09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1

WEDNESDAY, 9 JULY 2008

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING President

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

2. Report on the ECB annual report for 2007 (debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Olle Schmidt on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the ECB annual report for 2007 (2008/2107(INI) (A6-0241/2007).

Olle Schmidt, rapporteur. − (SV) Mr President, Mr Trichet, Mr Juncker, all eyes are on the European Central Bank. The current uncertain economic situation and financial unrest are putting the ECB under great pressure. I am convinced that last week’s interest rate rise was the right decision. Inflation is a scourge which redistributes assets unfairly. Europe’s political leaders should be grateful that they have an independent central bank which is prepared to act in order to prevent Europe from lapsing into stagflation, low growth and rising inflation.

Ten years after its introduction, the euro is a world currency. The security and stability which it has brought to the euro zone and the Union as a whole, including my country, and even to the global economy are something no one could have dreamt of. Ireland’s ‘no’ in the referendum was not a reaction to the strength of the euro. Asymmetric development of economies between the euro countries may constitute a risk, but it can be remedied by holding fast to the requirements of the stability pact for sound state finances and continued structural transformation in the Member States. At the same time there is some point in reviewing, after 10 years, how the ECB operates; scrutiny, transparency, decision-making and the international role of the euro could be improved. The committee therefore proposes that the ECB should present a new proposal on how decision-making can be made transparent and more effective as the Eurogroup grows. The ECB should give an account of the discussion between Members of the Governing Council when decisions are taken on the interest base rate in order to increase transparency and enhance predictability. Its role as leader of the Eurogroup should be strengthened in order better to reflect the significance of the euro in the international context as well. Giving the market better information on the ECB’s interest rate decisions has long been crucial to Parliament, as is also the publication of the minutes and voting outcome. The ECB has refused this, however, pointing out that it would create national divisions within the ECB management. Mr Trichet, we have listened to your views, and the committee is now presenting an amended proposal. The ECB management must provide clearer information after an interest rate decision, i.e. must state whether unanimity was achieved without a discussion or whether there were difficulties in reaching a common position. This would be an important step forward in improving the dialogue between the market, us politicians and the ECB. Inflation has risen to record levels and now stands at around 4%, which is significantly higher than the inflation target of around 2% in the medium term. Not only the dollar but other currencies too have weakened considerably against the euro, which has revived the discussion on the exchange rate. The enlargement of the euro zone gives the monetary area more weight, but at the same time poses several challenges, since decision-making becomes more unwieldy and differences in economic development between the members increase. The crisis on the housing loan market has shown that financial stability is a global issue, since crises are no longer limited to a single country or a single region. The combined efforts of the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have contributed extensively to keeping the financial system afloat, but they have not resolved the crisis. This has also made clear the need for better cooperation between central banks and other institutions. The fact that the ECB and the Fed both warned against underestimating the risk of a crisis on the housing loan market, without any great success, shows the increasing vulnerability of the world’s financial markets. Here there is good reason to act, which Parliament among others is now doing, for example by following up the Lamfalussy process to modernise the European supervisory structure. 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The common monetary policy and the ECB will face great challenges in forthcoming years. I am convinced that the EU leaders and the ECB will stand the test. At the same time, however, all the EU leaders must understand that price stability and sound state finances are the pillars of growth and new jobs. It is remarkable therefore that the French President, not least in his current role as Council President, questions the ECB’s stability targets. In my opinion Europe’s leaders should instead explain, in an open dialogue with their citizens, the purposes and goals of the monetary policy. Soaring prices and compensatory wage increases are the worst enemies of prosperity.

Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank. − (FR) Mr President, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me to present the 2007 annual report of the European Central Bank to you, as provided for in the Treaty. Our relations go far beyond the obligations imposed by the Treaty and the European Central Bank appreciates its very close relationship with Parliament. This is the fourth time I have spoken to you this year. My colleagues on the executive board have also been in close contact with the European Parliament, particularly on matters such as enlargement of the euro zone, payment systems and the tenth anniversary of Economic and Monetary Union. 2007 to 2008 and explain the monetary policy measures taken by the ECB. Then I shall make a few comments on points and proposals that you have put forward in your motion for a resolution on the ECB annual report for 2007. In 2007 the ECB operated in a challenging environment with rising and volatile commodity prices and, since the second half of 2007, heightened uncertainty stemming from the ongoing correction in financial markets across the world that was mentioned by the rapporteur. Despite these developments, the euro-area economy continued to expand at solid rates in 2007, with annual real GDP growing by 2.7%. In the first half of 2008, moderate ongoing growth in real GDP has continued, although the quarter-on-quarter profile is likely to show significant volatility owing to temporary, in part weather-related, factors. It is thus important to focus on the medium-term trend when assessing growth developments. Looking ahead, on the external side, growth in emerging countries should remain robust, supporting euro-area foreign demand. On the domestic side, the economic fundamentals of the euro area remain sound and the euro area does not suffer from major imbalances. Unemployment rates and labour force participation have increased significantly in recent years, and unemployment rates have fallen to levels not seen for 25 years. That being said, the uncertainty surrounding this outlook for growth remains high, with downside risks mainly relating to further unanticipated increases in commodity prices, possible further spillovers from continuing tensions in financial markets to the real economy and increasing protectionist tendencies. Turning to price developments, in 2007 average annual HICP inflation in the euro area was 2.1%, slightly above the ECB’s definition of price stability. However, at the end of the year, substantial increases in international oil and food prices brought inflation to levels well above 2%. Since then, inflation in the euro area has risen further and, in the wake of renewed sharp commodity price increases, arrived at the worrying level of around 4% in mid-2008. Looking ahead, the annual HICP inflation rate is likely to remain well above the level consistent with price stability for some time, moderating only gradually in 2009. Risks to price stability over the medium term remain clearly on the upside in 2007 and have intensified over recent months. These risks include possible further rises in commodity prices and unanticipated increases in indirect taxes and administered prices. In addition the Governing Council is strongly concerned that price and wage-setting behaviour could add to inflationary pressure through broadly-based second-round effects. First signs are already emerging in some regions of the euro area. In this context, indexation schemes for nominal wages are of particular concern and should be avoided. As in 2007, the monetary analysis in the first half of 2008 has continued to confirm the prevailing upside risks to price stability at medium to longer horizons. In line with our monetary policy strategy, we take the view that the sustained underlying strength of monetary and credit expansion in the euro area over the past few years has created upside risks to price stability.

To contain prevailing upside risks to price stability over the medium term, the Governing Council further adjusted the monetary policy stance in March and June 2007. After a period of unusually high uncertainty in the context of the financial-market correction, in July 2008 the Governing Council has brought the minimum bid rate in the euro system’s main refinancing operations to 4.25%. This action underlines the Governing Council’s strong determination to prevent second-round effects and maintain longer-term inflation 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3

expectations firmly anchored in line with price stability. This is the contribution of the ECB’s monetary policy to preserving purchasing power over the medium term and supporting sustainable growth and employment in the euro area. Following last week’s decision to raise rates, in the Governing Council’s current assessment the monetary policy stance will contribute to achieving price stability over the medium term. We will continue to monitor very closely all developments over the period ahead. In the draft resolution you raise a number of issues of relevance for the ECB. I would like to assure you that we will consider the remarks which have just been made and all the remarks that are in the resolution with great care and we will report back to you accordingly. Let me perhaps very briefly elaborate on some of these points. On the monetary policy strategy, I would like to start by welcoming the positive assessment made by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the ECB monetary policy strategy. Our two-pillar framework ensures that all information relevant for the assessment of risks to price stability is taken into account in a consistent and systematic manner when taking monetary policy decisions. In 2007 the Governing Council launched within the euro system a research agenda to enhance further its monetary analysis, as is also proposed in the draft resolution to continue to improve the ECB’s analytical infrastructure. On transparency, I would also like to welcome the Committee’s recognition that making the minutes of the ECB Governing Council’s meeting available to the public would not necessarily be advisable. Such a measure would draw attention to individual positions when, in a euro area of 15 and very soon 16 countries, what counts is the position of the collegial decision-maker, the Governing Council, the college. It could also lead to pressures on Governing Council members to abandon their necessarily euro-area perspective when taking monetary policy decisions. As already emphasised on previous occasions, I see the introductory statement I present on behalf of the Governing Council at the monthly press conference as an equivalent to what other central banks call ‘summary minutes’. Together with the ensuing question-and-answer session, the introductory statement provides in real time a comprehensive overview on the part of the Governing Council of the current monetary policy stance. This communication instrument has served us well in guiding financial-market expectations. As regards fiscal policies, the ECB shares the view expressed that all Member States must fully respect the Stability and Growth Pact. A renewed increase in the euro-area aggregate fiscal deficit ratio is projected for 2008. There is a clear risk that some countries will not comply with the provisions of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. Achieving sound and sustainable budgetary positions and on this basis allowing the free operation of automatic stabilisers is the best contribution we trust fiscal policy can make to macroeconomic stability. The draft resolution also refers to the risks posed by economic differentials across euro-area countries, which to some extent reflect structural rigidities and/or inappropriate national policies. It goes without saying that economic divergences across euro-area countries cannot be addressed by monetary policy. In order to avoid a protracted period of either low growth and high unemployment or overheating, as a country response to asymmetric shocks, reforms to enhance the resilience to such shocks should be undertaken at the national level. These include well-designed structural reforms to enhance competition, increase productivity and foster labour-market flexibility. Let me emphasise again that there is a need for lucid monitoring of national competitiveness developments – including unit labour costs – as recouping ex post loss of competitiveness is a difficult exercise. In this regard we support Parliament’s call for responsible wages and price policies. Let me now turn to the issues highlighted by the financial-market correction for crisis prevention and crisis management, which also figure prominently in Parliament’s analysis.

