concerning parliamentary immunity and privilege cannot apply, and so waiving her immunity complies with the rules governing this House's institutional and legal affairs.
The Central District Court in Buda, Budapest is asking the European Parliament to lift the immunity of MEP Ágnes Hankiss in connection with renewed criminal proceedings.
Ágnes Hankiss was accused by a private plaintiff of allegedly committing the crime of public defamation and, in particular, the crime of defaming the memory of a dead person, the plaintiff's father.
On the basis of the facts as stated, and in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I think it would be appropriate to recommend lifting immunity in this case.
Mrs Wallis claims that the same principles are always applied by the European Parliament with regard to the waiver of the immunity of its Members.
That is a cynical lie.
In a case concerning me personally, the Court of Justice ruled in 2010 that Parliament had violated my rights as an MEP - and it violated them again last month, on exactly the same grounds!
For her to say that an MEP's immunity should be waived because the comments for which he or she is being criticised did not come within the scope of his or her parliamentary activities is absolute nonsense from a legal point of view.
If that had been the case, legal action would not have been possible!
This is the basis of the current Article 8.
By definition, Article 9 applies to activities beyond the scope of this Parliament!
Parliament now preserves or waives immunity according to how it feels: it waives it for political opinions in one case, but preserves it for suspected tax evasion in another, considering it an example of fumus persecutionis.
As I am more strongly attached to freedom of expression than the pseudo democrats in this House, I shall systematically refuse to waive the immunity of one of my fellow Members, from whichever political group, for the expression of his or her opinions, no matter how much they differ from my own.
The responsible committee recommends (unanimously) waiving parliamentary immunity because the Central District Court of Buda, Budapest, is asking the European Parliament to waive the immunity of its Member, Ágnes Hankiss, in connection with renewed criminal proceedings ordered by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary given on 12 November 2009.
Ágnes Hankiss is accused by a private plaintiff of an alleged offence of defamation of honour committed in public (Section 179 of the Hungarian Criminal Code) and, in particular the defamation of the memory of a dead person, the plaintiff's father, under Section 181 of the Hungarian Criminal Code, as a result of a statement made during the programme 'Péntek 8 mondatvadász' on 23 January 2004.
On 12 November 2009, the Supreme Court considered that there was indeed a violation of the substantive provisions of criminal law and ordered a renewed procedure to be conducted by the Central District Court of Buda.
The court is to conduct this renewed procedure in light of considerations stated in the decision of the Supreme Court.
The Central District Court of Buda opened renewed proceedings on 31 March 2010.
On the same day, the proceedings were suspended on the grounds that Ágnes Hankiss enjoys parliamentary immunity as a Member of the European Parliament.
The relevant request for the waiver of that immunity was made by the Court on 6 July 2010.
in writing. - I voted to waive the parliamentary immunity of Ágnes Hankiss, accused of defamation.
Ms Hankiss's immunity was lifted because the events in question took place in 2004, before she was elected to the European Parliament (in July 2009), and because the case does not concern her political activities as an MEP.
Parliamentary immunity does not cover ordinary criminal cases.
Ágnes Hankiss can be tried without her parliamentary activities being called into question.
I voted to waive her immunity.
in writing. - Since Ágnes Hankiss is accused of alleged defamation under Section 181 of the Hungarian Criminal Code, as a result of a statement made during a programme on 23 January 2004, I voted in favour.
At the sitting of 6 September 2010, the President announced that he had received a letter sent by the Central District Court of Budapest on 6 July 2010 requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mrs Hankiss, pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs pursuant to the same Rule.
The report by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which was voted for unanimously, concluded that the present case does not come within the scope of the political activities of Mrs Hankiss as a Member of this House.
It concerns instead a statement made in 2004, long before she was elected a Member of this House.
The rapporteur has also found no evidence of fumus persecutionis: that is, a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the case has been brought with the intention of causing political damage to the Member.
I therefore support the proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs and voted in favour of waiving the parliamentary immunity of Mrs Hankiss.
On 6 July 2010, the Central District Court of Buda sent a request to waive the immunity of Ágnes Hankiss in connection with renewed criminal proceedings ordered by a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary in 2009.
On 23 January 2004, following a statement made during a programme, Mrs Hankiss was accused of an alleged offence of defamation of honour committed in public and, in particular, of defamation of the memory of a dead person.
In an appeal hearing on 25 March 2009, the Budapest Municipal Court acquitted Mrs Hankiss of the charges, but, on 12 November 2009, the Hungarian Supreme Court ordered a renewed procedure to be conducted by the Central District Court of Buda.
The renewed proceedings were opened on 31 March 2010 and suspended the same day because of Mrs Hankiss's parliamentary immunity.
For these reasons, and because the case does not come within the scope of Mrs Hankiss's political activities as a Member of the European Parliament, since it concerns a statement made long before she was elected a Member, I am voting in favour of waiving her parliamentary immunity.
The case relates to an alleged offence of defamation which does not come within the scope of Ms Hankiss' political activities as an MEP, but relates instead to a statement made in 2004, before she was elected an MEP.
The rapporteur has also found no evidence of fumus persecutionis.
I am voting in favour of this report as it covers the Commission's objectives of simplifying the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of textile products.
Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 and Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93, which were initially adopted in order to implement trade policy measures in the textile sector, have now become obsolete instruments that constrain the free market and are poorly adapted to changes in the new regulatory environment.
Until recently, quantitative restrictions on imports originating in World Trade Organisation (WTO) member countries were in force, together with special safeguard provisions for textile products from the People's Republic of China.
Those restrictions were eliminated with the expiry of the WTO agreement in 2005, as were the provisions for China in 2008.
Therefore, the only effective method of preventing distortions in the market and continuing to control textile imports is still to subject such imports to verification procedures that require indication of the country of origin.
That indication is, in fact, contained in the proposal for a regulation on 'Made in' origin marking, which was adopted in this Chamber on 21 October 2010, which introduces a control mechanism and aims to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better, clearer legislative framework for companies and for consumer protection.
I voted in favour of this document, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature and released for free circulation in the Community, and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries.
In 2005, the World Trade Organisation repealed the restrictions on imports originating in Member States, and the European Union should also simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the Community.
I believe that the amendments mentioned will ensure the uniformity of the rules for import and will align the rules relating to imports of textiles with those for other industrial goods, which should improve the overall consistency of the legislative environment in this area.
I supported the Zahradil report because I think that Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products has served its purpose.
The 1998 Council Regulation introduced instruments for controlling the import of textile products, which enabled the WTO Agreement to be implemented.
With the expiry of the WTO Agreement in 2005 and of the special safeguard measures in 2008, the Council Regulation served its purpose, while the import restriction measures it imposed can be managed using other instruments.
Although repealing these regulations might appear to be a positive and welcome step from the standpoint of legislative simplification, it would, on the other hand, mean depriving our textile industry of still valid forms of defence against unfair competition from countries like China.
The rapporteur's arguments that future legislation on 'Made in' origin marking and new World Trade Organisation agreements will soon be a good solution to the problem of defending our industry do not appear to stand up: we are still waiting for the Council to respond regarding origin marking, but it does not seem to have any intention of endorsing a regulation that this House adopted last autumn by an overwhelming majority.
It would certainly appear to be wiser to wait until there is a clear legislative framework governing future imports of certain textile products from the Far East before we start repealing the old laws.
I have therefore voted against the report.
I voted in favour of this report because its primary aim is to repeal the EU regulation currently in force, laying down additional requirements proving the origin of textile products imported into the EU, thus simplifying the legislation in force and creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses.
Until the World Trade Organisation (WTO) repealed restrictions on imports of textile products from China in 2008, the EU really needed a legislative instrument for regulating trade with third countries and protecting the EU Internal Market and its manufacturers.
However, such complicated administrative procedures are now no longer proportionate, particularly as another EU regulation imposes an obligation to indicate a product's country of origin in customs documents before it is released for free circulation in the EU market, and consumer protection is also currently being enhanced in the EU by increasing the amount of information provided to consumers.
I am in favour of repealing the Council regulation on proof of origin for certain textile products as I believe that efforts need to be made to simplify the existing legislation in order to create a clearer legislative environment for businesses.
I should, however, add that I consider it important to maintain alternative controlling mechanisms for imports of such products into the EU, in order to avoid market disruption caused by increases in such imports.
My nature is to be in favour of less red tape and of administrative simplification.
When it comes to resolving anachronisms, I am all for it.
That is the case here.
In fact, the existence of unnecessary administrative burdens, as was the case with proof of origin for certain textile products in cases where there are no quantitative restrictions on the importing of these products to Europe, or in cases where there is a need to present an import authorisation, only impedes the easy flow of international trade that is our intention.
That said, and although it is not directly related to this measure, I would also like to highlight the importance of maintaining the status quo in terms of the current World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, particularly as regards the world market for textiles and clothing, very specifically, the changes to the rules on importing textiles and clothing products into the EU at a time of severe economic downturn in various Member States.
I voted for this report because I believe the Commission proposal contributes to reducing excessive administrative burdens and additional costs for companies by making rules on importing certain textile products more uniform.
The repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 is intended to remove the burden on importers of presenting proofs of origin for certain products.
Since these products can be freely imported, proving their origin is apparently unnecessary, but there are still some doubts about this facilitating measure.
I cannot fail to stress the need to ensure the quality of products sold within Europe and to guarantee the safety of those who use them.
Beyond simply knowing the origin of textile products from outside the Union, it is essential to ensure that European standards are met, and to not allow raw materials and processed products to enter and be sold in the Union without meeting the minimum conditions.
I also believe that more important than ascertaining the type of products used in the manufacture of textile products is to assess whether these are in compliance with competition rules and respect for workers' dignity and rights, as cases where these are violated are on the increase.
This has unacceptable consequences for the workers themselves and for the viability of the European textile sector, particularly in Portugal, which has been forced to compete with producers that systematically fail to observe such rules and rights.
This report concerns a proposal for a regulation of Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products, and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof, and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries.
The changes that have now been introduced into the regulatory environment allow trade policy measures to be improved, especially following the surge in imports from the People's Republic of China, by introducing control instruments for imports of textile products from third countries.
I voted in favour of this report because, by significantly improving the information given to consumers, it will allow informed and responsible choices to be made by all citizens of the Member States, and will allow them to opt for products that are made in the EU.
The Commission proposal, which is adopted by this report, is aimed at simplifying the customs formalities followed by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the Union.
To this end, it proposes repealing the conditions of acceptance of proofs of origin for certain textiles and textile articles originating in third countries.
The list of products covered is extensive, comprising: silk; wool; cotton; other vegetable textile fibres; man-made or artificial filaments; felt and non-woven materials; carpets and other textile floor coverings; special woven fabrics, lace, upholstery and embroidery; knitted or crocheted fabrics; articles of apparel and clothing accessories; and many others.
The consequences of liberalising the international textiles trade are known all too well in countries like Portugal, with the elimination of quantitative restrictions on imports and special safeguard provisions.
This proposal, which is in line with previous measures, aims to make the lives of major European importers, which are its main beneficiaries, even easier, as they will be able to access raw materials and low-cost finished products, while sacrificing national industry and thousands of jobs.
Despite already being the object of resolutions of this Parliament, the last of which was in 2010, the old request that the country of origin be marked and that information be made available about the origin of various goods has been postponed.
This report adopts the proposal by the Commission to simplify the customs formalities followed by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the European Union.
It thus proposes to repeal the conditions of acceptance of proofs of origin for certain textiles and textile articles originating in third countries.
The list of products covered is extensive, comprising: silk; wool; cotton; other vegetable textile fibres; man-made or artificial filaments; felt and non-woven materials; carpets and other textile floor coverings; special woven fabrics, lace, upholstery and embroidery; knitted or crocheted fabrics; and articles of apparel and clothing accessories.
Despite already being the object of resolutions of this Parliament, the last of which was in 2010, the old request that the country of origin be marked and that information be made available about the origin of various goods has been postponed, which we regret.
The Commission is aiming, among other things, to support the unification of import rules by harmonising the rules on textile imports with the rules on imports of other industrial products.
This should improve the overall cohesion of the legislative environment in this area.
The legal instrument that is to be abolished relates to the conditions for accepting the evidence of origin of certain textiles and textile products originating in third countries.
In my view, the aim should be to implement trade policy measures that would help to prevent market distortion caused by the sharp growth in imports from third countries, such as China, for example.
I endorsed this document because the Commission's proposal to repeal Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 and to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 is driven by the European Union's policy commitment to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the Community, which fall within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature.
Moreover, the Commission's objective is also to enhance the uniformity of the rules for import by aligning the rules relating to imports of textiles with those for other industrial goods, which should improve the overall consistency of the legislative environment in this area.
It is the Commission's view that the very limited trade policy measures in the textiles sector applied by the Union can be managed without imposing the excessive burden of having to present proof of origin for all imports.
This also helps to prevent the problem of market distortions that would be caused by a surge in imports of such textile products to the EU market, if the allowable quotas were not respected.
in writing. - I voted for this report which is driven by the European Union's policy commitment to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the EU.
We strongly supported this report in view of the EU's policy commitment to simplifying the legislation in force.
We aim to create a better, clearer legislative environment for businesses.
European trade policy measures in the textiles sector can be managed without imposing the excessive burden of presenting proof of origin for all imports.
In order to continue controlling imports of textile products still subject to remaining quantitative restrictions and originating from countries that are not yet members of the World Trade Organisation, the EU will now rely on import authorisations.
Meanwhile, concerning the categories of products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature that are not subject to quantitative import restrictions and are released for free circulation in the EU, a system of ex post statistical surveillance is being applied to monitor their impact on the EU market.
We would point out that, in addition to the abovementioned import control mechanisms, it has been mandatory since 2010 to indicate the country of origin of certain third-country products in order to better inform consumers about their origin.
We should now seek to enhance the uniformity of the rules for import by aligning the rules relating to textile imports with those for other industrial goods, which should improve the overall consistency of the legislative environment in this area.
The outcome of the vote expresses the sense that the indication 'made in' is essential for market transparency and clarifying for consumers the origin of the products that they use.
It is necessary to strengthen the EU economy by improving the competitiveness of EU industry in the global economy.
We can only have fair competition if the world economy operates according to clear rules for producers, exporters and importers, while also taking into account common social and environmental norms.
The aim of this proposal is the codification of existing legislative texts on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs.
It is regrettable, however, that it is not yet possible to monitor the path of the product from its source.
in writing. - Since the report is on a Commission proposal that aims to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of textile products, I voted in favour.
I voted against this report because it is based on unfounded premises and vague future assumptions.
On the one hand, it maintains that proof of origin is useless, since it states that the European Union can protect itself on the basis of a system of ex post statistical customs surveillance.
However, it does not say, for instance, that the 'updated Community Customs Code' is far from being fully operational and still has some obvious gaps in it, especially in terms of the complete computerisation of the system, a much-needed measure.
At the same time, the report expressly states that implementation of the Muscardini report on 'Made in' origin marking - which, by the way, we strongly supported - will serve to protect origin marking.
Well, I am glad that the rapporteur is so sure, but at the moment, the origin marking regulation does not yet exist and we do not really know if, when or how it will be adopted.
In essence, therefore, I think this report is a dangerous leap into the void, with serious consequences as usual for the textile industry, which the European Union continues to mistreat in the face of general indifference.
The adoption of Mr Zahradil's proposal has reopened the debate on the importance of origin marking for products from third countries, as a measure designed to implement a trade policy that can prevent market disturbances due to a rise in foreign imports, and to sort out the complicated legislative environment that today makes it difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises to develop.
I am therefore in favour of a regulation that enhances the uniformity of the rules for European textile imports by aligning them with those for other industrial goods.
However, we should bear in mind the fact that, even if we use ex ante and ex post control mechanisms to assess the impact of third-country imports on the European market, the European Union has not yet been able to adopt a control mechanism based on fair and important information for consumers such as that provided by origin marking.
I hope that the Council, too, will quickly come to a positive conclusion on the decisive steps taken by this House towards ensuring traceability and adequate information on products.
These measures will both ensure that people have appropriate, reliable knowledge about the goods on the market and make them appreciate the uniqueness of European manufacturing.
I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature and released for free circulation in the Community, and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries.
I voted in favour with reservations, but did so because, overall, it is positive and is in line with EU policy commitment to simplify the legislation in force, with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities observed by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the Union, and with the objective of making the rules for importing more uniform, by aligning the rules relating to textile imports with those for other industrial goods, which should improve the overall consistency of the legislative environment in this area.
The aim of the Commission's proposal to repeal Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 on proof of origin for certain textile products and to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries is to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses, mainly with respect to the simplification of customs formalities carried out by importers of certain textile products released for free circulation in the Community.
The requirements for the presentation of proof of origin for textile products were introduced in order to ensure the proper implementation of import restriction measures so as to avoid market disruption caused by imports from the People's Republic of China.
The impact and the number of measures applied by the European Union to imports of these products have gradually diminished in recent years.
In fact, special safeguard provisions have been created for textile and clothing imports from the People's Republic of China and quantitative restrictions on imports from World Trade Organisation member countries have been lifted.
For the reasons given above, I voted in favour of the report.
in writing. - I have spoken on this issue before and I am voting for this report because I believe EU citizens have the right to know the make-up of the clothes they buy.
This regulation will allow consumers to avoid buying products containing non-textile parts of animal origin, whether for health, ethical or other considerations.
Under this regulation, for example, the trimmings on collars will be labelled clearly and separately from the rest of the garment, allowing consumers to make an informed choice about the clothes they buy.
Allergy sufferers in particular stand to gain from this proposal, as fur is potentially hazardous to their health and without proper labelling, they may buy a product containing these textiles without realising it.
Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 was aimed at introducing requirements for the presentation of proof of origin for certain textiles originating in third countries to which the quantitative restrictions on imports applied.
Due to the changes that have taken place in the meantime, particularly as a result of the 2005 World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, the removal of the first proof of origin for products seems to be justified, and I therefore voted for the repeal of this regulation.
In general, it aims to relieve the burden on products when they enter the EU, without sacrificing the interests of purchasers, so it is therefore important to maintain alternative monitoring mechanisms for imports of such products into the EU.
I should like to offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by Mr Zahradil.
The very limited trade policy measures applied by the EU in the textiles sector can be managed without imposing the excessive burden of presenting proof of origin for all imports.
However, import control measures on textile products must be maintained.
In fact, in order to continue controlling imports of textile products still subject to remaining quantitative restrictions and originating from Belarus and North Korea, which are not yet members of the World Trade Organisation, the EU now relies on import authorisations.
That helps to prevent the problem of market distortions that would be caused by a surge in imports of certain textile products onto the EU market, if the allowable quotas were not respected.
Moreover, concerning the categories of products not subject to quantitative import restrictions and released for free circulation in the EU, a system of ex post statistical surveillance is being applied to monitor their impact on the EU market.
I would also like to point out that in 2010, the European Parliament adopted at first reading the report by Mrs Muscardini on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries ('Made in'), which also concerns textiles and clothing.
In the ambit of the better law making approach, the Commission proposes to repeal a 1998 Council Regulation under which importers have to provide proof of origin of textiles and articles of apparel for EU customs procedures.
The regulation had value as long as quantitative restrictions on textiles and articles of apparel existed through the WTO's Multifibre Agreement.
This agreement was terminated in 2005.
By 2008, the Agreement on textiles and clothing between the EU and China and all other surveillance systems for imports of textiles and clothing from China had also ended.
Textile and clothing imports from Belarus and North Korea, neither of which are members of the WTO, are still subject to quantitative restrictions.
The system of import authorisations still remains in place for controls on these imports, which, however, do not pose problems with regard to the functioning of the EU market.
This system is deemed sufficient.
All in all, Parliament is advocating a new 'made in' labelling regime, which is currently a Sleeping Beauty after the conclusion of the first reading in 2010.
Such a regime would provide much better control possibilities - and also consumer information - than the old Proof of Origin Regulations.
I voted in favour of this report because I agree with its underlying spirit: to simplify and harmonise EU legislation on imports of textile products in order to facilitate trade with third countries.
I believe, in fact, that the limited trade policy measures applied by the EU in the textiles sector can be managed entirely without imposing the excessive burden of presenting proof of origin for all imports.
Besides, import authorisations, ex post statistical surveillance systems and the requirements of single administrative documents already ensure that imports are effectively controlled in the Union.
To complete the picture, however, I look forward to the time when the Muscardini report fully enters into force, as it will enable European consumers to be better informed about the origin of products, including textiles, from third countries.
The legislation being repealed in this case concerns the conditions of acceptance of proof of origin for certain textile products originating in third countries, which established specific requirements by applying quantitative restrictions.
The rapporteur shares the Commission's view that the trade policy measures applied by the EU in the textiles sector can be managed without imposing the excessive burden of presenting proof of origin for all imports.
As far as we are concerned, it is in the interests of both consumers and businesses to ensure that any burden imposed on importers of goods from third countries serves to control and limit such goods.
Above all, we are concerned that we are going to repeal regulations that are useful for customs control without there being any progress at the moment on the 'Made in' origin marking regulation, which is currently at a standstill in the Commission because of the Council's obstructionism.
I would also like to point out that the Council has vetoed origin markings in relation to the ad hoc textile measure and is trying to do the same as regards the mandatory indication of place of origin on food labels.
We voted against the report.
in writing. - This Commission proposal simplifies the legislation in force on proving the origin of certain textile products.
In 1998, the EU set out the requirement for importers to present proof of origin for products falling under Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature, listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3090/93, and which have been made in third countries.
It should be noted that in 2005, quantitative restrictions on textile and clothing imports originating in World Trade Organisation (WTO) member countries were rules, while the rules for the same type of products originating in the People's Republic of China expired at the end of 2008.
In view of this, I am voting in favour of this report, as I believe that it marks a positive step in defining a clearer and simpler legislative environment for European businesses which import textile and footwear products originating in third countries for which there continue to be quantitative restrictions because they are not WTO members.
I also believe that the customs authorities make an effective contribution to efficiently monitoring imports of this type of product, effectively supervising their impact on the EU's economic climate and, thus, the economy of each Member State.
I voted in favour of the report on proof of origin for certain textile products.
The recasting of the legislation in this area aims to simplify and standardise the legislative framework, including the administrative formalities, whilst, at the same time, also including appropriate instruments to manage the market disruptions brought about by the serious rise in imports from third countries.
Finally, the new arrangements make allowance for the calls the European Parliament has hitherto made for more information for consumers.
I am voting in favour of the participation of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), as the EMCDDA is open to the participation of any third country, and particularly bearing in mind that Croatia is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on the way from the production countries to consumer countries.
I therefore believe that its immediate involvement is essential.
By asking to participate in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the Republic of Croatia has shown that it shares the interest of the EU and its Member States in the objectives and work of the Centre, the task of which is to collect data on drugs and drug addiction in order to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
That is why I endorsed the report by our fellow Member, Mrs Serracchiani, on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the EMCDDA.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction plays a vital role in collecting data on drugs and drug addiction and preparing objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
The information is intended to provide a basis for analysing the demand for drugs, ways of reducing it, and the drug market in general.
In 2005, the Republic of Croatia asked to participate in the activities of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
The Republic of Croatia is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on the way from the production countries to consumer countries.
There have been large-scale cocaine seizures in Croatia, which are mostly linked to sea transport.
I supported this agreement and the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which will allow factual and objective information to be collected from Croatia at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences, and will enable the Republic of Croatia to gain information on best practices to understand the nature of its drug problems and improve its response to them.
Drugs are one of the major scourges of our society today.
This is a socially and culturally complex and dynamic problem, which is constantly changing and taking on new forms, with the use of new substances and new groups of consumers.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) was set up in 1993, and its main tasks are to collect data on drugs and drug addiction, and to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
This information is vital as it provides a basis for the analysis of demand for drugs and of ways of reducing it, as well as of phenomena associated with the drug market in general.
Croatia is a transit route through which illegal drugs are smuggled on the way from production countries to consumer countries.
It is therefore crucial for Europe that Croatia provide information concerning drugs and drug addiction, and their consequences.
It is also crucial that it be able to obtain information on best practices.
That is why I am voting for this recommendation.
I support the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction because the number of deaths, compared with last year, is falling for all drugs except heroin, and progress is being achieved as a whole in the fight against drug use.
The Republic of Croatia will be able to receive information on best practices to understand the nature of its drug problems and respond to them better.
I voted in favour of Mrs Serracchiani's report on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction because I believe it would represent a highly beneficial exchange for both parties.
On the one hand, Croatia's participation in the monitoring centre would provide decisive factual information to support our commitment to fight the illegal drug trade, given that Croatia is one of the main transit routes for smuggling drugs into the European Union; on the other hand, Croatia could make use of European best practice in order to respond to and combat the problem.
I voted in favour of this report because I agree that Croatia's participation in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is vital for combating illicit drug use and trafficking, both within Croatia itself, and throughout the EU.
As a coastal state on the EU's external borders, Croatia is used as a transit country in international drugs trafficking, and it is therefore especially important for the EU to provide this country's national institutions with all the assistance necessary for combating a phenomenon that poses a particular threat to health and social stability.
According to the agreement, Croatia will take part in the Centre's work programme, will satisfy the obligations laid down in EU legislation, and will share data with the EMCDDA, subject to the data protection requirements of the Union.
The Republic of Croatia is an important transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled from the production countries to consumer countries.
Evidence of this is provided by the significant cocaine seizures in Croatia, which are mostly connected with sea transport.
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), no general population survey on illicit drug use has been carried out in Croatia.
However, the latest data on drug-related deaths from 2008 indicate that 87 cases were registered.
There has been a steady increase in the quantities of drugs seized.
Training of police officers and provision of the necessary equipment have continued.
However, the results from investigations and the prosecution of drug-related crime need to be considerably improved.
Croatia remains one of the main trafficking routes for drugs to the EU.
The participation of the Republic of Croatia in the activities of the EMCDDA becomes, in these circumstances, a positive development for the whole Union.
This means that Croatia's involvement in the EMCDDA's work programme requires a link to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction and an exchange of data with the EMCDDA.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) on the important work that it has been carrying out to reduce the quantity of drugs and of related phenomena in Europe.
I agree with the participation of Croatia in the EMCDDA's activities, given the fact that the country has become part of a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled, due to its strategic location, and I believe that the adoption of the European programme will lead to the improvement of health care and social peace, at both European and international level.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) plays a vital role in collecting data about drugs and drug addiction, adding to the store of objective, reliable and comparable data at European level, which provides a basis for analysing demand for drugs and ways of reducing it, as well as phenomena associated with the drug market in general.
Any third countries sharing the interests of the Union and its Member States regarding the EMCDDA's objectives and work can participate in that work.
Croatia applied in 2005, and the negotiations were successfully concluded in 2009.
It is important that this agreement be adopted, as Croatia is one of the main transit routes through which illicit drugs are smuggled into the EU, so it is vital that this country be involved in the EMCDDA's work as soon as possible, particularly bearing in mind that Croatia's accession to the EU is envisaged for the end of 2012 or beginning of 2013.
Croatia will be linked to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX) and will share data with the EMCDDA, subject to the data protection requirements of the Union and national law.
The phenomenon of drug addiction, particularly of the drug market, is a global threat and a terrible obstacle which is difficult to fight due to its constant relocations and changes.
The nature of the work by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is very important in this area, as it allows the various Member States to create an international knowledge and information base.
Information is crucial for analysing and creating strategies to reduce and combat the existence of drug markets and drug addiction.
Croatia has been expressing its wish to work with the EU on this crucial issue since 2005, and it is now time for this to happen, through its inclusion in the work of the EMCDDA, which is based in Lisbon.
The proposal set out in the report regarding Croatia's compliance with its obligations to the EMCDDA and the EU is very positive.
I am voting in favour of this report as I believe that this link between Croatia and the EU will contribute not only to a more effective fight against the phenomenon of drugs and drug addiction, but also to the creation of greater solidarity between the EU and Croatia, which is an accession candidate, and will - at least, I hope so - shortly become a fully fledged Member State.
The main task of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is to collect data on drugs and drug addiction in order to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
The EMCDDA is, in practice, open to the participation of any third country that shares the interests of the EU.
Croatia has asked to participate in it since 2005.
It will now also be part of the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction.
As I see it, this report also illustrates the need for better information exchange between Member States and European agencies and, above all, for Croatia's potential accession to be prepared in a calmer manner than the 'major' enlargement of 2004 and 2007, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the EU.
I voted in favour of the report on the participation of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) as I believe that this is a positive step, given that Croatia is expected to accede to the EU shortly, bur mainly because the consumption and trafficking of illicit drugs are global phenomena with severe socio-economic and health repercussions.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) aims to collect data on drugs and drug addiction, so as to analyse changes in drug consumption among the population and to study the promotion of policies and actions aimed at reducing consumption.
In view of the fact that the EMCDDA is open to participation by third countries and that Croatia has been seeking to participate since 2005, and considering that the country is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on the way from the production countries to consumer countries, and that significant seizures, particularly of cocaine, are made in this country, I believe that Croatia's participation in the EMCDDA is an important step.
I am therefore voting in favour of the decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of an agreement between the EU and the Republic of Croatia for this purpose.
This recommendation, drafted by Mrs Serracchiani and based on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and the Republic of Croatia, concerns the interest that Croatia has shown in forging a link with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
Given that Croatia is one of the main routes for trafficking drugs to the EU, where significant seizures of illicit hallucinogenic products - including cannabis, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamines - have been made; that the Croatian Government has adopted a National Programme for Prevention of Drugs amongst Youth; that the country has sought accession to the EU; and that its integration is expected to take place in 2013, I support the conclusion of the agreement between the EU and the Republic of Croatia, so that the latter can forge links with the Lisbon-based EMCDDA.
The changes to the global situation regarding the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs is worrying.
The 2009 report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) confirmed that the situation has deteriorated in relation to drugs such as cocaine, heroin and new synthetic drugs, and it has seen persistently high levels of consumption and a spiralling upward trend in this regard.
Countless factors have a bearing on this growth, which is not unconnected to the deepening of the crisis of capitalism and its social effects in many countries.
This report proposes support for the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the latter's participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
Regardless of the process of this country's accession to the EU, its development and ultimate outcome, it is proposed that it will participate in the EMCDDA, given that it is making an effort in terms of investigating and prosecuting drug-related crime.
It is suggested, however, that these efforts should be significantly improved, given that Croatia continues to be one of the main routes for drug trafficking into the EU.
It is important that Croatia's accession to the EMCDDA, which we support, could contribute to stepping up the fight against drug trafficking.
By adopting this report, Parliament has given its support to the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the latter's participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
Although, as the rapporteur mentions, Croatia's entry into the EU is envisaged for the second half of 2012 or early 2013, its participation in the EMCDDA could be accepted given that this country is making an effort to investigate and prosecute drug-related crime.
However, these efforts must be significantly improved, given that Croatia continues to be one of the main routes for drug trafficking into the EU.
We are aware that the development of the global situation regarding the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs is worrying.
According to data given in the 2009 report by the EMCDDA, it was shown that the situation has deteriorated, especially in relation to drugs such as cocaine and heroin, and to new synthetic drugs, and it has seen persistently high levels of consumption and a spiralling upward trend in this regard.
We hope that this decision will contribute to stepping up the fight against drug trafficking.
Croatia straddles the transit route through which drugs are illegally smuggled from producer countries to consumer countries.
Significant and large-scale cocaine seizures in Croatia are mostly connected with sea transport.
The use and smuggling of illegal drugs are global phenomena which post a threat to health and social stability.
I therefore welcome the participation of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, mainly for the purposes of education in this area and preventing the use of drugs and other narcotic substances.
Since Croatia will be an important partner for the European Union's future relations with the countries of former Yugoslavia, and since it is a key transit area for drug smuggling, we welcome this candidate country's participation in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
It is essential for us to be able to meet and work with Croatian experts in the field in order to fight this sad problem, which is why I am in favour of the proposal.
As shadow rapporteur on this dossier, I voted resolutely in favour of this resolution and this agreement to allow Croatia to participate in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, as well as in the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX).
I therefore fully support Croatia's participation so that it can play an active part in combating this problem, the scale and devastating effects of which are dangerously on the increase in Europe.
According to statistics compiled by the Centre, 75 million Europeans have already tried cannabis and 14 million Europeans have already tried cocaine at least once.
It should also be pointed out that Croatia remains one of the main trafficking routes for drugs to the EU.
This agreement will therefore not only make it possible to obtain factual and objective information from Croatia concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences, but will also enable Croatia, through these exchanges of information and best practices, to understand the nature of this phenomenon and better respond to it.
I endorsed this report because, as we know, the main task of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is to collect data on drugs and drug addiction in order to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
The information is intended to provide a basis for analysing the demand for drugs and ways of reducing it, as well as phenomena associated with the drug market in general.
It is stipulated that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) shall be open to the participation of any third country that shares the interests of the Union and its Member States in its objectives and work.
In 2005, the Republic of Croatia asked to participate in the activities of the EMCDDA.
The Republic of Croatia will take part in the Centre's work programme, will satisfy the obligations of the regulation, will be linked to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX) and will share data with the EMCDDA, subject to the data protection requirements of the Union and national laws.
The Republic of Croatia will also contribute financially to the Union to cover the cost of its participation and will also participate in the Management Board of the Centre without the right to vote until such time as it becomes a member of the European Union.
For its part, the EMCDDA will treat the Republic of Croatia as an existing Member State, through equal treatment in terms of linkage to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX) and staffing provisions.
Drug addiction is a social problem, both for developed countries and for those which are poorly developed.
Croatia, just like other countries, is having to contend with drug addiction, and it has very tough legislation in this area.
Preventative work is being done chiefly in schools, because that social group is the most vulnerable to drug dependence.
Croatia, as a candidate country for EU membership, has a duty to adapt its legal system to the system which is in force in the countries of the Union.
I think that Croatia's participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is extremely important, particularly because Croatia is a transit route.
Illicit substances are smuggled through Croatia from the production countries to consumer countries.
Participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction will help introduce the European Union's extremely important anti-drugs policy to Croatia.
With my vote today, I supported the recommendation for the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
The Republic of Croatia will, in fact, take part in the Centre's European work programme on drugs and drug addiction.
The Centre's main task is to collect data on drugs and drug addiction in order to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
The subject is clearly very important, both for its marked impact on health protection and for the fight against the criminal activities associated with the drug market.
Croatia is, in fact, on one of the sea transit routes commonly used by organised crime to bring illegal drugs from producing countries to consuming countries.
To us, that fact is even more worrying when we realise that Croatia will be the next candidate country to become a Member State of the European Union.
I therefore hope that Croatia's participation in the work programme proves to be of the greatest benefit.
This draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is important as Croatia is one of the main entry points for drugs in Europe.
With a view to tackling drug trafficking effectively, which not only poses a threat to Croatia but to the European Union as well, it is important that Croatia is also linked to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX) and actively and directly involved in exchanging data with the EMCDDA.
This exchange of data helps create a database for analysing the demand for drugs and secondary drug-trafficking activities, which is vital for publishing proper, objective information that can be compared at a European level.
in writing. - I welcome this agreement and the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the activities of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Illicit drug use and trafficking are worldwide phenomena that threaten health and social stability.
Statistics show that around one in three young Europeans has tried an illicit drug and at least one of our citizens dies every hour from a drug overdose.
At a European level, it is also important to have factual and objective information from Croatia concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences, and, at the same time, the Republic of Croatia can get information on best practices to understand the nature of its drug problems and better respond to them.
The problem of drugs, which we are discussing now, is, to a large extent, also a historical problem.
The illegal drugs trade goes beyond, and always has gone beyond, the borders of any one country.
In my opinion, the establishment of high quality international cooperation in the fight against the illegal drugs trade, not only at the European level but especially at the global level, would be one way to improve the effectiveness of the fight against this kind of trade.
As a doctor, I would also like to say that drug abuse can have extremely grave and irreversible consequences for human health.
I therefore support effective international cooperation in the fight against the illegal trade in drugs or their precursors and, at the same time, I would like to mention the need for prevention.
Illicit drug use and trafficking are worldwide problems that threaten health and social stability.
The Republic of Croatia is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on the way from the production countries to consumer countries.
Moreover, in the last 10 years, the number of drug-related deaths has been gradually increasing.
Despite the continuing training of police officers and the provision of the necessary equipment, the results of investigations and prosecutions of drug-related crime need to be considerably enhanced.
Croatia continues to be located on one of the main trafficking routes for drugs into the EU.
We are certainly in favour of the government's adoption of a national programme for preventing drug use among young people, with the aim of updating the existing programmes.
We therefore approve of the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Since this is a candidate country that will soon be joining the European Union, it is particularly important for it to provide the Member States with exhaustive, objective information about drug trafficking and drug addiction and their economic and social consequences.
The scourge of drugs continues to cause concern throughout the EU.
The more countries help to combat it, the greater the chance of success.
Croatia's participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is therefore welcome.
Croatia does, however, need to step up the fight against drug trafficking on its territory as this continues to be one of the main routes for drug trafficking into the EU.
The Republic of Croatia will accordingly take part in the Centre's work programme, be linked to the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (REITOX) and share data with the EMCDDA.
The Republic of Croatia is a transit route for drugs arriving from production countries and remains one of the main trafficking routes for drugs to the EU.
Nevertheless, in 2010, it adopted a programme for implementation of the Action Plan on Combating Drugs Abuse, as well as a National Programme for Prevention of Drugs amongst Youth.
Furthermore, training of police officers and provision of the necessary equipment have continued.
By participating in the EMCDDA and exchanging information, Croatia will be able to understand the problem and better respond to it.
Its participation is also an encouraging sign with regard to its forthcoming accession to the European Union.
in writing. - As is known, the Centre is working basically with policy makers at the level of the Community and the Member States, which thus help to develop a strategy for combating drugs and providing information to the general public.
At the present time, attention is mainly paid to implementation of the EU Action Plan for 2009-2012, which is aimed at strengthening European cooperation in the struggle against the unacceptable consequences of drug addiction.
I would like to see the Centre working not only on the consequences but also on the causes of drug addiction, thus solving the problem at an early stage.
I voted in favour.
I believe that we must take steps, not just within the European Union, but beyond its borders, to reduce the use of and demand for drugs, using strict preventative measures to combat phenomena associated with the drug market.
Consequently, it is very important to obtain accurate data and information on drugs and drug addiction, because these are global phenomena, posing a threat to the health, security and social well-being of us all.
I support Croatia's participation in the activities of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Croatia aims to become a full member of the European Union.
It should be noted that Croatia is a transit route through which large quantities of drugs are smuggled to other countries.
I am pleased that Croatia is making significant efforts to combat the trafficking, use of and trade in illegal drugs.
However, Croatia remains one of the main routes for trafficking drugs to the EU.
It is therefore crucial to quickly obtain factual and objective information on drugs, drug addiction and the consequences of these.
Furthermore, this will create an ideal framework for Croatia to obtain information on other EU Member States' best practices in addressing problems related to drugs and drug addiction.
I welcome Croatia's participation in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
The main task of the EMCDDA is to collect data on drugs and drug addiction, and to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
This information provides a basis for analysing demand for drugs and ways of reducing it, as well as phenomena associated with the drug market in general.
Indeed, Croatia, like certain other European countries, is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on the way from production countries to consumer countries.
The significant and large-scale cocaine seizures in Croatia are mostly connected with sea transport.
With the adoption of this report, Croatia will start participating in the EMCDDA's work programme and sharing data with the EMCDDA, subject to the data protection requirements of the Union and national law.
The agreement sets out financial contributions to the Union to cover the cost of its participation.
The EMCDDA is the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which was established in 1993 with the main task of collecting data on drugs and drug addiction, in order to prepare and publish objective, reliable and comparable information at European level.
The information supplied by the Centre provides a basis for analysing the demand for drugs entering the EU and all the phenomena associated with the drug market, so as to be able to work out how best to combat these problems.
The Centre is open to the participation of any third country that shares the interests of the Union and its Member States in its objectives and work.
Croatia asked to participate in the Centre's activities in 2005 and, in 2006, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Croatia.
These were positively concluded in July 2009 with the initialling of the agreement.
The agreement was subsequently revised in December 2009 in light of the Treaty of Lisbon.
It should be pointed out that Croatia is already part of Reitox, the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction.
For the reasons given above, and in order to further improve cooperation with non-EU countries, I have voted in favour.
Croatia asked to join the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2005.
Since this country is on one of the main drug smuggling routes into the European Union, I consider it important to have factual, objective information from Croatia on these problems.
I therefore find the rapporteur's position entirely acceptable and I support this recommendation.
The Republic of Croatia has requested that it be allowed to participate in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), created in 1993 and based in Lisbon.
Indeed, the country is particularly interested in the fight against drug trafficking: as well as the problems it is experiencing with its domestic policy, it is a route of entry for smuggling these products into the EU.
In its fight against drug addiction and trafficking, Croatia has already implemented measures to address this at a national level, both in terms of preventing consumption and in terms of supporting the investigation of drug-related crime.
There is, therefore, mutual interest in Croatia's accession to the EMCDDA.
However, insofar as it is not yet a Member State, it is necessary to define its status - its rights of participation and what responsibilities it should have - in the context of the EMCDDA.
in writing. - We supported the mandate of EMCDDA in 2006.
As regards the specific situation in Croatia, it is a transit route through which illicit drugs are smuggled on their way from the producer countries to consumer countries.
In the last 10 years, the number of deaths has gradually increased in Croatia.
A majority (77.1%) of the cases of deaths were associated with opiates.
In 2008, the total number of reported drug-related offences was 7 168.
In 2009, a total of 7 934 persons were treated by the national drug addiction institutes.
The number of seizures decreased for all drugs except heroin when compared to the previous year and, in general, progress has been made in combating drug abuse.
Generally Croatia's anti-drug legislation is similar to that of the EU Member States.
However, the rapporteur's position points out that, from 2010 on, every therapeutic community has to provide the Office for Drugs with data on treated patients.
It would be good to obtain more information on the scope of this obligation.
Nevertheless, this is an issue for domestic legislation, not the Agreement.