As regards crisis prevention, the market correction highlighted issues for both supervisors and central banks. Supervisors should make further efforts to reinforce cooperation and exchange of information on a cross-border basis. It is of crucial importance to further exploit the potential of the Lamfalussy framework. The Ecofin Council has agreed on certain measures to that end, and attention should now shift towards implementing those orientations. 4 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The market correction, in our view, has not provided any convincing evidence for an overhaul of the current supervisory framework, for instance through the setting-up of a new authority for EU supervision. Central banks, including the ECB, have to a great extent been effective in identifying the weaknesses and risks to the financial system that materialised as the turmoil unfolded. I will not elaborate on that. Looking for the lessons for crisis management, the main issue that emerged during the turmoil concerns the need for a smooth flow of information between central banks and supervisors during the unfolding of a crisis. Central banks may need supervisory information for the effective performance of their functions in the management of the crisis. This applies to the Eurosystem as it applies to all central banks. Supervisors from their side may benefit from central bank information. Therefore, the envisaged reinforcement of the EU legal basis for information exchange between central banks and supervisors is very strongly supported by the ECB. Let me conclude with some remarks concerning the integration of Europe’s payment systems. We noted with satisfaction the positive assessments in the draft resolution about SEPA and TARGET2. Concerning the Eurosystem’s TARGET2-Securities initiative, the Governing Council will in the coming weeks decide on the continuation of the T2S project. It is important to note that all major CSDs have responded positively to our initiative.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup and member of the European Council − (FR) Mr President, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to pay tribute to your rapporteur for the standard of his work. It is an excellent report that contains all the essential points.

I am pleased to note, from the work of your committee and the report by your rapporteur, that the views of your Parliament broadly coincide with the opinions expressed numerous times by the Eurogroup, of which I am privileged to be President. This consensus, this broad convergence of views relates in particular to the operations and activities of the Central Bank, which, as always, is overwhelmed by the compliments of your Parliament and the governments I am representing here. That remark is particularly significant in the light of the various criticisms levelled at the Central Bank over recent weeks and months, when a whole arsenal needed to be put in place for the financial crisis that had hit the entire world. Initially criticised for being over-active, the European Central Bank was able to note with satisfaction that all the other major monetary authorities had adopted its instruments and methods. We also agree with the rapporteur when he urges us, the Eurogroup, the ECOFIN Council in general, and our Bank, to draw the appropriate financial conclusions from the crises we have been facing, particularly as regards monitoring of the markets and the transparency we shall need to add to our current mechanisms. The fight against inflation is the main concern of our fellow citizens. At the moment, all the surveys show that people are still worried about the loss of purchasing power and the fear that the risks of loss of purchasing power will materialise. It is therefore the right and duty of the Bank to ensure price stability, an objective set for the Central Bank by the founding Maastricht Treaty. I would add that we should not incline towards the simple idea that the Central Bank, as the monetary authority, is the only body responsible for price stability and the fight against inflation. Inflation and the fight against inflation are also a concern and obligation for the euro zone governments. They too, by supplementing the monetary policies operated by the Central Bank, have to introduce sound policies capable of supporting price stability. Thus the Eurogroup governments have undertaken, firstly, to make every effort to ensure, in the wage restraint we need, that wages and the public sector do not get out of control. We are therefore absolutely determined to do everything to avoid unnecessary increases in indirect taxation, both VAT and excise duty. We have firmly committed ourselves to doing everything possible to see that prices do not exceed the bounds of commonsense. No one can talk about inflation and price stability without mentioning the independence of the Central Bank, as your rapporteur has, in both his written and his oral reports.