I voted in favour of this recommendation because I consider the protection of European citizens' health and social stability to be a priority that should be borne in mind in the fight against illicit drug use and trafficking.
Croatia is situated on one of the main trafficking routes for drugs into the EU.
Its participation in the work programme of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction will provide the European Union with factual information on drug trafficking and use in Croatia, and will enable Croatia to understand the scale of its drug-related problems and adopt best practice to deal with them.
Moreover, a sound legal basis for its participation can be found in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 establishing the Centre, which opens the Centre's doors to third countries that share its aims and interests.
in writing. - I welcome this report, which integrates Croatia into the fight against drugs in the EU.
The aim of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is to collect data on the drug problem (sale, market, use) and to disseminate it in the Member States so that they can analyse and better respond to the problem.
I therefore fully support Croatia's participation in the work of the Centre so that it can play an active part in combating this problem, the scale and devastating effects of which are dangerously on the increase in Europe.
The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia represents an efficient means for the EU and Croatia to reduce and impede the trade in, and consumption of, drugs on the basis of the sharing of data and experience in relation to drugs and their abuse, and in light of the fact that one EU citizen dies of an overdose every hour.
Account needs to be taken of the fact that Croatia will accede to the European Union in 2012 or 2013 and that, as a result of its geographical location, it represents a good trans-shipment point for drug dealers.
I voted for Mrs Auconie's report.
I welcome this proposal to extend the scope of application to the cross-border transport of euro cash by road.
The territory of Member States which are about to introduce the single currency must be included in the cash transport system.
It ought to be possible, within the euro area, to sign a contract with the cash-in-transit company offering the best price, even if it is located in another Member State.
This will facilitate access to the most efficient channels for collecting and delivering cash and providing cash services.
In future, an ever increasing number of cash-in-transit operators will be required for the euro in the run-up to the changeover to this currency.
Furthermore, a large number of Member States in the euro area have signed or may wish to sign agreements for the production of banknotes and coins abroad.
I support the report on the draft Council Regulation concerning the extension of the scope of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States.
This is because it is a good idea to also include in the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States the territory of Member States which are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.
I agree with extending the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro.
The purpose of the present proposal is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.
I welcome this extension of the scope (although it should be noted that the legal basis here is Article 352 TFEU, which means that Parliament merely has the power of consent).
I voted in favour of this recommendation as I believe that the scope of this regulation should be able to be extended to the territory of any Member State about to join the euro.
This decision will contribute to a more harmonious transition to the euro, whilst adequately responding to the increased need for cross-border transportation of euro cash in the run-up to the changeover.
I agree with the rapporteur in the follow-up to her initial report on extending the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro.
The aim of this provision is to simplify regulatory restrictions in order to make it possible for euro notes and coins to circulate more easily between Member States and to ensure a high level of professionalism and security within the euro area.
It is right to expand the scope of this regulation, since there is a greater need to transport euro currency in the period preceding the introduction of the euro in the Member States of the euro area.
in writing. - I voted for this report, the purpose of which is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.
I believe that it is appropriate to widen the scope of application of the regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States, and to apply its provisions on the territory of Member States that are preparing to introduce the euro.
It should be noted that in countries that are preparing to change currency, a significant need for euro cash transportation services is emerging.
Consequently, we need to improve the quality of transportation services, creating favourable conditions for cash-in-transit companies to provide services quickly and efficiently.
Furthermore, given the nature of the goods transported and their value, it is very important for the cash to reach the end recipient safely.
Euro bank notes and coins are genuinely a pan-European means of payment, as the euro area currently consists of 16 Member States.
Since national laws may be incompatible between countries, it is usually very difficult for professional cash transport companies to move euro cash between euro area Member States, which means that such transport is currently very limited.
As a result, the demand for cross-border transport of euro cash by road has risen markedly.
This new proposal for a regulation seeks to extend the scope of the regulation on cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro.
The principal proposal is to extend the scope of the regulation on cross-border transport between euro area Member States, not forgetting that there is an increased need for euro cash transport in the run-up to the changeover to the euro as the national currency of new Member States.
For these reasons, and to ensure that this issue is clearly regulated, I have voted in favour of the regulation in question.
I voted in favour of this recommendation because I believe the scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between Member States should be extended to the territory of countries that are about to introduce the single currency.
In fact, such states normally have an increased need for euro cash in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency in their territories, to enable them to quickly and completely engage in EU trade and thereby participate in it to the full.
in writing. - I welcome this report, which has provisions to allow a greater volume of euro cash to travel to countries which are due to adopt the euro to cope with demand.
I supported this report because it improves the safety and training of professionals who transport euro cash.
I voted in favour of the draft Council Regulation concerning the extension of the scope of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash between euro area Member States.
I voted in favour of it because I consider that extending the scope of the regulation is necessary and will resolve problems relating to the safety of the personnel responsible for transportation.
I am voting in favour of the report in question, bearing in mind that satellite navigation systems should ensure interoperability between the various systems.
For its part, the Commission should ensure adequate levels of funding.
I should also note that, of the 15 actions included in the Commission's action plan, nine should have an immediate application.
I voted in favour of the report by our fellow Member, Mrs Ţicău, on transport applications of global navigation satellite systems.
Indeed, I am in favour of the application of GNSS functions to different modes of transport and of the proper implementation of research and funding in this area.
On 14 June 2010, the Commission published its Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), which included 24 specific recommendations for action.
The action plan was prepared by taking into account the general deployment of global satellite navigation systems and, specifically, the development and use of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service).
The EU launched the EGNOS project (and Galileo) to provide signals guaranteed for civilian use and to ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in this growing strategic market.
Europe's current market share of 25% is below expectations.
EGNOS will offer more possibilities (EGNOS is ten times more accurate than GPS) when Galileo becomes operational in 2013.
The Commission is best placed to coordinate the implementation of the action plan to avoid duplication at Member State level and to ensure overall progress in various EU policy fields covered by GNSS applications.
In view of the major economic benefits, which EGNOS will have on the broader European economy if fully developed and deployed, the Commission should set out clear priorities in this area, including the operation of EGNOS throughout the whole of the EU and ensuring adequate investment in related research and technological development.
The dynamic development of satellite navigation systems in recent years is the result of both technological progress and market needs.
These systems are used everywhere, today, in every form of transport.
The continued expansion of this sector means that the value of European systems is projected to reach a level of EUR 230 billion by 2025.
The EU's EGNOS and Galileo projects can contribute to competitiveness in every area of this sector of services, because they are markedly better and more accurate than the GPS system while also being compatible with it.
Unfortunately, the countries in the east and south of the Union are still not covered by the EGNOS system.
Extending its range would, therefore, appear to be essential in the context of its further development.
Something else which has not been made clear is how the costs of maintaining the Galileo system will be financed.
They are estimated at around EUR 800 million per year.
In view of the above, I have abstained from voting on the report.
in writing. - (BG) I support the report on transport applications of global navigation satellite systems - short- and medium-term EU policy, because the navigation systems market is huge.
The proposal will help avoid duplication at Member State level and ensure overall progress in the multiplicity of EU policy fields in this sector.
On the whole, the European navigation system (10 times more accurate than GPS) will make an important contribution to safety and environmental objectives in road transport and to freer traffic flow through providing the opportunity for road tolling.
I have taken a prudent approach and decided to abstain on Mrs Ţicău's report.
Although an action plan on global navigation satellite systems might be considered strategic, to provide signals guaranteed for civilian use and to ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in its growing market share, there are many key points that have not been addressed. Among these are the possible data protection risks and especially the uncertainty about how the annual maintenance cost of Galileo, which is estimated at around EUR 800 million, will be financed.
The lack of clarity over the financial sustainability of a project that is so important for Europe's economy, and yet also so ambitious, demands a cautious, objective approach.
The aim of the European Parliament resolution of 7 June 2011 is to encourage the European Commission to take targeted action to promote the development of global navigation satellite systems.
Europe's GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) and Galileo projects are in direct competition with the United States' GPS.
These projects will make everyday life easier from now on.
They represent added value not only for industry but also for transport in Europe, which is why I fully support them.
They will have many knock-on effects: for civil aviation, air traffic control systems will be made safer; and for road traffic, this system will facilitate fee collection and improve safety via satellite tracking of emergency calls and monitoring of road transport.
All these areas will be improved by the creation of this European service.
I voted for this resolution in order to put pressure on the European and national authorities and to prevent a delay that deprives Europe every day of infinite possibilities.
The Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications outlines the steps that are essential to the GNSS passing a turning point and guaranteeing project success.
It is important that the plan does not founder in an excessive number of initiatives, and get bogged down in mere consultations, and that it really is implemented by 2013.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) system must cover the entire European Union, and should be extended to northern, eastern and south-eastern Europe.
In order for it to be fully effective for transport purposes, it must include not only the entire Union, but also our closest neighbours.
In the area of civil aviation, the development of the system and the use of the EGNOS application for landing manoeuvres should be supported.
It is a strategic precondition for the genuine establishment of a Single European Sky.
There is also considerable potential for the exploitation of EGNOS and GNSS in the areas of safety, the environment, and the smooth operation of road transport, as they can be used for collecting tolls.
I am voting for the policy on the transport applications of global navigation satellite systems, which I believe will contribute to better management of transport and logistics, as well as surveillance systems.
Given the high value of the global market in this sector, which will continue to grow over the coming years, I would also like to highlight the importance of creating the conditions for European industry to be competitive.
According to current estimates, global navigation satellite systems are expected to earn the European economy between EUR 55 and 63 billion over the next 20 years.
These applications, which are largely based on the US GPS system at present, account for around 6% of the EU's total GDP.
In the light of this, I voted in favour of Mrs Ţicău's own-initiative report, which calls on the Commission to provide adequate funding for the development of applications based on the European global navigation satellite system, EGNOS and Galileo.
SME access to this funding should be particularly encouraged in order to stimulate innovation on the basis of these European systems.
I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the application of the proposed Action Plan on the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) will contribute to the establishment of a transport network that is more efficient through safer, more environmentally friendly and more economical modes of transport.
Global navigation systems are part of everyday life in the transport sector, and they will have growing importance in a world that increasingly functions as part of a network, and where trade and rapid communication are essential.
The commercial advantages and value of such systems are obvious, and there is understandable European interest in having as many of these solutions as possible, and in these operating without depending on third parties.
The action plan tabled by the Commission makes valid proposals for the future of the EU approach to these issues, and enables the topic to be raised in a more solid and consistent way.
The way these systems are funded requires particularly strict handling in order to avoid waste, and an imaginative approach is also needed in order to garner support and partners.
I hope that the Union will still be able to equip itself with independent global navigation systems, and will exploit its full potential, in order to promote the strengthening of the economy, increased employment and transport safety.
This report, drafted by Mrs Ţicău, concerns transport applications of navigation satellite systems for the EU, following the publication of the Commission's Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications on 14 June 2010.
This sector has experienced exponential growth since 2000, which saw the first provision of Global Positioning System (GPS) services, going from EUR 124 billion in 2008 to an estimated global market value in the region of EUR 230 billion in 2025.
The EU could not afford to fall behind in this satellite navigation technology, so it developed its European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), the forerunner of the Galileo system, which it is hoped should be operational in 2013 and will be ten times more accurate than GPS.
It is expected that accuracy to 45 centimetres will be possible in the near future.
I would congratulate the rapporteur, and I welcome the adoption of this report, which I voted for, as it will allow the EU to increase its market share and enhance Europe's competitiveness in a strategic and growing market.
Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) can have important and extremely useful applications for all modes of transport.
Among other aspects, they can make them safer, more environmentally friendly and more economical.
GNSS can also play a vital role in supporting and promoting the use of so-called intelligent transport systems.
The rapporteur addresses some of these aspects.
However, like other technologies, the practical results of GNSS applications are inseparable from the economic and social context in which they occur, and from the ends and objectives they serve.
This is the case in general, and in this sector in particular.
As such, it is not surprising that it is proposed that this system should also help establish the Single European Sky, for instance; we would like to distance ourselves from this aspect of the report.
We agree with a GNSS that can support the development, modernisation and diversification of public services, especially in the area of transport.
The GNSS cannot fail to be analysed across all of the many dimensions in which it may be applied.
In view of this, we would question the limits of the potential use of these programmes in the context of assumed competition between the EU and the United States with regard to the functionality and efficiency of these systems.
These systems can also play a vital role in supporting and promoting the use of so-called intelligent transport systems.
However, like other technologies, the practical results of the applications are inseparable from the economic and social context in which they occur, and from the ends and objectives they serve.
As such, it is not surprising that it is proposed that this system should also help establish the Single European Sky, for instance; we would like to distance ourselves from this aspect of the report.
We agree with a global navigation satellite system that can support the development, modernisation and diversification of public services, especially in the area of transport.
However, the system cannot fail to be analysed across all of the many dimensions in which it may be applied.
In view of this, we would question the limits of the potential use of these programmes in a context of assumed competition between the EU and the United States with regard to the functionality and efficiency of these systems.
In June 2010, the Commission published the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications, which includes 24 specific recommendations.
The action plan was drawn up in a period when the global navigation satellite systems were being implemented, specifically, the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) system.
The satellite navigation systems should ensure cooperation between the various systems, and should also be usable in passenger and freight transport.
In my opinion, the Commission should take the steps necessary for coordinating implementation of the action plan and securing progress in EU policy areas related to GNSS applications.
Although we agree with some aspects of Mrs Ţicău's proposal, we are unsure about many others.
These include identifying how the annual maintenance cost of Galileo, which is estimated at EUR 800 million, will be financed once it has become operational; the possible data protection risks associated with using global navigation satellite system applications and services; and the pressing need to find additional funding to ensure that operations involving the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) and Galileo are soon successful.
For these reasons, the proposal should not be thrown out but I cannot give it my full support.
The adoption of this report is an important step forward as it lays the foundations for the general deployment of global satellite navigation systems and, specifically, the development of EGNOS, which should smooth the way for implementation of the Galileo system.
I also gave it my vote because it will provide an opportunity to take concrete measures that will facilitate the development of transport in Europe, have a major impact on safety and environmental matters and improve traffic flow conditions for road transport.
I endorsed this document because, on 14 June 2010, the Commission published its Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications, which included 24 specific recommendations for action.
The action plan was prepared by taking into account the general deployment of global satellite navigation systems and, specifically, the development and use of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service).
EGNOS is the forerunner of the Galileo system.
GNSS are important for developing Intelligent Transport Systems (ITSs), because ITSs can provide more efficient, cleaner and safer transport solutions, and proper implementation of a number of ITS services requires fully operational GNSS systems.
EGNOS and Galileo can make an important contribution to road traffic management and an awareness-raising campaign in that sector is required in order to increase the use of the opportunities it provides in relation to fee collection, eCall, online booking of safe parking sites for trucks, and real-time tracking to contribute to safer and more environmentally friendly road transport.
This motion for a European Parliament resolution is important as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) can be applied to all modes of transport (land, sea and air), making traffic operate more efficiently, supporting economic growth and reducing pollution.
At the same time, GNSS is part of the EU 2020 strategy's key innovation objectives.
A larger amount of annual funding than is allocated at the moment needs to be provided so that this global navigation system is implemented in a suitable, uniform manner in all EU Member States.
This motion for a resolution proposes, amongst its suggestions, allocating funding for the research and development of new GNSS applications which can be applied in areas such as climate change, agriculture, civil defence, natural disaster warning systems and so on.
Last but not least, developing an EU-level GNSS system guarantees the EU's independence from similar navigation systems outside the EU.
in writing. - I welcome the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications (COM(2010)308), which aims to promote the development of downstream applications through certification, standardisation and coordination with the industry and other countries, as well as by disseminating information, raising awareness, implementing regulatory measures and increasing funding.
With the publication of the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications and the development and deployment of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service), the European Union has sought to point out civilian uses and ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in this fast-growing strategic market.
We agree with the targeted action plan drawn up by the Commission, which includes 15 sectoral actions, nine of which have an immediate and important transport application, particularly as regards promoting EGNOS in third countries.
In fact, for this system to be fully effective from a transport perspective, its range has to go beyond the borders of Europe to include our near neighbours.
As a matter of priority, therefore, it should be extended to northern, eastern and south-eastern Europe.
In the area of civil aviation, we call on the Member States to prioritise EGNOS-based procedures and services with a view to creating a real Single European Sky.
It is also clear that EGNOS and GNSS generally can make an important contribution to safety and environmental protection.
To achieve these objectives, we will need adequate investment in the European research and development sector.
This is the time for the Commission to coordinate the implementation of the action plan so as to avoid duplication between Member States and to ensure overall progress in the many different EU application areas for applications of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS).
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) should cover the entire European Union, and should be extended to the southern, eastern and south-eastern regions of Europe as a priority.
For the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) to be fully effective from a transport perspective, its range has to be the whole of the Union, and indeed beyond, to cover our closest neighbours.
In the area of civil aviation, the Member States must promote the development and use of EGNOS-based landing procedures, and both these and EGNOS-based services must be certified as a matter of priority for civil aviation.
This is a strategic requirement for a real Single European Sky.
It is also clear that the EGNOS and GNSS systems can, in general, make an important contribution to road safety and environmental objectives, and to freer road traffic flow, due to their availability for use in road tolling.
We must find ways of funding this system.
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) applications are a central and crucial business component in all transport-related sectors, and their effective functioning makes transport safer, more environmentally friendly and more cost-effective.
The European Union cannot continue to depend on systems initially designed for other uses by other countries.
Considering the high added value that the GNSS and Galileo projects generate for EU industrial policy, it is essential to ensure their success.
A targeted action plan is the best way of giving fresh impetus and contributing significantly to targets on safety and the environment as well as to those on traffic flow improvement for road transport.
Furthermore, satellite navigation systems must provide interoperability with different systems, including traditional systems.
Extending the coverage of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) should be a priority.
This system must then be extended to the entire European continent as well as to Euro-Mediterranean Partnership countries and also to the Middle East and Africa.
Finally, the Commission should propose measures to ensure an adequate level of financing without diminishing the other funds allocated to transport policy.
in writing. - Satellite navigation systems should ensure interoperability between different systems and should also allow intermodal use in passenger and freight transport services.
Therefore, I voted in favour.
I voted in favour of this resolution on EU policy in the short and medium term on transport applications of Global Navigation Satellite Systems, above all because, across the entire EU, significant attention should be paid to the GNSS and Galileo projects in the transport sector.
The Commission has a special role to play here, establishing a regulatory mechanism that would eliminate various bureaucratic and other obstacles and would facilitate the smooth and effective implementation of these projects.
Furthermore, it is very important to ensure appropriate and sufficient funding for these projects, according to criteria of transparency and proportionality, with particular attention being paid to SMEs.
We must promote the use of EGNOS and Galileo in civil aviation and thus contribute to establishing the Single European Sky ATM Research programme and facilitating its implementation.
It is crucial for European satellite radio navigation programmes to be adapted to multi-modal services and applied throughout Europe, not only in certain countries, because the effective implementation of the programmes mentioned would improve freight transport efficiency and help to address many transport safety and environmental issues.
I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Ţicău because I think that new technologies such as satellite navigation systems, which are becoming increasingly widespread and benefit all of society, should be applied to the transport sector.
In the global system in which we live, the EU must adapt its policies to the needs of the various sectors and develop a global satellite navigation system that integrates perfectly with the well-known GPS system so as to provide immediate information with no margin for error.
With a booming market and an estimated turnover of more than EUR 200 billion over the next 10 years, satellite navigation needs adequate funding to support its development in practice.
On 14 June 2010, the Commission published its Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications, which included 24 specific recommendations for action.
This sector as a whole has experienced enormous expansion since the first provision of Global Positioning System (GPS) services from US satellite facilities in 2000.
Indeed, the estimated global market value in 2008 was EUR 124 billion, projected to reach EUR 230 billion by 2025.
Of this, 20% is represented by intelligent transport systems (ITS) and 5% by safety applications, including transport safety applications.
This project aims to provide signals guaranteed for civilian use and to ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in this growing strategic market.
Europe's current market share of 25% is below expectations.
EGNOS is GPS-compatible but will offer more possibilities when Galileo becomes operational in 2013.
EGNOS is ten times more accurate than GPS at present.
These aspects have immediate and important implications for the transport sector, including Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, and I am therefore voting in favour.
The global satellite navigation systems sector has experienced strong growth since 2000, when the systems were first used in the United States.
The estimated global market value in 2025 is EUR 230 billion, 20% of which will come from intelligent transport systems and 5% from safety applications.
In June 2010, the Commission published the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications and, specifically, the European EGNOS system: this action plan also includes 24 specific recommendations for action.
If the EGNOS system is to be developed further, priority must be given to the measures proposed in the action plan and adequate investment and funding in research and development activities must be provided without fail.
Indeed, a lack of European funding for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in this research project under the seventh and eighth framework programmes would make it less attractive to commercial operators.
In order to support the further development of the EGNOS system and to ensure that the system does not suffer from a lack of European funding, I voted in favour of this proposal.
in writing. - The Commission's Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite Systems shows there is huge demand in a market projected to be worth EUR 230 billion by 2025.
However, Europe is failing to compete globally in this field and our current market share of 25% is below what is expected.
We must ensure we take the necessary steps to ensure this industry achieves its full potential.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) is ten times more accurate than GPS and it is predicted that accuracy to 45 centimetres can be achieved in the near future.
This system has obvious uses in the fields of air and sea transport and can also be used in road transport.
However, we must be mindful of encroaching too much on European citizens as there are obvious personal privacy issues with such technology.
Overall, I welcome ENGOS and GNSS as they can make an important contribution to safety and environmental objectives and I believe adequate investment in the related research and development will be essential.
But the funding gap must be closed in order to reap the benefits of these projects.
Following the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications, published by the Commission on 14 June 2010 with a view to increasing the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), efforts should be made to extend the navigation system to cover the entire EU.
Indeed, the expansion of this system can offer huge advantages for the economy and security.
To this end, however, major investment is needed in innovation and development.
This is the only way, firstly, that the system will achieve its full scope and, secondly, that it will reach the level of maturity that will ultimately enable a financial return.
This is an area, moreover, that has seen massive development.
For instance, it is estimated that in the near future, it will be possible to achieve geographic locations accurate to 45 centimetres.
For these reasons, I voted for this report.
Today, we voted during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on the report on transport applications of Global Navigation Satellite Systems.
In 2010, the Commission published the Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications.
The action plan outlines the solutions necessary to ensure the success of satellite navigation.
The general background to the action plan is the general deployment of global satellite navigation systems and, specifically, the development and deployment of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service).
The EU has launched the EGNOS project (and Galileo) to provide signals guaranteed for civilian use and to ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in this growing strategic market.
I believe it is necessary, as Mrs Ţicău points out, to set aside additional funding for the Galileo programme and, hence, to create perhaps a Galileo reserve fund within the EU budget to cover any additional costs, taking care not to harm the other programmes.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report.
On 14 June 2010, the Commission published its Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), which included 24 specific recommendations for action.
The background to the action plan is the general deployment of global satellite navigation systems and, specifically, the development and deployment of EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service), the forerunner of the Galileo system.
The sector as a whole has experienced enormous expansion since the first provision of GPS services from American satellite facilities in 2000.
The estimated global market value in 2008 was EUR 124 billion, and it is projected to reach EUR 230 billion by 2025.
Of this, 20% is represented by Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and 5% by safety applications, including transport safety applications.
The EU launched the EGNOS project (and Galileo) to provide signals guaranteed for civilian use and to ensure that European industry at all levels has an opportunity to compete in this growing strategic market.
EGNOS is GPS compatible but it will offer more possibilities when Galileo becomes operational in 2013.
EGNOS is 10 times more accurate than GPS.
Like the rapporteur, I support the Commission's Action Plan for the development of EGNOS and Galileo, which is based on nine horizontal measures with an immediate transport application.
The deployment of EGNOS to its maximum extent throughout Europe and beyond to our near neighbours will have a major beneficial impact on the broader European economy, as well as on safety and environmental objectives, and will encourage a freer traffic flow in road transport.
If we are to achieve these objectives, however, we need adequate funding for research and development, which has been scarce until now.
The EU is, in fact, the only trading block that does not provide direct funding to its GNSS programme.
The report on transport applications of global navigation satellite systems supports and highlights the role and importance of the Commission's 2010-2013 action plan in this area and its impact on transport.
The nine measures in the action plan are immediately and essentially related to transport.
It envisages the use and development of global navigation satellite systems in all forms of transport.
Of course, this will play a very big role in road and air transport.
Two of the measures that are definitely worth highlighting are the facilitation of the creation of a Single European Sky and the creation of applications for intelligent transport systems.
In addition, the use of satellites will provide an opportunity to develop and use a great many different applications.
I sincerely hope that the development and putting into practice of the systems, applications and solutions specified in the report goes as planned, and that, already in the next few years, the various solutions will find an application, which will make companies' and citizens' lives easier and enhance safety at sea, in the air and on the roads.
in writing. - I welcome this report, which deals with developing and deploying European systems to exploit Galileo and other satellite systems and their applications in the transport domain.
Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) currently have implications for all EU policies, and their development and application will have a catalytic effect on implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and on creating a strategic and competitive European sector.
Transport applications account for 20% of all GNSS applications by volume, and 44% by value.
This industry represents a growing global market in which Europe should take the lead and achieve its independence.
GNSS applications and services in the area of transport have various implications for security, for effectiveness, and for the economic and environmental costs of all modes of transport.
I also believe that it is important to note that in order for there to be fair development, the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) programme should cover all of the Member States and enable interoperability and compatibility with third countries, so as to make this market competitive and dynamic.
Finally, I would stress the rapporteur's idea that the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) should ensure adequate levels of funding for GNSS research and development, as well as for its implementation.
Mechanisms should be created to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) gain access to this funding more easily, and to facilitate the development and marketing of GNSS applications.
I have voted in favour of this report.
Following the failure of Europe's market share in the growing satellite navigation systems market to live up to expectations, in June last year, the Commission brought forward an action plan on global navigation satellite system (GNSS) applications.
The Commission sensibly chose a targeted action plan, the recommendations of which not only include the realisation of the Single European Sky - already a priority that the Union has confirmed many times - but in the sphere of road transport, too, GNSS is to make an important contribution to attaining our safety and environmental protection targets.
Taken as a whole, the action plan is designed to ensure that the European market, too, can compete in this sector, the worldwide market value of which is forecast to further grow to EUR 230 billion by 2025.
I am convinced that actions to promote the use of EGNOS and Galileo in civil aviation are crucial for implementation of the Single European Sky ATM Research programme.
Unfortunately, as the rapporteur has emphasised in her document, introduction of the Galileo system continues to be beset by new problems.
I agree with the call to the Commission to ensure swift certification of EGNOS for civil aviation.
I have often stressed already that I am an enthusiast of the concept of the Single European Sky and the Single European Sky ATM Research programme.
Rapid and full realisation of the European air space is a very important strategic step towards real integration of the Union and strengthening the common market.
Without Galileo, we will not have SESAR, and without SESAR, we will not achieve Single European Sky 2.
Let us remember that in this area in particular, we are dealing with a system of interconnected vessels - a weakness in one part will have a disastrous effect on the rest.
I am voting for the report in question as there needs to be a framework for assessing individual air agreements, although Parliament needs to monitor the negotiations closely, instead of being left behind and only deciding whether to accept or reject the final text.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement.
Air agreements now fall within this category.
That is why I am in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Brian Simpson, on the implementation of a set of criteria for evaluating the content of these agreements.
I also think that there is a need to promote balanced market access and investment opportunities, as well as fair competition, particularly with regard to public subsidies and social and environmental standards.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, agreements covering a field to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies require Parliament's consent.
I voted in favour of this report aimed at setting out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated, both in terms of substance and the procedures the European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism might adopt to ensure that it is well informed throughout the course of negotiations and has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the yes/no choice of consent.
Comprehensive air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver substantial benefits to passengers, freight operators and airlines, by means of both market access and regulatory convergence to promote fair competition, including issues with regard to state subsidies and social and environmental standards.
I agree with the rapporteur that Parliament needs to follow the process from the very beginning and be closely involved in the topics under discussion to discover the current state of the negotiations on air agreements.
The Commission should also be aware of the criteria that Parliament will use to evaluate an agreement and its elements.
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement.
The new Parliamentary powers established by the Treaty bring with them new responsibilities to ensure that Parliament and its responsible committee are well informed about the preparation of the agreements to which it will subsequently be asked to give its consent.
In view of this change, I welcome the corresponding new Parliamentary responsibility to monitor the conduct of negotiations more closely.
I would take the opportunity to point out here that, in order to be well placed to consider whether or not to grant consent once the negotiations have been completed, Parliament needs to follow the process from the outset, rather than after the negotiations have been concluded.
Lastly, I repeat the call for the Commission to supply Parliament with a constant flow of information and to submit reports analysing the strengths and weaknesses of existing agreements on a regular basis.
I believe, in fact, that this would enable Parliament to assess future agreements more effectively.
This motion for a European Parliament resolution on the conclusion of international air agreements incorporates many of the key principles upheld by the Lega Nord.
They include the need to ensure equal market access rights for airlines from all Member States, preventing concealed dumping practices financed directly by national policies, in breach of Community rules on State aid.
The motion also voices concern about citizens' safety, acknowledging the fundamental importance of establishing a reference framework on safety.
Another principle defended by the Lega Nord and upheld in the motion concerns transparency between the activities of the European institutions and EU citizens, whose interests are directly represented in Parliament.
To this end, the motion highlights, in fact, the need for the Commission to fulfil its responsibility of keeping Parliament constantly informed of the progress of its negotiations with non-EU operators.
For the reasons listed above, I decided to vote in favour of this motion.
I voted in favour of this report because I agree that comprehensive EU air agreements with neighbouring countries can only benefit passengers, freight operators and airlines in many respects: maintaining security and environmental standards and promoting a favourable business environment.
The aim of this report is to simplify and clarify the conclusion of air transport agreements and the adoption of decisions on such agreements, with the European Parliament informing the Commission in advance about the criteria upon which it will base its decision whether or not to consent to the conclusion of a particular agreement on behalf of the EU.
In the report, Parliament also draws the attention of the Commission and the Council to agreements which, if concluded, may benefit the EU and its citizens, but which the EU has, for one reason or another, yet to conclude with countries such as Russia, China, Japan and India.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent is required for the conclusion of international agreements.
This means that it is a natural step for the Committee on Transport and Tourism to draw up an own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles regarding how air transport agreements should be evaluated.
Comprehensive agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can provide substantial benefits by offering passengers and freight operators improved services - in terms of both variety and cost - while allowing airlines new opportunities and a competitive edge.
Indeed, regulatory convergence can do much to promote fair competition, particularly with regard to state subsidies, social and environmental standards.
It is unfortunate that the Council has yet to grant the Commission a mandate to open negotiations on a global air transport agreement with important trading partners, such as the People's Republic of China and India, despite the proposal dating from 2005.
The economic growth of this region enhances the value of such agreements.
I voted in favour of this own-initiative report because the increasingly important contribution of the aviation sector brings with it many advantages for the European economy, but also quite a few disadvantages.
I believe that the institution to which I belong, namely Parliament, should be given greater supervisory powers so that it has a full understanding of the types of agreement that do or do not deserve its consent.
The vote that we would cast would be the result of close monitoring of the outcome of negotiations, which must promote compliance with international legislation on social rights, full recognition of certification practices and procedures, exchange of safety data and joint inspections.
Only by giving our consent to ambitious agreements that respect the principles upheld by the EU could we make a valid contribution to the latter's activities and improvement.
I believe that the possibility of regulatory convergence raised by certain international air agreements will be realised by creating conditions of fair competition.
This is not only beneficial to industry in the countries involved, but also constitutes an opportunity to standardise and strengthen social and environmental standards.
The services offered to passengers and freight operators will also see substantial improvements which would not be as visible through other means, such as bilateral agreements.
The conclusion of comprehensive agreements on air transport with neighbouring countries or significant global partners is of particular importance in terms of market access and of regulatory convergence, as it promotes fair competition, an equal level of social and environmental standards, and so on.
This benefits all parties: passengers, freight operators and airlines.
In terms of horizontal agreements, it is also important to align existing bilateral agreements with EU law, so as to ensure greater legal certainty, increase transparency and provide additional benefits in terms of simplification, while ensuring that all Union airlines will enjoy the same rights.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has come to play a more prominent role in this area, making its approval necessary for the conclusion of these international agreements.
I am therefore voting for this report, which seeks to set out some general principles and a consistent set of standards.
It also stresses the importance of keeping Parliament informed, so that it can monitor the process from the beginning, as this will give it the opportunity to express its concerns and priorities.
I voted in favour of this report for two main reasons.
Firstly, the report recommends increasing the role of the European Parliament, under new powers conferred on it by the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the conclusion of international agreements with third countries.
In this respect, the report highlights the need to strengthen dialogue with the European Commission at the different negotiation stages and in the monitoring of agreements in force.
Secondly, the report stresses the need to conclude aviation safety agreements with third countries that have a significant aircraft manufacturing industry; this is a crucial requirement considering the legitimate need to ensure ever-greater aviation safety.
Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has had more powers to intervene in the conclusion of international agreements between the European Union and third countries.
Brian Simpson's report adopted today will thus enable Parliament's role in international aviation negotiations to be defined better.
I welcome the fact that Parliament is particularly pressing for agreements concluded by the European Union to include mutual recognition of aviation security and safety standards, as well as better safeguards for the protection of passenger rights.
I voted in favour of the report on international air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon, as it highlights the importance of Parliament being 'immediately and fully informed at all stages' of the process of negotiating agreements between the EU and third countries or international organisations.
The Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament new powers on the approval of international agreements.
Of these, the international air transport agreements are of particular importance, given the various security and coordination needs involved.
Assessing an agreement requires criteria based on strict scrutiny and monitoring of the terms of negotiation.
I hope that the Commission and Parliament can cooperate actively so as to continually improve the quality and rigour of this type of agreement.
This report by Mr Simpson deals with international air agreements under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Since 1 December 2009, with the entry into force of the TFEU, Parliament has seen its powers strengthened and has taken on codecision responsibilities in many areas, including air services.
In view of this, the Committee on Transport and Tourism has tabled this report, which appears to be extremely positive and timely, setting out some general principles with which I fully agree.
Parliament is thus able to monitor the whole process from the beginning, through the information given to it by the Commission, especially through the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, and to carefully appraise the agreements it is asked to vote on, whether they are horizontal, comprehensive or safety agreements.
The international air agreements provided for under the Treaty of Lisbon are supranational agreements intended to overlap with the existing bilateral agreements implemented by the Member States.
We have reiterated our position against this principle in successive agreements upon which Parliament has delivered opinions, along with criticism of the comprehensive nature of these agreements, which are, without exception, aimed at the liberalisation and privatisation of the sector.
The rapporteur - who, significantly, is from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - states that 'air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver substantial benefits to passengers, freight operators and airlines'.
However, the reality in this and in other sectors which have seen increased liberalisation, such as rail transport, belies these promises of benefits.
If there really is a winner from processes of monopolistic concentration in the air transport sector - which is what inevitably follows liberalisation and 'free competition' - it is not the passengers, nor the workers, nor many of the so-called 'flag carrier' airlines, but rather the major European companies in the sector.
Those are the reasons why we voted against.
This report relates to international air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon.
These are international agreements intended to harmonise and overlap with the existing bilateral agreements implemented by the Member States.
The rapporteur states that 'air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver substantial benefits to passengers, freight operators and airlines, by means [...] of market access'.
However, the fact is that putting these agreements into practice at EU level has already shown us that such promises of benefits ring hollow for both workers and passengers.
Most of these agreements have the implicit aim of opening the market and liberalising the sector, motivated by free competition, or of disregarding its distortions, the benefits which the most powerful companies can derive from it and the false environmental solution for the reduction of carbon emissions, and the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system.
After the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009, there was an extension of the conditions under which the consent of Parliament was required for signing international agreements.
Air agreements currently belong to this category.
In the past, Parliament was merely consulted on such agreements.
The new powers given to Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon, however, also bring new responsibilities.
In my opinion, Parliament must be capable of following the development of negotiations before being faced with the possibility of accepting or rejecting the final wording of individual international agreements.
Moreover, the relevant criteria for air agreements with third countries should include the possibility of a balanced approach to markets and investment opportunities, as well as fair economic competition in the area of state subsidies and environmental and social standards.
The new powers established by the Treaty of Lisbon mean that we, too, can have our say on aviation area matters in air agreements.
The report emphasises fair competition and, hence, the need to monitor, among other things, state funding, while having regard to environmental issues and ensuring a high level of passenger rights.
We are in favour of all these measures, and so the report has my vote.
I agreed with this document because the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement.
Air agreements now fall within this category because they cover a field to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
In view of this change, the Committee on Transport and Tourism decided to draw up an own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated, both in terms of substance and the procedures the Committee might adopt to ensure that it is well informed throughout the course of negotiations, and has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the yes/no choice of consent.
During today's sitting, I voted in favour of Mr Simpson's report on international air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon.
In fact, following the Treaty's entry into force, on 1 December 2009, Parliament gained the right to give its consent to agreements covering sectors to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
This is a significant step forward, especially in light of the EU's supposed democratic deficit, if we consider that, previously, Parliament, a body democratically elected by the people of Europe, was consulted on such agreements only after they had been concluded.
We therefore expect the Commission to respond to our call for it to maintain the flow of information and to provide the responsible committee with comprehensive information about the intention to propose negotiations with a view to concluding and amending international air agreements, so that Parliament as a whole can express its opinion in full knowledge of the facts.
The Treaty of Lisbon introduces new parliamentary competences, thereby granting the European Parliament greater decision-making powers, along with responsibility for ensuring the smooth flow of business, providing information and guaranteeing citizens' safety.
Regulatory convergence among the European Parliament's relevant committees, reciprocal recognition of safety and security standards and ensuring the highest possible standard for international air transport agreements provide benefits to passengers and freight operators, in logistical and economic terms, as well as to airlines.
in writing. - I voted for this report which considers that comprehensive air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver substantial benefits to passengers, freight operators and airlines, by means both of market access and of regulatory convergence to promote fair competition, including with regard to state subsidies and social and environmental standards, providing certain standards and conditions are met.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, air agreements require the European Parliament's consent, as they concern a sector to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
We agree with the Committee on Transport and Tourism's idea to set out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated in terms of substance.
Moreover, the Committee should be well informed throughout the course of negotiations, so that it has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the yes/no choice of consent.
Parliament therefore needs to follow the process from the outset.
Comprehensive agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can provide substantial benefits by offering European passengers and freight operators improved services - in terms of both variety and cost - while giving airlines new profit-making opportunities.
Regulatory convergence can do much to promote fair competition.
Lastly, we maintain that it is important to open negotiations with important trading partners in Asia, including the People's Republic of China and India, since the economic growth of that entire region makes such agreements ever more significant from the point of view of developing world trade.
The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon has increased the number of cases in which Parliament's approval is needed to conclude an international agreement.
Air services agreements now fall into this category, as they cover an area to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism has therefore decided to table this own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated in terms of substance, and of the procedures the committee might adopt in order to remain well informed throughout the course of negotiations and so that it has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the final decision and merely being able to adopt or reject it.
Parliament's new powers, provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, bring with them a new responsibility to ensure that Parliament and its competent committee are well informed about the preparation of the agreements to which it will subsequently be asked to give its consent.
This implies a corresponding responsibility to monitor how negotiations are conducted more closely.
These assumptions therefore need to be borne in mind when international agreements are being negotiated in future.
in writing. - The report covers the framework to evaluate individual air agreements, taking into account the changes under the Lisbon Treaty, to be used for all future negotiations, conclusions and parliamentary approval thereof (via consent).
Relevant criteria for air agreements with third countries include balanced access to markets and investment opportunities, as well as fair competition in terms of state subsidies, environmental and social standards.
Comprehensive air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver benefits not only to freight operators and airlines, but also to passengers.
Above all, such agreements guarantee the same rights to all Union airlines.
Furthermore, high standards in terms of air safety and security will be applied and these are vitally important to passengers, crew and the whole aviation sector in general.
Given the benefits of the agreements mentioned, I believe that it is appropriate to lay down general principles to be used when evaluating air transport agreements.
It is important for every agreement to relax or eliminate restrictions on market access and investment opportunities, to maintain and enhance social and environmental standards, to provide adequate safeguards for data protection and privacy, to include mutual recognition of security standards and ensure a high level of passenger rights.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that the Commission must take immediate action to address the issue of Siberian overflights and begin negotiations on international air transport agreements with Japan and Russia.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which has been in force since 1 December 2009, has increased the number of cases in which Parliament's approval is needed to conclude international agreements.
Previously, it was only necessary to consult Parliament about these agreements.
In view of this change, the Committee on Transport and Tourism has decided to draft an own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated by Parliament in terms of substance, rather than being confronted with the final decision and merely being able to adopt or reject it.
Parliament's new powers, provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, bring with them new responsibilities to ensure that Parliament and its competent committee are well informed about the preparation of the agreements to which it will subsequently be asked to give its consent.
The possibilities identified in this report, which I voted for, can be seen as forming a list of elements which can be adopted according to the particular circumstances of each agreement.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has strengthened its role in the conclusion of international air agreements.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism decided to draft an own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles regarding how air agreements should be evaluated, both in terms of substance and in terms of the procedures the Committee might adopt to ensure that it is well informed throughout the course of negotiations, and has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the yes/no choice of consent.
These agreements can be split into three categories: horizontal agreements, which align existing bilateral agreements; comprehensive agreements, which seek to ensure fair competition; and lastly, safety agreements, which are intended to ensure a high level of civil aviation safety.
Furthermore, the report recommends a set of criteria for assessing the content of the agreements, including balanced access to markets and investment opportunities, and fair competition with regard to state, environmental and social subsidies.
I voted in favour so that a constant flow of information is maintained and the strengths and weaknesses of these agreements are analysed better.
As the Treaty of Lisbon has increased the range of Parliament's powers with respect to the conclusion of international agreements, it is necessary, in the process of redefining its status, to offer new forms of legal framework for its action.
This report appears in this context.
As Parliament has also come to have powers in relation to air agreements, it is important to ensure that it has access to information throughout the negotiation process.
Indeed, it cannot simply be involved at the end of the process, whereby its activity is reduced to merely agreeing or disagreeing with the final solution, without having a range of relevant indicators at its disposal in order to make a considered decision.
Underpinned by the need to involve Parliament throughout the process, it is also necessary to draw attention, even if only in general terms, to aspects such as the terms under which information is provided or the stages at which it should be made available.
in writing. - I voted in favour.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement.
Previously, Parliament had only been consulted on such agreements.
In view of this change, the Committee on Transport and Tourism decided to draw up an own-initiative report with the aim of setting out some general principles on how air agreements should be evaluated, covering both their substance and the procedures the Committee might adopt to ensure it is well informed throughout the course of negotiations, and has an opportunity to express its priorities well before being confronted with the yes/no choice of consent.
The report sets out some general principles regarding good communication between Parliament and the Commission when international air agreements are adopted and regarding the development of common methods for evaluating those agreements.
Thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has gained additional powers and corresponding responsibilities, and must now monitor the conduct of negotiations and the conclusion of air agreements more closely.
Given the importance of such agreements, especially in terms of guaranteeing better services for passengers and new opportunities for operators, it is a good idea for Parliament to inform the Commission of its concerns and its assessment criteria at the outset, without waiting until the negotiations have been concluded.
The Treaty of Lisbon gave Parliament greater rights, one of which is that Parliament's consent is required for concluding international agreements.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism quite often has to assess and deal with various aviation agreements.
I think that this report will significantly aid and simplify the work of the Committee on Transport and Tourism because it highlights the general principles of how we should assess aviation agreements, both in terms of content and in terms of measures.
Moreover, this report will help clarify the various aviation agreements and process them in the simplest way, and it states which criteria we should pay attention to and which aspects we should keep track of.
In addition, this report will help in applying the process of how to move forward with these aviation agreements and what stages will be needed as the various institutions deal with them.
I think that this report is necessary, and I therefore supported its adoption.
in writing. - This report provides for a framework to be established in order that Parliament can undertake its obligations under the Lisbon Treaty in regard to international air agreements.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism were keen to ensure that in dealing with individual agreements with individual sovereign countries, Parliament used the same procedures and guidelines for rapporteurs to work with in order to give us a consistent approach and to give us the opportunity to consider important aspects, including relevant safety and social conditions.
I shall be voting in favour and would hope that Parliament can support my report so that the proposed framework can be put into operation
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has institutionalised new areas in which Parliament's approval is necessary for the conclusion of international agreements.
Agreements on air transport fall into this category, as they are part of the ordinary legislative procedure.
This requires Parliament to be kept regularly informed, in order to ensure a concerted evaluation of the whole negotiation process, and so that it can express its opinions and priorities at the same time.
This report contains guidelines on how air agreements should be analysed in terms of content and procedures to be adopted.
Three categories of agreement are presented which cover different objectives, namely, horizontal agreements, comprehensive agreements and safety agreements.
I am voting in favour of this agreement as I consider it essential that the position adopted by the European Commission, and stressed in this report, expresses the fact that Parliament should regularly monitor the entire process through the sharing of information, and that the Commission should submit a report analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the existing agreements at least every three years.
The agreements should be adopted through a fruitful interinstitutional agreement that enables the European institutions to participate actively in them.
I voted in favour of Mr Simpson's report on international air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon, bearing in mind that Parliament now has a greater share of responsibility when it comes to negotiating international agreements.
Furthermore, agreements on air transport with third countries help to develop international air transport and safeguard security of law.
in writing. - (DE) The result of the new competences given to Parliament under the Treaty of Lisbon is that this House will, in future, be presented with international air agreements to evaluate and approve on a more frequent basis.
The rapporteur therefore proposes that some general principles should be drawn up in order to make such evaluations easier, and also better.
Although he does recognise the benefits of such agreements in principle, the rapporteur does not forego a differentiated approach and, on several occasions, calls for a constructive dialogue between the Commission and Parliament.
I welcome the results of today's vote, particularly in view of the fact that I was rapporteur for the document on the air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States, which was a document of particular importance.
Taken together, aviation markets in the European Union and the United States account for around 60% of the world's air traffic.
The future opening of the market to EU and US aviation enterprises on a non-discriminatory basis will offer better services to passengers and air transport carriers, will bring significant economic benefits and will create jobs.
Unfortunately, the European Parliament was not involved in the negotiations on the EU-US agreement and so was not able to influence the content of the document.
This is an unacceptable situation.
I agree, therefore, with the main thesis of the Simpson report on international air agreements, which has been adopted today. The European Parliament should have been involved in the negotiations from the very beginning, or should at least have been kept informed as to their progress.
I support this report in view of the new elements that have been introduced by the Council, especially with regard to earmarking, greater transparency and incentives for fleet renewal, vehicle capacity and the possibility of more effective variation of infrastructure.
Eurovignette III will allow the Member States to charge road users, if they choose, for external costs, namely pollution, air and noise, so that the 'polluter pays' principle is introduced to road transport.
In anticipation of the White Paper, the legislation now envisaged requires the Member States and the Commission to take the next steps towards a more sustainable and interoperational transport system, with a harmonised charging system internalising more external costs.
With the draft directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (the Eurovignette Directive), Member States will now be able to implement charges on air and noise pollution from road transport.
This measure, which applies the 'polluter pays' principle, aims to encourage the progressive renewal of the lorries which travel on our roads.
It could also represent a new source of funding for cleaner forms of transport such as rail and waterways.
I therefore voted in favour of Saïd El Khadraoui's report.
However, I call for Member States to exercise restraint when implementing the Eurovignette: this must not jeopardise the commercial and financial soundness of haulage companies or companies which use haulage.
Most Irish goods sold on the EU market are transported on the road network and therefore, I voted against the measures recommended in this report because they would impose excessive costs on Irish hauliers, exporters and producers.
The Eurovignette Directive already involves charges, but Member States are not obliged to impose these charges.
The Eurovignette is currently in operation on 15 000 km of European motorways, including half of the EU's tolled motorways.
While I am in favour of addressing air and noise pollution and of encouraging people to use cleaner vehicles, if this directive were to be extended and tolls for noise and air pollution were to be included, Irish hauliers taking Irish exports to Europe would suffer greatly as a consequence.
Many Irish goods are exported internationally and the additional costs proposed in the report could inflict huge damage on Irish export and transport companies, and it could be a fatal blow to those small businesses that currently are achieving only a small profit margin.
I voted in favour of this joint position on the Eurovignette Directive presented at second reading by the Council and Parliament.
The directive's main objectives are to allow Member States to charge road users for some external costs, in other words, to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, and also to give Member States additional possibilities to make their national road charging systems more efficient.
I welcome the goals of reducing pollution and implementing the 'polluter pays' principle in the area of road transport.
I also supported the proposal for revenue obtained from the Eurovignette charge to be earmarked for investment in road infrastructure and to be used to make transport greener.
The promotion of sustainable transport is a key element of the common transport policy.
To this end, we should reduce the contribution the transport sector makes to climate change and the negative impact of transport, in particular, congestion, which impedes mobility, and air and noise pollution, which damage health and the environment.
Although I welcome the agreement that has been reached on the Eurovignette Directive, I am nonetheless far from being fully satisfied.
By endorsing the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council, we are putting an end to long years of negotiation.
This is certainly a step in the right direction but it is a minimalistic agreement that lacks teeth!
Indeed, Member States will only have the possibility, but in no way will they be obliged, of making heavy goods vehicles pay for the external costs they cause.
The fact remains that the idea is now out there and that is the real positive point which enables me to vote for the compromise.
By introducing the 'polluter pays' principle for heavy goods vehicles, the directive paves the way for the recognition in our public policies of the internalisation of external costs caused by transport.
The principle of transparency of revenue and investment is also on the record which, we hope, will be a precedent in assessing public policies: indeed, Member States will have to report to the Commission on a regular basis.
However, the low allocation threshold of revenue to the trans-European transport networks (TENs) (15%) is regrettable.
In addition, we will have to ensure that the commitment made by the Member States to invest revenue in sustainable projects has been kept.
The report we are discussing today is particularly important because it provides for the amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles.
I believe that the submission of this proposal for a new directive, the fruit of the compromise reached between the Hungarian Presidency, the Commission and Parliament, is very damaging to the Italian economy, since Italy transports around a third - or approximately EUR 200 billion a year - of all the traded goods hauled on Europe's roads.
Once the directive has been implemented in Europe's countries of transit, goods imported to and exported from Italy will be more exposed to the burden of additional charges.
I share the Italian Government's highly critical view: it believes that, at a time of great economic difficulty such as we are experiencing now, the political decision to strike at an economic sector that underpins our market is far from wise.
To my mind, the small breakthroughs that were achieved with the compromise have no real impact on a text that is highly detrimental to both the Italian system and the haulage industry.
What is more, the effectiveness of the measure has not been proven: road transport and its associated pollution costs will continue to increase until an intermodal infrastructure network has been developed.
in writing. - I voted against this amendment as it is imperative that the Commission is not permitted to establish revenue-raising capabilities, even via an indirect charge, particularly without the unanimous assent of the Council.
In the UK, we do not currently subscribe to the Eurovignette scheme.
However, the Westminster Government is looking into rolling out HGV charges in accordance with European law by 2015.
The Commission, however, has reserved the right to make the carbon charge obligatory by 2013.
I do not wish to see UK citizens in any way contributing to any form of EU tax.
The levying of a charge on heavy goods vehicles is a measure which penalises the outlying countries of the EU, such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.
In general, these are the countries hardest hit by the financial crisis, which has led to a fiscal and economic crisis.
In view of this, I am voting against the tabled report, as I believe the uneven application of such charges is unjust, given that outlying countries would generate most of the revenue, to the benefit of the countries of central Europe.
I voted against the El Khadraoui report on charging heavy goods vehicles as the proposal allows tariff barriers to be introduced, which will increase the costs for freight operators in the peripheral Member States.
The directive will also allow Member States to offer compensation in exchange for these charges, which could result in the distortion of competition between operators from different EU Member States.
Parliament has just given its go-ahead for new rules on road transport charges, thereby making it possible to ensure the development and funding of a more suitable transport policy with regard to environmental requirements pertaining to pollution and noise.
While road haulage companies will now have to pay the cost of air and noise pollution generated by lorries, Member States will, in return, be obliged to reinvest the revenues obtained from these charges in pan-European transport networks and, especially, in more effective and less polluting transport systems.
These charges are a step forward, but they are not enough.
It is time that Member States committed to implementing a genuine freight development policy and thus to making consistent use of all rail and road transport infrastructure.
The European Parliament has today approved the revision of the Eurovignette Directive by a large majority.
The text stipulates that heavy goods vehicles shall pay the cost of air and noise pollution.
The agreement approved today in effect authorises Member States to charge road haulage companies for the cost of air and noise pollution, in addition to charges on the use of motorway infrastructure.
While this is a significant revision, it only represents a small step in the right direction, because the regulations are non-binding.
I therefore still look forward to seeing new proposals which would make these new measures compulsory, which would include in them the cost of all the environmental damage caused and which would extend the 'polluter pays' principle to all forms of transport.
The text also presses for use to be actually made of the revenues from toll collection.
In this regard, Parliament has obliged Member States to invest part of the returns from toll collection in the improvement of traffic flow and mobility infrastructure.
It should also be possible to allocate the proceeds of these charges to projects such as those which reduce air or even noise pollution.
I voted against the report on the charging of heavy goods vehicles as I believe that levying charges for the use of infrastructure could have negative repercussions for the European economy, particularly in outlying countries.
Bearing in mind that several taxes and charges are already levied on the road transport sector, especially excise duties on fuel, and in view of the current economic climate, I think that the internalisation of the sector's costs should be considered so that these measures might merit greater consensus between the various players affected.
The revision of the Eurovignette Directive requires that heavy good vehicles circulating on European motorways be subject to the 'polluter pays' principle, allowing the Member States to include the cost of noise and air pollution in national tolls.
This additional cost is likely to be between three or four cents per vehicle per kilometre.
At a time when the European economy is weak and competitiveness is more vital than ever, this principle may serve to make freight transport even more expensive, especially for outlying countries, for which the price of transportation is added to the cost of the goods.
These countries are not only forced to absorb the cost of fuel, but will now have to do the same with the additional costs of tolls, thereby losing competitiveness.
Without trying to underestimate the environmental issue, this does not seem to me to be the time to burden European companies with another charge.
The levying of a charge on heavy goods vehicles is a measure which penalises the outlying countries of the EU while, at the same time, providing additional revenue for the countries of central Europe.
The text that came out of the trialogue is less negative for Portugal than the proposal of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as it reduces the variation to 175% and the peak period for charges to five hours, extending the exemption of less polluting vehicles for another year, hence, to four years.
However, the levying of this charge will remain a reality and will bring an increase in the existing costs for the outlying countries of the EU.
These new provisions of the Eurovignette Directive will allow Member States to charge heavy goods vehicles an amount equal to the cost of noise and air pollution caused by traffic, in addition to the infrastructure charge, at the tolls.
This additional cost is likely to average three or four cents per vehicle per kilometre.
Less polluting vehicles will remain exempt.
I voted against this report's proposal as I believe it will harm the outlying Member States.
The very high dependence on road transport is a real problem; in Portugal, dependence on this mode of transport is even greater than the EU average.
This is the case for environmental and public health reasons, due to the high levels of pollution associated with it, and for energy reasons related to dwindling oil reserves and growing difficulty of access to this commodity.
It is therefore essential to promote the diversification of modes of freight transport, particularly with a strong commitment to rail.
Unfortunately, not only has this investment not been made, but in some countries, including Portugal, we have also seen divestment in this type of transport. This divestment tends to increase following processes of liberalisation and privatisation.
This report addresses some of these issues, but it goes no further than seeking to levy a new charge on heavy goods vehicles, to be added to the existing charges, some of which have been recently increased in Portugal.
The effectiveness of these is doubtful in terms of pursuing the stated objectives, while they represent an additional burden and may result in many companies going out of business given the current economic and social crisis.
We are aware that the very high dependence on road transport is a real problem; in Portugal, dependence on this mode of transport is even greater than the EU average.
This situation needs to change, whether for environmental or public health reasons, due to the high levels of pollution associated with it, or for energy reasons related to the dwindling oil reserves and growing difficulty of access to this commodity.
It is therefore essential to promote the diversification of modes of freight transport, particularly with a strong commitment to rail.
However, not only have some countries being failing to make this commitment, but in some countries, including Portugal, we have also seen divestment in this type of transport, which tends to increase following the process of liberalisation and privatisation.
This report address some of these issues, but it then limits itself to seeking to levy a new tax on heavy goods vehicles, to be added to the existing ones, some of which have been increased recently in Portugal, such as the 'shadow tolls'.
The effectiveness of these is doubtful in terms of the effective pursuit of the stated objectives, while they represent an additional burden and may result in many companies going out of business given the current economic and social crisis.
Some time has passed since the adoption of the European Parliament's opinion on the Eurovignette III Directive at first reading.
The directive should enable Member States - if they so desire - to collect fees from road users for certain (limited) external costs, so that the 'polluter pays' principle can finally be introduced in the area of road transport.
It also provides Member States with additional possibilities for increasing the effectiveness of national systems for collecting road tolls, which is a better instrument for managing demand in the transport sector.
The opinion of the Council confirmed these objectives, and it is now also desirable for the Commission to take steps which will lead to the lasting sustainable development of transport, cooperation, a harmonised system of tolls and the further internalisation of external costs.
in writing. - The reality is that this proposal will have a disproportionate impact upon the peripheral Member States in the European Union, such as Ireland, as centrally located Member States have the option of switching to rail.
It is estimated by the Irish Exporters Association that a truck travelling from Ireland to mainland Europe via Holyhead and Dover will incur a road use charge of EUR 120 and an external cost of EUR 30.
Therefore, a roundtrip will incur a fee of EUR 300 as a result of this legislation.
The main export sectors that will be affected include pharmaceuticals, ICT, medical devices, dairy and other food products.
Moreover, the road haulage sector employs over 30 000 people in Ireland.
The bottom line is that these new charges will increase the cost of transporting Irish exports into European markets.
I voted against this report as the EU should be seeking ways to improve our competitiveness in line with the Europe 2020 strategy instead of introducing legislation which threatens our competitiveness.
Parliament's approval of the directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles is a step forward in the protection of European citizens' health, and a commitment to lessen the harmful effects of pollution caused by such vehicles.
The 'polluter pays' principle has been introduced for the first time in this sector in order to encourage safer and more sustainable transport, and hence to promote alternatives such as rail transport.
Under the compromise reached, however, due consideration must also be given to the protection of the haulage industry, which must not be penalised excessively.
Member States must therefore strive to make more effective use of the revenues collected under the Eurovignette, for example, by investing in infrastructure improvements and encouraging the use of less polluting haulage vehicles, so as to ensure that the benefits of the directive are enjoyed by all the sectors involved.
I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Saïd El Khadraoui, on the revision of the EU Eurovignette legislation, which will allow heavy good vehicles to be charged.
For the first time, the 'polluter pays' principle will be applied to road transport, and it will be possible to charge heavy goods vehicles for noise and air pollution when they use the EU's motorways.
This is an innovative initiative which I welcome, as it allows environmental and social costs to be taken into account and is not limited merely to infrastructure costs.
It is, nevertheless, regrettable that the European Parliament's ambitious plans for stringent environmental requirements have been hindered by the Council of Ministers, under the pretext of overly high additional costs.
Despite all of this, this report is a genuine step forward in environmental terms.
I endorsed this document because its objective is to charge heavy goods vehicles depending on the time of day they are travelling, during or outwith rush hour, and depending on the sound emitted and cylinder capacity.
At least 15% of the money collected in charges is invested in other projects related to CO2 reduction.
It is good that today, we are ready to reduce climate change and, in the area of road transport, we are finally striving to apply the 'polluter pays' principle.
Undoubtedly, this will give Member States additional possibilities to make their national road charging systems more efficient, which means that a better transport-demand-management instrument can be developed.
However, I still believe that these instruments are only economically beneficial and favourable for a few central transit European Union Member States, and therefore completely unfavourable or much less favourable for a large number of European Union Member States, situated near the European Union's borders, both in the east, the south, the west and the north.
I therefore believe that it would be worth us fully evaluating this aspect, weighing it up again, and only then adopting it.
I would like to give my full endorsement to the directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles.
I would, in particular, like to support a provision which is very important for Europe's environment.
I hope that the lower charges for vehicles which are less polluting will motivate owners of transport firms who have not done so to renew their fleets.
Furthermore, crops which grow in the vicinity of heavily used roads would be much less exposed to pollution from exhaust fumes.
I think the increased charges for driving at peak hours are another positive feature.
Thanks to these restrictions, we will achieve greater safety on the roads and better driving conditions for all road users.
These restrictions will also allow improvements to the state of the infrastructure, which suffers the greatest damage at those very hours of peak traffic.
I voted against the proposed compromise text, a position in keeping with that of the Italian Government, which has already voiced its opposition to the proposal in the EU Council.
Imposing a further system of taxation on hauliers will deal a very heavy blow to a sector which underpins Italy's trading system.
Increasing the costs borne by this sector means increasing the burden on society as a whole and penalising our goods, for which there will be a corresponding fall in demand.
I do not believe that this compromise is the right answer, particularly for a country such as Italy, for example, which is a departure point for transport flows that create wealth for our national system and that need to be safeguarded through the identification of appropriate tools that will combat air and noise pollution, but which have due regard for its specific structural and logistical characteristics.
I voted in favour of the resolution on the charging of heavy goods vehicles as it ratifies an agreement which was difficult to reach, on the revision of the Eurovignette Directive.
This 1999 directive, revised in 2006, aims to harmonise the charging of heavy good vehicles.
The adopted revision is a first step in internalising external costs in road transport and, hence, a step towards putting the 'polluter pays' principle into practice.
Air and noise pollution from traffic will thus be charged electronically, at a rate of three to four cents per kilometre depending on the vehicle's Euro class, the type of road and the level of congestion.
This revision will henceforth allow traffic to be managed better through increased charges in peak periods (not exceeding 175% over five hours), but also provides for a proportionate decrease in low peak charges to avoid penalising road haulage companies financially.
Finally, the resolution encourages Member States to use the amounts raised to finance certain types of sustainable transport projects.
I voted in favour of Eurovignettes because I think that solutions of this kind can ensure full harmonisation of the European system for charging heavy goods vehicles, thus facilitating efficient travel through Member States without unnecessary delays.
In my opinion, incorporation of the 'polluter pays' principle will ensure a reduction of the pollution and noise caused by heavy goods vehicles not fitted with engines which comply with the Euro V and VI standards, as these engines are not subject to road charges.
In addition, the principle has been established that Member States will be able to specify the use to be made of revenue generated from tolls collected and that at least 15% will have to be used for financial support for TEN-T projects. This will ensure greater transport sustainability.
in writing. - I voted for this report revising 'Eurovignette' road haulage tax rules, which will make it possible for Member States to charge hauliers for air and noise pollution costs, in addition to motorway tolls.
This directive will ensure that revenue from these charges is used to improve the performance of transport systems and cut pollution.
Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures allows Member States, if they so wish, to also charge road users for some external costs.
This offers them additional opportunities to make their national road charging systems more efficient, which means a better transport-demand-management instrument.
We believe that, at a time of great economic difficulty, the political decision to strike at an economic sector that underpins our market purely in order to make money is not very wise.
Furthermore, the way in which this approach penalises the geographically more peripheral Member States, countries of origin, departure or destination of goods, for the benefit of 'central' and transit countries, is unacceptable.
Lastly, when establishing the principle, no thought has been given to the impact of this measure on traffic flows and, hence, on existing concessions, meaning that there is a risk of the traffic going elsewhere.
The effectiveness of the measure has not been proven: road transport and its associated pollution costs will continue to increase, which is why we, the Italian delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), are against this measure.
This directive makes provision for Member States levying a toll on heavy goods vehicles which includes an amount equal to the cost of noise and air pollution as a result of traffic, in addition to the infrastructure charge.
I believe that the 'polluter pays' principle is not a solution, as it limits itself to leaving the decision up to the market.
Authorising and legitimising pollution if it is economically viable for the company is not a path to sustainability.
I believe that the EU's priority should be to impose more stringent measures on pollution caused by heavy goods vehicles and to commit decisively to rail freight.
Rather than solving the problem of pollution, this directive exacerbates the inequality between Member States by placing a greater burden on outlying countries such as Portugal, which are exporters but are not crossed by major transport routes.
I voted against for these reasons.
This report deserves credit for demanding accountability from Member States.
Firstly, for demanding accountability on the relief which Member States grant to small truck manufacturers.
This is a good thing since these irresponsible practices must cease.
Secondly, for demanding accountability on the revenues generated by the Eurovignette.
Opacity cannot be the rule there either.
These revenues must be exclusively destined for environmental policies.
It is, however, regrettable that the text does not go even further.
It includes almost nothing on the relief granted to the manufacturers of Euro VI vehicles.
What is worse, it promotes bringing the Eurovignette under the carbon emission trading scheme.
I am voting in favour of this text to encourage further work to be done and to lend my approval to the Eurovignette concept, whilst regretting these two serious shortcomings.
Environmental concerns can never be jeopardised, but at the same time, they cannot be detached from economic issues; still less in this time of crisis that we are still experiencing, and which continues to buffet the countries of southern Europe, especially my country, Portugal.
In view of this, I cannot agree with the adoption of the 'polluter pays' principle, as this situation will greatly affect those working in the freight transport sector in outlying countries, in particular, Portugal, but not in the richer countries of central and northern Europe.
in writing. - Eurovignette III will allow Member States - if they so wish - to charge road users for external costs (air, noise, pollution), so that finally, the 'polluter pays' principle is introduced in road transport.
Taking into account that the tax system is opaque and irrational, I voted against.
In times of increasing globalisation in which the volume of traffic is also rising massively, it is exactly those Member States with sensitive regions such as in the area crossing the Alps that have an interest in charging road users for certain external costs according to the 'polluter pays' principle.
At the same time, this should also give rise to an instrument to better manage traffic demand.
This report takes a pragmatic approach in order to reconcile the numerous and varying wishes.
In this context, however, we must not overlook the various initiatives to pave the way for so-called giga- or megaliners, which are associated with high infrastructure costs.
It is also the case that, hitherto, lip service alone has been paid to moving freight traffic from road to rail.
We should also not forget these factors, including when it comes to the idea in the proposal of earmarking the revenue from infrastructure charges.
As far as the incentives for fleet renewal are concerned, we must also consider that we must not unilaterally burden our local carriers and fleet-owners with strict environmental and safety regulations, only for the low-cost competitors to come riding over the border in foul scrap vehicles.
However, since this report makes very reasonable arguments in this regard, I voted in favour.
I decided to vote against this proposal because it would have a very negative impact on the smallest haulage companies in particular.
Yes, it is right to combat pollution and try to ease traffic congestion, but introducing another tax increase is definitely not the best solution in my view.
By applying this 'Eurovignette', the chances are that only the largest haulage companies - that is, those with more resources at their disposal - will manage to survive.
Many small businesses, especially in Italy, risk having to leave the market because of the excessive charges they would face, and this would certainly have a serious impact on employment too.
My hope, therefore, is that other European countries will adopt the same position as the Italian Government, which has already confirmed that it will not be applying this measure.
The crisis has caused great damage to the haulage industry, and this new tax will certainly not contribute much to its recovery as far as I can see.
I do not agree with the proposal to charge heavy goods vehicles according to air and noise pollution.
I feel that it would be inappropriate to create yet another additional tax burden for hauliers, who have been badly affected by the financial crisis.
The charge will reflect not just road infrastructure costs, the vehicle's pollution category and length of journey, but also the level of pollution, noise and congestion.
Moreover, the charge will not only be applied to motorways in the trans-European road network, but also to other motorways and important roads.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that such regulation will have a negative impact on European road hauliers' revenue and increase delivery times.
Due to the reasons mentioned, there will be an increase in transportation costs and the price of freight transportation.
Furthermore, a toll may significantly reduce the demand for road transport.
The new Eurovignette Directive, which is intended to encourage the implementation of harmonised charging systems in the Member States in order to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of heavy goods vehicles, will end up penalising certain peripheral Member States, such as Italy, which are countries of departure or destination of goods.
This is why I voted against the report, which amends the 1999 directive.
Instead of increasing competition and laying down common rules for the Internal Market, the new directive distorts competition for the benefit of a few Member States located at the heart of freight traffic in Europe.
Under the pretext of reducing CO2 emissions, a tax is being introduced with the aim of discouraging road transport in favour of rail and intermodal transport.
The directive, as it is conceived, is very harmful to the entire haulage system, at a time of economic stagnation when we need to implement measures to revive the sector.
This report presents a pragmatic approach to not wasting any more time on the adoption of the so-called Eurovignette III Directive on the levying of charges on heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.
It is intended to achieve the best possible compromise between Parliament and the Council.
The proposed amendments are the result of consultations with the political groups.
In view of this, I voted in favour of this report, as it will allow the Member States, if they so wish, to also charge road users for some limited external costs, with the aim of introducing the 'polluter pays' principle to road transport.
It will also give Member States more opportunities to make their respective national road pricing systems more efficient, which means a better instrument for transport demand management.
These objectives were confirmed by the Council's position.
It is worth highlighting the proposal to earmark the revenue from charges on external cost and infrastructure to be used for sustainable transport and trans-European networks, in particular.
Effective earmarking of this revenue, which increases accountability and transparency, will not only increase public acceptance but will also ensure the reduction of external costs on road transport.
Under the amended Directive 1999/62/EC, Member States will also be able to charge road users for some (limited) external costs, so that finally, the 'polluter pays' principle is introduced in road transport.
This offers Member States additional opportunities to make their national road charging systems more efficient, which means a better transport-demand-management instrument.
Road toll charges for the transport sector will therefore reflect the cost of noise and air pollution, as well as infrastructure costs.
These costs will still admit of some exceptions, provided that the Member State requesting them has a good reason for doing so.
There will be incentives to promote the renewal of the fleet of heavy goods vehicles, derogations for heavy goods vehicles fitted with less polluting engines and, finally, the toll charge may vary according to the time of travel.
This is to ensure that heavy goods vehicles can avoid certain road sections during peak hours.
The revenues generated from this toll charge increase will have to be reinvested in transport infrastructure, with at least 15% to be earmarked initially for trans-European transport projects.
For these reasons, and for the sake of a better road system in Europe, I voted in favour.
This directive makes provision for Member States levying a toll on heavy goods vehicles which includes an amount equal to the cost of noise and air pollution as a result of traffic, in addition to the infrastructure charge.
I voted against for these reasons.
The proposal for revision of the Eurovignette Directive, which is at issue here, is aimed at introducing the 'polluter pays' principle to road transport, allowing the Member States to include the cost of noise and air pollution in national tolls, which means the levying of yet another charge on heavy goods vehicles.
This measure penalises the outlying countries of the European Union, which is particularly onerous in the context of the financial crisis that we are currently experiencing.
For these reasons, I voted against this report.
I voted in favour of this compromise on the revision of the Eurovignette Directive, which aims to set 'polluter pays' road tolls for heavy goods vehicles.
Member States will then be able to integrate in taxes or tolls levied the actual costs incurred by traffic-based air and noise pollution, whereas up to now, only infrastructure-related costs could be charged.
The compromise deal falls short of the European Parliament's ambitions and this alone will not revolutionise road transport, for which the industry and Member States are clearly not yet ready to shoulder the actual costs of their ecological footprint.
The average additional cost to hauliers should not exceed 4 euro cents per vehicle per kilometre, and the least polluting vehicles, driving during off-peak times, would be exempt.
And yet this reform had been consigned to oblivion before the Belgian Presidency put it back on the Council's table.
I welcome the progress made as a positive first step towards a more sustainable road transport system.
The reason we have voted in favour is because we refuse to accept the fallacious arguments put forward by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and the People's Party (PP) on the industry's competitiveness.
Any gain in competitiveness also requires generating incentives for investment in more efficient means of transport, fair rules of competition, and internalising the social and environmental costs of general economic activity.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has always strived for cost internalisation and for all goods to have a cost that is fair in social and environmental terms.
We are aware that the minimal proposal falls short of our aspirations by a long stretch, but our vote is also an expression of our confidence that the process will not end here and that an important step has been taken by acknowledging the need to internalise transport costs.
We also remind the Member States that they must go even further, bringing in legislation to introduce fairer and more efficient tax systems that include all the external costs mentioned, and we urge the Commission to continue to work so that its future proposal on this matter may prove more ambitious.
The recommendation is the last stage in the procedural process of amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (Eurovignette).
It is the fruit of lengthy consultations and compromises with the various political groups.
Charging users for some associated external costs enables Member States to make their national road charging systems more efficient, which means they are better able to manage transport demand.
Furthermore, the 'polluter pays' principle helps to make users in the sector more aware of their responsibilities.
To conclude, the public will be more supportive if the additional revenue generated from infrastructure and external costs is allocated transparently and effectively, and this would also serve to reduce the external costs of road transport more quickly.
The taxation of heavy goods vehicles, which was debated today immediately prior to the vote, is another example of how what was originally a very good principle has, in the end, remained relatively weak and has lost much of its impact.
I think that the taxes collected should have been directed much more towards developing transport infrastructure, but unfortunately, as often happens, the Council really does not have any good ideas in this regard.
Many countries see in all this an opportunity to gain extra tax revenues which can be put to many other uses.
It is a very positive development that the adoption of this directive will end the situation in Estonia in which vehicles from other countries do not pay the tax in Estonia, but our vehicles pay in other countries.
Even though this report has become weaker in many respects during the proceedings, and that Parliament has had to give in on several provisions, this is still a big step forward, and I feel that I must give it my full support.
I voted in favour of the report.
It is a compromise based on the 'polluter pays' principle, in other words, the principle of making it possible to charge for certain external costs of transport, in the form of pollution, noise and traffic congestion, for example.
Implementing the external costs of transport is a step in the right direction.
in writing. - El Khadraoui has done a great job on this report.
The only way that we can make progress in fighting climate change is responsible reports such as this one which hold those accountable who cause the most pollution and which is why I was able to support it.
The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, under the terms of the European Parliament document voted on in plenary today, represents an increase in costs related to the movement of this type of transport.
The Eurovignette is a measure which penalises the outlying countries of the EU at a time when those countries are undergoing a period of economic and financial difficulty, whilst, at the same time, providing additional revenue for the countries of central Europe.
The review of the directive in line with Parliament's position will have considerable negative effects on competitiveness and economic development for several Member States, such as Portugal.
While acknowledging that the final text adopted today in Strasbourg is less negative than the text that was previously agreed in parliamentary committee, the imposition of this charge will still become a reality and will mean an increase in existing costs for the outlying countries of the EU.
For these reasons, as a matter of national interest and as a member of Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism, I voted against the document tabled in plenary.
in writing. - I abstained on the Eurovignette vote today.
I abstained because, in the case of Catalonia, what is proposed would penalise a lot of small and medium enterprises that do not have the option of putting goods and products on trains - in particular, because of the difference of gauge, which constitutes a physical barrier to completion of the Internal Market - and would damage their business greatly.
Any new EU rules on charging heavy goods vehicles must maintain a balance between the environmental needs and economic interests of the new Member States.
Lithuania is a valuable transit country for Europe.
Freight transportation and hard working lorry drivers have become synonymous with our country.
According to data from the Lithuanian Road Administration, the number of heavy goods vehicles on principle routes has tripled in the last decade and they are helping to form the backbone of our economy.
Lithuania has already been racked by the financial crisis and a rise in transport costs would be a heavy blow.
I agree with the rapporteur that the Member States should be given opportunities to make their national road charging systems more efficient.
I am familiar with the issues of pollution mentioned in this report and I take them very seriously, but additional charges for air and noise pollution are not the answer.
The problem is much greater than the report suggests.
In many EU Member States, road infrastructure is in need of further development.
At the same time, in Lithuania, the funding earmarked for road management and development has dropped by more than 20% in the last few years.
I endorsed adoption of the directive.
I think the decision to extend the financing of Eurovignettes by external costs, in other words, by the costs of environmental pollution and noise, is more advisable than the previous version, which was restricted only to covering the costs of road infrastructure.
The directive is favourable to transit countries, so MEPs from Poland should be particularly keen on its adoption.
It is also worth stressing the fact that the charges are to be lower the higher the ecological category of the heavy goods vehicle.
Fortunately, vehicles with a maximum permissible laden weight of 3.5-12 tonnes and car drivers will be exempt from the charges.
The structure of tolls will depend on the time of day, which, in my opinion, will help to discourage people from using sections of road which are at risk of congestion during peak periods.
Another important provision of the directive is the one which concerns the way in which income from tolls is spent.
This money is to be reinvested in transport infrastructure of any kind, while a minimum of 15% of the revenues are to be earmarked for TEN-T projects.
I think we also need long-term measures which will bring about convergence in the methods which all charging systems of the Member States use to calculate external costs.
This could guarantee transparency in the signals given to the European road haulage sector.
In the light of positive experiences in Switzerland since the introduction of the performance-based HGV levy in 2001, there are no objections to the new directive.
Journey numbers have fallen by 10% in Switzerland since 2001, while the quantity of goods transported has risen by 60% and it has proven possible to reduce emissions - a win-win scenario.
The earmarking of revenues is aimed at promoting acceptance by the public and reducing external road transport costs.
I voted against the text presented by the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui, which permits the levy of a surcharge for air and noise pollution caused by heavy goods vehicles.
While I agree with the 'polluter pays' principle, levying additional motorway toll charges on international road traffic, particularly without the obligation to use the revenues for investment in infrastructure improvements, is somewhat questionable at a time of economic crisis.
Moreover, the adopted text does not help those Member States, such as Italy, that suffer geographical barriers, making it more costly for them to transport goods for import and export.
This report has been adopted, taking into account the fact that, during the necessary negotiations, the rapporteur had the opportunity to ensure that a review clause would be included in the regulation, concerning the possibility of introducing new models covering a variety of environmental goods following an implementation report by the Commission.
This review should take place by 2013.
In addition, the possibility of providing estimates was included, enabling gaps to be filled in cases where Member States have not submitted their data on time.
A scientifically sound approach to the shortage of resources and to the ecosystem is crucial to the sustainable economic development of the European Union.
Environmental economic accounts provide a significant database for environmental policy decisions.
The need for these accounts arises because of the crucial functions the environment has in terms of economic performance and ensuring the welfare of the European Union's citizens.
These functions include providing natural resources for production and consumption activities, waste absorption by environmental media and environmental services offering life support.
It is of paramount importance that these economic and environmental accounts are actively used in all relevant EU policy making as a key input to impact assessments, action plans, legislative proposals and other significant products of the policy process.
The environmental accounts show the interaction between business, household and environmental factors.
This is why they must contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making available data about the environmental impact of economic activities.
Politics is all about finding the best possible solutions to any problems that arise ...
How can this be achieved, however, if the problems and their potential solutions are not fully understood?
This is a fundamental issue in particular, but not solely, for environmental policy.
Political decision makers must therefore have at their disposal data that is both reliable and as exhaustive as possible on the modern world and the environmental situation.
That was the conclusion reached by the European Council in June 2006, when it called on the European Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development.
I welcome this initiative and the European Commission's proposal, as it will help improve our knowledge of air emissions, environmental taxes, and so on.
A sound assessment of European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.
Hitherto at EU level, key policy initiatives for environmental accounts include the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, the EU sustainable development strategy and various sectoral policy initiatives related to the Cardiff process, covering areas such as climate change, sustainable transport, nature and biodiversity, health and the environment, natural resource use and waste management and the international dimension of sustainable development.
In its June 2006 conclusions, the European Council called on the Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development.
National accounts should therefore be supplemented with integrated environmental economic accounts providing data that is fully consistent.
To this end, it is necessary for every Member State to collect harmonised and comprehensive data and for the system to be fully harmonised at EU level.
Consequently, mandatory data collection by Member States is necessary.
Environmental data currently available at European level should be expanded in the medium term by adding information to facilitate policy assessment.
Recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions and climate change, as well as sustainable consumption and production, would be monitored much more easily if high quality data were available about the interaction between environmental and economic factors.
While this information can be gleaned from environmental accounts, it is essential for this purpose to ensure the cooperation of all Member States and full data harmonisation at EU level.
The desired objectives should therefore be set out more coherently and the future direction to be taken clearly established with regard to the development of environmental economic accounts.
These accounts should contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making data available concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
The relevant information could provide an extremely valuable basis for the purposes of environmental policy making.
I welcome Mr Leinen's proposal and voted in favour of it.
European environmental policy is becoming increasingly important in the light of the economic crisis and the EU 2020 strategy, and a sound assessment of that policy is only possible if reliable data is available.
Environmental data are the only means of assessing environmental policy, and they should be supplemented in the medium term by additional reliable data.
Furthermore, the data could be monitored more easily if high quality information were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors: environmental economic accounts could contribute to policy evaluation by making available data concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
Such information will be extremely valuable for the purposes of environmental policy making.
Member States will have to use common methods, classifications and rules laid down in a binding common framework, and in that respect, it is very much to be hoped that these new measures will not involve any additional costs or more red tape.
As the rapporteur maintains, this proposal for a regulation is a step towards more comprehensive environmental accounting.
For the sake of sustainable development, it is vital to make the right decisions on matters of environmental policy, namely, those based on reliable data.
I therefore support and welcome the proposal for a regulation of Parliament and of the Council on European environmental economic accounts, as I believe that this will contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making data available concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
Measuring the air quality in our cities and performing an in-depth analysis of that measurement would be a step towards more transparent policy making.
Although it relates to chemical and physical factors which, at first glance, are of little use in communication between politicians and voters, this indicator is, in fact, the result of numerous economic decisions: it indicates the concentration of polluting economic activities, the composition of the energy mix used for productive activities and for heating homes and offices, the use of motor vehicles and the management of road infrastructure and traffic, the insulation of buildings and the quality of the materials used, and the existence or otherwise of green spaces, to cite just a few examples.
Air quality also has a significant impact on health expenditure, and particularly on expenditure on respiratory and oncology units.
It is very clear, then, that an environmental indicator can be turned into an economic and political indicator.
Furthermore, it can point to new mechanisms for discouraging irresponsible behaviour and for financing worthy projects.
These links help politicians to take better decisions in the public interest.
The first step is to establish the correct methods, and it is good that it is being taken.
This proposed regulation dates back to a decision of the European Council in June 2006.
At the time, the EU decided to extend existing national accounts, and the statistical data to be compiled, to key aspects of sustainable development.
To supplement national accounts and data, the Commission proposed a regulation to establish European environmental economic accounts.
In compliance with the Commission's proposal, Member States should therefore be provided with a methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules, which should be put together within a binding framework for each of them.
While I think that priority should be given firstly to data already available (that is, collected at regional, national and European level), I believe that if the need arises for additional modules, which does not entail unnecessary bureaucracy or additional costs, in this case, Eurostat should be allowed to gather data from Member States with a view to setting up environmental economic accounts at European level.
It is for this reason that I also welcomed the introduction of these new European environmental economic accounts, and proposed that their scope should be extended to other modules.
I voted in favour of the report on EU environmental economic accounts as I believe that there need to be indicators for sustainable development and public welfare, beyond gross domestic product (GDP), that enable the evaluation of European environmental policy.
In the words of the rapporteur, 'Environmental economic accounts should contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making available data concerning the environmental impact of economic activities'.
This idea is important, and is indeed the only way of obtaining concrete data about the real impact of environmental policy.
If, on the one hand, economic growth cannot neglect the environment, it is also true that environmental policy cannot neglect or lose sight of economic activity and the competitiveness of European business and industry.
I always see the problem of sustainable development through this prism, whereby economic growth and respect for the environment are necessarily two sides of the same coin.
Europe cannot and must not forget this, especially at the present time.
On 28 September 2009, the Commission released a communication entitled 'GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world', proposing measures for the creation of a database of EU environmental accounts, with a view to better public debate and better-supported decision making.