I wanted to point out once again that the independence of the Central Bank is a fundamental principle of Economic and Monetary Union, that the independence of the Central Bank is part of the Pact on which Economic and Monetary Union is founded, that, in the work leading up to the constitutional treaty and the subsequent reforming Treaty of Lisbon, no government suggested even so much as a minor change to the general terms of reference of Central Bank, which focus on price stability. I therefore think that one day we 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 5

shall have to put an end to a futile and pointless debate that has nothing to do with the real situation. That does not mean that we are not all entitled to criticise the Bank, to offer support and advice for its virtuous action, but there is no question of interfering with its independence. Otherwise, I should like to say that we must not overburden monetary policy with responsibilities. The Treaty sets the Central Bank the objective of price stability. We must not add a whole range of economic objectives to its terms of reference but must follow the rule of coherence, which requires that we do not try and make the Bank pursue too many political objectives. It has an instrument for action, namely monetary policy; it acts with grace and determination. As far as exchange policy is concerned, I have noticed a slight ambiguity in the report by Mr Schmidt, in that it gives the impression that exchange policy is the sole, if not the exclusive, province of the Central Bank. I am quite happy for the Central Bank to play a leading role in any areas to do with exchange, but even so I would like to draw your attention to the provisions of the Treaty that assign shared powers to the Bank and governments for exchange policy. Otherwise, in regard to both exchange policy and monetary policy, and structural policies, we have an ongoing fruitful dialogue with the Bank, to which everyone contributes. Thus, as part of this regular dialogue, Mr Trichet and I went to China last November to discuss exchange policy with the Chinese authorities, and we shall be doing so again in the latter half of this year. A slight ambiguity that I have noticed in the report by your committee relates to the external representation of the euro zone. There again, contrary to what the report indicates, the Central Bank is not solely responsible for taking the necessary steps to strengthen the international role of the euro zone. That is another area in which competencies are shared.

Thomas Mann, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Welcome to the two Jean-Claudes, President Trichet and President Juncker! (DE) On 2 June we had a major celebration in Frankfurt am Main, the city where the D-mark and the euro were introduced – ten years of European Economic and Monetary Union. It is thanks to the ECB that the euro has become established internationally and that price stability has remained the primary goal at all times. It was logical that a few days ago the ECB used its most effective weapon to influence the base rate and raise it by a quarter of a per cent. The aim was, and still is, to curb inflation risks created by high living costs, by escalating petrol and oil prices. This time the ECB announced its measures weeks ahead. It acted differently in the Spring: large-scale effective action within a few hours. The report by Mr Schmidt – an excellent report, on which we worked well together – specifically welcomes that. In the second half of 2007 the property market collapsed. In the sub-prime crisis, banks and insurance companies that had been gambling found themselves in difficulties. The ECB very quickly made adequate funds available, thereby preventing a cross-border collapse. This speed and effectiveness are evidence of strong action, based on competence and greater trust in your institution. I think that ECB decisions are generally transparent, based on a good flow of information and open objectives. In the monetary dialogue the ECB regularly reports to us in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on financial policy decisions. In my view, there is little point in the publication of minutes of board meetings that is often called for. National influence has to be prevented. Unlimited independence is needed. Normally, Mr President, we MEPs have plenty of occasion to criticise. Today, may I express high praise for what has been said, with businesses and citizens in good hands, on the one hand to Mr Trichet and your bank, the ECB in Frankfurt am Main, and on the other hand, of course, to the admirable Jean-Claude Juncker.

Manuel António dos Santos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Mr Juncker, Mr Trichet, I would first like to say that this report’s main objective was to analyse the European Central Bank’s activities during 2007. However, the discussion in the Committee on Monetary Affairs could obviously not fail to analyse the future challenges to the European Union's monetary policy and its regulators.