By the end of 2013, the Commission should table a report addressing issues such as the situation of our forests and how depleted our fisheries resources are.
To this end, we need a credible and up-to-date statistical basis, to be created under this regulation.
The legal framework created with this proposal will allow the EU to assess environmental economic accounts, taking sustainable development into consideration.
It has never been so vital to pay attention to the dichotomy between the environment and the economy.
I voted in favour of this report because, besides making it possible to reach policy decisions that are more comprehensive and reasoned, it echoes the proverb 'we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children'.
It is vital that we bequeath a healthy environment to future generations.
The definition and provision of descriptive indicators and statistics that allow the development of economic and environmental factors to be monitored, along with possible interactions between these factors, is unquestionably a useful tool for supporting strategic planning, defining public policy and outlining ways towards sustainable development.
Moreover, as the rapporteur states, the data that is obtained can, and should, contribute to policy evaluation, enabling assessment of the environmental impact of economic activities.
The information obtained could be extremely valuable for the purposes of environmental policy making.
This proposal for a regulation provides only for the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to economic sectors, and economic material flow accounting.
More data could be gleaned from other areas.
The rapporteur also mentions something to this effect, suggesting that pilot studies into their practical application should be carried out.
It should, however, be borne in mind that the national statistical systems and their costs will need to be adapted.
The Commission seems to take this fact into account in its proposal, even if only partially, by providing for derogations to Member States if it is necessary to make major adjustments.
This proposal for a regulation only makes provision for the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to economic sectors, and economic material flow accounting.
However, the definition and provision of descriptive indicators and statistics that allow the development of economic and environmental factors to be monitored, along with possible interactions between these factors, is unquestionably a useful tool for supporting strategic planning, defining public policy and outlining ways towards sustainable development.
The data that is obtained can, and should, contribute to policy evaluation, enabling assessment of the environmental impact of economic activities.
Environmental economic accounts should contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making data available on the environmental impact of economic activities.
Such information could be extremely valuable for the purposes of environmental policy making.
Recycling and the prevention of waste, air pollution and climate change, as well as sustainable consumption and production, could be monitored much more effectively if high quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors.
In my opinion, collection of the relevant data, which has been voluntary so far, should become mandatory.
Moreover, the introduction of a common framework in this area on the collection, processing, transfer and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts would facilitate the political evaluation of European environmental policy.
Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, a great deal of attention was paid to the interaction between economic policy and environmental policy.
That is why factors such as sustainable transport and energy resources have become key elements in other sectoral policies, too.
Indeed, back in 2006, the European Council called on the Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development, in order to provide the most consistent data possible.
I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation because I believe it can facilitate the work of national statistics offices by enabling them to compile harmonised and timely environmental accounting data.
In this respect, the adoption of a European legal basis for the collection of data on environmental economic accounts will mean that estimates can be provided at European level regarding the existing interaction between economic and environmental factors.
Lastly, I hope that this instrument will be seen as further confirmation of the leading role played by the European Union internationally with regard to environmental accounts.
I voted against the Leinen report which, in the guise of so-called environmental statistics, unleashes an avalanche of information requiring a huge amount of bureaucracy, and all this in the name of green evangelicalism.
Environmental economic accounts should contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making available data concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
In its June 2006 conclusions, the European Council called on the EU and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development.
This Commission proposal for European environmental economic accounts is a valuable contribution to this political approach.
A sound assessment of European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.
Mandatory data collection by the Member States is therefore necessary.
Environmental data currently available at European level should be expanded in the medium term to facilitate policy assessment.
Recycling and waste prevention, air emissions and climate change, sustainable consumption and production could be monitored much more effectively if high quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors.
I abstained from the vote on this document because I do not believe that such information can be gleaned purely from environmental accounts.
It is essential to ensure the cooperation of all Member States and full harmonisation at EU level.
We refer, in particular, to the collection of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to various economic sectors and macro-economic material flow accounting.
In our view, environmental economic accounts should contribute to policy evaluation, particularly by making available data concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
We agree that a verification clause should be introduced and that the Commission should report regularly on the implementation of the regulation in practice.
We believe it is important to verify the reliability and comparability of the data in order to be able to make improvements and guarantee a high standard of environmental accounting.
Due account should also be taken of the development of new modules and experience acquired in the course of pilot studies.
The verification report should be regarded as an opportunity to adjust the regulation in the light of fresh developments and experiences.
I believe that a better range of statistics on the environmental consequences of the policies of Member States and the EU is needed, as well as on accounting for certain taxes that support environmental policies.
It is unfortunate that statistics and taxes are lumped together under 'environmental accounting'.
The aim of this assimilation is to implement the climate market and its stock rights relating to pollution.
The delegation of powers to the Commission is also heading in this direction.
I voted in favour as I support the idea of the necessary statistical instruments, although I reject the policies that they serve.
There needs to be agreement on how to prepare model statistics on the environmental impact of EU and Member State policies as well as on tax accounting which supports certain environmental policies.
That much is obvious.
It is, however, regrettable that statistics and taxes are included indiscriminately in 'environmental accounting'.
The reason behind such a lack of discrimination is the implementation of the climate package and its market trading in pollution rights.
The delegation of powers to the Commission is also moving in the same direction.
And yet I am voting in favour of it.
I want to validate the notion of necessary statistical instruments even if I reject the policies that they may serve.
It is vital that environmental economic accounts contribute to policy evaluation, making available data concerning the environmental impact of economic activities.
We need to know how to define the aim and purpose of this proposal for a regulation, together with its contribution to the overall 'GDP and beyond' strategy.
This regulation provides only for the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to economic sectors, and economic material flow accounting.
This is a first step towards developing more comprehensive environmental accounting since, according to the competent European and national statistics offices, it is only in these areas that data for the whole of Europe is currently available.
It is therefore necessary to continue to make advances so that statistical data on the environment is increasingly reliable and forthcoming.
in writing. - Recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions and climatic change, and sustainable consumption and production, could be monitored much more effectively if high quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors.
The relevant data collection, which, until today, was made on a voluntary basis at EU level, should become therefore mandatory.
Moreover, environmental data currently available should be expanded in the medium term to facilitate the necessary policy assessment of the European environmental policy.
I agree with the rapporteur's position and I voted in favour.
A proper and sound assessment of European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.
Recycling, air emissions, climate change, sustainable consumption and production must be monitored continuously in order to achieve progress in these areas across the whole of Europe.
A system for preparing environmental economic accounts is one of the measures that would aid the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to various economic sectors and macro-economic material flow accounting.
However, the binding nature of this system creates an additional administrative burden.
Therefore, when introducing such a system, it is necessary to properly assess the impact of its application, set out the desired objectives more specifically and establish clearly the future direction to be taken with regard to environmental economic accounts.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that Eurostat will be granted the main supervisory and liability functions in these areas.
The implementation of the functions mentioned requires sufficient human and financial resources.
However, we must consider whether the European Union budget is sufficient to allocate additional financial resources to increase and maintain the bureaucratic apparatus.
The aim of the proposal for a regulation on European environmental economic accounts is to provide instruments for use in achieving certain important objectives, such as developing a European environmental accounting strategy and extending the work of the statistics offices, which provide accounting data to administrative bodies.
I voted in favour of the text because I believe it is important for sustainable development purposes to incorporate environmental topics in EU policies and to have national accounts and a European programme with integrated economic and environmental accounting in the areas of transport, recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions, climate change, and sustainable production and consumption.
In 2006, the Council invited the EU and the Member States to extend their national accounts to the main aspects of sustainable development, proposing short- and medium-term methods to develop global indicators that could lead to better public debate and contribute to decision making based on the economic impact of the environmental measures to be implemented.
I voted in favour of this report as I agree with this first step towards developing environmental accounting that is more comprehensive, since, according to the relevant European and national statistics offices, it is only in these areas that data for the whole of Europe is currently available.
New priority modules, on which work is currently in progress and for which relevant data is likely to be available soon, should be identified in a working plan, and this data should also be submitted, especially data on the environmental impact of economic activities.
Recycling and waste prevention, atmospheric emissions and climatic change, and sustainable consumption and production could be monitored much more effectively if high quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors.
These data could act as an important aid to taking decisions on environmental measures.
in writing. - (IT) In 2006, the European Council invited the European Union and its Member States to extend statistical data to sustainable development and to existing national accounting data.
In its 2009 report entitled 'GDP and Beyond: Measuring Progress in a Changing World', the Commission itself proposed various measures to be adopted in the short and medium term concerning the definition of general indicators to create a more reliable knowledge base for better public debate and more appropriate political action.
In particular, it also touched upon aspects concerning Europe's environmental economic accounts.
An in-depth assessment of European environmental economic accounts can only be made on the basis of reliable data and therefore, Member States should be equipped with common methodology and standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules which should be developed in a framework which is binding on all States.
I am voting in favour of the proposal because the objectives to be pursued and the future direction to be taken regarding environmental economic accounts need to be clearly set out, and so that these accounts can constitute an indispensable basis for environmental economic decision making.
in writing. - In order to ensure sustainable development and appropriate environmental policies at EU level, it is essential that policy makers are provided with reliable data on the environmental impact of economic activities.
I support this resolution as it lays out a number of effective measures for the collection of more comprehensive data.
If the EU is serious about increasing recycling, reducing waste and limiting air emissions and climate change, then it must take action.
The most effective way to achieve European goals in relation to sustainable development and environmental policies is through full cooperation across all Member States.
Therefore, mandatory data collection on the impact of economic activities by Member States is necessary.
The more accurate and reliable the information provided is, then the better our environmental policies will be.
If a sustainable development policy is to have the desired effect, there needs to be enough information available for the decision-making process to facilitate the adoption of considered solutions.
The Member States therefore need to assemble a wide range of indicators that together provide an overall picture of the EU in terms of the environment.
This is the aim of the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council, subject to assessment by Parliament.
For these reasons, I voted for this report.
in writing. - We voted in favour.
The proposal creates environmental economic accounts as satellite accounts to ESA 95 by providing methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules, intended to be used for compiling environmental economic accounts.
At the initial stage, the environmental accounts to be compiled within the common framework shall be grouped in the following modules: a module for air emissions accounts; a module for environmentally related taxes by economic activities; a module for economy-wide material flow accounts.
On the basis of our amendments adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the compromise negotiated with the Council contains, in addition to the accounts initially proposed, a requirement for the Commission to report by the end of 2013 and examine extension of the accounts to cover material stocks (and not only flows) as well as eco-system services.
Agreement on this requirement for Member States to provide data with harmonised methodology on environmental economy is actually a positive concrete step in the 'beyond GDP' process.
National accounts cover environmental considerations based on economic performance and the creation of prosperity.
Under the Commission proposal, they are to provide a source of data on air emissions and environmental taxes.
The environmental accounts are intended to only show the interactions.
Sustainable development in the EU requires a reasonable behaviour when it comes to the ecosystem and increasing shortages of resources.
The citizens must be informed of environmental impacts resulting from economic activities.
I voted in favour of the report by Mr Leinen.
In fact, environmental and sustainability policies have recently taken on a particular relevance, making people pay greater attention to the integration of economic and environmental policies.
Climate change, sustainable transport, nature, biodiversity, the use and exploitation of raw materials and natural resources, as well as waste management, have increased their importance exponentially in the policies of Member States.
For this reason, we can only assess European environmental policies and the related strategies adopted within the EU in a serious and rigorous way if reliable data are provided.
(The sitting was suspended at 13:15 and resumed at 15:00)
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make the following announcement. In connection with the evacuation drill which took place during voting time, today, all explanations of positions adopted at today's vote will be heard tomorrow - they will be heard together with tomorrow's explanations of vote.
Tomorrow, we will also complete the votes which were scheduled for today but were not taken.
This concerns the vote which was in progress when voting was suspended, which we will continue from exactly the same point at which it was suspended, so as to maintain complete continuity.
Mr President, allow me to begin with a smile as I congratulate all the Members for having survived the fire alarm and managing to take our places, safe and sound, back in the Chamber.
As a representative of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I would like to pose a question to the President of the Commission, who has been busy dealing with the pictures that we have been seeing in recent weeks from the Mediterranean, where many people fleeing from the situation in Africa have made it to Europe, while some have also failed to make it.
We have had to see the images of these stranded and dead people on the news.
We are all aware that it is a joint European challenge facing us to find an answer to this drama and this misery for refugees.
On behalf of the PPE Group, I would like to ask the President of the Commission to give us an appraisal of whether the Commission - and, above all, Frontex - has enough resources, whether we, the European Union, have enough capabilities to respond on the ground, and whether we have enough statutory bases to enable Europe to act together in the Mediterranean region.
I would also be interested to hear what form the discussions with the countries of origin (Tunisia and Egypt, for example) take and whether we Europeans are making headway in this area.
President of the Commission. - Mr Weber, we all regret recent events that have caused the loss of many lives.
I agree with you on the need to take more decisive action in this field.
There was an immediate response to assist the countries in North Africa - more than EUR 1 million for humanitarian assistance - and this assistance will continue.
Through the Hermes joint operation, the Frontex border agency is coordinating a response to the strong migratory pressure.
However, it is very important that Member States in the Mediterranean region, together with third countries, continue to cooperate and coordinate their efforts.
So my very direct answer to you is that, yes, we need more resources for Frontex.
The proposals to reinforce Frontex need to be adopted as a matter of urgency.
We also need Member States to show political will and, above all, solidarity among themselves by offering the requisite technical and human resources.
As you know, the European Union as such does not have all those resources, so we need the cooperation of the Member States in making them available.
Mr President, my thanks for your assessments of the situation.
Given that you state that we currently need more resources for Frontex, I would be interested to hear whether you are not also of the opinion that the Member States have hitherto been too unwilling to provide the resources to make Frontex strong.
We did have the toolbox already.
Was it the case that there was too little willingness on the part of the Member States to support Frontex accordingly?
President of the Commission. - There is an ongoing debate about this.
In fact, it is one of the topics for the European Council this month, on 23 and 24 June.
Not only should the Member States adopt the proposal already put forward to reinforce Frontex, but it is also important to step up the logistical response: more planes and more ships are indispensable and we cannot currently provide them from our budget at European level.
I think there is a political will to do this but it needs to be done in a coordinated manner and this is where an effort has been initiated by the Commission: Commissioner Malmström is working on the matter with the Member States, and I hope the European Council later this month will confirm our thinking.
At the same time, of course, we also need the cooperation of third countries.
I myself was in Tunisia, where I spoke with the Prime Minister, and they have promised us cooperation.
In fact, they are cooperating and we are now trying to reach some form of pragmatic logistical agreements between the Tunisian authorities and our own agencies.
Not all MEPs are back in the Chamber after the fire drill.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Yes, I noticed that some of my colleagues are still on the fire drill.
Yesterday, Commissioner Olli Rehn announced a number of important steps in the Commission.
First of all, he asked for a number of changes to a rescue mechanism.
He said it is necessary for this mechanism to be able to provide countries with flexible credit lines.
He said that this mechanism has to be able to go to the secondary market and, most importantly, he said that this can be done by discounted swaps with its own AAA rated bonds.
This is very important because it means that you can swap bad bonds from countries in difficulties with the rescue mechanism's AAA bonds.
Secondly, he also said that the Commission should start to examine the possibility of Eurobonds - finally, I may say.
My question to you, Mr Barroso, is can you confirm that this is also the position of the Commission?
Secondly, as time is pressing, will you propose these changes to the rescue mechanism at the next European Council meeting in two weeks' time?
President of the Commission. - I want to confirm that all the ideas put forward by Commissioner Rehn have my full support and endorsement, so I will not repeat what he said.
Regarding the ESM, we are now in the process of establishing it.
As you know, I hope the governments will very soon agree on that and so I hope that there will be a political decision in the European Council confirming the decisions regarding the European Stability Mechanism and, of course, you know what our position is.
Regarding Eurobonds, this is not a new idea.
The Commission has, for many years, including one of my predecessors, put forward the idea of Eurobonds.
The reality is that so far, Member States have not accepted the idea; namely, when we had the crisis with Greece, the Commission proposed some idea of mutualisation of the debt, which was rejected by most of the Member States in the euro area.
I think that there is now some progress in terms of accepting the idea of considering several options, and the Commission will, of course, present several options.
We have always thought that the idea of Eurobonds was an attractive one provided the Member States could support it, but we are not yet there, to be honest.
We are not yet there and I think what we have to do now is focus on the ESM.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - I do not think that the crisis concerning Greece and the euro is over.
It is not over.
So we have to find additional instruments.
One of the additional instruments is, in fact, what Olli Rehn is proposing - a swap of bad bonds from some countries for a smaller package of AAA rated Eurobonds.
That is the way forward.
These Eurobonds can be issued by the EFSF, by the ESM or by a new European agency in the future.
That does not matter.
It is the mechanism that is important and it is important that, for the first time, I think, Olli Rehn and the Commission recognise that it is the way forward.
President of the Commission. - Mr Verhofstadt, the Commission acts as a collegiate body.
I think you find it easier to agree with what Olli Rehn says than with what I say, but in fact, we are saying exactly the same thing.
In the annual growth survey, the Commission was defending and proposing collectively more intervention of this kind in the markets; that was unfortunately not agreed to by the Member States.
So what I can confirm is that we are working along that line; we are trying to have increased flexibility for intervention in the markets but, honestly, I think we should now focus on the ESM and consider, of course, options for the future of the Eurobonds if the Member States are ready to take that additional step.
Mr President, as you know, my group is composed mainly of non-euro area members, but we certainly do not wish to see the euro fail, as I have already said here several times.
Our economies are too interconnected for that, and I must say, therefore, that we have mixed feelings about what is happening.
We are getting mixed messages here.
The European Council says one thing, the European Central Bank says something else and the International Monetary Fund something else again.
Most of all, I have the feeling that political opinions are still prevailing over economic ones, as if it were possible to fool the markets with a few promises, and avoid a real solution to the situation.
I would like to ask what the position of the European Commission is regarding the restructuring of government debt.
You really do still seem to prefer pouring in more and more money and providing more and more endless loans to economies that are in serious trouble and on the very brink of collapse, or are we starting to see common sense here, and to consider seriously the possibility of restructuring their government debts, because, in my opinion, we cannot avoid this in the long term.
President of the Commission. - Mr Zahradil, first of all, unfortunately, the economic problems that we have in Europe are not only in the euro area.
Some Member States outside the euro area are also involved in balance of payment support programmes through the Commission and the IMF.
Regarding the euro area, as you say, there are discussions ongoing between the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Central Bank on achieving the best possible comprehensive response.
As you know, there is not always expert agreement on the best way to obtain that response.
This is still ongoing work.
It is fair to recognise that these issues are extremely difficult and complex.
The magnitude of the challenge is unprecedented and it requires some work of convergence.
That is why the Commission has been extremely prudent in the way it communicates on that matter because some of these issues are market sensitive.
One thing is clear: as we have said, restructuring is not an alternative to the painful fiscal consolidation efforts that all the Member States have to make if they want to correct their imbalances in terms of deficit and debt.
Mr President, Mr Barroso, it is true that we do not always understand the European Union's position, but you have just answered that.
I would like to say three things.
Firstly, there should be no more restructuring.
We all know that at some point, there will be a restructuring of the debt, for instance in Greece, for the simple reason that the Greek Government needs to be given the chance to regain confidence and that Greek society needs to be restructured.
As things stand in Greece, nobody trusts anyone, least of all the government.
Until the government manages to give its people another outlook for the future, other than one of austerity, it will not manage to revive its economy.
The most important thing that needs to be discussed by the Commission and the parties concerned should therefore be the need to inject some confidence in the Greek people, without which no measures can be adopted at all.
Yet the prevailing austerity does not give Greek society time to stop and think.
That is why they are rejecting it, which could be extremely risky.
One final question: tax evasion.
Could not Europe also lend Greece a hand on this matter?
Greek accounts are held in banks in Austria, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Switzerland.
Why not freeze those accounts, or at the very least, challenge banking secrecy so that the Greek Government can ascertain where the problem of tax evasion lies.
We ask them to put a stop to tax evasion and yet, at the same time, we are not offering them any help.
It is our banks, the European banks, which are actually covering up this tax evasion,
Mr Cohn-Bendit, you are right when you say there is a problem with tax evasion in Greece, although, in my opinion, this has not caused the Greek structural problem.
We are currently addressing the issue of banking secrecy.
As you know, since March 2009, all Member States as well as Switzerland have agreed to implement the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) standard which stipulates that a State cannot refuse to provide information if so requested by another State, on the grounds that this information is held by a bank or any other financial institution.
This principle was included by us, the Commission, in the directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, which came into force on 11 March 2011 and which, unfortunately, will only be applied on 1 January 2013.
The question of banking secrecy has therefore been dealt with at European level from a legal point of view and cannot constitute an obstacle to the full exchange of information on request between tax authorities.
I believe that all the criteria have already been met, on the basis of administrative cooperation, for Member States and the EU to now give Greece information about any fraud or tax evasion.
Mr Barroso, I have just one brief question.
I am pleased that the G8 summit and the e-G8 forum that preceded it discussed the Internet.
There are also concerns about why those with power are concerning themselves with the Internet.
We are aware of how sensitive this area is.
Is there any more you can tell us in this connection?
Is this a one-off, or will there be further discussion?
Will you be putting this on the agenda again?
I think President Sarkozy's idea was an excellent one because the Internet is a global phenomenon.
We all want an Internet that is open.
We think it contributes hugely to knowledge and freedom.
At the same time, the Internet is often open to abuse: there is exploitation, of children, for example, and crimes committed by taking advantage of the freedoms that the Internet offers.
We have therefore had a very interesting discussion with some of the big names in the creation of Internet initiatives, from the head of Google to Mr Zuckerberg, the head of Facebook, and others.
We talked about what type of regulation is appropriate for the Internet, while maintaining the freedom and potential for innovation that the Internet offers.
So there was debate followed by confirmation that this matter, the Internet, will appear on a future G8 agenda.
My curiosity is still somewhat unsated on this issue and I would like to ask you if you would be prepared to tell us, in general terms, about these further negotiations concerning the Internet, as this is an important and far-reaching measure for the future.
There was not really any negotiation.
It was more a very general exchange of views, a kind of brainstorming.
There was a conference beforehand specifically called e-G8, attended by some of the big players in the Internet business and the authorities.
It was not exactly a negotiation; I did not see it like that.
We asked these heads of major Internet companies to tell us how they saw the future of this industry and, furthermore, we shared our concerns, our interests and our perception of the Internet with the different members of the G8.
However, there was not really any negotiation in terms of specific results.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr Barroso, we have enjoyed a series of pantomime exchanges on the euro.
Every time I have predicted that a country would need a bail-out, you have come back and said, oh no, they don't, everything is fine.
And now we face the fourth bail-out - the second Greek bail-out - unless, of course, today you are going to tell us that is not necessary either.
But the question I want to ask you today is perhaps far more serious than anything that has happened in Greece or Ireland or Portugal to date.
It is about the real sovereign debt crisis which we may face within the next few weeks, and which concerns the integrity of the European Central Bank itself.
Month after month, I have warned that you cannot go on buying up vast quantities of your own bad debt.
Mr Barroso, do you accept that the finances of the European Central Bank and its integrity are now in a serious and parlous state?
President of the Commission. - No, I do not accept that.
I think the European Central Bank is a very credible institution that has been managed with great wisdom and intelligence.
The independence of the ECB is respected by all the Member States of the euro area.
Of course, we know that there are some difficulties in the euro area.
As I have already said, they are difficulties which, to be fair, concern not only the euro area.
Unfortunately, your criticism of the euro area is always ideological.
The debt problems are not exclusive.
On average, the debt in the euro area is lower than the debt in the UK, to give an example.
But, in fact, we have different problems because this is the first time we have had this type of monetary union without some more integrated institutional setting.
That is precisely why we are now trying to have a comprehensive response, and the ECB is part of the effort we are making to give financial stability to the euro area.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Backing up some of my rhetoric, just yesterday, the respected think-tank, Open Europe, came out with some figures on this.
It said that a staggering EUR 190 billion of the ECB's exposure is exposure to the Greek state and Greek banks.
Should the ECB see the value of its assets fall by just 4.25%, its entire capital base will be wiped out.
Do you accept the findings of Open Europe, or do you go along with Mr Juncker's assertion a couple of weeks ago that, with the situation in the euro being as serious as it is, you actually have to lie in public?
President of the Commission. - First of all, I do not lie and the Commission has always been very consistent in the information it has given about all the situations.
The situation is difficult; we have said it honestly from the beginning and we do not pretend the situation is a rosy one.
Having said this, the European Central Bank's credibility relies on the absolute determination of the euro area governments to do whatever it takes to ensure the financial stability of the euro area, so I have no doubts about the system's ability, of the efforts in the euro area and the credibility of the European Central Bank.
I have no doubts about the capacity of the European Central Bank to defend European interests, nor about the commitment of the Member States of the euro area to provide all the guarantees the European Central Bank needs to fulfil its independent role as our central bank.
In terms of exposure of central banks, there are other central banks in Europe and outside Europe which are in a much more difficult and vulnerable situation than the European Central Bank, which is a credible, internationally much respected body of the European Union.
The EU is becoming even wider and, with the advent of pan-European political parties, seemingly ever deeper, with this inability to achieve consensus being proved repeatedly.
The contrary position of Germany over Libya and Italian and French disagreement over the recognition of Schengen visas proved this.
Could you explain to me and to my electorate how it is possible to instigate common policy in important areas, such as international relations and security, without consensus, unless we dispense with the democratic rights of Member States to project their own aspirations unilaterally?
President of the Commission. - Frankly, I do not understand the concern that is behind your question.
In fact, we are a Union of 27 democratic states and we have agreed that in common foreign and security policies, decisions should be taken unanimously.
If the Member States do not agree unanimously, it is not possible for us to impose a decision on those Member States, and thus we are fully respecting the democratic nature not only of our Union, but also of our Member States.
I believe that it is in our interest as Europeans, European citizens, that the Member States act together in external matters.
It is obvious that today in Europe, even the biggest Member States do not have the necessary influence or leverage to talk on an equal basis with the United States or China and other powers, but together, the European Union can make a difference.
So I hope that the process will lead to increased convergence in terms also of foreign policy matters between our Member States.
The first thing I mentioned was pan-European parties.
Could you explain to me why taxpayers should fund political parties at any level?
Maybe you could explain to me how useful they are for the EU's aims.
One other question I have is about Cathy Ashton.
I note her attendance at Commission meetings is very low.
Is the UK being correctly represented at the Commission?
President of the Commission. - There are two questions here.
First of all, the European parties are, as you know, recognised as important entities by the Treaty that was ratified unanimously by our Member States.
So there is a reason to support the European parties because they are, in fact, European entities, recognised as such by our Treaty.
Secondly, regarding Cathy Ashton, she is not only Vice-President of the Commission, but also High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
She has a very challenging job in which she has to represent the European Union, so of course she has more travel assignments than most of the members of the Commission.
She makes a great personal effort to be present at almost all the Commission meetings.
She cannot be at all of them.
However, I wish to point out that members of the Commission are not there to represent countries.
They are nominated by countries but they are there to represent the European Union.
All of us take an oath, when we assume our duties, saying that we are not there to represent countries, and, in fact, the credibility of the institution comes exactly from that fact - that we try to be independent and to serve the general European interest.
I can tell you that the Member States, including the UK, are very well represented in the European Council by their Prime Ministers and in the Council by the various ministers.
Mr President, my apologies for the delay in my arrival.
I waited until the end as a result.
Mr Barroso, I have a question to ask you that relates to the grave situation in which we, in the European Union, find ourselves.
2008 was the year of a deep crisis in banking.
In 2009, this banking crisis led to a deep economic crisis in the real economy.
The assumption of the costs of banking deficits by the public purses ultimately led, in 2010, to a deep crisis in national budgets.
This deep crisis of the national budgets is being accompanied by an orgy of cuts, which is leading to dramatic situations in several Member States of the European Union, in part as a result of measures demanded by the European Union.
There is a risk that, following the banking crisis, the economic crisis and the crisis in the national budgets, 2011 and 2012 will be the years of social crisis in Europe.
I would therefore ask you, Mr Barroso, is the Commission prepared to discuss with us how we can improve the underfunding of the social welfare net - social security systems - in the Member States of the European Union, in particular, in those Member States hardest hit by the budgetary crisis?
Moreover, are you prepared to have a definitive discussion with us about Eurobonds in order to obtain the resources that we need to be able to invest in the economy to facilitate growth and jobs in the hardest hit Member States?
Mr Schulz, only today, the Commission adopted country-specific recommendations for each of the 27 countries, and there is also an introductory note in which we express in very clear terms this concern that you have just mentioned, which is very important for us.
We are well aware that austerity, which is necessary at present because of the need to reduce deficits and debt, is truly very difficult.
At the same time, we believe that each euro being spent now on debt interest means one euro less for the hospitals, public health services, public education and social security.
This is, therefore, real austerity.
This is why we must engage in serious budget consultation in order to restore confidence and, at the same time, implement the structural reforms needed to guarantee competitiveness, whilst still protecting the most vulnerable.
I think you will like the document we adopted today.
It looks at all the issues affecting the labour market: how do we attract more people into the labour market, how do we incorporate this social dimension into all our policies?
We now need to see how much room for manoeuvre each country has for guaranteeing these goals.
However, I think we are agreed on the goals.
(IT) Mr President, to be honest, I did not want to participate in the discussion on the G8, but I did want to put a question to President Barroso regarding culture.
In the European Union, there are many programmes to encourage youngsters - and others - to meet, so that this becomes a real Union.
For many youngsters and professionals, programmes such as Comenius, Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action, etc. have represented the true coming-together of the European Union, inspiring truly European sentiments.
(The President interrupted the speaker to explain that the debate was on another subject, but then invited him to continue ...)
I would like to know, therefore, what is to become of these programmes, at least as far as the Commission can tell, seeing that they are approaching their expiry dates and we should already have confronted the matter within the Committee on Culture and Education.
How does the Commission intend to develop the next programme, from 2014 on?
I believe that this subject is of particular interest to many people active in European Union affairs and many of the youngsters in our countries.
The Commission has a keen interest in everything relating to the promotion of this cultural dimension in Europe and in exchanges of every kind.
I have a strong attachment to it myself and have already met some of the main parties involved in this area.
At the end of this month, we will be putting forward proposals on the future financing of all sectors, including culture.
We will, of course, be making substantial proposals in this area.
We are thinking in terms of rationalising the instruments while protecting the aims of programmes such as the ones you mentioned.
These are flagship programmes and are extremely important for a citizens' Europe and a Europe that recognises the value of culture.
I will stick to the topic.
The Commission yesterday adopted a strong package of reports and measures on fighting the corruption that is costing the EU EUR 120 billion per annum - roughly equivalent to the total EU budget - but eight Member States score less than five out of ten on the Transparency International index.
The Commission says implementation of anti-corruption instruments is unsatisfactory.
So would it not have been a good idea for corruption to be raised at the G8 summit?
The only reference that I can find, and it was an oblique one, was about developing countries.
There was no reference at all to how rich countries need to show the political will to tackle the problem of our own backyard and show leadership on this.
Was not this an opportunity missed to talk about corruption and bribery at the G8, especially as one of the members, Russia, is 154th out of 178 and many of our own Member States show poorly on the Transparency International index?
President of the Commission. - The issue of corruption was dealt with when we had this outreach meeting with African leaders, but I can tell you that anti-corruption issues are going to be high on the agenda of the G20 meeting in November.
Having said that, I think it was a useful discussion because, when there is corruption, someone is corrupted but there is also someone doing the corrupting, so in a way, the G8 members were also scrutinised when we discussed the issue of Africa.
By the way, I gave them very good news because I announced that the Commission is going to put forward initiatives relating to transparency for raw materials - good or bad news depending on perspective: less transparency makes it easier for some regimes to use revenues from their national resources and raw materials in a non-transparent way, sometimes with the complicity, we have to say, of the so-called developed world.
That was the angle taken on the issue at the last G8 meeting.
(NL) Mr Barroso, you were just talking about the European Central Bank (ECB), which you described as independent.
The point is that the ECB is not independent in the Greek crisis; it has chosen sides.
The ECB, as a commercial bank, has bought up tens of billions of weak bonds and is now holding up the necessary restructuring of Greek debts.
My question is specific, and it is as follows: what are you doing to prevent the ECB, with its two hats, from standing in the way of the difficult but necessary steps to restructure the Greek economy?
President of the Commission. - The European Central Bank (ECB) is certainly independent, and not only is its independence recognised by the Treaty - so it is therefore legal and Treaty-based independence - but I can also tell you that I have had some seven years' experience in this position, dealing very frequently with the ECB and being present on many occasions when the ECB has shown it does not need our support to affirm its independence.
I want to reassure you on that point.
Regarding the issue of restructuring, various options are, as you know, under analysis.
We are considering the whole debate, but the position of the Commission has already been clearly stated: we believe that the restructuring is not an alternative to the efforts that Member States have to make in terms of fiscal consolidation and structural reform.
That has been our consistent position and we will maintain it.
(PT) Mr President, Mr Barroso, also on the matter of the G8 summit, I would like to know whether the whole issue of regulating the financial markets has been postponed once again, in particular, with the implementation of a tax on movement of capital, capital gains, the abolition of tax havens, the end of derivatives and ratings agencies, given their total lack of credibility at present and their utter lack of transparency.
Lastly, I would also like to ask you about an issue related to what is happening here in the EU, with Greece, Portugal and Ireland, whereby a process is being imposed that is chiefly aimed at forcing instruments and processes that exacerbate exploitation and economic decline on workers and countries, and which, in the short or medium term, will contribute to greater poverty, unemployment and inequality.
Do you not think that this contradicts all the principles that have been expressed, including by the Treaty itself?
Firstly, Mrs Figueiredo, in relation to issues of global financial regulation, as you know, since the G20 was established as the principal economic forum for global governance in financial matters, it is the G20 that is given precedence on these issues.
Some of these points have been addressed to a certain extent. I myself ...
I can tell you ... I launched the debate at the G8 about a financial transactions tax, when we were also discussing the problem of development aid, and my position is clearly in favour of this tax.
We are working on this in the Commission and will table some ideas very soon.
As for the general issue you raised, the situation of the euro area was also discussed.
Here, we may have completely different points of view.
We believe that without budgetary consolidation and structural reforms, there will be no chance to promote our objective: a social market economy.
Mr Barroso, at the G8 summit, the participants debated their commitments to the neighbourhood policy in the Mediterranean.
You yourself, on behalf of the European Union, have committed EUR 1.24 billion saying it is for the neighbourhood, which might have been understood as being just for the south.
We know from the interim versions of the Commission's document that in an initial phase, within the EUR 1.24 billion, EUR 150 million was for the east and all the rest was for the south.
That contradicts the principle of symmetry and equal attention being paid to both neighbourhoods.
How would you explain this?
What did you really and factually commit to the southern Mediterranean neighbourhood policy within the context of the only amount of money that has been mentioned by you?
President of the Commission. - Mr Saryusz-Wolski, my friend, let me tell you very frankly that I understand the concerns that you have with the Eastern Neighbourhood, but I think that the most important issue is not to place East and South in competition with one another: we need both.
What is important now is to help those who want us to help them, and to do that in an effective way.
In fact, the approach we have put forward in the revision of the Neighbourhood Policy is clear.
We are not allocating resources on an East-South cleavage but based on conditionality according to each partner's progress towards reform, or, if you like, more for more.
Those who do more, those who show that they deserve more, will receive more.
So we do not have a previously prepared envelope - this is for country A or for country B - the country has to show that it deserves to be supported.
I think this is the right approach, and in that case we will, of course, fulfil our commitments both to our Eastern European partnership - that is extremely important - but also to our neighbours in the Mediterranean.
(FR) Mr Barroso, my question actually has a link with the last question and with your answer to it.
You spoke just now about the aid that you pledged during the Deauville G8 summit, in particular, to the emerging Arab economies: USD 40 billion, mostly in the form of loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), plus approximately EUR 15 billion from the European Union and Member States.
You mentioned conditionality, which is what my question relates to.
This aid is indeed conditional upon certain criteria with which you are very familiar: regular, free elections, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, combating corruption, independence of the justice system, reform of the army and reform of the police.
I would like to know who will actually assess whether these criteria are being complied with, especially as regards these emerging Arab democracies.
Will our Parliament be fully involved in assessing compliance with the conditions that have been established, or will this be a discretionary power of the Council's?
Our idea, and I hope you will agree with it, is that it should be the Commission that coordinates the exercise.
I am actually very proud of the fact that it was the Commission, together with the High Representative, that presented the blueprint for our response immediately: a partnership for democracy in North Africa and the Southern Mediterranean and also a partnership for shared prosperity.
The Council now recognises that it would actually be a good thing for the Commission to coordinate the exercise, and the Commission must, of course, report to Parliament on the matter.
Therefore, I can only welcome all expressions of interest and the efforts made by Parliament to be closely involved.
The events that are currently unfolding in some Arab countries are, in fact, of great strategic importance, not only for those countries, but also for global democracy, for the evolution of the Muslim world and for us here in Europe.
Therefore, anything we are able to do to mobilise not only EU institutions but also our societies to help our neighbours' transition to democracy is very important, and I can only welcome the interest shown by the European Parliament.
(EL) Mr President, on the subject of the G8 summit, according to some financial information I was reading, global GDP was USD 58 trillion and the money supply was USD 615 trillion in 2009.
At the same time, on the subject of 'monetary policy' that concerns you, it confirmed that the USA is issuing new money, new dollars, while our Union is not issuing new money.
Economists disagree on many things; however, history has taught us two things: firstly, that you cannot save a bankrupt by giving him expensive loans and, secondly, that extreme austerity can never reduce the deficit of a macro-economy in recession which is unable to depreciate its currency.
The Eurobond is urgently needed, Mr President.
Do you see it as a means of counterbalancing the spiralling increase in new money being issued by the USA?
President of the Commission. - In fact, this question should be in the first part of our debate, but I can respond to the distinguished Member by saying that, over the years, the Commission's position has been very open and, in fact, sympathetic, to the idea of Eurobonds.
One of my predecessors was the first to put forward the idea of Eurobonds.
The reality is that there was no agreement between the Member States.
What the Member States have agreed now was the creation of a European stability mechanism.
When it is created, it will become the number one international financial institution in the world - the most important in the world in terms of financial strength.
I think that is where we should now concentrate our efforts.
At the same time, we are open to discussing with the Member States - and with the Parliament of course - several options regarding the possibility of Eurobonds, provided the Member States are willing to consider that possibility.
That is, of course, a very important and decisive one.
The recent G8 summit wanted it to be known that it was providing USD 40 billion to Egypt and Tunisia for overthrowing dictatorships and embracing democracy.
However, the G8 statement said that it would support countries in the region that move towards not just democracy, but also a market economy.
It wants these countries to 'reap the benefits of globalisation' and to engage in 'investment integration', which means making it easier for G8 countries to make money in these countries and then take the money out again.
I would not object to recipients of aid being expected to implement and retain democratic institutions and procedures.
That would be quite right.
However, is it not sinister that recipients should be told which economic policies they should choose and which they should discard?
Surely donors have no right to instruct these new democracies as to which democratic choices they should make?
President of the Commission. - I agree with the perspective which was adopted by the G8.
I think it is in our common interest to have not only open societies but open economies.
These countries are our neighbours, and I think the best way to help them is through trade.
We will never be able to provide the amount of money they need if they stay closed.
For instance, in the Maghreb countries - as you probably know - the reality is that trade among themselves is almost insignificant.
They are asking us to open up our markets, but they do not trade among themselves.
I think it is important that we say: yes we are ready to support you, but you should also open up your economy and integrate into the global economy.
In fact, we see that a country's progress is very clearly linked to its capacity to integrate in a global economy.
Just look at Asia with countries that are not yet democracies; it is because they were able to open up that they could participate in the global economy and reap some benefits for their peoples.
(IT) Mr President, President Barroso, the final declaration of the G8 summit regarding the Middle East states: 'Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict.
We call on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to abide by existing cooperation agreements and to abstain from unilateral measures that could hamper progress and further reforms'.
Does the European Union - an important interlocutor of the G8 - support this statement?
If it does, have you told the Palestinian side, which is planning to take unilateral action during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September?
President of the Commission. - Regarding the Middle East peace process, I do not remember a single international meeting in the last 30 years where this issue was not mentioned.
We have restated our urgent call for resuming the peace process and we have urged both parties to re-engage in substantive talks to bring the Middle East peace process to an effective conclusion.
We all commended the new US vision on reaching a framework agreement as groundbreaking and forward-looking.
However, there were different reactions to the details of this new vision.
To be honest with you, there are different approaches among the G8 partners to the Hamas-PLO cooperation and to the issue of the 1967 borders.
There were also some concerns around the table about the risks entailed in a potential Palestinian endeavour to unilaterally seek recognition at a United Nations General Assembly.
I can tell you that we are also discussing this with the Member States and that I hope that we in Europe will have a common position on the matter.
(FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, the G8 countries decided to grant the sum of USD 40 billion to Tunisia and Egypt, as has already been said.
However, the European Union must present the case for greater transparency, visibility and traceability; in short, better governance of this aid.
We need to focus on four key points: first, ensuring that development cooperation is in keeping with the principles of democracy and absolute transparency; second, guaranteeing respect for human rights; strengthening the role and capacities of civil society organisations and reforming the system of governance that applies to aid, with stronger involvement by the European Parliament.
Mr Barroso, the EU must be able to guarantee that this aid reaches the people it is intended for.
What concrete measures is the EU planning in this respect?
Honourable Member, what you said reflects my own thoughts precisely.
I agree with you completely.
We are now going to do this with the help of several instruments, so that we can check that the undertakings made by all the partner countries are adhered to and implemented with determination.
I am able to tell you that all of these programmes will be followed up not only by the Commission's offices but also by the High Representative, who will be appointing a special representative for the region in question.
We think it is precisely through this kind of dialogue that we will be able to help these countries, especially by increasing participation by civil society.
I was in Tunisia recently, where I met not only with the government and the President of the Republic, but also with representatives of civil society, women's organisations and trade unions.
I saw how important they see our commitment to be, not only in the shape of support from governments, but also that of civil society.
Once again, as I said to Mrs Sarnez, the European Parliament's commitment would also be very important in this respect, in the context of relations with the burgeoning parliaments and political parties in these young and new democracies.
(EL) Mr President, at the recent G8 summit, you discussed the global economy and agreed that efforts should focus on the objectives of the viability of public finances, economic recovery and action to address unemployment.
All this is being pursued for the benefit of society and the public.
However, if we take the example of Greece, tens and hundreds of thousands of citizens recently took to the square and the streets around the Hellenic Parliament quite spontaneously, without being directed to do so, angrily calling for a decent standard of living and prospects.
You must agree, Mr President, that no policy can be effective if it is not backed or, at the very least, tolerated by society.
The policy in Greece is basically confined to a dilemma between exhausting austerity or bankruptcy.
Do these social developments worry you?
They are a major political issue.
What message do you have to send to these people who are seeking, in a dignified and peaceful manner, prospects and a better future for themselves, their families and their children?
President of the Commission. - First of all, I would like to express my solidarity with the Greek people.
I understand how difficult these times are for Greece.
But I also believe that the responsibility of political leaders at European or national level, whether they are in government or in opposition, is to show what countries have to do.
In fact, without fiscal consolidation, without structural reform, Greece will not come out of this crisis.
The reality is that some painful measures are unavoidable in Greece and anyone who claims otherwise is lying to the Greek people.
My appeal to the Greek leaders is to explain in honest terms to the population of Greece the difficult choices that the country has to make.
We will all support it.
In the European Council, it was I who proposed a reduction in interest rates on loans granted to Greece.
But, at the same time, let us be honest.
Greece has to make some of the effort itself because one country cannot live forever with such high levels of debt.
This is the honest message that we should convey to the government and the opposition in Greece, and that we in Europe must accept if we really want to help that country.
Mr President, I am glad that you raised at the G8 summit the issues of the problems of the eurozone.
It is a crisis, and we all know it is a crisis.
As the previous speaker mentioned, many Member States are concerned.
We had issues in Madrid recently when people were protesting on the streets.
There were protests in Lisbon, of all places, and we have also seen what has happened in Greece.
Isn't it time, Mr Barroso, that you stood up - you mentioned telling lies a few moments ago - and told the truth and said that there is an option: that these countries should be allowed to leave the eurozone?
That is the only way out of it.
President of the Commission. - I have great respect for all our democratic states, so it is not up to me to tell them what they should do in this matter.
But we know that Greece has no intention of leaving the eurozone.
I am in constant contact with both the Greek authorities and the main opposition party and I know very well that they do not want to leave the eurozone.
Probably some of you, distinguished Members, would like the country to leave the eurozone, or perhaps your country is not in the eurozone and we respect that, but Greece is very committed to the European project.
Greece has difficulties, and we are trying to support it, but please do not attack the euro on ideological grounds.
The reality is that there are countries outside the eurozone that have at least comparable problems.
Iceland is not a member of the eurozone and Iceland went bankrupt.
Let us put it frankly: Iceland was one of the richest countries in the world in per capita terms before the financial crisis.
In the European Union, we also have countries that are facing the same kind of difficulties because of very high levels of expenditure.
So the reality is that the euro is not the problem; the problem is a very high level of debt or a very high level of deficits in the economies.
The Question Hour with the President of the Commission is closed.
Sudan and South Sudan (debate)
The next item is the declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Sudan and South Sudan (2011/2717 [RSP]).
I think Mr Piebalgs is standing in for her.
Thank you, Mr Piebalgs.
Commissioner, you have the floor on behalf of the High Representative and the Commission.
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, the six-year transition period of the Sudanese Comprehensive Peace Agreement will come to an end in about a month's time.
This is a historic moment for Sudan, and indeed for the whole African continent.
The people of Southern Sudan have waited a long time for this moment, when their country's independence will be declared on 9 July.
The European Union will be represented at the Independence Day ceremony by the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission.
Following a credible referendum at the beginning of this year, we commended Sudanese parties on the remarkable job they did in organising the referendum.
We welcomed that President Bashir had publicly said that North Sudan would be the first to recognise an independent South Sudan.
But the positive momentum of the immediate post-referendum period has vanished.
There are worrying tendencies towards increased tensions and conflict.
The recent violent clashes in and around Abyei could well lead to another military confrontation between North and South Sudan.
We discussed Sudan in the Foreign Affairs Council, both in January and in May, and will revert to it at the 20 June Foreign Affairs Council.
At the Council, the High Representative intends to present a comprehensive EU strategic approach for Sudan, mainly focusing on an independent South Sudan, but also including elements for constructive engagement with North Sudan, including the Transitional Areas, Darfur and the East.
In fact, we will be witnessing the birth of not one new state but two.
The comprehensive approach will be a political strategy document, setting out all the key strands of our policy towards Sudan.
The EU's main objectives are to support peace between the two states and democratisation and prosperity within both of them.
We want to see two viable states coexisting as good neighbours sharing an open border, allowing for cross-border exchanges of people, goods, capital and ideas.
South Sudan will need all our attention in terms of stabilisation, state-, institution- and capacity-building and long-term development.
Our utmost concern would be to avoid state failure.
As part of a possible response strategy, we will be looking at a number of important elements: stepping up the EU presence in Juba by establishing an EU delegation; initiating comprehensive political dialogue; stabilising South Sudan and the joint border through specific measures and instruments - including the Common Security and Defence Policy and the Instrument for Stability - and increasing development assistance.
With regard to the latter, the EU has just made additional funds totalling EUR 200 million available for South Sudan, making our envelope today roughly EUR 300 million.
We are working together with the Member States in a joint EU programming exercise to maximise the impact on the ground.
At the same time, we will continue humanitarian assistance and we will work to ensure that trade is part of the comprehensive approach.
North Sudan, on the other hand, will suffer some losses.
We need to support reform-minded elements in the North, promote an inclusive political dialogue and enhance our efforts to promote human rights.
We are trying to step up our political dialogue with the government in Khartoum.
My recent visit was intended to signal EU re-engagement following Khartoum's positive response to the outcome of the referendum.
We are, however, extremely concerned about the recent violence and, as I said, the military occupation of the city of Abyei, which constitutes a clear violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
We urge the parties to abstain from any further provocation and to negotiate the conditions for the long-term peaceful coexistence of local communities living in and around Abyei.
We also continue to have concerns about the detention of human rights defenders, journalists, opposition politicians and peaceful student protestors.
One of the basic principles of the CPA was the establishment of democratic governments based on respect for diversity and basic freedoms.
We want to see respect for fundamental freedoms and genuinely inclusive democratic governments in both North and South Sudan.
I must also mention Darfur.
The European Union remains deeply concerned about the continued violence in Darfur, leading to displacements, and the severe impact this is having on humanitarian operations.
There is positive news.
The three European citizens who were held hostage in Darfur for several months have been released but, at the same time, we know the situation in Darfur is as it has been previously.
We will need to continue to support efforts to achieve a comprehensive and just peace in Darfur, trying to secure a positive outcome from the peace negotiation process and create enabling conditions on the ground for a Darfur-based political process.
We welcome the outcome of the recent All Stakeholders Conference in Doha and hope it will provide for such important developments towards lasting peace in Darfur.
Lastly, I must mention justice.
A lasting peace in Darfur cannot be achieved without justice and reconciliation.
There has to be an end to impunity.
The Council has repeatedly recalled the obligation of the government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593.
The Darfur people deserve to achieve what they have been longing for for so long - lasting peace and justice.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what struck me most at the time of South Sudan's referendum on self-determination was the inhabitants' enthusiasm and joy, even exultation.
People were happy because for once, they were having their say.
For once, after more than 20 years of war, they felt that what they had to say would be listened to.
We must not disappoint these six million South Sudanese people, but we must not forget the inhabitants of the North either.
It is important that, amid the democratic impetus brought about by the results of the referendum, negotiations should be as transparent as possible, so as to provide a solid base for the future development of each of the new states, as well as the future development of relations between them and with the international community.
The viability and stability of both North and South are crucial.
It is vital for solutions to be found at last to problems that have hitherto remained unresolved.
I am talking about the problems of citizenship, sharing debt and oil revenues and the difficult matter of undefined borders.
In addition, the referendums must go ahead in the Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions, within the framework of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
The situation in Abyei is becoming worse every day.
It is most worrying.
Abyei must not reach a point of no return that would undo more than six years of negotiations.
Tensions that are turning into open conflict are threatening to overshadow South Sudan's independence and plunge the region once again into chaos.
However, the situation in Abyei must not make us forget the situation in Darfur.
In this respect, the conclusions of the Doha conference must be taken into consideration, as you have just said, Commissioner, and we must not lose sight of the ongoing need to channel humanitarian aid and guarantee the safety of aid workers.
Transparent negotiations are a guarantee of two viable states, as are the cessation of violence and effective cooperation between the two states.
This is the framework, of course, that was already outlined during the referendum process It is important that this continues, so as to ensure that the political will of both states and of the international community is put into practice in the form of genuine development projects for citizens of both countries.
It is these citizens and their well-being that should be the main focus of democratisation, political pluralism, and respect for human rights and for religious, cultural and ethnic diversity in both South and North Sudan.
Madam President, on 9 July, South Sudan will celebrate its new-found independence and dignity, and it is indeed in terms of dignity and emotion that the Sudanese people are talking about this event.
Mr Piebalgs, I had prepared a three-minute speech.
However, while listening to you, I wondered if I should actually speak.
I must complement you: I think Parliament has reason to be proud of the action by the whole of the European Union and of the way in which this Sudanese affair has been conducted, and like the Sudanese people, I am keeping my fingers firmly crossed that this will continue into independence and beyond.
You spoke on the main issues, that is to say, the Abyei issue, which is still unresolved, the political decisions that were supposed to have been made on citizenship, debt, currency, etc.
Above all, you mentioned everything you are hoping to do in terms of development, humanitarian action, the fact that justice must be done and that we must not sell the International Criminal Court short.
In fact, you covered all the most important points.
I will just add a few points.
As regards the problem of development and humanitarian action, it is true that so much still remains to be done in South Sudan and that we must continue to develop the North and, most importantly, not to isolate it.
So much is still to be done because the country has lived purely off oil.
It has not developed a diversified economy; there is no education; there are no roads, no hospitals, and so forth.
The needs and expectations of the people are huge, and if we do not want these people to be disappointed with independence, then development and humanitarian action must continue for a long time yet.
We must keep this firmly in mind.
As regards the issue of human rights, women's rights and political pluralism, polygamy still exists, even in the South.
Women are bought along with cows; 80% of women are illiterate; children's rights have yet to be introduced and political pluralism does not exist: there is no culture of political pluralism, as we saw during the elections and the referendum.
At the same time, it is exciting and wonderful.
I met with both the South Sudanese and North Sudanese electoral commissions, though especially that of the South.
They want to create laws.
They want a good constitution, they want to build their country, and they are telling us, 'we will have money, don't worry, but help us - be there'.
I think that in this respect, you have fulfilled their request.
Your visit and that of Mrs Georgieva in the past and the probable visit of Lady Ashton for the independence celebrations are all major events.
Your wish to present a strategic plan for South Sudan is what we call for after every election.
We do not want it to be a flash in the pan, but to have proper follow-up and a future for the countries we visit.
I completely changed the text of my speech for all of this, Mr Piebalgs. I would like to thank you, because as I said, it is good to be able to be proud of the European Union, especially during this difficult time.
Madam President, Commissioner, when the independence of yet another African country, South Sudan, is proclaimed on 9 July, another chapter of colonial heritage on this continent will be closed.
We want to believe that, once a democratic decision is taken in the referendum, South Sudan will resolve its outstanding issues with its northern neighbour by peaceful means, that is, through negotiation.
We want to believe that the region will avoid the risk of disputes and clashes erupting because of the borders, demographics and migration patterns due to oil and other natural resources, which are plentiful in both countries, statistically poor though they may be.
I call your attention to the need for continued cooperation on the part of the international community, the UN, the African Union and the European Union in consolidating both countries, in securing peace and the building of institutions for a democratic and pluralistic South Sudan.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a challenge we face now, at a time when the entire wider region is experiencing a revival and opening up to the requirements and standards of modern times.
Sudan is once again facing a major historical turning point.
All the agreements reached at the end of the bloody civil war have not yet become reality.
The situation in the Abyei province is closer to a crisis than to peace, there is violence in Darfur, and Sudan needs our attention and generous help.
Another important fact is that the UN Security Council has renewed the mandate of the UNMIS mission in Sudan and will deploy additional peacekeepers in Sudan.
Our message to the governments in Khartoum and Juba is that they should welcome the UN peacekeepers as friends and ensure their security.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, Commissioner Piebalgs is right.
We also have one of the greatest challenges facing the European Union in front of us.
As rapporteur for the European Parliament report on nation building, I have to say that this is an extraordinary opportunity for us to partner South Sudan, one of the poorest and newest 'countries-to-be' on 9 July, and make nation building - that we keep talking about in this Chamber - a reality on the ground.
This is a country rich in natural resources, but it is also a country with the most awful social indicators.
A child born in South Sudan today has a higher chance of dying in infancy than attending primary school.
What a statistic that is.
Food products provided by aid agencies and intended for distribution to the poor for free are now being sold on the market.
We need to build capacity from the bottom up.
They do not have a civil service. They do not have trained administrators.
They do not have the infrastructure that is required for a modern 'state-to-be'.
They need the rule of law, they need good governance, they need transparency, they need our expertise as partners.
They need to invite us and we need to provide our partnership of know-how.
Madam President, you would want to raise the flag and a glass of champagne because, when a populace is able to vote through its own independence, that is only right and proper.
The unpleasant thing here is that South Sudan is actually inheriting a legacy from the past and that the raising of the flag or of a glass of champagne is possibly somewhat out of place, given the situation in which the South Sudanese find themselves.
Now that Abyei has been incorporated into the North, the South Sudanese should be praised for taking a stance of refusing to be provoked.
However, the question, of course, is how long that will last.
The fact that we, the international community, looked on as the issue of Abyei was left unresolved in the referendum is actually highly irresponsible and a recipe for war to start up again in future.
The fact that UN troops will have to be sent again to re-establish peace is also something that we can safely assume.
What I find particularly difficult is the issue of what do we talk about and what do we not?
Let us consider the fact that Sudan is trying to influence the forthcoming referendum in Abyei by insisting that those herdsmen who spend part of their time there and part away from there are included in the count.
Is it justified for South Sudan to argue that, no, they should not be counted, as they are not permanent residents?
If that is the view you take, are you not then denying the herdsmen's right to exist?
It is a Catch 22 situation for which no answer can just be plucked from the air.
There are two other factors to mention, too.
Is South Sudan to be given a fair start?
If so, the South Sudanese are surely, in fact, entitled to debt cancellation?
The debts in question were run up by the regime in Khartoum, and no one can say that these debts served the people of the South well.
The other factor is how are we to deal with the riches beneath the ground in South Sudan?
While we are at it, is South Sudan covered by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which audits freedom from corruption and examines which oil assets benefit the population?
If not, how can we in Europe help?
The one thing, after all, that really helps when it comes to European help for South Sudan - and, in fact, for the North - is actually trade and getting fair investments off the ground.
We are all watching developments anxiously and I hope that we will once again be able to toast the liberty of South Sudan with the flag and a glass of champagne.
Madam President, we all look at this region of the world with great concern and we are well aware that the risk of a civil war is far from banished.
The ultimate fragility of the peace process that has been set in motion is demonstrated by current events in Abyei.
The conflict that has broken out is dramatic.
The Northern army has occupied Abyei and 15 000 people have taken flight.
I believe that we, the European Union, must help in a very tangible way as we did before and that this must take the form of getting food and humanitarian aid for the refugees moving as soon as possible and preparing the emergency humanitarian aid for the refugees.
Even without this escalation of the conflict, in South Sudan, over 40% of the population are already dependent on food aid.
South Sudan will be one of the poorest countries on earth, and if we want the Millennium Development Goals to also take effect here, it is urgently necessary that the funding made available by the Council - EUR 200 million - should actually be spent on food security, education and health in this part of the world.
My group advocates the immediate withdrawal of the armed units of the North and the South from Abyei, adherence to the comprehensive peace agreement and recognition of the demilitarised zone.
With a view to the extension of the UN mandate, which has been discussed, we are calling for the risks and problems, such as those that came to light in connection with the MONUC mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to be taken into account and evaluated.
We are disappointed that no really strong call for debt cancellation and for an examination of foreign debts made it into this resolution.
I find that regrettable.
Madam President, there are two points I would like to put to the High Representative or her substitute in relation to the current situation in Sudan.
First of all, I call on the High Representative to urgently press the Sudanese authorities to release the Christian, Hawa Abdalla Muhammad Saleh, who was arrested by the security service in a refugee camp in Darfur on religious grounds on 25 May.
According to reports, Saleh was tortured after arrest and then taken to an unknown location in Khartoum, a personal tragedy that requires Europe to get involved.
My second point is that, as a Member of the European Parliament, it hit me hard to read the sharp rebuke from an authority on the situation in Sudan who is an international observer in the so repeatedly troubled conflict region of Abyei that the diplomatic pressure from Europe on the murderous and war-hungry regime of President al-Bashir was 'zero and badly coordinated'.
This is a crushing rebuke, in fact.
Is the international community, including Europe, giving President al-Bashir, after occupying Abyei, a feeling of invulnerability once again?
At this particular point in time, it is worth pointing out how weak a position al-Bashir is in domestically and that it is a more than opportune moment to apply international pressure to the regime.
I hope, therefore, for European pressure on al-Bashir.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, with the greatest respect for the pragmatic approach you took in your speech, I wish to make two recommendations, in which I would also like to highlight the work of monitoring the referendum that Mrs De Keyser recently carried out so thoroughly, which, in my opinion, has been invaluable for our institutions.
I refer to a very specific matter: personally, I was not at all surprised that the referendum and its result were followed by an increase in hostilities - almost - caused by the Sudanese institutions and authorities, particularly in the Abyei region.
It is typical of the constant stop-and-go Khartoum politics to hint at a solution and then to withdraw it, without any warning.
This is what has produced the disaster that Sudan has become.
Allow me to make a suggestion: within the European External Action Service, we have created a department which deals specifically with humanitarian crises.
This department must be alerted to Abyei now and not when we are faced with a huge disaster.
It must be mobilised because it is a credible department, which has proved its worth, in the Libyan crisis for example.
I believe that this department should be encouraged, today, to prepare a plan and to present it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, explaining how it intends to act, to enable us to understand how valuable European Union foreign policy can be when we all work together towards the best result.
My final recommendation concerns our relations with China; we hear from all quarters that China plays an important role in Sudan, making it sound like some kind of ghostly presence that we have to fear.
Personally, at this particular moment, I advocate the need for very cautious yet favoured relations with China, through which we can assess whether, in addition to economic interests, it is also interested in getting to the heart of human rights issues.
Madam President, the EU must keep up pressure on the government of Sudan to withdraw troops from the border town of Abyei.
A solution to the Abyei problem is needed urgently to prevent the escalation of armed conflict between Sudan and South Sudan.
This conflict is jeopardising the peace process that should have followed the referendum of January 2011.
The firing of shots by militia men at a UN helicopter at the end of May was an outrageous and cowardly act; as outrageous as the call by the Khartoum government for UN Peacekeepers to withdraw after 9 July.
The UN presence is more necessary than ever to help observe the parties and stabilise the region, thus preventing the conflict from expanding.
Ensuring a peaceful transition to independence in South Sudan also requires that the fight against impunity remains at the top of the EU agenda for both countries and for their unhelpfully meddling neighbours.
The EU should not be tempted to make any potentially 'convenient deals' with President al-Bashir in exchange for forgetting that he and his henchmen must be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer for the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed against the Sudanese people in Darfur.
(FR) Madam President, South Sudan's recent referendum on independence has ushered in a new era for political dealings with this new state.
With the creation of this young state, what was previously considered an internal matter for Sudan has become an international affair.
All relations with Khartoum, especially concerning security matters, will now be international affairs and it follows that they will come under international law.
We therefore applaud the way in which various parties are carrying out their tasks and, in this respect, it is worth mentioning some of the biggest immediate challenges that the newly created state will encounter.
Firstly, among these parties, I must mention former South African President and President of the African Union, Thabo Mbeki, and the mediation he performed, and I think we should also emphasise the mediation role that our own special representative to Sudan, Rosalind Marsden, has played.
Secondly, the new state's adhesion to the Cotonou Agreement opens up new prospects for development cooperation and relations with the European Union.
I think this is imperative and we must do everything we can to promote speedy ratification.
Thirdly, there is the need to develop capacity to manage the mammoth problems that the new, still very fragile state is faced with.
This also calls for attention from the international community.
Fourthly, there is a need to also contribute to development in North Sudan, which we must not forget, and which is preparing to draw up a new constitution.
Lastly, there is the dreadful security situation in the Darfur region and the government's unilateral wish to organise a referendum on its status on 1 July 2011.
Naturally, I welcome the personal involvement of our Commissioner for Development and his staff in this crucial phase.
He has understood that this decisive period for the future of South Sudan also constitutes a test of strength for the European Union and others as well.
(NL) Madam President, the glorious date of 9 July approaches.
South Sudan will officially become independent - a nation that openly stands up for the key values of the Christian faith, but also a nation that will be very tested, as the sly, old fox, Omar al-Bashir, may have almost lost his hair, but he certainly has not lost the tricks up his sleeve.
In the Abyei region, he has started to massacre citizens.
The ethnic cleansing of the southern Ngok Dinka people seems to have begun.
The lives of United Nations staff there are not safe.
Baroness Ashton knows that she has our support in her human rights policy, and in respect of the rebels in Benghazi she made clear choices, and rightly so.
Do the same now in connection with Omar al-Bashir, as the people of South Sudan deserve our strong support.
(DE) Madam President, in February, many people, including in this House, were full of both hope and concern about the future of Sudan.
There were differing views on the continuing risk of violent clashes.
It was clear that the people of Sudan faced major problems and need support.
Now, the situation in Sudan is making the headlines again.
The cause of the most recent events is the unresolved issues linked to the forthcoming independence of the South, and these problems cannot be resolved through guns.
I therefore welcome the recent agreement between the North and South Sudan, brokered by the African Union, on a demilitarised zone along the future border between the two states.
A 7 000 strong UN force modelled on MONUC could cause more harm than good, however.
If we just look at the Congo, we can see what MONUC troops can get up to.
Aid for Sudan must be impartial and not tied to any one interest group.
It must put the interests of the people of the South and of the North at its heart, and this applies to both material and diplomatic aid.
In order to prevent further fuelling of the conflict, all supplying of weapons must be halted.
We are calling for an end to all civil/military collaboration and to the military training mission.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we certainly welcome the peaceful and credible manner in which South Sudan's referendum on self-determination in January was conducted.
As has already been said, South Sudan will proclaim its independence on 9 July 2011.
The challenges are huge, both in terms of the new State's internal organisation and in terms of its relations with Sudan at their shared borders and in the oil-rich Abyei region.
Both Sudan and South Sudan have enormous humanitarian needs to deal with.
The primary challenges are security, reaching inhabitants in distress and respect for humanitarian principles.
The crisis is far from over.
It is vital that the international community maintains its presence and a very high level of humanitarian involvement.
We must be very watchful of how the situation develops, as it is already dreadful but could get worse and pose a threat to stability in the region.
It is also vital that the development aid that is organised for South Sudan is coordinated with and complementary to humanitarian aid.
The real importance of the link between urgency and development is highlighted in this context, in which state infrastructures are very weak and the humanitarian crisis is set to last.
Development aid must therefore provide support for state infrastructures and increase the population's access to basic services that are organised at the moment by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international organisations.
Lastly, the events in South Sudan and the Abyei region must not make us overlook the situation in Darfur, which is considered to be the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
The lives of millions of people still depend on outside aid.
Finally, since I have a few seconds left, I would like to applaud the work done by Mr Piebalgs, which I think has been exceptional.
Madam President, I want this afternoon to strongly emphasise the need for the EU to work with South Sudan in democratisation and institution-building.
Yes, this will be a country with one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest educational indicators in the world, necessitating fast-track accession to the Cotonou Agreement, with access to the European Development Fund and fair debt alleviation.
But, just as the EU should be proud that we have contributed to a largely peaceful and credible referendum process - and I pay tribute to my colleague, Veronique De Keyser, for her personal leadership - the EU must give priority to helping South Sudan with its constitutional review process, entrenching a multi-party system and preventing corruption from taking any root from the start.
Madam President, for South Sudan, the 9 July date goes before everything else; for North Sudan, although the comprehensive peace agreement may be coming to an end, its obligations do not.
The threat of violence remains, not just in South Sudan itself, but in the neighbouring Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces of North Sudan, and still in Darfur.
Indeed, I want to ask Mr Piebalgs in his reply to explain what the EU is doing to combat continuing and deteriorating human rights violations, in particular, concerning human rights defenders such as Hawa Abdulla from the AU-UN peace-keeping mission, who has been subject to arbitrary detention and beaten.
I was privileged to be present in East Timor at the birth of the world's first new state of this millennium.
I hope that South Sudan can achieve its independence while averting the tragic transition suffered by the people of East Timor and providing peace and prosperity for the Sudanese people, who have suffered too much during the longest running civil war in Africa.
(IT) Madam President, it is difficult to oversee the final steps in the formation of a new country along a peaceful path.
The ultimate objective - peace - must be safeguarded, but without losing significant pieces of the global agreement.
Khartoum's military action in Abyei appears to be jeopardising the good overall outcome of this journey, though not the founding of the 54th African state on 9 July.
The South must not react to provocation and not lose sight of the final objective, which is not only independence but also the constitution of credible institutions and the advancement of its population, 90% of which lives below the poverty line.
The people are unlikely to benefit from foreign investment, which already promises to be transparent and not predatory.
I believe that this - the problem of foreign investment in South Sudan - will soon be a new front line that the European Union must monitor and on which it must assert the credibility it has earned in recent years in this region.
Madam President, on 9 July, South Sudan will declare independence as an English-speaking new African state.
The EU has rightly supported the CPAP's process and referendum in South Sudan.
However, the next few months will remain critical.
South Sudan must be enabled to establish itself as a viable sovereign state.
Even without a hostile neighbour to the north, South Sudan faces enormous developmental challenges.
Infrastructure is largely non-existent.
There is widespread intercommunal hostility.
Health care indicators are amongst the worst in the world and the economy is almost completely dependent on oil exports.
It is therefore essential to increase EU developmental and humanitarian aid to South Sudan.
However, South Sudan also needs the EU's unequivocal support politically.
The recent seizure of the disputed border region of Abyei by the Khartoum government suggests that President Bashir is still not fully reconciled to his country's partition.
Lastly, I am also hopeful that South Sudan will live up to its promise and be the first African Union country to re-recognise the stable and democratic Republic of Somaliland as an independent country also.
(EL) Madam President, recent clashes in Abyei illustrate just how unfounded celebrations by the USA and the European Union were following the referendum.
Once again, we have seen that imperialist peace is as bloody as imperialist war.
Obviously, North and South, which are on the imperialist route and victims to infighting and the 'divide and rule' policy, will find it hard to avoid direct conflict.
Various imperialist powers have been trying to exploit the oil and gold, copper and uranium deposits in Abyei for 20 years.
This infighting is responsible for the risk of a new, even bloodier war, now that NATO, the USA and the European Union are directly involved, which is what the Euro-unifying forces seem to be seeking after the war in Libya.
We urgently need an end to any imperialist intervention in Sudan and to any act of hostility and opposition between North and South.
We also believe that the people of Sudan, in both North and South, need to take their fate into their own hands.
That is the only way to avoid war and the only way to control the wealth of their country and move towards a different sort of development.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I had the opportunity to experience the independence referendum in South Sudan as an electoral observer for Parliament and I was impressed by the major backing given by the South Sudanese people to the idea of deciding on the fate of their country themselves in future.
I also witnessed the major expectations of the people who decided on the liberation of their country from bondage.
Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of what are known as internal displaced persons, who the decades-long fighting in the South had pushed into the refugee camps of the North, set off back to their former homes in the South.
Of course, alongside the independence of their country, the people of South Sudan want, above all, to live in peace and find a way to a happier future after the decades of war in which millions of South Sudanese were forced to sacrifice their lives.
The new state of South Sudan is due to officially become independent on 9 July, extending the family of states in our world.
The starting conditions are as bad as can be conceived, and much has, of course, been said about this already.
70% of the population live as nomadic cattle farmers; 80% are illiterate; the dispute over Abyei is widening into a military conflict.
There have already been deaths and woundings.
As if that were not enough, the rivalries between the tribes and armed groups in South Sudan are also on the rise, and observers estimate that more than a thousand people have already lost their lives since January.
The wounded and violated are hardly even counted.
Sudan was a failed state.
There is a danger that the state of South Sudan will be a failed state from the very outset.
I am of the firm conviction that, given the colonial history of these countries, Europe has a major obligation to this region.
Together with the United Nations and the African Union, this situation calls for Europe's common foreign policy, and it is also that policy's chance to prove itself.
This is not only about money, but also about supporting the frail and nascent civil society.
We need to negotiate hard with those who hold the future of the country in their hands, namely, the tribal chiefs and the heads of the military groups, so that they do not dash the hopes of the people of their country.
(RO) Madam President, in less than a month from now, the independence of South Sudan will be declared, which received massive approval in the January referendum.
Unfortunately, during this time, the disputes relating to the delimitation of the border and sharing the income from oil extraction have not been settled.
Therefore, the new state is coming into being under the shadow of conflict.
This is why I believe that diplomatic efforts need to be stepped up, including by the European Union.
We welcome your visit to Sudan and that of our fellow Members, including Mrs De Keyser's activities.
However, as you are aware, the situation has deteriorated drastically recently.
More than 80 000 people have left their homes, which is a sign of the imminent risk of a humanitarian crisis.
My question for the Commissioner is about the possibility of having a peacekeeping force present in the area, given the statement made by the UN yesterday, acknowledging the failure of its forces, which have been passive in response to the recent tensions.
(FR) Madam President, a few hours ago, the Sudanese Government informed the United Nations that the necessary conditions for the return of thousands of inhabitants who had fled the disputed Abyei region on the border between North and South Sudan would be put in place.
As we know, although displaced inhabitants always leave very quickly, their return takes time and is all too often a source of considerable humanitarian and social problems.
I therefore propose that the European Union should organise a monitoring mission as quickly as possible, along the lines of the work we did in the Balkans.
Naturally, this mission could be carried out with the help of the African Union, and there is no reason why third countries could not be involved also.
Lastly, a word on the rumours circulating about the possibility of 'ethnic cleansing' in the region.
If what is suspected proves to be true, the international community will, of course, need to act swiftly, with impetus from the European Union.
Under no circumstances must the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia be allowed to repeat itself.
(RO) Madam President, the outcome of the referendum on the independence of South Sudan was welcomed by quite a few people.
It was to mean the creation of a 54th state in Africa.
However, the events taking place at the moment have sort of dampened the enthusiasm.
We must be very realistic and acknowledge that, at the present juncture, the peaceful division of Sudan is in jeopardy.
The occupation of the disputed Abyei region by Sudanese government forces on 21 May and the violence which continued yesterday, as well in Kadugli, show us that the civil war between north and south can reignite at any time.
This must, of course, be avoided at all costs and our message must be loud and clear.
The military operations being carried out by the Sudanese Government and the militia in Abyei mark a serious violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
I sincerely believe that we are all definite about one thing: any escalation of violence must be avoided, as it could result in further human casualties.
The security situation must be resolved according to the Kadugli and Abyei agreements from the start of the year, including, in my view, through the intervention of a mixed security force commissioned by the UN.
If these obstacles are overcome, numerous question marks still remain about the viability of the two states which should coexist on the territory of the former Sudan.
Political will and readiness for dialogue are needed because there is a whole series of issues which remain unresolved: common borders, citizenship, international obligations and, of course, the oil resources.
On the other hand, I want to highlight the deterioration in the human rights situation and rule of law in Sudan where we have recently seen an increase in arbitrary arrests.
I cannot help but remind you that Omar al-Bashir is still subject to an international arrest warrant, a fact which the authorities in this country ignore.
I will end on a positive note.
I want to welcome the release of the three Bulgarian hostages who worked for the UN Humanitarian Air Service and were abducted from Darfur in January.
(SK) Madam President, the bloody civil war which has lasted more than two decades in Sudan has devastated the country and destroyed or otherwise tragically left its mark on millions of its inhabitants.
The atrocities committed during the civil war finally ended with the signing of the peace agreement, an integral part of which was the holding of a successful referendum.
Prevention is the best cure, and I therefore firmly believe that the EU resources earmarked for Sudan should be allocated not only for humanitarian and development aid, but also for supporting democratic control and the rule of law, which are fundamental preconditions for implementing the basic human rights of the war-ravaged Sudanese people.
The results of the referendum clearly show the longing of predominantly Christian South Sudan for independence.
If this happens - and I believe it already is happening - South Sudan, as the youngest state in the world, will need help and support.
(SK) Madam President, I fully agree with the statement and declaration of Baroness Ashton but, at the same time, I share the concerns over the future development of this country.
The Abyei region of Sudan has been riven by conflicts for many years.
The civil war ended just under six years ago, after continuing for more than 20 years.
This region was the key to the conflict and, according to the statement of the International Crisis Group, developments in this part of the country will influence the fate of the whole of Sudan.
Will the country remain at peace or will it sink into another war?
If the southern part secedes, it will be necessary to show support for as peaceful a transition as possible.
I would therefore like to express support for the Commission, which has roundly condemned the use of force against innocent civilians, who have been, and still are, the victims of intervention by the Sudanese army occupying this region.
The EU has the opportunity to be a peacemaker, to assist stability in the region and to strengthen its position not only as the largest donor in the world, but also its political position, and, above all, to help the inhabitants of this country.
(PL) Madam President, I would like to draw attention to what is, in my opinion, a very important factor.
We in this Chamber are all pleased that as a result of the referendum, a new state will soon be established - South Sudan.
However, it needs to be stressed that this is only an opportunity, because that state today is lacking in basic attributes which should be a feature of every state.
It lacks structures and competent officials, and does not have a judicial system.
In other words, the way also lies open for the action of various forces which could undermine peace and security there.
In this context, I think that as well as the very important humanitarian aid, it is also necessary to safeguard security, and that the current UN forces are still needed there.
(RO) Madam President, I, too, would like to welcome the statement made by the Vice-President of the Commission against the background of the deepening conflict between both sides.
I think that the political leaders must respect the will of the people expressed through the referendum on independence.
Sudan has a long history of violent internal upheaval and recent developments indicate a return to this past.
I want to stress the particularly difficult situation facing the population in the conflict zones.
There is the risk of triggering a humanitarian disaster if members of the international community are not going to intervene.
In addition, attacks in the areas defended by UN troops have been reported, which jeopardises the lives of soldiers and the return of the refugees.
I must highlight the importance of the gradual disarming of the groups blocking the implementation of the referendum's results.
Arms trafficking in the region also encourages more rebel unrest, while compromising the process of establishing independence.
Madam President, today's discussion on Sudan and South Sudan is encouraging and positive in a world where there is more bad news than good news.
The European Union has both an opportunity and a responsibility to nurture the new state along and to ensure that democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights are established in Sudan and South Sudan.
Particularly, I think the record of the European Union - because of the founding principles of Schuman based on peace and prosperity - puts us in a position in which large states worldwide could not be, because they might be seen to be using Sudan to exploit it for their own internal and external policies.
We can do a great deal, working with the UN, to establish these new states, particularly South Sudan, and to ensure that they do not have civil wars, as often happens when new states occur.
(SK) Madam President, after the independence which is due to arrive in precisely one month, South Sudan will immediately have to confront a number of humanitarian and socio-economic problems.
In view of these circumstances, external assistance to support South Sudan in the fight against extreme poverty, to strengthen local organisations, and to speed up the benefits of peace for its inhabitants, will be more important than ever for a long time to come.
Although it is expected that South Sudan will apply for accession to the Cotonou Agreement, the 10th European Development Fund will not be available until sometime after accession to the agreement.
There is therefore a risk of a funding gap appearing in the period immediately after the referendum, when South Sudan will be very vulnerable and at considerable risk of national collapse.
It is clearly necessary to prevent this because of the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe, and we should therefore do everything in our power to help the Sudanese get through this critical period and to prevent a repeat of the bloody conflicts.
(DE) Madam President, the Northern army forced out 15 000 supporters of South Sudan from the city, and then suddenly, they definitely want to hold a referendum in Abyei in double-quick time in the shadow of an army, when previously they had been unable to even agree with the South about who was entitled to vote.
This is a truly grotesque undertaking.
It is not only the differing views on property and belonging that made Abyei the bone of contention of a civil war that lasted for decades; there are also the differing religions, namely the Muslim North versus the Christian and nature-based religions of the South Sudanese, who were forced together by the haphazard borders drawn up by the former colonial powers.
When considering the most recent escalations, this should not be forgotten.
It would never have been possible to push the referendum through while the status of the voters of Abyei remained unresolved.
Similarly, we must not forget the equally disputed regions of Blue Nile and South Kordofan with the Nuba mountains.
In my opinion, to do so would be gross negligence and it must not be allowed to happen.
(SK) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I never trusted President Bashir and I do not trust him even now.
It is quite clear from this that I am a pessimist regarding the chances of anything happening in Sudan.
I firmly believe that this President is endeavouring, through military force, to intervene against the South, whether by occupying certain parts of the territory or important towns or sources of raw materials.
It would be very interesting from this perspective to see what preventative actions or preventative steps the Office of the High Commissioner has prepared in order to avoid this happening, perhaps in cooperation with the UN or the African Union, on the one hand, and it would be very interesting, of course, to see the method or steps the office would like to take if that does happen, and in the event that North Sudan does not comply with the peace agreement which was signed, and which I basically believe in.
(SK) Madam President, South Sudan is a country which has voted for independence, and it will be the newest member of the United Nations.
It is a country which has voted for independence but which is dependent in virtually all respects.
It is dependent on its northern neighbour, and it is dependent on aid, whether from Europe or from surrounding African countries.
It is a country in which the men have not learned to work.
The men wait for a sign that a war is beginning, in order to take up arms and begin fighting each other.
It is a country where only the women and children work, where children do not go to school and are therefore not educated.
It is a country which has no workers, no teachers and no doctors.
It is a country where everything has to be built from scratch, and it will therefore be very difficult and very demanding to build a proper political system here and to put the country on its feet.
It is a difficult task, not just for Europe, but also for the UN.
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, first of all, I am very grateful for your broad support for the strategy that was presented to you.
I will just run through a couple of elements that were raised in the debate.
The people of North and South Sudan are undoubtedly the masters of their countries.
We are supporting the process, but the referendum definitely represents a watershed: it is a completely new qualitative situation.
It is not the same situation as before.
Yes there is violence, there are difficulties, but the situation is different.
Now we see a light at the end of the tunnel.
So that is why I would say that it is a great victory for us because we supported the process politically, both through our own actions and in financial terms.
So that is a completely new situation.
We never compromised on human rights or International Criminal Court issues.
Our position is very clear with regard to both the ICC and human rights.
Whenever there is a violation of human rights, the High Representative makes very strong and clear statements and puts pressure on the authorities.
It has been said that there is no immediate response, but changes are being made.
It is not an easy process and we will continue to deal with it.
On Abyei, the situation is difficult, but again the European Union position will be a very clear and strong condemnation of the occupation calling for the situation to be resolved immediately.
It is basically up to the United Nations Security Council to decide on the situation.
It will decide if there is to be another mission and if there is a United Nations Security Council resolution, we will be its greatest supporters.
But what we need to bear in mind is our strong political stance and declaration and our support for civilian operations.
I believe, as I said to South Sudan, that we should not expect all the issues to be resolved by 9 July.
Independence will be declared, there will be ongoing discussions, and the important element is that the African Union Panel, chaired by Thabo Mbeki, has support from both sides, North and South.
We are very firmly behind the Mbeki panel.
So we have every reason to believe that all the difficult questions will be answered.
With regard to the debt issue, work is under way as part of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.
This takes time and the Abyei issue certainly did not help.
But that issue has not been forgotten.
China, in as much as we can involve it, is a fully-fledged member of the Security Council and it would be a great help in finding solutions in the country.
At this stage, I cannot claim that there has been a lot of activity with the Chinese.
They are in oil, they are in the North of Sudan, but it is definitely a great help when the broader international community tries to find a solution to the issues.
Last but not least, I am very grateful for your interest in Sudan.
On the one hand, it is rather far from us but, on the other, it is very close.
If things go wrong, if people are dying in Africa, the European Union cannot stay on the outside saying 'well, it is too far'.
Your broad interest in the issues definitely encourages both the High Representative and myself to put together efforts to help people build peaceful lives.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 9 June, at 12:00.
Sudan, the largest country in sub-Saharan Africa, is a crossroads between the Arab and African worlds, as well as a mosaic of many heterogeneous ethnic groups.
It has seen numerous conflicts since its independence from the United Kingdom in 1956.
With the signing of the Naivasha Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) (2005), 20 years of conflict between the north and south formally came to an end.
In January 2011, as provided for in the CPA, a referendum marked the last leg of the road towards the independence of the south from northern Sudan.
In this extremely delicate transition phase, we must keep a balanced approach to both north and south, with particular attention to the needs of the south regarding institution building and governance.
The aid given by the EU to South Sudan must be measured in terms of the effective capability of this new state to absorb it.
Indeed, we must ensure that future flows of funding to Juba do not end up being used inappropriately or, worse, adding to the already widespread corruption.
Europe should also increase its commitment to protect the Christian minorities in the north of the country, who are increasingly the targets of persecution and discrimination.
Application of Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the draft Council decision on application of all the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania (1412/2010 - C7-0369/2010 - 2010/0820(NLE).
Madam President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make six brief points.
Firstly, on strengthening Schengen: the free movement of people is one of the greatest successes and achievements of the EU, and Schengen is one of the Union's major pillars.