With regard to the remit of the European Central Bank (ECB), as provided for by the Treaties, we have to recognise the value of its work in 2007. Although it was unable to avoid monetary turbulence and the consequent crisis in economic growth that we are living through, it succeeded in mitigating many of the negative consequences of the current situation. I think the main issue remains whether the European Union’s current policies and instruments will allow us to definitively overcome the serious crisis in the world economy and its consequences for Europe. 6 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

A crisis is not necessarily a catastrophe. However, we can only stop a crisis from becoming a catastrophe if we have a correct vision of the future, unencumbered by obsolete orthodoxies and focused on the nature of the new phenomena we have to deal with and overcome. It is unacceptable to defend non-compliance with the rules in force, and we must contribute to the policy debate by developing proposals that seek to change the current situation. Mr Schmidt’s report presents some ways forward: improve cooperation between the central banks and regulatory authorities in the struggle to reconcile financial deregulation and regulation; create a framework for the ECB’s financial management role; promote coordination of economic policies between the Eurogroup, the Commission and the ECB; improve transparency of decision-making; and more than anything else, provide information that allows the public to understand ECB measures; promote structural reform of the Bank’s governance; manage interest rates with great care, avoiding speculative interventions and inadequate market discounts, in order not to endanger investment policy, job creation, structural reform and economic growth. Independently of all this, which is already rather a lot, we also need to understand we are facing a difficult economic and social crisis, the extent of which we do not yet know. However, we do know it will get a lot worse before it gets better. We are under no illusions that the remedies at our disposal will be capable of resolving current problems. To recognise the situation is not to be defeatist, but rather to show good sense. We are probably on the threshold of identifying the political solutions to our problems. This is certainly not the end of the world and much less the end of History. We can only ask the ECB for cooperation, competence, transparency and flexibility with regard to its remit and to never exceed its remit.

Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Trichet and Mr Juncker, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to second the compliment from the previous speaker. The ECB did indeed act promptly and competently right at the start of the financial crisis, and without that decisiveness the crisis would probably have turned out much worse. It is not over yet, but through its decisiveness the Bank has not only demonstrated its credibility, it has become a kind of model for competent central bank action and a kind of example for other central banks. However, I fear that the Central Bank still has the most difficult phase ahead of it. The next eighteen months will be the really critical test of whether the Bank can still retain its credibility. I hope it can. We have galloping oil and raw materials prices, we have escalating food prices and we have inflation. Mr Trichet spoke of 4% in the euro zone. In many Member States it is in fact almost 6%, and the euro is unbelievably strong. Thus the risk of stagflation is very real. We need to ensure that we really ward off that risk at an early stage. Therefore, in those circumstances, I welcome the fact that the Central Bank proved itself through its interest decisions last week. Certainly combating inflation is and will continue to be our main task. When Germany was going through a period of stagflation several decades ago, Chancellor Schmidt said that for him 5% inflation was better than 5% unemployment. He was thus directly opposed to the Bundesbank. It turned out that the policy of the Bundesbank to combat inflation immediately and decisively was the right one. Germany emerged from stagflation more quickly than many other countries. I do not have any advice to give the Central Bank. It knows better than anyone what it has to do. I have three wishes. Two of them have already been granted. I would like to see the dialogue between the Central Bank and the Eurogroup and Mr Juncker, the Eurogroup President, proceed smoothly. I believe that is now happening. I would like to see closer cooperation not just between the Central Banks but also between the Central Bank and the supervisory authorities. That too is already in the offing. Finally – and here I unfortunately have a negative answer from Mr Trichet – I should like us to receive more information on decision-making. We do not want to know names, but we want to know if the decision was by a narrow or a clear majority and whether there was a great deal of debate or not much.

Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I am not a great expert on monetary matters, but I am trying to understand what lies behind the current energy and food crisis; and my conclusion is that we are entering a new era. We are entering an era in which the resources of the planet are scarce. Why? Because we have a dominant economic model, dating from the 20th century, which was devised and operated by a billion middle class citizens in Europe, the United States and Japan, and small elites elsewhere in the world. That was the 20th century world. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 7