We are therefore among those who believe that it should not be weakened, but rather preserved and strengthened.
I agree with the remarks that Commissioner Malmström made to this effect a little while ago.
The five original Member States have given way to the current 25: 22 within the Union, and three outside it.
Free movement is thus guaranteed within a territory of almost 43 000 km of external maritime borders and more than 7 700 km of land borders, covering 25 countries and 400 million people.
Secondly, on mutual trust: the abolition of internal border controls requires a high level of mutual trust between the Member States.
There needs to be a rapid and adequate exchange of information through the Schengen Information System (SIS), good police cooperation and effective controls in place at the external borders.
The security of the Schengen area depends on the rigour and efficiency with which each Member State carries out checks at its external borders.
If this does not happen, the security of the Schengen area is weakened, the credibility of the European Union is undermined and mutual trust is destroyed.
Thirdly, on equal rules: there should also be trust in the procedures, which must be clear and fair.
Candidate countries must be able to implement and enforce all the Schengen criteria effectively and correctly: the same criteria that were demanded of previous candidate countries; no more, no less.
Fourthly, on transparency: we need to ensure greater transparency, in the interests of both freedom and security.
I regret that, once again, the Council has not acted as it should in relation to Parliament, denying Members of this House access to the evaluation reports.
The problem could only be overcome thanks to the diligence of the ambassadors of Romania and Bulgaria, who requested the declassification of the reports and their submission to Parliament, so enabling Members of this House to have access to the content of the evaluations, recommendations and final conclusions.
Unfortunately, the Council has failed to respect Parliament once again.
This very transparency is needed to address the outstanding problems that have been pointed out, as although these are not an obstacle to the two countries' full membership of Schengen, they should be subject to monitoring by the evaluation committee so as to verify that the recommendations have been acted upon, along with any changes that are still ongoing.
Parliament demands access to this information.
Fifthly, on European citizenship: how often do we invoke the value of European citizenship during our speeches?
Since their accession to the EU, in 2007, both Bulgaria and Romania have had a legitimate expectation that their citizens would become fully fledged EU citizens and that they would be able to enjoy the same rights as other EU citizens, including freedom of movement within the Schengen area.
This is the European citizenship that we are strengthening by extending the Schengen area.
My sixth and final point is that they have worked hard.
It is clear that both countries are to be congratulated on the efforts they have made towards meeting all the requirements of Schengen.
This is clear in the evaluation reports and in subsequent observations by the expert missions that made the evaluation.
It was also clear during the mission that we made to Bulgaria and Romania, and for this I would like to thank my fellow Romanian Members, Mr Marinescu, Mr Enciu and Mrs Weber, and my fellow Bulgarian Members, Mr Kovatchev and Mrs Nedelcheva.
We are therefore able to welcome Bulgaria and Romania into the Schengen area, and I hope that the Council will adopt the same position as soon as it receives our positive opinion.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I am particularly glad of the opportunity to participate on behalf of the Council in the debate on the extension of the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania.
This has been a consistently high priority for the Hungarian Presidency.
I am therefore especially pleased that by now, both Bulgaria and Romania have received positive evaluation of their technical preparedness to apply the entirety of the Schengen acquis.
We welcome the fact that the assessment by this Parliament has also led to similar conclusions.
I particularly commend the work of the rapporteur, Carlos Coelho, for his professional and personal dedication.
For a moment, allow me to deviate from the protocol for the sake of a historic reference.
When the accession of Hungary and other new Member States from Central Europe to Schengen was hampered by a technical difficulty related to the development of the Schengen Information System, the SIS II, it was the then Portuguese Presidency that helped us with a generous and inventive solution.
I would also like to thank the Chair, Mr López Aguilar, and all the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, for their commitment to this issue.
The Hungarian Presidency has made considerable efforts to take this dossier forward.
The Presidency became aware early on that there was a need to address persistent reservations on the part of a number of Member States vis-à-vis the process.
The Presidency therefore put the state of play of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen on the agenda of the JHA Council meeting on 24 and 25 February.
On that occasion, the Council endorsed the Presidency's conclusions on the progress made and the need to continue to work in close cooperation with all Member States towards a solution acceptable to all parties involved.
Both Bulgaria and Romania have taken very significant steps to bring their countries' policy and practice up to the Schengen standards.
These include areas such as data protection, police cooperation, the control of external air, sea and land borders, the issuing of visas and the appropriate implementation of the SIS and SIRENE functions.
In the meantime, the Schengen evaluation of Romania and Bulgaria on all chapters was completed in March with a positive outcome.
Following the adoption of the relevant reports by the relevant Council working party, the Presidency submitted draft conclusions on the completion of the evaluation process to the JHA Council scheduled for 9 June.
I know that this will be good news for most in this House, not least those Members from Bulgaria and Romania.
It will mark an important step on their way towards full participation in Schengen.
The Council will continue to monitor further progress in all areas since proper follow-up is an ongoing exercise in all Schengen countries.
In this respect, I can assure the honourable Members that both Bulgaria and Romania will continue to report regularly on the steps taken to remedy the remaining shortcomings.
They will, in particular, be looking to reinforce further the controls at their borders and to improve cross-border police cooperation as well as their systems for the issuing of visas.
When Parliament adopts the report prepared by Mr Coelho and the Council adopts the conclusions drafted by the Presidency, only the very last step - adopting the decision of the Council which, as we all know, requires unanimity - will be left.
In this respect, I would like to underline that the Council may return to this issue very soon to reflect on how it can further the process, possibly in September this year.
The report prepared by the rapporteur touches upon the subject of access to classified documents - as was also mentioned by the rapporteur in his introductory remarks - which was an important question in dealing with this dossier.
Parliament's access to classified documents is one of the outstanding interinstitutional issues between the Council and Parliament that the Hungarian Presidency is aiming to resolve.
While we have managed to agree on the way forward with Parliament's delegations, the implementation of the solution found still requires some time.
However, the Hungarian Presidency looked, right at the beginning of its term, for an immediate solution in order not to delay the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area.
In that context, it was at the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency that the Council gave its assent so that Parliament could have access to documents pertinent to the accession of the two Member States to the Schengen area.
All in all, the Hungarian Presidency is convinced that the enlargement of the Schengen area to include Bulgaria and Romania, now that they meet all the technical and legal criteria, would be beneficial for the entire Schengen cooperation and for Europe as a whole, where one could travel from the Black Sea to the Atlantic without being stopped to show a passport or identity card.
We all know that this free movement is one of the fundamentals of our European Union - something which is really tangible for our citizens and something of value which we all have to safeguard.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, Schengen is indeed a fantastic achievement.
It is one of the most tangible gifts that the European institutions have given to Europe's citizens - the fact that, as the Presidency said, you can actually drive from Finland to Portugal without stopping at any border control.
We must safeguard Schengen and the latest debate on reintroducing borders must be stopped.
We have already discussed on many occasions how we should strengthen Schengen, and not weaken it.
We need more Europe on this, and not less Europe.
We need better evaluation, better tools and better guidelines and recommendations on how to interpret the Schengen acquis.
This will be discussed with Member States in the Council this week, but also later at the European Council at the end of June.
I would like to congratulate Romania and Bulgaria on the considerable efforts they have made.
I have seen with my own eyes that they have done a lot of hard work.
One of the advantages of being late is that you can benefit from the latest technology.
I have been impressed by the technology and the work that has been put in place by Romania and Bulgaria and I would like to congratulate them on these investments.
The result is that they both now meet the technical criteria of Schengen and they are committed and deserve the trust of the European Union.
The Commission welcomes this report on the work by Romania and Bulgaria and I would like also to thank Mr Coelho and the shadow rapporteurs for this report and this approach.
The Commission has always taken the line that there is no formal link between the CVM mechanism and Schengen accession.
But, of course, we all know that access to Schengen is also based on trust, and trust, or lack of trust, has been very much debated in the last weeks.
The decision to lift internal border controls with Romania and Bulgaria must not only be based on the technical evaluation but also on this trust, and unfortunately, that trust is not there today.
That is why it was so important, as the Presidency outlined, to work with Member States to find a swift solution to this so that borders could be lifted as soon as possible.
This must remain a priority.
The Council, which has the say on this, must define a clear framework with clear timetables related to border control so that Romania and Bulgaria can see a way forward.
They have demonstrated that they are ready to join, that they have made the necessary progress, and hopefully there will very soon be a possibility to achieve a way forward and a decision by the Council.
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Coelho, and I do this because his work is consistently rigorous.
I now add that we must help Bulgaria and Romania.
I trust Bulgaria and Romania.
They have worked well and hard and they should receive what is theirs by right - this is no gift.
The Presidency-in-office of the Council and the Commissioner, Mrs Malmström, have both stated that these two countries comply with the technical and legal requirements, and I add my voice to theirs.
I believe we should not consider any criteria other than the strictly technical and legal.
These criteria essentially number five.
They comply with the following: they comply with the data protection requirements, they comply with the Schengen Information System (SIS), they comply with police cooperation, they comply with the issue of visas and they comply with the control of external borders by air, sea and land.
Strictly speaking, they also comply with the SIS and with the Supplementary Information Request at the National Entry (SIRENE).
In view of all this, this House should send an unequivocally strong message to the Council and, notably, to the permanent representations of five countries that I shall refrain from mentioning but which are in the minds of all of us here today.
I do believe, ladies and gentlemen, that in including Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area, which comprises more than four hundred million human beings, we are adding, not subtracting; we are building a stronger Europe.
Furthermore, we should avoid double standards.
Nor should we set conditions for Romania and Bulgaria that we do not ask of the other Member States in order to form part of this area of freedom.
Thus, to end my speech, I fervently express my wish for a strong, majority-endorsed message to be sent from this House to the Council.
Congratulations once again, Mr Coelho, and congratulations to Romania and Bulgaria.
Mr President, I express my thanks to Mr Coelho for his effort, commitment and the particular expertise he has applied to this report.
I also thank the Hungarian Presidency and Commissioner Malmström for the support they have given to this report.
The debate about Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area has been hijacked so much for political purposes that we have almost forgotten what it is we are really debating.
I want to remind everyone that we are actually talking about very clear, specific criteria which any candidate country has to meet to become a member of the Schengen area.
There is no moral or legal argument which will make us change the rules for joining now at the end.
The rules can be improved when approving the new Schengen evaluation mechanism applicable to all Member States, without resorting to double standards.
It is time for us to be honest and acknowledge that Romania and Bulgaria are being held responsible for everything that is going wrong at EU level and internally in some Member States.
This notion is completely unacceptable.
It is not Romania and Bulgaria that are at fault because the European Union and certain Member States are unable to manage immigration and their borders, nor are they responsible for the extremist and populist deviations of a few governments, applying anti-immigration policies and regarding the mobility of European citizens, especially of Roma citizens, as a crime.
Last but not least, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens have to suffer because of the bad personal relations the national authorities have with certain influential leaders.
The EU institutions must be the voice of reason and combat this distraction which some are attempting to create.
The European Parliament and Council must comply with European legislation, while the Commission has to oversee this as Guardian of the Treaties.
Mr President, we are debating a dossier today which has put on our agenda in recent months a number of issues of principle.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Carlos Coelho, for the extremely professional manner in which he has carried out his job in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, so as to ensure that these principles are respected.
It has been a pleasure for me to work with Mr Coelho, whose constructive attitude has left its mark on the whole dossier.
On the one hand, we are dealing with an issue of principle when we examine whether two EU Member States fulfilling the criteria for joining the Schengen area should be admitted to this area.
The answer according to the rules is 'yes'.
Both countries have been assessed regarding their technical preparation for this accession, with totally positive conclusions.
Our rapporteur has gone even further and organised off his own bat working visits to the countries, also accompanied by the shadow rapporteurs, so that they can see how both the command centres and some border points look technically.
On the other hand, another issue of principle has been to do with the institutional relations between the European Parliament and Council when it came to MEPs accessing documents on the basis of which they had to vote.
The Council's viewpoint that only some MEPs could have access and vote on a fully informed basis, while the others ought to raise their hands to copy them, was sharply criticised by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
I am pleased that our viewpoint won the day.
Institutional cooperation must be fair, logical and democratic.
I hope that tomorrow's vote will send a clear, positive message to MEPs about the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that European citizens are losing confidence and trust in more and more European programmes.
It is important that we do not push further forward at a speed and rate we are not fully prepared for.
This is a feeling felt by many Member States with regard to the Schengen area and we should not rush with further expansion before all involved are fully and sufficiently ready and prepared.
Of course, I must stress that this debate should not be used as an excuse to criticise either Bulgaria or Romania, who we know have been working very hard to meet the technical criteria that the Commission has set.
Although there may well be disagreement between us as to whether those criteria have been met, much has been done.
But this is an opportunity to talk about renewing faith in the Schengen system and the integrity of the European Union itself, and an opportunity to improve a completely outdated and ineffective evaluation mechanism.
We are currently dealing with a system which is not able to deal with the current or future challenges Europe faces or the political views of its Member States.
Now is the time to set criteria which not only deal with the technical aspects of the Schengen system, but assess the impact of organised crime and corruption, also within the assessment of existing Schengen Member States, and I would like to see Europol and Eurojust involved in those assessments.
Perhaps such a new evaluation mechanism would help prevent some of the differences of opinion and lack of confidence in the current system which we are hearing not only in this Chamber but right across Europe at the present time.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, the issue at stake is whether we grant assess to the Schengen area for Bulgaria and Romania.
I myself come from a new Member State and I remember how it wanted to join the area.
I therefore very much welcome the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to that area.
There were some shortcomings on the road to Schengen, but now the problems are resolved.
Bulgaria and Romania are fully prepared to join the area of free travel in 2011.
I understand the concerns about corruption and organised crime.
That is why cooperation within the framework of the mechanism for cooperation and verification should be continued.
However, we cannot invent new criteria for joining the Schengen area and we cannot undermine the certainty that a state is part of that area as soon as current criteria are met.
The debates in Parliament have revealed a clear need to avoid double standards when evaluating the implementation of the Schengen acquis in existing and acceding Schengen Member States.
The file on that evaluation is thus crucial.
We find it unacceptable that several Member States have suggested, in the Council, changing the legal bases for the proposal so as to exclude Parliament from the decision-making process.
I hope very much that our rapporteur, Mr Coelho, will defend Parliament's prerogatives, as he always does very successfully, with our full support.
I would like to thank him for his work and hope for further good cooperation in the future.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that Bulgaria and Romania were included in the full application of the Schengen acquis.
Think about it - the abolition of controls on the internal borders and the creation of freedom of movement are some of the most important achievements and values of the European Union.
For that reason, I find the blocking tactics of a number of Member States - including my home country of Germany - totally incomprehensible.
The arguments used concern the fear of uncontrollable floods of refugees and how corruption must be countered.
Given the opinions that have been presented, I cannot understand these arguments.
A dangerous game is being played with Bulgaria and Romania here.
For that reason, we have also supported the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, from the start in his view that the same standards must apply to all Member States, including when it comes to Schengen.
Like the other Members on the Committee, we were extremely alienated by the Council's impossible behaviour towards Parliament and by how, at the beginning, it even refused to allow us to review the documents.
Overall, the opinion on the table is a positive one.
We expect that Schengen area accession will become a reality and that we will not have to wait until September.
To close, I would like to quote the Bucharest-based journalist, Sabina Fati.
She stated, 'The Romanians are euphoric citizens.
They look upon Western Europe as a place whose standards they absolutely want to achieve.
To turn your backs on them now could lead many of them to become eurosceptics'.
That is not something that we want in either Romania or Bulgaria.
Mr President, Article 4(2) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union states that verification, in accordance with evaluation procedures, that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis have been met by the new Member States is an essential requirement for the Council to decide to abolish internal border controls with those States.
Now, we believe that there would be an urgent need to establish regulatory and operational conditions preventing undesirable elements, who could undermine the security of Member States, from slipping into the EU unnoticed via Bulgaria and Romania, but our assessment is that those conditions do not exist today.
The reports being discussed in Parliament are not reassuring because of the grave deficiencies which still exist at air, land and sea borders, starting with the performance of border controls.
It is not surprising that our police forces are faced with numerous cases of illegal immigrants coming from those two countries every day.
I suggest that we need to suspend the entry process to the Schengen scheme for Bulgaria and Romania as a precaution, not least in view of the foreseeably enormous pressure on the external borders of these two countries, which are becoming the holes in the Swiss cheese that is the European Union system regarding the entry of illegal immigrants.
(NL) Mr President, I will get straight to the point.
Bulgaria and Romania, our corrupt eastern European nests of thieves, absolutely do not meet the conditions for accession to the Schengen area.
I repeat: absolutely not.
Commissioner Malmström may well idealistically muse how sacrosanct the Schengen acquis is, while the majority in Parliament may well drily consider how marvellous it would be if Bulgaria and Romania were to join the Schengen area, but it is just not realistic.
It is naive, in fact, it is childishly naive.
The facts just do not back the idea up.
Bulgaria and Romania themselves have long since demonstrated that they are not worthy of accession to the Schengen area at this point.
According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, corruption is the order of the day in both countries.
When it comes to trustworthiness, Bulgaria scores just 3.6 on a scale of 1 to 10, while Romania comes in at 3.7.
In a school report, these figures would be interpreted as a fail, a downright fail.
Yet we are supposed to allow these countries into Schengen?
Of course we should not - never!
The facts just do not back this idea up, either.
In January of this year, a few dozen Bulgarian customs officials were arrested due to corruption.
In February of this year, nearly 200 Romanian customs officials were arrested, also due to corruption.
Both countries also have worryingly high scores when it comes to human trafficking.
Last year, dozens of victims of Bulgarian and Romanian human trafficking were discovered in the Netherlands alone.
It would be an outrage, and completely irresponsible.
You can want something to happen - you can want something to happen very badly - but you need to see the reality.
Take the blinkers off!
Bulgaria and Romania are absolutely not ready for Schengen.
They are not ready now, and they never will be.
(BG) Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Coelho for the objective and fair assessment of what has been done by Bulgaria and Romania.
I also thank the Presidency and Commission for their support on this report.
The process for evaluating these countries and their accession must be completed according to the same criteria with which it started.
It was already established in 2007 that, once the technical criteria were fulfilled, Bulgaria and Romania would join the Schengen area in 2011.
This is already done.
The same evaluation has been reached by the Council's experts: Bulgaria and Romania fulfil the membership criteria.
All the reservations which we have recently been hearing relate to the foreign policy debates of some Member States.
Instead of looking at the short term, we need to take action in support of better protection for our external borders, of signing and complying with readmission agreements with our southern and eastern neighbours, and of solidarity with those Member States which are subject to the strongest immigration pressure in southern Europe.
This is particularly important at the moment when there are internal challenges from and fears among our citizens about illegal immigration, which may threaten security and social advantages in Europe.
We need effective, workable plans for dealing with the crises which we had in Italy and Malta.
We cannot allow double standards.
If we are going to debate and adopt new rules, they must apply to all countries - both old and new.
Fellow Members, Bulgaria and Romania have completed their job and they are building on these security systems in cooperation with their Schengen partners.
They have made and are making considerable efforts in the fight against corruption and organised crime.
At present, I will feel less concerned if the Schengen area's Mediterranean border is guarded as well as Bulgaria and Romania guard their Black Sea borders.
The rapporteur and other fellow Members were there and they understand what I am talking about.
This is why the Council needs to decide to admit Bulgaria and Romania into the Schengen area this September, in order to strengthen security in this area.
Fellow Members, I call on you to support Mr Coelho's report, which will allow us to give the Council a clear, strong political signal that Bulgaria's and Romania's rightful place is in the Schengen area this very year, in order to make external borders more secure and give our citizens greater peace of mind.
(SK) Mr President, freedom of movement is one of the fundamental freedoms and achievements of the citizens of the EU Member States, and on behalf of our group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I would like to support the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area.
I have to say that both the inspection report and the opinion of the rapporteur himself are positive, and that we should thank them, while, at the same time, also expressing our exasperation.
Exasperation over the way that some MEPs from countries which themselves have problems with illegal immigration and corruption are looking at Romania and Bulgaria today.
Bulgaria and Romania are fully-fledged Member States of the European Union and our approach to them must be the same as to any other EU Member State.
So, if you think about the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and if we vote on it tomorrow, I would be delighted if you could view it in the same way as you view your own countries.
(BG) Mr President, we are concluding during this session our evaluation of Bulgaria's and Romania's readiness to join the Schengen area.
We will successfully achieve this because Mr Coelho's report is successful.
The overwhelming expectation is that Parliament's evaluation concurs with the positive position of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and that the citizens of both countries, Bulgaria and Romania, feel that their institutions have done what they need to do and that the light to proceed down 'Schengen Road' is already green.
The discussions were lengthy, but the good news is that we did not permit the attempts to make ad hoc changes to the Schengen membership criteria.
The difficult times, of course, have not gone away.
The governments of both countries need to explain now all the reasons to those who are sceptical and who changed before our very eyes from being former allies supporting Bulgarian and Romanian integration to instigators of the waiting game.
What underlies these reasons?
Objective fears or prejudice, situational prudence or disappointment?
I hope that the interior and justice ministers will be at least just as frank with each other as we have been during the process of drafting the Coelho report.
(PL) Mr President, I have the impression that in recent discussions in the European Parliament, we have been thinking increasingly in categories of defending ourselves along a Limes line - sometimes this runs along the European Union's external border, but sometimes we want to erect and defend borders within the European Union.
I want to say firmly and emphatically: there are no substantive reasons, today, to delay Bulgaria and Romania's joining the Schengen area.
We should oppose all attempts at restricting contacts between citizens, and we should oppose all attempts at restricting freedom to travel and be active in the European Union.
The discussion to which I am listening shows how very divided the European Union is today.
Those who today are raising artificial arguments against Bulgaria and Romania joining the Schengen area will have on their conscience responsibility for the destruction of the political project which is the European Union, and they will never now escape that responsibility.
Mr President, it is odd, is it not, that as the Schengen area comes apart in its core countries, there are plans to extend it to include Bulgaria and Romania.
There are over 900 000 gypsies in Romania and Bulgaria, many of whom would like to migrate.
Once they can travel freely within the Schengen area, many of them will inevitably find their way to Britain in order to take advantage of our generous benefits and public housing system, like so many before them.
Perhaps some enterprising British citizens might like to meet the Roma as they disembark at Calais and Heathrow and give them the addresses and location maps so that they can find their way to the homes of our Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and all the MPs in favour of EU membership.
Only when the Roma pitch their caravans on the front lawns of our out-of-touch political class might they change their views on the benefits of EU membership.
(NL) Mr President, I fear that the European Parliament will once again be showing its most naive side by approving the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area.
It is clear, in any case, that there are various Member States that will oppose this.
They have good reasons for so doing.
There is a recent report from Europol about organised crime which stated that criminal groups from Albania, Turkey and the former Soviet Union will exploit the opportunities that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area will bring.
The report I mention also makes reference to the visa liberalisation for the Balkan States, which was also something of an imprudent measure.
There is the problem of illegal immigration via Turkey, which will occur in much greater numbers once Bulgaria is in the Schengen area.
What guarantees is the Commission giving that this problem will be tackled effectively?
It is giving none whatsoever.
What steps is it taking to prevent additional problems in connection with the Roma gypsies and the nuisance and criminality associated with them?
It is taking no steps whatsoever, either.
What is the situation when it comes to the judicial reform and anti-corruption measures that are still needed?
Those citizens of Romania and Bulgaria who travel to Schengen countries with good intentions will, in any case - and I am convinced of this - understand that the inconvenience of border controls is outweighed by the necessity of protecting all other Europeans against organised crime and mass illegal immigration.
(RO) Mr President, Romania's accession to the Schengen area is a project which has involved major financial, institutional and human efforts, as it is one of Romania's most important political objectives.
Romania has invested more than EUR 1 billion and the results have definitely been positive in all the evaluation reports.
All the Schengen acquis conditions have been met.
Romania manages one of the European Union's longest external borders, as a result of which it has developed the most advanced, integrated security system, complying with the standards set by the Schengen acquis.
Romania and the agency Frontex have strengthened their partnership.
In the Frontex operations carried out in Greece, Romania was the second main contributor, after Germany, of equipment and human resources.
In the event of a huge influx of immigrants at the border, specialist immigration and asylum mechanisms have been implemented in partnership with similar institutions in other Member States, Germany and the Netherlands.
In terms of the efforts to combat illegal trafficking, every state-of-the-art method is used to investigate and collect information.
A unique application has been developed in Europe which allows data to be processed in both SIS I and SIS II.
The maritime border surveillance system has been presented as a model of good practice.
At the same time, the authorities have focused particular attention on the fight against corruption.
Constant cooperation as part of the special mechanism set up by the European Commission has produced the results showing that Romania has the necessary institutional capacity required and political will to achieve the justice objectives.
I think that accession to the Schengen area is not a gift being offered to Romania, but rather recognition of its merits and efforts, and will be an obvious asset to the security of the EU's external borders.
Mr Coelho, thank you and congratulations on the way you have handled this dossier.
(SL) Mr President, Bulgaria and Romania have fulfilled the conditions set and are acceding to the Schengen area on their own merits.
We cannot allow political arguments to delay the enlargement.
I am greatly concerned by the populist and extreme right nationalist rhetoric which is, in a very dangerous way, leading the Union to intolerance, racism, discrimination and the thoughtless closing of doors.
With each enlargement of the Schengen area, we are expanding the area of ​​freedom, security and justice and I am confident that, as in the past, time will show possibilities for economic and other development.
It is unacceptable that some Members States of the Union should call today for the restoration of internal borders.
The mobility of European citizens within the Union, the freedom to travel, is one of the key European freedoms, and any restriction would undermine one of the most tangible benefits our citizens have obtained from closer European integration.
With the enlargement of the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania, we will prove that the idea of integration is alive and well, that Europe is heading forward, and that the countries which are knocking at its door have a clear future in the EU, including those of the Western Balkans.
Mr President, I may have changed my seat here to the ECR Group this week, but I have not changed my perspective on the European Union.
When it comes to Schengen, it has been the ECR view that this is generally a matter for Schengen area members to decide, including Switzerland, of course, which is in Schengen, but not in the European Union.
But the closure of the border by France to Italian trains, and Danish demands to mend Schengen shows it is in crisis.
Pragmatism dictates that the implications of Bulgaria and Romania joining are profound for those way beyond the Schengen area.
A leaky border will mean that many illegal entrants destined for the UK can reach Calais without hindrance, for example, and Bulgaria has not complied with its obligations on organised crime.
In summary, this proposal is simply a border too far.
(IT) Mr President, while Europe pretends not to notice, the 2011 Europol report on organised crime affirms that, with the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area, the powerful criminal organisations of Turkey, Russia and Albania will be able to expand their activities across the whole of Europe.
Furthermore, and I quote: 'Illegal immigration from Turkey will spread to the coasts of Bulgaria and the trafficking of drugs and humans by Turkish and Albanian criminal gangs will increase'.
Moreover, regarding human trafficking, 'Romania and Bulgaria's entry into the Schengen area could give Bulgarian criminal groups and Roma communities new opportunities to increase their already significant trafficking to the rest of Europe'.
In the final analysis, increased illegal immigration from Turkey and more drug and human trafficking mean less security for European citizens.
Europe wants to do organised crime an enormous favour.
The Lega Nord party is, and always will be, against this kind of iniquitous choice.
Whoever votes tomorrow in favour of this report will be responsible for having voted for the opening of a motorway bringing organised crime straight to the heart of Europe.
(HU) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that by voting on the Coelho report tomorrow, the European Parliament will give a clear sign that it accepts Romania's and Bulgaria's readiness and supports the accession of these two countries to one of the most important acquis of the European Union, the Schengen area.
This acquis means a lot to Eastern and Central European countries, also for historical reasons, because it provides the opportunity to travel freely without barriers.
The most important message of our debate today for Member States must be that Romania and Bulgaria meet the same accession criteria that the European Union expected from countries that have joined so far.
It must be emphasised that we cannot impose more requirements for Romania and Bulgaria than we have done in the case of the previous Schengen accession.
Member States should not use the institution of double standard, as it erodes the very foundation upon which the Schengen acquis is built: the institution of mutual trust.
It is exactly the events of recent months that prove that Europe's most important acquis requires protection and support.
I would also like to emphasise that under no circumstances should we bundle two matters here, that is, link the Schengen accession of the two Member States to the matter of the supervision of the Schengen verification mechanism.
There is a great need for the latter, but the two cannot be connected right now.
And finally, allow me to congratulate Mr Coelho who prepared the report, whose constructive and consistent work has been truly important in this matter.
I would also like to thank the Hungarian Presidency for its commitment and the concrete steps it took to facilitate the accession of the two Member States as soon as possible.
(SV) Mr President, tomorrow, we will vote on whether to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the Schengen area.
For me as a Social Democrat, it goes without saying that all EU Member States that meet all of the stringent requirements for cooperation should be allowed to join.
It is, of course, important for us to lay down stringent requirements for joining Schengen, but the same objective criteria must apply to everyone.
Anything else is political hypocrisy.
Now that all of the experts deem that Romania and Bulgaria satisfy requirements, I think it is clear that they should be allowed to join.
Some objections have been raised this evening with regard to corruption in both countries, but that is not something that can be combated via the Schengen system.
Just recently, Commissioner Malmström presented a package for combating corruption that we can use as a basis for further work.
This is a matter for the whole of the European Union, not just for Romania and Bulgaria.
Likewise, the fight against organised crime requires more cooperation, not more closed doors.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, Schengen is certainly an heirloom of civilisation of the highest value.
Today, we must welcome an important result, which is that we consider the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania to be among those who can benefit from this fundamental instrument.
The Schengen area should therefore be consolidated and strengthened further.
If ever there were concrete evidence of European civilisation, this is it: the right to European citizenship finds concrete expression precisely within the Schengen area.
The Schengen acquis is, therefore, a fundamental instrument for the legal economy, and I am convinced that on 24 June this year, the Council will take important points for reflection from what is intended to be a strengthening of trust and collaboration between Member States.
Of course, the evaluation mechanisms must proceed from being intergovernmental systems to being Union systems, as recently announced by Mrs Malmström, just as the governance of Schengen certainly produces increased cooperation and dynamic reinforcement, as well as modernisation, transparency and dialogue.
The requirements have been met by Bulgaria and Romania and I congratulate Mr Coelho on having combined freedom of movement with the security of citizens in his balanced report, which has been adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
(BG) Mr President, the SCH-EVAL Working Group described the one thousand three hundred kilometre Bulgarian border as a secure external border of the European Union, something which several Bulgarian governments worked for.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs recommends that the Council should approve the two countries joining the Schengen area.
I want to thank all fellow Members for the professional job they have done.
Some Member States are setting new political criteria which will delay the Schengen process.
The accession of Bulgaria and Romania was even described as gambling with European citizens' security due to crime and corruption.
The results in this area are clearly not impressive.
However, this is why there are foreign policy criteria and possible resignations from Bulgarian ministers.
These issues are the subject of other evaluations, such as the European Commission's Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
I want to welcome also the suggestions made by Commissioner Malmström yesterday regarding a new package of anti-corruption measures.
However, at the moment, Bulgaria and Romania cannot be the scapegoats for unresolved problems relating to security in Europe: the wave of refugees from Africa, the forthcoming elections in some Member States, populist rhetoric and disappointment from the financial and economic crisis.
No one is interested nowadays in a two-track Europe.
This is why I call on you to support the Coelho report and urge the Council to take a positive decision.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to congratulate my colleague, Carlos Coelho, who has done a masterly job on this report, and goodness knows it was complicated.
Bulgaria and Romania have done a considerable amount of work on strengthening their border controls and have succeeded.
The latest assessments are very clear, in all areas from police and judicial cooperation to data protection and policies on visas and air, sea and land border controls.
All the technical conditions have been met.
We can accept this as an established fact.
Bulgaria and Romania are now in a position to implement the Schengen acquis in terms of their technical capacity and human resources.
Whilst there is now nothing to prevent us from enlarging the Schengen area, it is worth noting the recommendations that have been made to these two countries.
I hope these recommendations will be strictly monitored, especially as regards the borders between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, because as you know, mutual trust between the Schengen States relies on countries adhering fully to their reciprocal obligations.
If any of the parties does not abide by its obligations, this breaks the closed circuit and the whole system falls down.
I sincerely hope that the Council reaches an agreement so that these two countries can become part of the privileged circle of Schengen States.
All of us in this House are aware of the implications that decisions of this nature have for the citizens concerned.
Well done again to Mr Coelho on his report.
(RO) Mr President, I think that the states which have expressed their reservations about Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area must not forget that this process is a legal obligation stipulated by the Treaty of Accession to the European Union for Romania and Bulgaria, which all these countries have assumed by signing the Treaty.
At the same time, European Union countries must also be aware that it is in their interest for Romania and Bulgaria to join Schengen because they will be able to make their own contribution to the security of all Member States and extend the Schengen area, which is set to strengthen the integration process within the European Union and the common area of freedom, security and justice.
Acknowledgement from the European Union's missions assessing the smooth operation and connection Romania and Bulgaria have to the Schengen Information System, which operates at the highest security standards, presents a strong argument in this respect.
This connection will allow all Union countries to have access to online data about stowaways attempting to reach Europe and ensure more effective control at the European Union's external borders.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, we are all aware that both of these countries - Romania and Bulgaria - have invested a great deal in securing the external borders of the European Union.
They meet the Schengen standards. Objective reviews have all come to the same conclusion, namely, that the prerequisites for accession to the Schengen area have been met.
Our rapporteur also performed a review on the ground.
He carried out an objective evaluation and reached the same conclusion.
That is why we will not only be voting in favour of the report but we will also be giving our consent for both these countries to join the Schengen area.
The Schengen area is also an area of confidence, however.
That means that not everything is completed with a single, one-off action but that confidence must be built over the long run; investment in security must be ensured over the long term.
The same applies to all States, I would point out, and not just to Romania and Bulgaria.
I hope that this confidence remains secure over the long term so that we are able to maintain this freedom of travel, this freedom of movement within the European Union as a major public good over the long term.
I am distressed by something that I heard today, however, although it is something that I am unable to verify, namely, that police wages in Romania are to be cut by around a third.
We all know that it is a prerequisite for incorruptibility, for reputable work by the police, that they must be well paid.
I therefore hope that my information is inaccurate and that the police, who are performing a service in the interests of these countries and of the security of the entire European Union, will continue to be well paid in the future, too, so that they are not susceptible to bribery.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, according to the Coelho report, Romania and Bulgaria are, based on the evaluation reports, sufficiently prepared to apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis to their land, sea and air borders.
They satisfy the basic requirements and the same criteria as other Member States for full integration into the Schengen area.
In supporting the full integration of these countries, we are demonstrating our Community solidarity and supporting the European idea and the fundamental right of the freedom of movement of citizens within the European Union, thereby creating a stronger Europe.
As regards the concerns raised in the report about increasing migration pressure in the sensitive area of Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece, these are today's challenges for the European Union and the Member States, which need to find global, pan-European solutions to effectively strengthen their external borders, to strengthen Frontex, to demonstrate due Community solidarity and to support the Member States in the south of Europe where immigrants land.
The topical dialogue on updating the Schengen Agreement must take account of the above challenges.
(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, involvement in the Schengen area means assuming responsibility.
Bulgaria and Romania must be admitted so that they can assume their share of the responsibility, along with the other Member States, for protecting Europe's borders.
I know that Schengen is a sensitive topic nowadays in many Member States and gives rise to numerous public debates.
It has taken on new significance in recent months with the influx of emigrants from North Africa.
In actual fact, even old and large Member States have been finding it difficult coping with the flow of emigrants.
However, these problems will not be resolved by not admitting Bulgaria and Romania.
The correct response ought to be to strengthen the principle of solidarity regarding emigration policy and to get all Member States to commit to applying it.
We not only need to offer the opportunity, but also require Bulgaria and Romania to assume their responsibilities and fulfil their duties at the Europe Union's external borders.
Commissioner Malmström mentioned trust. This is the nub of it.
The governments of both countries must be given the opportunity to respond to the challenge and prove that they can successfully guard Europe's borders.
Mr President, dear colleagues, one month ago, I came to Brussels by car and at the Hungarian border, I saw a huge queue of trucks.
I recall counting 87.
They were from Germany, Italy, Denmark and Hungary, loaded with goods which people were waiting for.
They were delayed by a procedure which no longer applies in the rest of the European Union.
I would like to underline the importance of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to this important space.
It is important for the interests of the whole of Europe because we have to rebuild the trust of our European citizens in the European Union and its institutions.
You said, Commissioner, that Schengen is an important gift for all European citizens, but it is also an important tool for not 'less' but for 'more' Europe.
I strongly believe that the European Parliament will adopt this report tomorrow and that the Council will act accordingly as soon as possible.
(HU) - Mr President, the Coelho report determines that both Romania and Bulgaria have proven that they have prepared properly for the appropriate application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis.
However, the date of their accession to the Schengen area is still uncertain, as some Member States believe that despite the repeated assessments by various European Union institutions, their accession could cause problems in the Schengen system.
While acknowledging the deficiencies of the Romanian justice system, I would like to call to the attention of my fellow Members and the Council the fact that the decision they are making directly influences the everyday lives of 30 million EU citizens.
The abolition of internal border controls is an enormous success of European integration.
Romanian and Bulgarian citizens rightly expect to be able to enjoy the benefits of the Schengen acquis as full European Union citizens.
I strongly believe that all of Europe would be stronger if Bulgaria and Romania were to join the Schengen area this year.
(SK) Mr President, I stand here today in order to give unambiguous support to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area.
In my opinion, Mr Coelho's report very much proves the opinion that these two countries are fully prepared and have fulfilled all of the conditions.
Bulgaria and Romania have been Member States of the EU for four years, but some fellow Members appear not to have noticed that, and some of their questions and racist remarks about these countries really concern me as an EU citizen, because if we talk about illegal immigrants from these countries somehow invading our territory, we are actually referring to members and citizens of the EU, and they surely cannot be illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, whoever meets the conditions should have the chance of becoming a member of the Schengen area.
This is a fundamental principle of equality on which the EU is built, and whoever doubts this doubts the fundamental principles of the EU.
(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following Bulgaria's accession to the European Union, admission to the Schengen area is the next greatly awaited event.
It is justice which we are waiting for.
After Bulgaria and Romania have made great efforts and coped admirably with the Schengen technical criteria, delaying both countries' admission would run counter to the rules stipulated in the European Union.
The conditions set in the Union are the same for everyone.
The same criteria which have also applied to the other Member States must apply to our countries.
Otherwise, this is discrimination.
Problems with corruption feature in many Member States.
Europe must combat this as a whole because four out of every five European citizens consider that corruption is a fundamental problem in their country.
Europe has problems with the rising number of emigrants.
We need to find common solutions to these issues, but while adhering to our values and upholding our principles.
(PL) Mr President, much is being said in the European Union about the crisis.
Up till now, we have been talking mainly about the economic crisis.
Now, what is happening with the Schengen area is making people say that it is not just the economy which is under threat, but also the fundamental rights of the citizens.
Therefore, following the events related to the Schengen area in Italy, France and then in Denmark, I think we have to send a very clear signal which says that no, the Schengen area is not under threat, we do not want it to be suspended, we want it to be strengthened and enlarged, and that we very much want Europe to be open.
We have to show that we know how to overcome crises.
I would like to express my thanks to the Commissioner that when Denmark wanted to bring in border controls, a communication on common asylum and immigration policy was released very quickly.
However, a further step now has to be taken.
It is not just a matter of voting to accept the entry of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area.
It is a matter of doing this as quickly as possible.
Mr President, today, the Schengen arrangements are coming under strong pressure.
On the one hand, given the current wave of immigrants from North Africa, where the EU is encouraging democratic change, some states have asked for, and obtained, a temporary suspension of those arrangements.
On the other hand, other states have decided, for reasons which would seem to reflect their own narrow interests towards the applicants, to exploit the fact that Romania and Bulgaria are not yet part of the area and to try to keep them out, once again.
Consequently, the rules of the game have been modified during the match, to the disadvantage of the two players.
I personally support the positive conclusions of the report and praise the author for them but, although I can understand the political reasons for amending the recommendation - the basis of politics is, after all, compromise - I cannot ignore the fact that the new conditionality suggested might facilitate a subjective interpretation of it.
I pray to God that I am wrong.
(RO) Mr President, the report we have before us today is objective and fair, highlighting that Romania and Bulgaria are fully prepared technically to join the Schengen area.
On top of this, in certain aspects, Romania can be used as a model of good practice, as indicated in the assessment documents.
It is my firm belief that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to this area will not have an adverse impact on the borders' security.
It will boost Europeans' confidence in the Schengen area.
There is often talk about mutual trust, just as has been mentioned in this debate, too.
However, how can we talk about mutual trust when some Member States are changing the rules of the game midway by introducing new criteria for joining Schengen?
The arguments being used today against Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area were not taken into account for any other state which has joined Schengen in the past.
The only thing that Romanians and Bulgarians expect is fair treatment in relation to the other countries and an objective assessment based on the same criteria.
Parliament must send the Council a clear message in this respect and insist on a definite date for accession.
(RO) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur who, in this case, has drafted an extremely important report, but also extremely difficult at the same time, due to the fact that we have conflicting views on this matter regarding the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area.
Fellow Members, I also want to thank all those who have realised that the European Union expands on the basis of values.
Last but not least, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area is part of assuming responsibility, which both states did in 2004, to meet the conditions which have subsequently turned out to be fulfilled according to the European Commission's evaluation reports.
Today, I asked a fellow MEP from a country which has a conflicting position on our accession to the Schengen area what reason he would have for opposing this.
The technical conditions seem to be met, but the reason would be because it is a controversial policy domestically.
This situation is unacceptable.
(EL) Mr President, I consider that the credibility of the European Union rests on the uniform application of the rules.
I consider it obvious that the integration of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen Agreement must be accepted by complying with the same rules that were complied with when other States became parties to the agreement.
I welcome Mr Coelho's report and his proposal on the need for Bulgaria to take additional measures, by preparing a special action plan with Greece and Turkey, due to the problem of illegal immigration on the Greco-Bulgarian border.
I repeat my firm position that Dublin II needs to be revised and the Frontex operational office in Greece needs to operate on a permanent basis.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the Schengen Agreement, as we know, must not promote mass immigration into the social systems and the freedom of travel must not lead to an increase in crime and illegal immigration.
The fight against organised crime and the improvement of border protection must finally be more valued in the European Union.
If Italy and its border police's security system reportedly lags far behind the ordinary Schengen standard, it is to be feared that newcomers like Romania and Bulgaria could soon also slacken in their efforts.
The overhasty accession to Schengen for these countries should therefore be rejected, as the main beneficiaries of this could be organised crime from eastern Europe and even from the Caucasus region.
I believe that, in combating asylum problems, Denmark has set itself up as a trailblazer for EU-wide rules.
That is probably why the Commission has reacted so strongly to the announcement of stronger border controls to fight rising criminality.
We should make clear that, although Schengen requires open internal borders, that is only the case where the external borders are truly secure.
(NL) Mr President, everyone who has followed this dossier knows that admitting Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area is an extraordinarily difficult dossier in the Netherlands.
We also have a European responsibility, however.
That being the case, I have one question for the Commissioner: how does enforcement of the Schengen criteria fit in with general control under corruption policy?
Just recently, we heard about border control between Bulgaria and Ukraine, where Bulgarian border officials had been bribed to allow people through the external borders of the European Union that have no business being here.
I have a second question, which Mr Pirker also asked, namely, what do the substantial police cuts in Romania mean for the enforcement of the Schengen criteria?
There has been no consultation about this with the unions.
What is the current state of affairs?
(SK) Mr President, Bulgaria and Romania have, in three years, taken all the measures necessary to be able to join the Schengen area.
The criteria and the measures for securing the external borders are not simple.
Both states have fulfilled these and are entitled to be members of the common Schengen area, regardless of the fact that Europe is now facing a flood of immigrants from Africa.
It is important that the evaluation committee, members of which have visited both states in person, has stated that both Romania and Bulgaria meet the Schengen requirements.
I firmly believe that MEPs will approve this report and that it will then be clearly approved by the Council.
I wish the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria the rapture that I personally experienced in chopping down the border gate on 22 December 2007, when Slovakia became part of the Schengen area.
(FI) Mr President, the expansion of the Schengen area entails the fulfilment of standards, but it is also about trust.
The applications from Bulgaria and Romania have come at an interesting time, when the EU has begun to question the principle of free movement.
Formerly, internal border checks were obviously carried out, but the reason for these at the time was the holding of certain events, like sporting events, the European Football Championship, world championships, or certain summit conferences.
Now, too, many Schengen countries conduct police inspections within the framework of national legislation, on flights inside the Schengen area, for example.
Now, however, the debate has changed.
Now, checks should no longer be carried out because of special events, but because of a phenomenon.
It is a sensitive issue, because it questions the notion of free movement and ...
(BG) Mr President, I congratulate Mr Coelho for his well-balanced, objective report.
The text not only reflects the findings made by the rapporteur when he visited Bulgaria and Romania, but also expresses the European Parliament's desire to remain true to the spirit of Europe.
In other words, readiness for Schengen membership is based solely on fulfilling technical criteria.
This is the case.
Technical readiness, as a result of the good work carried out by Bulgaria and Romania, is a positive finding, which is also being made by us today.
Now it is important for us to send a two-fold message tomorrow during the vote with a convincing majority.
First and foremost, there is a message for the Council of Ministers.
By providing access to the relevant information, establishing a constructive dialogue and taking into account the view of Parliament, the Council will not only show its goodwill in terms of cooperating with us, but it will also send a powerful message about one of the guardians of European values, as well as about transparent cooperation and partnership.
A strong message will also be sent to Bulgarian and Romanian citizens.
What the European Union is saying to them is: 'Yes' to equal treatment for all Member States, 'Yes' to identical rules and 'Yes' to the same consideration for the results achieved.
I am confident that the Council can heed positive efforts.
(BG) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Coelho for the comprehensive report.
I am taking the floor because I am annoyed by the blatant attempts to use the case of Bulgaria and Romania to resolve internal problems and to respond to internal fears.
The lifting of visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania more than 10 years ago was met with the same fears.
However, the European leaders at that time demonstrated courage and farsightedness even when Bulgaria and Romania were not members of the European Union.
Indeed, they were not wrong.
This is why we must remember today that the current debate is about rules which must be the same for everyone, about equality between Member States enshrined in the Treaty of the European Union and, last but not least, about Europe's so widely acclaimed solidarity.
Europe is definitely more different nowadays to the Europe of 20 years ago.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
However, if there is a crisis in the Schengen area, this is a subject for another debate.
If this leads to a change in conditions, they must be changed for everyone.
Let us remember therefore that huge groups of illegal immigrants are crossing ...
(BG) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, on an exceptionally balanced, positive report.
This is the result of the general attitude and vision which the majority of fellow Members present in this Chamber have, which is that Bulgaria and Romania deserve to and must be part of the Schengen area.
Obviously, problems should not be shifted to areas where there are none.
Corruption and crime are prevalent in all European Union Member States.
However, success in tackling these problems will only be achieved when all 27 countries combine their efforts.
Responsibilities and burdens should not be shifted just on to one group of European countries.
Bulgaria and Romania proved that they can work for a united Europe.
I think that they will be worthy members of the Schengen area as well.
Mr President, Bulgaria and Romania proved that they can guarantee the safety of the EU borders and this is fully - I repeat, fully - documented.
By the way, the officers arrested in Romania and Bulgaria were arrested for corruption.
Can anyone in this House claim that, for instance, a Dutch officer, a corrupt Dutch officer, would not be arrested for corruption in the Netherlands?
Secondly, Romania and Bulgaria did not compete to win the top prize of Transparency International.
They entered the judicial contract and fulfilled all its criteria.
Now, if somebody is trying to change the rules of the game during the game, I think this might be illegal according to EU law and is, anyway, unfair according to common sense.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for this very useful debate.
There is indeed a clear need to strengthen the trust and faith in Schengen by strengthening governance and by strengthening the evaluation mechanism - as the Commission proposed long before Christmas - with more involvement of independent experts and the Commission, and also increased transparency involving Parliament in all the steps that are taken there.
We also need to become much better in immediately assisting Member States which are in difficulties for one or other reason, and we need to clarify under what circumstances border controls might be reintroduced.
All this needs to be done.
We also need to fight against corruption and to increase the fight.
Yes, there is corruption in Bulgaria and Romania, but there is corruption in every Member State, and the Commission proposed only yesterday a report on how we want to enforce the struggle against corruption.
Some of you were kind enough to refer to this.
But, in the meantime, we must recognise the enormous efforts that have been made by Bulgaria and Romania in order to comply with the technical requirements of Schengen.
They are very clear, they are very transparent.
That is why these countries must be given a clear perspective, a clear framework on what is expected of them, so that Member States will feel ready to welcome them into the Schengen community.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank those who commented positively on the efforts of the Hungarian Presidency.
It was very important for us to feel your support throughout the entire past five months.
Today's debate has also shown clearly that there is a strong majority in the European Parliament supporting Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to the Schengen area because they have done their homework.
During the past five months, and for the remaining time ahead of us, we will fight to express this, and for the Council to determine that as far as the technical standards are concerned, Romania and Bulgaria are ready to join the Schengen area.
Both countries have worked very hard and deserve the maximum amount of appreciation for their efforts.
Many have voiced their opinion during the debate - those who are for, as well as those who are against or for postponing the accession - that mutual trust is the key word in this issue.
I also agree strongly with this, and the Hungarian Presidency has aimed to build trust throughout the entire time.
How did we try to achieve this?
On the one hand, we were engaged in continuous dialogue with both countries, watching their efforts and attempting to help them find ways to get a better recognition of their efforts.
On the other hand, we were continuously in touch with countries that expressed doubts about the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.
We then made efforts to encourage these countries to contact the candidate countries as well.
As a result, I can tell you that there was a continuous dialogue behind the scenes in order for the parties to better understand and trust one another.
This is the mutual trust upon which the majority of our policies are built in the European Union; without it, Member States are unable to make this political decision that requires unanimity.
This is a time-consuming process.
We had six months to achieve this.
I trust that during these six months, we will reach the point where, in exactly two days, the Member States will say 'yes, the homework has been done'.
What can help create mutual trust?
On the one hand, the series of consultations, which I have mentioned.
On the other hand, that both candidate countries continue their efforts and keep proving that they are capable of defending the external borders of the European Union.
The conduct exhibited by these two countries, coupled with their enormous growth, pace and rhythm, must be continued in the near future as well.
On the other hand, I am convinced that the cooperation and verification mechanism - the famous CVM on which the Commission will release a report in July, dealing with the exact same issues that were voiced in this debate - could be helpful, even if officially, it is not part of the conditions for Schengen accession.
The Commission will issue a certificate concerning the fight against organised crime and corruption.
We have fought all along for this not to be laid down as a condition, but it will definitely support the building of mutual trust.
As such, I am convinced that a positive CVM will promote a positive political decision regarding the Schengen expansion as well.
If you ask me about the general mood regarding any type of admission into the Schengen area, then we all know that it would be difficult to say that the European Union is currently in a particularly welcoming mood.
Several comments have been made in this debate that aptly demonstrate this.
For instance, some are saying that with the Romanian-Bulgarian accession, the Roma population will begin to move from these two countries.
I would like to be very clear: freedom of movement is a basic principle of the European Union, it is effective and valid, it is what our policies are built upon; this freedom is currently enjoyed by the Romanian and Bulgarian Roma population, just as by everyone else in every corner of the European Union.
Everyone can move freely, there are no visa requirements, and if anyone wanted to leave now, they could.
However, I am very proud of the fact that a Roma strategy was devised during the Hungarian Presidency which determines clearly the obligations of every Member State in connection with the community of this difficult fate.
The problem must be treated at its roots: by providing better employment and education opportunities for them, this internal migration pressure will also decrease within the European Union.
And allow me one more comment: if anyone were to deny one of our most basic freedom rights from the weakest, then these rights would be in jeopardy for all of us.
And finally, since the ongoing evaluation of the Schengen system has been discussed at length as well, I would like to say that the Hungarian Presidency has already stated this very clearly from the first moment, and this is something we continue to believe in.
The issue of the Schengen expansion must be clearly separated from the type of evaluation to which we will subject the Schengen system.
Let us not confuse the two.
We must preserve the acquis regarding the freedom of movement, and we must utilise our available means better, for instance, to ensure a better mutual control of our external borders.
This is why we are working on the Frontex Regulation; this is why we are working on reducing the migratory pressure from North Africa by addressing its local causes; this is why there is a new neighbourhood policy; this is why we are working on increasing the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank.
We are in the final hour.
There is only one legal problem standing in the way of reaching an agreement with you: the usual 'delegated act' problem.
It is only after this that we review the Schengen system and look at how it can be adjusted or improved, because we can see that there are indeed problems with it, but let us stick to this order of things.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I trust that the forthcoming session of the Justice and Home Affairs Council to be held in two days' time will make important decisions concerning both the expansion and the verification aspects of the Schengen issue, but in a way that guarantees the freedom of movement of our citizens.
During the debate, one of our fellow Members said that letting Romania and Bulgaria join Schengen would be a childish decision.
I totally disagree.
I believe that when we become adults, we appreciate rational arguments, and if we have been well educated, we recognise when rational arguments are fair.
In order to act fairly, we cannot compromise ourselves with double standards.
We have to ask whether Bulgaria and Romania do or do not meet the conditions for entry into Schengen.
If they do meet them, then they should enter.
It is perfectly legitimate for their citizens to be seen as full European citizens.
The people of Bulgaria and Romania should not become hostage to populist rhetoric.
We know that not everything is as it should be with regard to Schengen.
We are therefore advocating a new system of evaluation for Schengen in order to be able to identify problems, respond accordingly, and make decisions if the problems persist.
However, debates on the new evaluation system for Schengen cannot hold the people of Bulgaria and Romania hostage to this legislative process.
These are different processes, and each has its own pace.
Finally, Mrs Gyõri, thank you very much for your kind mention of Portugal and the Schengen Information System (SIS) one-for-all scheme, which has facilitated the entry of several countries, including yours, into the Schengen area.
Thank you for reminding us of that and for making that nice mention.
I would like the Council to be given a summary of this debate and, I hope, an outline of our votes tomorrow, which I believe will be very enlightening.
I hope that Council will recognise that when the assembly representing European citizens says yes with a large majority to Bulgaria and Romania, as I hope it will, the Council should follow suit as soon as possible.
Dear colleagues, I believe that on the basis of the overwhelming majority of positive comments and evaluations in this Chamber today by Members of Parliament, as well as the evaluations of the Commission and of Council, warm congratulations are due to Bulgaria and Romania.
The vote will take place on 8 June 2011.
Romania and Bulgaria have proved once again, if there was ever any need for them to, that they are capable of adopting all the measures required to guarantee a significant level of security at the European Union's eastern border.
Given the financial, technical, institutional and administrative efforts made by Romania to join the Schengen area, I think that the positive assessment of this dossier must be shown in the period ahead by setting a definite deadline for joining this area.
The situation should not be unsettled by changing the rules during the game, stepping up the Eurosceptic rhetoric and bringing up a separate issue relating to the need to control illegal immigration.
Technically, Romania is more prepared than ever to police the European Union's eastern border.
Yet, applying double standards in evaluating certain parameters is not a worthy and characteristic aspect of the United Europe project.
I firmly believe that once Romania has been integrated into the Schengen area, it will demonstrate to all Member States the serious and rigorous way in which it can guarantee the eastern border's security.
Moreover, the results achieved will convince the whole of Europe that it has successfully enhanced the security of the entire Union.
Freedom of movement is one of the most important European Union values for all EU citizens and the Schengen area is characterised by the absence of controls at shared borders between participating countries and the introduction of freedom of movement within this area.
Therefore, we must respect the right of all European Union citizens without exception to move freely.
If Bulgaria and Romania are subject to more criteria than other EU Member States in order to join the Schengen area, then we will be creating double standards.
We must avoid a system based on double standards, which is very strict towards candidate countries and very soft on countries that are already members of the Schengen area.
The rules of the Schengen acquis must be the same for all countries and the assessment system must be based on the provision that rules should be met continuously, not only during accession.
Countries joining the Schengen area must continue to comply with all security requirements because the security of the Schengen area really depends on the rigour and effectiveness with which each Member State carries out controls at its external borders, as well as on the quality and speed with which information is exchanged through the Schengen Information Service.
Therefore, in order to remove controls at internal borders, it is necessary for the Member States to cooperate as much as possible and take the necessary action, particularly when increasing migration flows, because the security of the Schengen area depends on the rigour and effectiveness with which each Member State carries out controls at its external borders.
in writing. - (HU) According to the assessment of the European Commission, Romania and Bulgaria are prepared for Schengen accession, and therefore the Council must make a decision without delay to admit the two Member States.
We can neither apply a double standard, as it would undermine the authenticity of the European Union, nor can we lay down new conditions.
Joining the Schengen Agreement and dismantling borders is the step that citizens appreciate the most of the European Union's acquis; in addition to the euro, this is also the symbol of the European Union.
Freedom of movement is one of the keys to the success of the common market.
It is, of course, necessary to safely protect the external borders of the European Union, yet this objective is achieved not by keeping out Member States that are prepared but by introducing a continuous and transparent Schengen verification system, which - along with the common European migration policy and the refugee policy based on internal solidarity - represents a solution to many open questions.
Therefore, I am asking the Council to move forward as soon as possible in these areas.
Romania is prepared to remove its internal controls at its land, air and sea borders.
Following the visits made on the ground and the technical evaluations which were carried out, not only the rapporteur appointed by the European Parliament but the group of experts, too, concluded that Romania fulfils all the criteria for joining the Schengen area, which were provisions assumed through the Treaty of Accession in 2005.
All the shortcomings identified in the past have been rectified.
Furthermore, my country has set an example of good practice in some areas.
With regard to the objections raised by some MEPs, I want to point out that they relate to topics which have no direct link with the Schengen acquis, which means that they cannot be used as reasons for blocking Romania's access to this area.
I understand the concerns of certain fellow Members about making the EU's external borders secure, especially as some states can be regarded as favourite destinations for the flows of emigrants.
However, I should remind you that European rules must be the same for all Member States and cannot be changed during the game as this would amount to discrimination against Romanian citizens.
In view of the positive technical evaluation, the Justice and Home Affairs Council must give the green light to Romania's integration into Schengen, from this autumn on.
If you believe this report, everything is shipshape and Bristol fashion and Romania and Bulgaria have demonstrated that they are sufficiently prepared to implement all of the Schengen rules.
However, those of us who are familiar with the Europol report OCTA 2011 on the subject of organised crime will be asking ourselves whether the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is deaf and blind, and why on earth we indulge ourselves in Europol at all if we simply ignore its warnings.
Europol reports that Romania and Bulgaria are transit routes for drug smuggling, gun running and human trafficking.
Organised criminal gangs, increasingly multi-ethnic, act with extreme violence.
Many have a paramilitary background.
These groups, and I quote verbatim from the Europol report 'are seeking to expand their interests in the EU, and may exploit opportunities in the possible accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Zone'.
Europol Director, Rob Wainwright, stated in an interview that 'The possible accession into Schengen of Bulgaria and Romania and visa liberalisation for Ukraine - one would see these as potential new opportunities for organised crime'.
We have a duty to our citizens to take Europol's warnings seriously.
The Schengen Agreement is already opening all the doors to Europe to organised crime and illegal immigration.
It therefore needs urgent repair before it is extended.
I thank the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, for his excellent report, which fits in with the recent debate on the implementation of the Schengen Agreement.
The existence of effective controls along our external borders must be an important factor inasmuch as the security of the Schengen area depends on the efficiency with which each Member State controls its external borders.
Although some problems remain unresolved, Romania and Bulgaria have proved to be sufficiently prepared to apply all the requirements of the Schengen acquis.
We have discussed at length the practical efficacy of the state machinery of these two countries, as well as their levels of corruption; nevertheless, I believe that the application of Schengen should leave this out of consideration, given that - just as happened with the other Member States - it is sufficient to base a decision only on the efficiency of border controls and the preparation of police forces.
Adding further requirements would create a precedent of discrimination which has not existed before, not even after the great enlargement in 2007.
in writing. - The real question is whether all EU citizens, irrespective of their national origin, are to be treated equally and granted equal access to EU fundamental rights.
Against the background of the global economic crisis, the EU is experiencing a crisis of democracy and solidarity.
We are seeing the renationalisation of Europe.
In this context, the debate on Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to the Schengen area has provoked stark reactions motivated by pseudo-arguments and double standards.
This is not about technical aspects, nor about the security of the EU's external borders, nor yet about migration or efficiency of the judiciary.
It is a European political problem of a strategic character.
It is about EU cohesion.
To speak about a lack of preparation at our eastern borders when seeing the permeability of our southern borders is simply hilarious.
To promote national political agendas at the expense of the aspirations of EU citizens of Bulgarian and Romanian origin is outrageous.
Indeed, we need better defended borders, a better migration policy, better administrative capacity and honest public servants.
But this requires more and not less Europe.
One right step in this direction is the immediate enlargement of the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria.
We can categorically say that Bulgaria itself, or Bulgaria's citizens to be more exact, do not pose a threat, either directly or potentially, to security, order and peace within the Schengen area.
Our country has fulfilled, albeit late, all the technical requirements relating to external border controls.
However, there is a large degree of distrust suggesting that serious disruption may be caused when the control measures are implemented.
This distrust features in the reports from the European Commission on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, in the reports from Europol and in a series of statements made by senior representatives of various Member States.
With the unprecedented growth in smuggling activity and the informal economy, with the prevalence of corruption and the inability to cope with organised crime, there is no good reason for us to get angry at the fact that our membership is being blocked by additional obstacles.
The European Parliament must adopt a position on principle, which is that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway.
According to the formal requirements, Bulgaria and Romania are ready for membership of the Schengen area and the European Council must decide in favour of this as soon as possible.
I am counting on Mr Coelho's report being approved by a large majority to give a clear political signal to Member States.
The next item is Question Time (B7-0407/2011).
Subject: Quality food schemes
In February 2011, the Commission registered its 1 000th quality food name.
It is clear, however, that the number of applications to register under the protected geographical indication (PGI), protected designation of origin (PDO) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) quality food schemes varies considerably from one Member State to another.
Why does the Commission think there are such disparities between Member States?
Can the Commission comment on the views expressed by some food producers that the registration process is long and bureaucratic and therefore discourages applicants?
How can the registration process be made more user-friendly?
Can the Commission provide information on consumer awareness of the quality food schemes?
How can recognition of the PDO, PGI and TSG labels be improved and made more relevant to consumers, in particular, in Member States that have few registered products?
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, when the European system of protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical indications (PGIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) was set up, equivalent systems already existed in some Member States.
The concept of geographical indications was thus familiar and names had already been registered at national level.
This explains why there are many registered names in certain Member States.
Nevertheless, growing interest in the system has been observed in many Member States.
The procedure for registering a name generally takes several years.
This is because the applicant group has to draw up specifications and have them approved at national level and then by the Commission.
The single document summary of the specifications for geographical indications or the specifications themselves for traditional specialties are then published in the Official Journal of the European Union in order to allow objections to be made.
The objection period lasts six months.
If there are no objections, the name may be registered.
If an objection is lodged, the interested parties have six months to reach agreement.
If no agreement is reached, the Commission issues a decision that is voted on by the Standing Committee.
This procedure explains the time required for registration to take place.
On the other hand, once a name has been registered, it enjoys strong protection and international recognition and benefits from communication tools, particularly use of the logo.
The Commission is aware of the need to speed up the registration procedures.
Proposals to this end have been made in the context of the Quality Package, including reducing the time for the Commission to scrutinise applications received to six months and reducing the objection period to two months.
Awareness of the system varies greatly from country to country, often depending on the number of registered names in a country.
The Commission makes funds for promoting quality products available to operators in order to raise consumer awareness of the system.
deputising for the author. - Mr President, I want to thank the Commission for its reply.
I think the labelling of food produce is something that is to be commended.
But the Commissioner has put his finger on it in relation to a number of issues: first of all, the fact that there are some diverse standards; secondly, the long time that it takes from the time of application to actual registration.
If ever there was an example of bureaucracy at European level, this surely is it.
In my country, it takes the Department of Agriculture five years from the time that you actually make an application until you are registered.
Given the crisis in Germany, we need more food labelling, we need more standards; we need more quality control.
So I would urge the Commission that we should have a much tighter timeframe.
(IT) Mr President, I am continuing the discussion on quality food.
In the last two weeks, Italy has suffered economic damage amounting to EUR 20 million because of unsold vegetables - particularly cucumbers - as a result of the EHEC bacterium.
It has been said that a loss of EUR 4.4 million was the result of the suspension of Russian imports alone.
The entire fruit and vegetable sector is on its knees.
I therefore ask the Commission what measures it intends to take in defence of the fruit and vegetable market and what further measures it intends to take to avoid the spread of unreliable information on the origins of the EHEC bacterium, which is hitting the entire fruit and vegetable sector and throwing whole populations into panic.
We are talking of quality food!
Member of the Commission. - My response to the first question is that the Commission is aware of the need to speed up the legislation procedures.
Proposals to this end have been made in the context of the Quality Package, which I referred to in my first answer.
The Commission's proposals include reducing the time for scrutinising the application it receives to six months and also reducing the objection period to two months.
If Parliament and the Council decide to adopt the Commission's proposals, almost one year - or ten months at least - will be saved for the majority of applications.
As for the other question, there was a Health Council yesterday which dealt with the issue.
We shall follow up on it at a later stage while taking today's extraordinary Agriculture Council into account.
I am not in a position at this moment to give further details but we will definitely follow up on it.
Mr President, I will be very brief.
I apologise that I did not get here in time for the Commissioner's answer at the beginning.
I suppose my question refers to the fact that there is a low level of awareness among producers in many countries, and in some countries it is very low.
Is the Commission taking any steps to try and increase that level of awareness, not just amongst consumers but amongst producers?
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, awareness of the system varies greatly from country to country, and the number of registered names in a given country also varies.
European funds for promotion are available to operators to promote quality products, with more than EUR 19 million being allocated to fifteen promotion programmes between 2006 and 2010.
Moreover, the Commission wishes to re-examine the policy for promoting agricultural products and a Green Paper is planned for this summer.
This will be an opportunity to discuss the objectives of this policy once again, and to examine expectations with regard to promotion and quality of products and dissemination of information in this context.
Subject: Youth unemployment
The economic crisis has devastated employment levels among young graduates.
In November last year, unemployment among young people reached 21% across the EU.
Youth unemployment stands at less than 10% in only three countries - Germany, the Netherlands and Austria.
Elsewhere it is dramatic: in the Baltic States, Ireland, Greece and Slovakia, unemployment among young people stands at 30% or above. And in Spain, it is more than 40%.
What steps does the Commissioner intend to take to prevent an exodus of young people from Europe?
How does the Commissioner intend to emulate the best practices of Germany, the Netherlands and Austria on an EU-wide scale?
Member of the Commission. - High unemployment among young people is one of the Commission's top priorities and is one of my foremost personal concerns.
Lack of jobs could conceivably generate an exodus of young people from Europe, but the vast majority of young people who change countries to find work will probably choose to move to another Member State.
That is why it is so important to promote freedom of movement for workers within the Union.
It offers a solution in regions where unemployment among young people is high, given the labour shortages in certain sectors in some Member States that are evident from the Commission's new quarterly vacancy monitor.
Promoting mobility among young people within the EU is one of the aims of the Europe 2020 flagship initiative: Youth on the Move.
It outlines a wide range of measures to reduce the current high youth unemployment.
Let me give you a few examples.
Youth labour mobility will be promoted in particular through a new EU job mobility scheme, Your First EURES Job, which was launched with the support of this House and the Council.
Its aim is to help young people find a job on the European labour market and assist employers in recruiting young European mobile workers.
Your First EURES Job will provide advisory, job search, recruitment and financial support amounting, on average, to EUR 1 000 for more than 2 000 young job seekers and companies willing to recruit young EU workers.
The Commission also encourages the Member States to introduce a youth guarantee to ensure that all young people are in further education, training or work within four months of finishing their general education.
In Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, as the Honourable Member rightly points out, youth unemployment rates are relatively low.
This is due, at least in part, to the comprehensive vocational education and training systems in those Member States, which facilitate young people's labour market integration.
The Bruges Communiqué of December 2010 on enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training for the period 2011-2020 is an important European achievement in this area.
It outlines objectives and identifies the action needed to improve the quality of vocational training and make it more accessible and relevant to the needs of the labour market.
I would also, as another element to my reply, like to highlight the Youth at Work campaign.
Launched in Budapest on 29 April, Youth at Work will bring together small and medium-sized enterprises and young job seekers and will provide information and support to inspire young people to set up their own businesses.
Over 30 events are planned between now and the end of 2012 when this campaign will end.
Honourable Members, I hope that the avenues and initiatives I have indicated will be followed up with effective action within the Member States.
The figures are frightening: the Baltic States, Ireland, Greece and Slovakia, 30%;
Spain, 40%; in your own country, Mr President, one million people under 25 with no prospects of a job.
In Italy, 76% of youngsters say they are going to emigrate.
I would love to think that youth mobility within Europe is the answer, but most of the countries in Europe, barring the three you mentioned, have unemployment problems.
What we really need is to focus on the fact that Europe has an ageing population.
We cannot afford this brain drain.
These are highly educated, highly motivated young people and what we need is to hold them, to keep them, to introduce the kind of imaginative schemes that you have already mentioned in the three Member States, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria.
I welcome the fact that the Commission is recommending initiatives to the Member States.
I think that in some of the Member States, however, we need some financial assistance in terms of training people and keeping them at home, because I think that, rather than feeding the jobs market within the EU, they will be feeding the job markets of Australia and other countries further afield.
(PL) Mr President, my question to the Commissioner is of a slightly different kind.
The Commissioner spoke about various measures which are intended to bring down unemployment, but did not say a single word about the fact that an important and more effective method could be for Member States to agree on the mutual recognition of qualifications gained in other Member States.
Young people today often look for work in other countries, where they have to pass exams which are the same as the ones they have already taken.
What is going to happen about this?
(RO) Mr President, the high unemployment rate means that the investments made by Member States in young people's education are being wasted at a time when the latter feel obliged to emigrate to a state outside the European Union.
I want to ask you, Commissioner, given that the school dropout rate has reached 16%, and even 40% in Portugal, how will the youth unemployment rate look in 15-20 years' time and what measures are you taking to ensure that this does not happen?
Member of the Commission. - In my answer, I highlighted the measures that have already been outlined in Europe 2020 and already they are making their way towards practice in various Member States through effective Commission programmes.
It is also true that this is more of a horizontal issue for the Commission, and there are in other EU initiatives very relevant proposals including, for example, the country-specific recommendations which we just published today, very important references to the need to reform education policies and improve the performance of education and training systems in various Member States in order to better connect the substance of education and training with the needs of the labour market.
This can qualitatively improve the employment opportunities of young people in a number of Member States, including Spain and others where the situation is the most difficult and where the reform of the education system was either delayed or ignored in the recent period.
It is also important to highlight the Single Market Act which, among other initiatives, aims at promoting the recognition of qualifications and diplomas, thus making the European labour market more transparent and more efficient, highlighting and raising more opportunities than in the past.
It is also important to stress that many actions are supported by the financial instruments of the EU, especially in this context, the European Social Fund, but I should also mention the new Microfinance Facility that provides programmes and, in the latter case, entrepreneurship and self-employment opportunities, and I think these dimensions have to be reflected in the forthcoming MFF proposal as well.
I trust that the Parliament will be supportive in this area within the MFF.
Subject: Migration and the Schengen area
The principle of freedom of movement in the Schengen area is in danger of being compromised by the North African crisis, as reflected in talks between Italy and France concerning the relocation of migrants coming chiefly from Tunisia and the reintroduction of border controls. This is also confirmed by statements issued by French officials on the need to re-examine certain provisions of the Schengen Agreement.
What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent freedom of movement in the Schengen area, a cornerstone of European unification, being compromised?
Given that the introduction of the Schengen area has shifted responsibility for EU external border controls onto a limited number of Member States, how will the Commission persuade Member States as a whole to show greater and more effective solidarity in the face of a mass influx of migrants and overcome their manifest reluctance to assume their responsibilities in this respect, so as to ensure that the burden is fairly shared?
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the question that has been raised by Mr Papanikolaou addresses - as do later questions - the different angles and perspectives of Schengen, the migratory crisis and the pressure put on Schengen.
So let me first answer Mr Papanikolaou.
Earlier, we discussed Mr Coelho's report and the need to safeguard Schengen as one of the most beautiful achievements of the European Union.
The right to move freely is indeed a very important embodiment of the European project.
More than 1.25 billion cross-border journeys are made by tourists within the EU each year.
Free movement is also a great boost and a benefit for the Internal Market, so safeguarding this achievement is key to the Commission and an absolute priority for me personally.
Let me emphasise once again that the Commission's approach is to reinforce Schengen, to improve the evaluation - as we already proposed before Christmas - to clarify the rules, to identify the tools, to assist Member States in need and, possibly, to introduce a mechanism which would bring a coordinated Community-based response to exceptional situations, for instance, when a Member State fails to control its internal borders.
The Commission's main objective is to have a preventive approach.
The proposed changes to strengthen the monitoring mechanism, which is designed to maintain mutual trust between the Member States and their capacity to apply effectively and efficiently the accompanying measures, will make it possible to maintain an area without borders.
This will be done through more on-the-spot visits to check the application of the Schengen acquis to Member States.
These controls could lead to recommendations to the Member States for immediate actions and deadlines for implementing them.
Increased trust among Member States will also reduce the recourse by Member States to unilateral initiatives to temporarily reintroduce internal borders or to intensify police checks at internal border zones.
The spirit of Schengen is a spirit of trust and solidarity.
It is important that the EU show concrete solidarity to the Member States most affected by large-scale inflows of migrants and persons in need of international protection.
This solidarity can take different forms by assisting, for instance, where the external border is under pressure.
Frontex plays a key role here and we have shown in the recent RABIT intervention at the Greek-Turkish border, and in the joint naval operation Hermes, that Member States are ready to assist other Member States.
We must also foster daily cooperation between national authorities in the field of border surveillance.
This is the purpose of the European border surveillance system (EUROSUR), which has been progressively developed since 2008, and for which the Commission will present a legislative proposal during this year.
We can also show solidarity by showing financial solidarity.
There is a framework programme this year that takes into consideration the management of migration flows.
We have a financial mechanism to improve the management of these flows at the European level and to strengthen the solidarity between Member States.
Of course, we now have a large consultation process and we are under budgetary restraints, but you can count on me to ensure that there will still be money under this fund for the future as well.
Those Member States most exposed to migratory pressures and located at the external borders of the EU must receive adequate financial compensation for the tasks they are carrying out in the interests of the Schengen area as a whole - this by fair burden-sharing in order to support those Member States affected by large inflows of persons in need of international protection.
It must be clear that any decision on the relocation of irregular migrants and beneficiaries of international protection depends on the Council and on the willingness of the Member States.
The Member States have not yet expressed any support for such an approach on a general basis with, however, one notable exception - the pilot project on relocation to other Member States for persons who have received international protection on Malta.
In order to give a timely follow-up to this, I organised a pledging conference a month ago.
I am pleased to say that over 300 places were made available from Member States and associated countries.
Others will hopefully be offered in the future as well.
This is a sign of concrete solidarity.
I want to thank those countries and I hope that they can also contribute in the future.
(EL) Commissioner, thank you very much.
I absolutely agree with you, as - I believe - does Parliament.
That much was also clear back during the debate on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.
At the same time, however, as you well know, there are unanimity issues in the Council on the issue of Bulgaria and Romania.
You spoke about trust.
Yes, we want to keep building up trust.
Does Denmark, in the choice it has made, accept that statement on your part?
You also commented on the question of the new mechanism.
In light of the summit, does this debate on the mechanism strengthen the perception of trust - I recall that, anyway, Article 23 of the Schengen Code makes provision for a mechanism for exceptional situations - or does it perhaps ultimately cause renewed concerns in the Member States and in all the States in the Schengen area?
(IT) Commissioner, before the end of next month, the European Commission will formulate the proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework for the period from 2014 to 2020.
In addition to FRONTEX, which you have already mentioned, what actions does the European Commission intend funding to support those Member States that have been worst hit by asylum applications and, above all, to prevent the future intensification of the influx of economic migrants?
In other words, what actions does it intend funding through the Mediterranean neighbourhood policies to prevent widespread immigration in the coming months and years?
Member of the Commission. - Trust can never be commanded, it has to be deserved and earned.
We can only try to improve the trust between Member States by having a more vigorous governance over Schengen; to make sure that we evaluate, not by the peer-review system we have today, but through an independent mechanism on a European communitarian basis with the involvement of the European Union in order to identify problems or weaknesses in the Schengen system very early on and also make sure that we have tools at our disposal to immediately assist Member States that are in difficulty.
Hopefully, that should allow us to increase the trust.
In answer to the other honourable Member, we are now negotiating the framework, so I am not in a position to give you any figures.
However, as we do today, we are seeking to increase the independence and the resources of Frontex.
We are also seeking to facilitate Member States' access to the various funds under migration by simplifying and by making it easier when it comes to borders, asylum, integration, etc.
Of course we need to distinguish between irregular migrants and migrants in need of international protection.
As you know, the Council and Parliament are now negotiating to have the resettlement programme in place, and this is also an area where the European Commission could look at possibilities for financing quite a lot of it.
In relation to our immediate neighbourhood across the Mediterranean, in the mobility partnerships: we are looking to include all aspects of irregular, legal and international protection asylum under migration.
All this demands a lot of political will and some extra resources, and I will do my best to fight to make sure that there are resources under my responsibility.
Subject: Visa scheme for Kosovo
What is the Commission's assessment of the current state of progress towards visa liberalisation for Kosovo (visa facilitation scheme), and what is the timetable for action on this urgent matter?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission is currently constantly monitoring all the steps taken by the Kosovo authorities to fulfil the conditions for the launching of the visa liberalisation dialogue.
We have said all the time that there are two key issues remaining in order to engage in such a dialogue: sound readmission, and reintegration policies in line with the EU standards.
Implementation of the law on readmission and of the bilateral readmission agreements with the EU Member States needs to continue in a good manner.
There have been two assessment missions in Kosovo - in June last year and in December last year - to assess the state of play in Kosovo regarding the integration process.
These have shown that there is a lot of progress, but there are still some things to be done, and we are in dialogue with the Kosovo Government in order to help and assist them to do these last things.
There must also be progress at the municipal level.
We receive regular updates from Kosovo, and I also meet with the responsible ministers, and once all these elements are in place, we are ready to launch a new mission to go there and see what steps can be taken in order to open the visa liberalisation dialogue.
We are not there yet, but there is a lot of progress in Kosovo and we are working very closely with the government in order to support them and help them make progress.
(DE) Many thanks, Commissioner, for a very good answer.
I just wanted to ask whether you think it is possible that this mission could still make it to Kosovo this year, or is that something that you really could not judge?
Would it not be important that a country so small that we are pouring funding and effort into supporting it could also give its young people the opportunity to really get to know Europe?
It is certainly completely counterproductive to 'imprison' the populace there.
I know that you sympathise with the idea of opening up borders, but do you regard it as realistic that this mission could perhaps still take place during the Polish Presidency?
Member of the Commission. - Mr Posselt, I fully share your ambition to do everything to prevent Kosovo from becoming an isolated little island in this region, in which we are trying remove visa barriers one by one.
We are certainly not going to abandon Kosovo.
The timing is very much in the hands of Kosovo's government.
We are working with the Kosovans, and as soon as they inform us that they have done everything we asked them to do, they can come to us and we will send that mission.
It is very much in their hands, but we have no time limits.
We can come whenever they call and whenever reasonable progress has been made.
Subject: Countering the use of the Internet by criminals
The rapid growth of technology and, in particular, the Internet, is making criminal organisations more and more difficult to penetrate.
Criminals are now communicating with one another via the Internet, rather than by mobile phone, which had been the method of choice until recently.
How does the Commission propose to combat the use of the Internet by criminal gangs across Europe?
Member of the Commission. - Cybercrime is indeed a growing menace.
It is going increasingly mobile, and recent threat analysis suggests that organised crime is getting increasingly involved in criminal activities in cyberspace.
So the Commission is pursuing various activities in the field to improve overall cybersecurity and to prevent and to tackle cybercrime.
At the policy level, specific objectives and road maps have been set in recent policy documents.
We have the European digital agenda and the European internal security strategy.
In that strategy, cybercrime is clearly identified as one of the priorities for us to work on for the future.
Last year, we also tabled two legislative proposals: one in March, a directive on child online exploitation, was adopted by the Commission and I know it is now being negotiated, and also a proposal for directives on attacks against information cybersystems. That was last September; it is also being negotiated between you and the Council, and I know that a lot of progress has been made.
This, of course, strives to adopt European legislation in the face of recent threats in cyberspace.
We have, in particular, included provisions to penalise the use of tools such as malicious code that are used to create so-called botnets, which have been used by criminals.
International cooperation is also key to fighting cybercrime and that is why we are engaging with international partners on these issues.
We have the working group between the EU and the United States, created last November, where we have had a series of different expert meetings.
We will report on progress for the next EU-US Summit in November this year. We also plan to set up a cybercentre where we could coordinate at European level the efforts that are being made in the different Member States.
Cybercrime is directly influenced by rapid technological advances, quickly emerging in new business models, but also by the ability of law enforcement and wider society to come to terms with such fluid environments as cyberspace.
Cybercrime is becoming a volume crime.
It is for this reason that we need jointly to get our systems in order and share intelligence in order to attack this issue.
If there is reason to believe that organised crime groups are behind more and more crimes on the Internet, the same investigative measures applied in the detection and prosecution of offline organised crime should be applied, coupled of course with an improved coordination mechanism.
Finally, ten years ago, the Council of Europe Convention - the Budapest Convention - on Cybercrime was adopted.
Ten years later, not all the Member States have signed and ratified that convention.
We are pushing, by all means, for ratification by the end of the year, the tenth anniversary, because it would prove an important commitment by all Member States to fighting these crimes.
Thank you for your reply, Commissioner.
I understand that there are people bragging and conducting so-called criminal business on the Internet, and that gang business includes drug trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, weapons trafficking, smuggling illegal immigrants across borders, even murder, theft, fraud, armed robbery and much more.
This is all being done on Facebook, using the system, and it is being bragged about.
Surely it is possible for Europol and the service providers - perhaps even coordinated by the Commission - to identify some of these people.
The more they feel that they are immune, the more their numbers will grow.
I would ask the Commissioner to consider taking some special steps to coordinate a response to what some of these people are doing on the Internet.
(RO) The number, scope and severity of cyber attacks have grown in recent years.
Their victims are ordinary citizens, companies or even public, local, national or European institutions.
The European Union needs to enhance its strategy for combating cybercrime.
I would like to ask you, apart from the legislative framework and extending ENISA's mandate, what measures is the Commission intending to take to enhance its leading role in guaranteeing cybersecurity?
Member of the Commission. - Yes indeed, ordinary crime is also now being carried out on the Internet because it is a useful tool, but there are also new kinds of crime that are facilitated by the Internet, such as identity fraud or the plundering of bank accounts or suchlike.
You can be assured that we follow this very closely.
Just recently, Europol made some quite remarkable attacks on some of these gangs, identifying cross-border European gangs involved in child pornography, for instance, but also in trafficking and drugs, so there are a lot of experts at Europol dealing with this.
Of course we need to do more.
We need to connect all the alert centres in the European Union, to share statistics, to share information and also to work more together with private companies in order to identify the solutions to this to a certain extent.
We are also planning - and conducting a feasibility study right now - to set up a European cybercentre by 2013 to coordinate this work, to work as an alert centre and to support the different national cybercentres that already exist.
We are following this very closely, and Europol, together with the national authorities, is doing its utmost to try to combat this increasing crime.
Subject: Schengen evaluations and the possible suspension mechanism
There is a danger that Commission proposals for governance of the Schengen zone are seen to be prioritising European procedure over European substance.
The Commission is suggesting a dominant lead for itself in a revised Schengen evaluation process, and Parliament proposes to modify that in order to allow a balance between the role of European and national experts.
In relation to Schengen suspension, the Commission is proposing an EU mechanism instead of Member State decision, but this has been widely (mis)interpreted to mean that the reintroduction of internal borders will actually be easier in practice.
Since it may well prove politically too difficult to implement a Community method for both evaluations and suspension, however worthwhile, would it not be better to make European substance the priority by launching infringement proceedings when necessary against Member States in breach of Schengen rules?
Subject: Implementation of the Schengen Agreement
Freedom of movement for European citizens unimpeded by internal borders following the creation of the Schengen area is one of the basic principles of the EU and the cornerstone of European integration.
The reintroduction of border controls within the EU does not provide a solution to migration and will, on the contrary, make life more difficult for European citizens and lead to a nationalistic outlook.
In view of this and the statement by the EP President to the effect that freedom of movement is perhaps the aspect of the EU most appreciated by Europeans, what position does the Commission intend to adopt with regard to Denmark following its recent decision to reintroduce border controls?
Is it willing to take measures further to strengthen external EU borders?
Will it review the principle that the Member State of entry bears sole responsibility for illegal immigrants?
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I will take both questions at the same time because they are almost identical.
They address the challenge of maintaining and further developing Schengen in view of the migration crisis.
I did briefly touch on this in my reply to Mr Papanikolaou's question, but these elements should, of course, be kept in mind in this context as well.
In the question, Ms Ludford expressed concerns that the negotiations on the new Schengen evaluation and suspension rules might be lengthy and difficult to agree upon and asked the Commission to prioritise launching infringement procedures against Member States in breach of Schengen rules instead.
Let me be very clear on this: infringement of Schengen rules cannot be tolerated, but one element does not exclude the other.
We are also planning to follow a parallel approach.
We are the guardians of EU law.
The Commission will continue to make sure that the Schengen rules are correctly applied and respected by everybody.
The basis of our work needs to be the existing legislation.
I am convinced that the current legislation can cater for a vast majority of the situations.
Where there are any differences in interpretation or implementation, the Commission should consult the Member States in question and clarify the rules.
This can be done by issuing guidelines or recommendations.
The Commission is ready to use all available means to ensure the correct application of EU law, including launching infringement procedures whenever such action is necessary.
At the same time, we will work on the preventive measures which should help us to avoid infringement procedures.
In this context, we now have ongoing negotiations between the Commission, Parliament and the Council with a view to establishing a more efficient evaluation system for Schengen.
We are currently considering whether and how to complement this evaluation mechanism in order to create mutual trust and ensure a coherent application of the rules.
Regarding the Danish Government's plan regarding controls on the Danish internal borders, which Ms Koppa referred to, you will, of course, be aware that the President of the Commission wrote to the Danish Prime Minister immediately, pointing out that the first analysis by the Commission raised major doubts about whether the proposed measures would be in line with Denmark's obligations under European and international law.
President Barroso emphasised that Member States may not carry out systematic intra-EU border controls of goods or people and urged Denmark to refrain from taking unilateral steps.
We are now analysing the information provided by Denmark and will then decide on further action.
Ms Koppa also asked whether the Commission will propose a revision of the principle of exclusive responsibility of the state of first illegal entry.
I would like to underline that this is a principle according to which a person found irregularly on the territory of a Member State is returned to the state of first entry into the EU.
It is a specific rule under the Dublin Regulation, which establishes that the Member States have to assess which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory.
It is therefore not an instrument designed to respond to the challenges related to irregular migration.
In the Commission proposal for a recast of the Dublin Regulation, this principle remains untouched.
The Member States that play the biggest role in the applicant's entry into the EU should be responsible for examining his or her application for asylum.
The European Parliament expressed overwhelming support for this in its vote on the proposal in May 2009.
This support was confirmed by the vote in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in November last year.
Commissioner, I am, of course, very glad to hear you stress again the importance that you attach to the maintenance of the Schengen area.
I know you are very sincere on that, but my worry is that, despite that, people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick and the impression has got abroad - for instance, last week an article in the Financial Times said that 'Schengen as well as the eurozone was disintegrating' - that somehow the Commission is fairly relaxed about the reintroduction of internal border controls.
I fear that the emphasis the Commission puts, as it were, on its own institutional rights is not being tracked through to its determination in practice, its zeal in practice, to take infringement proceedings if necessary.
I have not heard of Rome and Paris receiving a letter of the kind that the President sent to Copenhagen.
(EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your clear reply on the question of Schengen and for referring to a previous question on the measure to redistribute immigrants in the Member States, based on demographic, economic and geographical criteria.
Be that as it may, I should like to point out on the question of the Dublin II Regulation that, for certain countries today like my country, Greece, which lie on the external borders of the Union and actually receive approximately 90% of immigrants who land in Europe, the Dublin II Regulation is unacceptable; it is not something that local populations can accept; it is not something that the countries can accept.
Consequently, from our point of view, a recast in light - at the very least - of the new developments, is a standing request.
(EL) Commissioner, you referred earlier to the emphasis placed on the concept of solidarity and on fair burden-sharing.
You very rightly reminded us that negotiations on the resettlement of refugees from third countries are imminent.
You also announced last year that we were waiting for the new programme on internal resettlement.
Could you please tell us if the Commission will be making an announcement soon?
Secondly, as regards Dublin II, I should like to point out the following, to add to what Mrs Koppa said.
France has suspended returns to Greece, as has Germany.
The European Court of Human Rights has convicted us on specific grounds, both for Dublin II and for its operability.
What else must happen in order for us to understand that Dublin II needs to be recast immediately, as requested by Parliament?
Member of the Commission. - I am sorry if there is a false impression about the Commission's views on Schengen.
I do not think I have spoken about anything other than Schengen for the last month!
I have emphasised how important Schengen is, what a gift it is to the European Union and that we must strengthen it and not weaken it.
We look very seriously upon all reports of the suspension of Schengen.
We are engaged in dialogue with Italy, France and Denmark in order to clarify exactly what has been done, what is being proposed, and whether it is in compliance with Schengen rules.
We are also looking at how we can strengthen the evaluation of Schengen in order to make sure, beforehand, that the current peer review system, which is not very good, is exchanged for something that is done at a European level, with an increased role for the European Parliament.
We need to have more tools at our disposal to assist Member States.
We need to be better at issuing guidelines.
We also need to clarify under what exceptional circumstances suspension can be carried out in order to avoid unilateral action that jeopardises the whole system. So you can rest assured that we will do our utmost to strengthen Schengen and that we need more European engagement there, not less.
Dublin is, of course, related to this, but it is a parallel process.
This is part of the negotiations on the asylum package that are currently taking place between Parliament and the Council.
The Commission has proposed keeping the responsibility of the first country of asylum in the Dublin Regulation, but also reintroducing an emergency mechanism in order to suspend that mechanism under special circumstances.
This is very controversial in the Member States; very few support such an emergency mechanism. It is one of the most difficult areas of the negotiations on the asylum package.
So that is not the solution to the Greek problem.
In parallel with putting the asylum system in place for the whole of Europe, which would also lead to greater burden-sharing - because if all Member States have a system that works, all Member States could receive asylum seekers - the solution for Greece is to continue with the reform plans that are being implemented under the action plan in Greece.
The Commission and the Member States are supporting Greece with a huge amount of money, expertise, interpreters and administrators.
We are assisting Greece in the important work it is doing to build up a system that is in line with European law.
A lot has been done, but there is a lot still to do.
This has to be done in parallel with the negotiations on the asylum system.
Subject: Future of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)
A number of votes and declarations have proven that there is consensus within the EU on various aspects of this fund.
First of all, it differs from the European Social Fund in both its methodology and its objectives. The two instruments cannot therefore be confused, either formally or in practice.
Secondly, despite a slow start, changes to the implementing regulation in 2009 enabled the EGF to be used more effectively.
Indeed, a clear increase in applications to mobilise this tool that brings the Union closer to its workers has been noted.
There is therefore no doubt that it needs to be made sustainable.
Lastly, this specific aspect of the EGF calls for it to be regarded as a permanent fund in its own right, with sufficient payment appropriations to ensure that no transfers have to be made in order to mobilise it.
What does the Commission think about establishing a genuine fund that is on a par with the others, to meet all the needs of the EGF without restricting the role of the European Parliament which has been so involved in this issue?
Member of the Commission. - I am grateful for the interest you have shown in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
This year will be crucial for the Fund's future, because the Commission intends to make a proposal on the rules governing the fund and the way it will function in the next programming period.
Over the past few months, the Commission has carried out consultations on this matter with the Fund's most important stakeholders.
In particular, we have closely examined Parliament's own excellent report on the EGF, which was drawn up by Mr Portas a few months ago.
On the basis of experience gained with the Fund in its present form and suggestions made during consultations, we have great hopes that our proposal will significantly improve the fund after 2013 and will, in particular, solve two problems with the current mechanism for financing.
The first issue is the time it takes for a contribution to be granted once a Member State has submitted an application.
A large part of that time is taken up by assessing the application.
The Commission is looking at ways of clarifying or simplifying the information that the Member States will have to provide to demonstrate that applications are eligible.
A lot of time is also taken up with the need to request and obtain approval for each application from both arms of the budgetary authority.
This also holds up payment of contributions from the Fund, to the detriment of the workers, because some Member States are reluctant to advance payments for training, job-search assistance and other measures.
In addition, the number of applications submitted to the Fund, and thus the overall amount applied for, has increased significantly over the last two years.
This has made it increasingly difficult to identify sufficient margins from which to draw contributions.
That is a problem. Commission approval of applications to the Fund in 2011 had to be postponed for the first time because sufficient payment appropriations could not be found quickly.
I am sure you will agree that this is not helpful to workers who have been made redundant and need assistance quickly.
We need to find solutions for these problems and bring the mechanism for financing the Fund more closely into line with these objectives.
At present, there are several options on the table.
For instance, the Fund could be part of the European Social Fund.
It could have its own budget.
The Commission has taken no decision yet on the best way of addressing these issues, but it intends to table a proposal in autumn on the Globalisation Adjustment Fund of the future, bearing European workers' best interests in mind.
I look forward to hearing your views.
Mr President, Commissioner, on Mr Daerden's behalf, I would like to thank you for your reply.
Naturally, we will support any initiatives that help speed up procedures when these are aimed at helping workers who have been made redundant due to globalisation or to the economic crisis.
We simply wished to draw your attention to two particular problems.
The first is that the purpose of supporting workers should remain the number one priority.
This means that as the procedures are revised, we will oppose the idea of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) becoming just another instrument, for example, an instrument of the cohesion policy, because that would mean that all the EU's money apart from funds put aside for foreign policy or research and development would belong to the cohesion policy.
We have specific aims to pursue and we need these resources.
The EGF is among them.
We are also asking you to coordinate management of the EGF, in collaboration with your fellow commissioners, with other policies that have an impact in this area, for example, in the field of competition or industrial policy.
(EL) Commissioner, at the beginning the year, when asked if Greece had filed a request for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be activated, you replied that it had not.
This reply caused a stir in Greece, due to the economic and social situation in the country.
My question to you is very straightforward: six months later, has my country filed a request for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be activated, in order to support workers affected by the financial crisis?
If it has, if you have that information, please tell me if it has been approved.
If it has not, can you explain why no such request has been filed by Greece?
I did have a question for the Commissioner further on, which we will not get to tonight, and which did indeed ask for his view on the merging of the ESF and the EGF, on which you have spoken but did not give us an opinion.
So, if you are in a position to do that, I would appreciate hearing it, and also, if there were to be a merger, would you see an increase in budgetary appropriations for the Social Fund?
Finally, my other question relates to the timing, and you spoke about the difficulty with the Commission and the budgetary authority.
What about also encouraging Member States, as soon as they have applied for the EGF, to start putting in place themselves the measures that they have applied for under the EGF, because that at least would ensure that workers would not be waiting for the application of the Fund?
Member of the Commission. - I am glad to hear in the discussion confirmation of the Commission's objectives in this exercise to bring the EGF into the next financial perspective as a stronger and more effective instrument to support workers who have been made redundant.
This case is also supported by the fact that, in the near future, fiscal consolidation will remain on the agenda in most of the Member States, and they will find it extremely helpful if there is a strong, quick and effective EU-level instrument to support workers who suddenly find themselves out of a job.
As I pointed out, some questions remain open, such as the relationship between the EGF and the ESF.
As you know, the ESF is implemented through shared management, and I believe that the management system of the current ESF is not compatible with the objectives of the EGF.
No matter what eventual format we find, I think this question of management will be very important in influencing the final arrangements.
I am not speaking about names, but about the need for a separate fund and the need to pay attention to speed in particular.
Of course, even now, and probably also in the future, various Member States will find it possible to fund programmes either from the EGF or the ESF and have some kind of room for manoeuvre, but it is very important just to keep the EGF available for all Member States in case there is a need to respond to sudden employment crises.
The second question pointed to the problem of defining eligibility in the current regulation.
This is also an issue we are looking at in order to have a greater level of clarity, but at the moment, we are simply working on extending the temporary regulation until the end of this financial perspective.
I am speaking here about the rules which have been introduced in response to the crisis and to make the EGF more effective in tackling the impact of the crisis on workers.
Mr President, can you indicate how many more questions you might be prepared to take in this section?
Mr Aylward, I did say before you came in that we had 20 minutes per Commissioner, which would mean that we could possibly get to Question 15 by Mrs Blinkevičiūtė, but I am afraid I do not think we are going to make it to yours.
Perhaps you could put a supplementary to another question?
Subject: Collective labour agreements
Having had recourse to the bailout mechanism, Greece, Spain and Portugal have come under heavy pressure from the Commission and the IMF to make major changes to industrial relations and collective bargaining procedures under the terms of the respective 'Memorandums', thereby overturning national guarantees for workers.
For example, in the case of Greece, the Memorandum stipulates the following: 'The government shall ensure that company-level agreements take precedence over sectoral agreements, which, in turn, take precedence over occupational agreements.
The government shall remove the provision that allows the Ministry of Labour to extend all sectoral agreements to those not represented in negotiations'.
Furthermore, under Article 156 TFEU, matters relating to collective bargaining are governed by the principle of subsidiarity. In view of this: Is the Commission aware that this approach not only is creating a vicious circle of pay cuts and erosion of workers' rights but also runs counter to the Treaties, which the Commission is required to respect?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission acknowledges that the Greek crisis has a high social cost for sections of the population in Greece, but that cost is mainly the result of financial imbalances, diminishing competitiveness and financial difficulties: the very difficulties the Memorandum seeks to resolve and not exacerbate.
Some claim that, because these are in the Memorandum, it does not observe the principle of subsidiarity provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I do not believe that is true.
The measures in the Memorandum were drawn up in close cooperation with the Greek Government and endorsed by the Greek Parliament.
That shows that they respect the principle of subsidiarity.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union backs up my opinion.
Article 28 of the Charter stipulates that, in line with EU and national laws and practices, workers or their organisations have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels, and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.
However, Article 51 of the Charter states that its provisions are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, and to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law.
There is no specific EU legislation regulating which collective agreements take precedence when they are concluded at different levels, nor is there any specific EU legislation regulating the possibility of extending collective agreements concluded at branch level by way of state intervention.
These issues therefore fall exclusively within the remit of national law, with due regard for the relevant international obligations of Greece, including the relevant conventions of the International Labour Organisation.
I trust that I have answered the questions satisfactorily. I also trust that I have convinced you that the fiscal, financial and structural measures in the Memorandum are vital if Greece is to come out of the crisis.
I hope I have allayed the fears some of you may have about the failure to observe the principle of subsidiarity.
(EL) Commissioner, I am sorry, but once again, you have not given a clear reply.
You gave me more or less the same reply to my written questions.
If the Commission really does respect the fact that the collective agreement regime is a question of national legislation, then are you or are you not infringing the role vested in you under the Treaties when you call for the collective agreement regime basically to be abolished?
Your interpretation is not adopted by the European trade unions which have filed a complaint against you for infringement of the Treaties.
My question is this: who is calling for collective agreements to be abolished?
Is it you?
Is it the International Monetary Fund?
Is it Greece's, Portugal's and Ireland's lenders?
A clear reply, if you please.
Member of the Commission. - (microphone switched off until middle of first sentence) ... much of the institutional arrangements including the wage setting arrangements in various Member States.
These emergency situations have been handled through policies that were jointly developed by the EU, the IMF, the ECB and the governments of the Member States concerned.
Indeed, there are still some open questions, and also some raised by the so-called Euro-Plus Pact.
We recently held a number of discussions about the connection between social dialogue and economic governance with the social partners, including the ETUC.
This is an ongoing discussion.
I am not saying that all the questions have been answered and that is exactly why I took the initiative of organising a conference on wages and wage setting in the EU.
This conference will take place with the involvement of the social partners and other stakeholders in September.
We will continue this discussion and hopefully find the right answers.
Subject: Review of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
The reference framework for the free movement of workers is laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and has been revised several times.
Parliament is currently drafting a report on promoting professional mobility in the EU.
The Commission representative who attended the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs stated on 19 April 2011 that the Commission was preparing to revise and improve the regulation.
When, in the Commission's view, is that process likely to begin?
Member of the Commission. - The free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the EU.
Together with the free movement of goods, services, and capital, it is a pillar of the Single Market and has contributed to European integration over the last 50 years.
It also has a significant social dimension, insofar as it fosters the social, economic and cultural integration of EU migrant workers and members of their families into the host Member State.
The body of EU law on free movement of workers gives EU citizens the right to move freely within the Union for work purposes and protects the social rights of workers and their family members.
As you know, 1 May 2011 was an important date for the EU.
It marked the end of restrictions on the right to work of citizens from the eight Member States which joined in 2004, who can now work freely in any Member State.
The Commission hopes that the Member States which still apply transitional measures to workers from Romania and Bulgaria will liberalise their labour markets when the second phase expires on 31 December 2011.
The end of transitional arrangements means that more EU citizens can take advantage of one of the EU's fundamental freedoms and work freely in another Member State.
That opens great opportunities for the individual, who can move where there are jobs, and also for the economy.
I know that mobility and freedom of movement for workers are also important to this House.
The Commission is pleased with the own-initiative report on promoting worker mobility within the European Union and is following the debate in the parliamentary committees with great interest.
But we are also aware that, despite the large body of EU legislation in the area of freedom of movement for workers, most EU citizens still feel there are too many obstacles to working in another Member State.
The situation has been highlighted on several occasions recently.
The Monti Report of 9 May 2010 - 'A New Strategy for the Single Market' - points out that, while freedom of movement for workers is a success overall from a legal viewpoint, it is the least-used of our four Single Market freedoms.
Tackling these problems calls for a broad approach, combined with effective implementation of the principle of free movement.
The enforceability of the right of free movement conferred by EU law is particularly relevant in cases of discrimination on the basis of nationality, as the individuals concerned need to have suitable mechanisms to ensure such rights are properly protected.
The Commission services are currently evaluating EU legislation on the free movement of workers, and in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, and are exploring the options for improving the enforcement of EU law on freedom of movement, including, where necessary, by presenting an initiative in 2012.
Parliament's report on worker mobility therefore comes at the right time, and will certainly contribute to the debate on enforcement of EU law on free movement of workers and the choice of any further action on this issue.
(LT) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your answer.
We are really looking forward to the revised regulation that will be presented by the Commission next year, but I would like to hear whether you feel that the Commission should evaluate the negative consequences of the free movement of workers, as well as the positive consequences.
For instance, there has been an exodus from some European Union countries of qualified, well-trained workers, in which Member States had made a significant investment.
They have moved to other European Union countries.
Do you not feel that we should establish a certain fund so that we could compensate the losses experienced by those Member States that have lost trained, qualified workers.
Member of the Commission. - This is a very topical question.
We have recently had a number of discussions in the context of 1 May.
I took up this issue with the employment ministers of the Visegrád countries, and of the Baltic states.
We have been looking at where free movement might lead to a certain amount of tension, especially when it affects certain professions where free movement is not leading to a circular phenomenon, but more of a one-way street.
If such tendencies are observed, it is primarily up to the Member State governments to draw up the right strategies regarding training, remuneration and career opportunities to improve development for those in the medical profession, for example, which has been a particular focus of these discussions.
We will continue to monitor this problem and continue to discuss it with the governments of the relevant Member States, as I have already been doing.
Subject: Reallocation of financial resources in the regional and cohesion funds
Is the Commission prepared to reallocate at least 10% of the EUR 51 billion currently available each year in the regional and cohesion funds to fast-start funding for new electricity networks for renewable energy?
Mr Martin, thank you very much for the question.
It is important to point out that, for the current funding period, 2007-2013, the resources under the heading of the structural funds have already been allocated and agreed with the regions and the Member States within the framework of the more than 400 operating programmes.
Part of the overall process at the beginning of a funding period is to determine the programmes for the current period and to decide what funding is available for the individual programmes.
In accordance with the concept of shared duties or shared management, it is the Member States and/or the regions that are responsible for the implementation of the programmes on the ground.
They are also competent and responsible for the selection and implementation of the projects and, ultimately, for monitoring - at least on the initial level.
Even at the beginning of this period, the subject of energy efficiency and promoting renewable forms of energy was an important point.
This is one of the priorities of regional policy, which is also implemented in the form of tailor-made proposals in several of the roughly 400 programmes that I referred to earlier.
On the basis of this agreement with the regions and with the Member States, a budget totalling EUR 9.2 billion is envisaged for a sustainable energy policy in the current period, with the key focuses being renewable energy and improving energy efficiency.
With a 2009 decision of Parliament and the Council, we also established the possibility that up to 4% of the resources from the European Regional Development Fund could be used for measures to improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings.
Since then, around half of the Member States have made use of this, with France being particularly exemplary in using and implementing this possibility.
(DE) Commissioner, please do not be angry, but let us get serious.
I would like to read my question to you.
It is as follows: is the Commission prepared to reallocate at least 10% of the EUR 51 billion currently available each year to fast-start funding for new electricity networks for renewable energy?
You have now had quite a lot to tell us, all of it correct.
It is just that none of it is what is at issue.
What is at issue is sending out a signal and saying, yes, we have understood.
Yes, we are drawing the conclusions from Fukushima.
Yes, we really are serious about 2020.
To push forward energy change, we need to bring the electricity from northern Germany to Austria.
My father was head of Voralberger Kraftwerke, the power generating company for the Austrian Province of Voralberg.
I am sure you have experience in this area.
You need power lines to do this.
Once again, my question is, are you personally prepared to really get this fast-start funding specifically, which everyone is saying that we urgently need, off the ground and not merely implement what your predecessors decided?
Mr Martin, I did read your question very carefully.
That is why I also gave you a very specific answer based on the rules that we have in the field of regional policy.
The essence of these rules consists of there being agreements in the Member States, and these cannot be unilaterally altered by either the Commission or the regions.
Personally, I would want the resources already in place to be used for this, and I would be pleased if that were the case.
I find myself going from conference to conference, from Member State to Member State, like a living Tibetan prayer wheel, pleading the case for these resources - which are already in place - to be used.
As the expansion of renewable energies does indeed represent one of the focal points of the Europe 2020 strategy, I assume that, in the forthcoming period, there will definitively be a higher budget for this area, including from the regional policy heading.
Moreover, there will certainly be investments in this connection, in collaboration with Mr Oettinger, in the field of infrastructure when it comes to trans-European networks in the field of energy provision.
If, today, regions are seeking to re-dedicate resources in addition to the resources already available, we are certainly very open, in this area, to the idea of opening up this opportunity or, in any case, to holding serious talks in this regard.
Once again, however, we in the Commission cannot unilaterally alter these agreements.
Subject: Fulfilment of the objectives of structural funds payments
At the end of June 2011, the Commission will present its proposal for the next 7-year budgetary framework (2014-2020).
In the case of EU regional policy, there have been substantial problems with absorption capacity under the individual programmes.
Several programmes have also failed to achieve their objectives.
How does the Commission intend to include the absorption capacity of each Member State as a criterion for the allocation of structural fund appropriations in the coming budgetary period?
Does the Commission agree that payments should be reviewed if a region has been receiving structural funding for years without this resulting in it meeting the targets set?
Will the Commission consider a 'sunset mechanism' that sets a closing date on the allocation of structural fund appropriations to individual recipient regions?
Does the Commission agree that such a mechanism would help create a more results-oriented cohesion policy?
The Court of Auditors Annual Report for 2009 found the highest error rate to be in payments under the EU's cohesion policy.
This was the same finding as in previous years.
How does the Commission intend to remedy this situation?
Mrs Jensen, thank you very much for your question.
When it comes to absorption capacity and its consideration in the allocation of funds in the forthcoming period, I make reference right now to the existing rule regarding the upper limit on the allocation of funds - in a word, capping.
There is a rule that says that, given a certain sliding scale per Member State, only a specific sum measured by the overall GDP of a Member State is available for structural policy.
The annual allocation must not exceed this upper limit.
For the forthcoming period, we will certainly consider whether the level of the current upper limit is justified and whether any adjustments are necessary in order to better design or secure the absorption capacity.
When it comes to the programmes meeting their targets, I must remind you of the fifth cohesion report and the budget review, in which it was made clear that the performance of the programmes must be given more attention.
For the forthcoming period, a set of tests and incentive systems are envisaged in this regard, which the Commission has put forward in the legislative report package for cohesion policy after 2014.
When it comes to the error rate, I have made reference many times, including in this House, to the methodological problems involved in auditing multiannual programmes.
Around half of the EU budget certainly is composed of resources that are allocated for multiannual activities.
The auditing by the Court of Auditors in respect of budget implementation always only considers the year in progress, and for that reason, methodological challenges result as, in relation to regional policy, the third audit level applies, while the annual audit by the Court of Auditors already takes place under the first audit level and therefore, a higher error rate will always result here than at the end of a programme cycle, as we can prove already.
In any event, my predecessor, Mrs Hübner, also put in place an action plan together with Parliament in this regard, the efficacy of which is already evident and which has shown its effect.
One of these measures, however, was also giving Directorates-General the ability to suspend payments for up to six months in justified cases.
By way of example, this tool was used over fifty times last year.
All these suspensions of payment were able to be lifted again before their deadlines expired, as the issues about which an objection had been raised had been resolved.
When it comes to the error rate, however, I would also ask you to always take into consideration that regional policy has, if you like, a kind of snowplough function in this connection, that, in relation to certain statutorily developed elements, we check how they are implemented in day-to-day practice, how effective they are and what problems result.
The issue of public procurement is repeatedly the subject of discussions with the Member States, regions and final beneficiaries.
Around 70% of the error rate occurs in this area.
If we succeed in simplifying this system - and we have launched an initiative to this end together with Commissioner Barnier - we will also reduce the practical error rate in this area, too.
We are attempting to do our homework in this area and to make progress in this regard.
(DA) Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Hahn for his excellent answer, which shows that he is taking these problems seriously.
These problems have clearly not been made any better by the economic crisis, which is making it difficult for many countries to find cofinancing.
Is the Commission giving particular consideration to what this could mean for the next programme period?
Will aid from the structural funds really lead to the development of these regions?
Are we seeing results?
Is the Commission also considering what can be done to improve the follow-up of the actual objectives - the overall objectives - relating to development, so that these do not only provide projects, but also result in development?
Mrs Jensen, it is our stated goal in the next programme period to thematically tie in structural policy - insofar as it is affected, in any case - with the Europe 2020 strategy.
In this area, there are thus key objectives and priorities that are to be applied in the course of a tailored adaptation in the regions.
It will then be the job of the regions to select a few priorities for themselves as if from a menu, in particular, when it comes to competitive regions.
The regions will then set and agree very realistic but also ambitious and quantifiable targets together with us in the Commission in a partnership and investment agreement so that, at the end of the period, we will be clearly able to see whether or not the objectives agreed between us have been achieved or perhaps even exceeded.
If it turned out that they had not been achieved, we would then have the possibility of together examining the causes of non-compliance and whether it was due to domestic or external factors.
Building on that, we could then draw conclusions for future programme planning and the financial allocation in the subsequent period.
This represents a very material, very qualitative development of regional policy over the forthcoming financial period.
A new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe (debate)
The first item is the report by Mr Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013, on Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe.
Mr President, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, we have had 23 years of financial perspectives, four distinct periods that have helped EU expenditure and income to evolve in a well-ordered way.
The existence of the financial perspectives is what has allowed the Union's programmes to be carried out.
This is why this debate and the vote following it are so important to the Union's finances.
Parliament is taking the political initiative in Europe's budget for the first time.
The Commission and the Council will have to react to this proposal and put forward their alternatives.
Parliament has drafted a proposal that is defined by consensus and collaboration.
It has involved one year of work, 1 100 amendments and 120 commitments, with 11 parliamentary committees and 10 national parliaments having contributed to it.
I would like to congratulate all the officials and assistants who have worked over the past year to make this report possible.
There has also been institutional cooperation from the College of Commissioners, headed by José Manuel Durão Barroso, with the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget, Janusz Lewandowski, having provided particular support.
We hope that the proposal they put forward on 29 June will be in line with the recommendations made in our report.
We can no longer carry on making more Europe with a smaller budget.
We want an end to the bad habit of accepting solemn political commitments that cannot possibly be funded.
We have had enough experience on this issue with the Lisbon strategy, and we do not want the 2020 strategy to be another failure that only serves to increase disappointment and euroscepticism.
That is why we are making the Europe 2020 strategy the backbone of the forthcoming financial perspective.
We firmly believe in the efficacy of EU expenditure.
One euro administered by the EU budget is more efficient than one euro spent individually by 27 national budgets.
We have proved the idea of added value and we believe it can be applied to practically all EU programmes.
We call on the European Commission to make this a reality.
There can be no European policy without sufficient funding for the agricultural policy and the cohesion policy.
That is why we are asking the Council to maintain the level of expenditure for these two policies beyond 2013.
Research, development, innovation, investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, trans-European communication and energy interconnection networks, climate change and education are just some of the priorities that this EU budget must cover.
Cutting the EU budget is not a viable option for those of us who believe in a competitive Europe.
We consider that an increase of at least 5% is needed over the total expenditure in the current financial perspective.
This increase is the minimum requirement for meeting the needs of the major traditional policies as well as our new priorities.
This 5% is an exercise in political realism, and should be the basis for future interinstitutional negotiation, along with the sensible proposal put forward in this report, agreed between the groups in this Chamber, on a new system of own resources.
This period of crisis and rescue plans may be the worst possible time for starting negotiations on the financial perspective, but for all those of us who believe in the EU budget as an instrument needed to transform 27 Member States into a true Union, the challenge is before us, and our sights must be set high enough to tackle it.
The good and bad aspects of the report will come out in today's debate, both praise and criticism.
I know it is impossible for this Chamber to give its unanimous support on such a sensitive issue, but I would like to thank the political groups for their generosity in seeking consensus, and the skills they have contributed over this period.
Thanks to them, the final report is infinitely better than anything that I could have produced without their support.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the euro and public debt crisis demand solutions at European and not national level.
This is the message that Mr Barroso, speaking on behalf of the European Commission, has been sending the Member States for months.
However, a European solution means European funding.
My group seeks to adapt this funding to the new realities of Europe, both in its objectives and its terms of reference.
My question to the Council is as follows: is Europe of the 2020s the same as Europe of the 1960s?
Are the state of public finances of our Member States, our growth prospects and the position of Europe in the world comparable?
I think not.
It is clear that Europe today is no longer in any way comparable to the Europe of the founding fathers.
It has changed, and it would be irresponsible not to reflect these changes in the ways in which Europe is funded, in other words, in the way Europe is designed.
(The speaker broke off, hoping to continue his speech later)
Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank Mr Garriga and the members of the temporary Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 because I believe they have done an excellent job.
I have rarely seen such a balanced and reasonable report as the one brought forward by the Policy Changes Committee.
In relation to the question of the future financial perspective and its organisation, the kind of Europe that we want is becoming evident.
What we need is a budget for the coming years that reflects the ambitions of the EU, including those of the Heads of State or Government, while, at the same time, meeting the expectations of our citizens.
What may seem a fairly innocuous debate about figures measured in decimal places will, in fact, dictate the direction of the European Union for the next ten years.
We are regularly faced with new proposals for what the European Union should do, what it needs to achieve, and what tasks it needs to prepare for.
At the same time, we also find that the financial resources this requires are not available.
However, if we transfer more responsibilities to the EU, expecting it to finance ambitious projects, while, at the same time, cutting funding, then we will be guilty of acting against solidarity within the European Union because we will encourage internal divisions in the fight for funds, for example, in cohesion policy.
Such an attack on solidarity, which can already be witnessed in a dangerous form within some Member States of the European Union, should not be permitted between the States of the EU.
We have the Europe envisaged by David Cameron or the Dutch Government - or at least by the party that supports the government in the Dutch Chamber of Deputies - a Europe of ever deeper cuts, a Europe of increasing withdrawal from integrationist development and a Europe of renationalisation.
This is a concept that some people will support.
However, one can also say that Europe is our answer, as a 21st century continent, to the economic, environmental, financial and migration policy-related challenges in a globalised world.
There are two options open to us: we can split ourselves into our constituent parts, ranging in size from Germany, with a population of 82 million, to Malta with a population of 360 000.
If it is a question of every man for himself, then Europe will become an irrelevance.
After all, even a state with 82 million people, such as the one I represent, will not survive intercontinental competition in the long term.
What we need is the strength of the 500 million people and the 27 States in the Community.
That is what will make us strong.
This is precisely what is expressed by a budget for the next seven years of the financial perspective until 2020.
This is a good draft plan.
I would be very pleased to see the spirit of the Polish Presidency, as evident in the draft published by the Polish Presidency, shaping Europe in the coming years with the spirit of cooperation it proposes.
The States in the Council are negotiating on the financial and economic future of Europe on an equal footing with the representatives of its citizens in the European Parliament.
You cannot say 'We want a Marshall plan for the Mediterranean that will support the development of democracies in North Africa', while, at the same time, saying 'We should cut the EU budget'.
You cannot say 'We want to finance the EU budget with 0.8% of Gross Domestic Product' and then demand compensation when our own farmers are hit by the EHEC crisis, as the Dutch Government has done.
Of course we want to help farmers.
We have to help farmers.
Of course we want to help North Africa.
We have to help North Africa.
However, then we also need a good, well-balanced, rationally developed, long-term budget as set out in this report.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(NL) Mr President, given his extremely negative reactions to the position of the Dutch Government, I would like to ask my esteemed fellow Member whether he still recognises at all the democratic right of EU Member States to voice their own opinions on behalf of their citizens.
(DE) Mr Hartong, of course I recognise this right.
I only hope that you also recognise that the position of the Dutch Government cannot simply be handed down ex cathedra, but that it should be debated in a multinational democracy.
I have absolute respect for Mr Rutte, who is in favour of a 2.7% increase in the EU budget.
I have taken note of this and am pleased that you have listened attentively because the positions of all governments are debated openly in this Parliament.
To this extent, I failed to understand the meaning of your question, but what I believe I can glean from it is that you also support democracy.
I suppose that this represents some sort of progress.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I have here the letter from the representative of Her Majesty's Government on the SURE report.
The letter says that Her Majesty's Government is disappointed by the draft SURE report.
Colleagues, I think that means that we have a very good draft SURE report here today!
I have to tell you that beyond the three or four words saying that Her Majesty's Government is disappointed by the report, the other parts of the letter are a real provocation: a provocation to Europe and the European Union, because their main point is that no increase in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is possible, and that we have to stick to the old MFF, the same figures, the same resources, naturally the same rebates, and certainly the same rebate for the UK.
We must change nothing at all.
Her Majesty's Government is nevertheless a government that wants to take decisions, that wants to reform not only the UK but also the European Union.
So I do not see why we have to stick to the old MFF and simply continue with the policies of the past.
I think that the time is now ripe to say to the public that it is not by cutting this EU budget of 1% [EU GDP] that we will solve the fiscal consolidation of the different Member States of the European Union.
This 1% is only one-fortieth of the total expenditure within the European Union.
There are other ways to make savings.
Another suggestion that we can make to Her Majesty's Government is that, if it wants to make savings in the British public sector, it can do so by increasing the role of the European Union.
Let me give you three examples.
First of all, foreign policy.
In the US, there are 28 000 diplomats.
In Europe there are 93 000: there are four times more diplomats in Europe because we are not working together under a single foreign policy.
There is a saving to be made there.
If the British Government invested more in the European Union, they could make savings on their foreign policy, in William Hague's department.
Another example is monetary policy.
Around 44 000 people are responsible for monetary policy in the European Union.
In the US, there are 18 000 in the Federal Reserve Board. That is three times fewer civil servants.
If the British Government wants to make savings, it can join the euro, it can give the European Union more powers and responsibilities, and it can make savings with regard to all those people working on monetary policy in Britain.
If it wants to make savings in Great Britain, it can do so in the research sector simply by adopting the European patent immediately.
That would make enormous savings in its research budget.
That is the answer that we have to give to Her Majesty's Government.
Mr President, my group would like to see European financing that reflects Europe's new realities, trends and aims.
Do the state of the public finances of our Member States, our growth prospects and Europe's place in the world match the vision of the founding fathers of Europe?
Definitely not: they have evolved and changed.
It would be irresponsible if we failed to adjust how Europe is financed to reflect these changes.
The Multiannual Financial Framework is a highly political issue that the special committee, working with the Committee on Budgets, has been discussing for over a year.
I would like to congratulate the committee on its work.
I hope that the European spirit found in the committee will shape the implementation of the framework and take Europe forward for the benefit of our citizens.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) calls on all Member States to participate fully in this debate.
When I say fully, I mean not simply announcing that the ultimate aim is to freeze European expenditure to 2020, nor dismissing out of hand the notion of European own resources.
We want own resources in order to reduce pressure on national budgets.
This is why we are proposing the concept of own resources to the Heads of State or Government: to ease straitened national budgets.
Let me remind you that the European budget has always been balanced, unlike national budgets, which, for the most part, have serious deficits.
Let me also remind you that over 90% of that budget is spent on projects that benefit Member States.
Lastly, let me remind the Member States that any money which is not spent will be returned to them at the end of the year.
Yet we are accused of being poor managers: I think that we need to ramp up our communication efforts.
So please, let us stop treating the European budget as a strain on domestic finances.
Let us be honest: one euro spent at European level brings far greater returns than a euro spent by national governments.
Between 20 and 30 cents of one euro of national spending are immediately diverted to repay interest on the national debt.
Europeans need to be told the truth.
The truth is that without European funding for education and lifelong learning, the brain drain to China and the United States will gain momentum.
The truth is that without European funding for research and innovation, our countries would be less competitive globally, while growth and employment would languish.
The truth is that without European cohesion funding, the gap between rich and poor regions would widen.
The truth is that without European funding, food security policy, energy policy and climate change policy would be unable to match our expectations and aims.
Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that without European funding for foreign and defence policies, the European Union would have remained in the wings instead of at the centre of the world stage.
Of course, money is not the only consideration: how the European Union chooses to invest and to implement political priorities to 2020 and beyond will determine Europe's capacity for influencing the world.
The European Parliament - and for once, the groups that have already spoken are in agreement with me - is therefore calling on the Council to give serious thought to its position on the financial framework.
If the Council is seriously committed to seeing growth and employment pick up, then it needs to use the European budget and Community own resources as a powerful lever.
If, like Parliament and the Commission, the Council really wants to give Europe a real chance in the context of globalisation, then it needs to understand that spending wisely is far more useful than limiting spending and that joint funding for joint projects is a more intelligent approach than spreading resources thinly between short-lived projects.
Ladies and gentlemen, this morning, the members of the PPE Group are calling for an ambitious view of Europe.
Our fellow citizens share our ambition and hopes.
As young people express their anxieties on the streets of Athens and Madrid, as 500 million Europeans are wondering what their future holds, it is time to ask the right questions and to come up with responses to the issues that we face.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, if I may take this opportunity, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I want to respond to Mr Verhofstadt who, as ever, has missed the point and who, as ever, is facing in the wrong direction.
If he had read the report, he would have seen that Her Majesty's Government said that this is a time of crisis in Europe.
He would have noticed that economies are stagnating, jobs are being lost and industries struggling to compete in a fast-changing world.
What Europe needed is a budget that is relevant, that is adding value and that engages with the people, but what Mr Verhofstadt and his colleagues are offering is more of the same.
There is a saying: 'If you do not change direction, you finish up at the point you were heading for when you started out'.
This budget needs to change direction.
We and Her Majesty's Government agree that spending should be increased in those areas that add value.
We agree: investment in research and development, in trans-European networks for transport, energy and telecommunications should be increased.
We agree: education, small businesses and encouraging the Single Market is wise, sound investment and should be encouraged.
That will help create jobs and growth.
But we do not agree that it is acceptable for this House to take that as a reason to demand a bigger budget.
To Mr Verhofstadt, I have to say this. All over Europe, governments are imposing austerity budgets, and this House would be exceedingly unwise if it does not take on board that message, if it chooses to ignore the letter from the five Heads of Government, because what those five Heads of Government were saying is: more Europe is not the answer; smarter Europe is.
We need a budget which is more focused.
In the special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013, we rightly talked about priorities, but then we never acted on it.
There was no evidence of a willingness to take tough choices, the kind of choices which are being taken by governments all over Europe at this time.
So we accept that there should be increased expenditure on the new priorities but we also think it was time we looked again at the traditional priorities, so here again, it was another missed opportunity for the European budget.
Mr President, I would like to ask my colleague if he does not accept that transferring from the national to the European budget some key items of expenditure is going to produce cost efficiencies and economies of scale and save national treasuries money.
That is the central message of Parliament's approach to reforming the financial perspective.
It is logical and it requires a logical and rational response from London.
Mr President, I understand Mr Duff's point and, as ever, the theory is right but the practice is not.
Show me the evidence of where transferring that support makes for greater efficiencies through spending by the European Union.