The 21st century world is one in which there will be hundreds of millions more middle class people, in China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and other countries. Therefore our present dominant economic model has a systemic fault. The system took no account of the fact that resources were limited. Where are we to find fish when the Chinese eat as much fish as the Japanese? Where are we to find petrol when all the Indians are driving Tatamobiles? Where are we going to find coal for steelworks all over the world if the emerging countries develop in line with existing technologies? That is the deep-seated crisis. So I have three specific questions. First, speculation. Speculation is not, of course, the grassroots movement, but what is to be done for citizens weighed down by rising prices, whilst Total and Eon shareholders and other speculators are weighed down by profits? Mr Juncker, you put forward the idea of a speculation tax. Is any progress being made on that idea, because I think citizens want us, as politicians, to take action? My second question: what action can be taken quickly to make the European economy less dependent, especially on imported oil and gas and their prices? Could we not consider a major investment programme, with the help of the European Investment Bank, to modernise buildings, public transport, and also, for example, install electric motors and other systems in small and medium-sized enterprises? I think that is the only way to reduce consumption, because we are not controlling prices. My third point relates to the wage indexing system. Mr Trichet, you and I earn high enough salaries not to be too much affected by energy and food prices. You undoubtedly earn more than I do, but at the same time you say that the national indexing systems we have in Luxembourg and Belgium should be abolished. Mr Juncker, is that not the only way people can have extra income at a time when prices are soaring? I do not really understand why you are so set against indexing systems.

Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Thank you, Mr President. Welcome too to Mr Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, and to Mr Juncker. I would like first of all to congratulate Mr Trichet on the annual report he has just presented. Things are not looking good for the euro area, let us make no bones about it. I fear that in the years ahead many of the doubts voiced at the launch of the euro are going to be proved right. After a few years of prosperity we shall now see whether the European Central Bank can manage to keep inflation low. The euro area has a single monetary policy, but each of its sixteen countries has its own economic policy. Sixteen countries, each with its own HICP and its own policy for promoting employment. With inflation in the euro area at 4%, the latest interest rate hike by the European Central Bank means that the real interest rate is 0.25%. But that rate is not enough to counter rising inflation and the threat of recession in every Member State. Is Mr Trichet able to give us an estimate of how far the available instruments will be adequate in the years to come?

Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) I support the view that the introduction of the euro, the gradual enlargement of the euro area and the application of consistent economic policies combined with the cautious approach of the European Central Bank have led to the present relatively stable economic development in the European Union countries. It is also undisputable that, due to the dynamic growth in the number and variety of financial market operations, these operations are becoming less transparent. This then results in a growing number of risks that may potentially harm not just supplier and consumer groups but also the economies of entire nations. Consequently, there is a need to set up a wider EU framework for financial supervision and to involve the European Central Bank more closely in supervision to solve any problems in the financial system. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, that increased cooperation between central banks and national supervisory authorities will become inevitable. The goal is to uphold stability in the financial markets, in particular taking into account the increasingly integrated financial systems. In this day and age, what applies to ecology applies to the financial markets as well. Without the participation of other big players, such as the US, Russia, Japan, China, India and others, achieving a successful result in the worldwide context will not be possible.

José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Trichet, Mr Juncker, the President of the European Central Bank and the President of the Eurogroup are in agreement that, for ten years, there has been consistent agreement about the relative roles of the various policies. The Central Bank and monetary 8 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

policy are responsible for ensuring price stability, public accounts need to be balanced in the medium term and the other policies need to create economic growth and growth in employment. When things go wrong, we begin to question this model. We start to offload our own responsibilities onto the shoulders of the European institutions. Some people lay the blame at Mr Trichet’s door, others blame Mr Juncker. If things go from bad to worse, it will be Mr Pöttering who ends up being blamed. At this time, therefore, I think it is important – and Mr Trichet is a good navigator – to keep a steady course and to maintain the model which has enabled us to come this far. I would like to add a few words in terms of prices. It is true, as Mr Juncker says, that we are all responsible in this matter and that governments need to take action; it is a matter which will need to be examined when we tackle market flexibility, when we work out the post-Lisbon strategy. However, there is one matter where the Central Bank needs to take the lead. People say – I do not have the figures – that to a certain extent price increases are due to financial speculation; the transfer of money from the sub-prime and variable interest rate markets to the futures market is partly responsible for this situation, and we will all need to do something about this. In terms of institutional architecture, I would agree with the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, that now is probably not a good time for publication of the full minutes. However, I think that it would be good to publish a summary of the minutes and, even more importantly, I think that the Central Bank should tell us the relative weight given to the two pillars on which its strategy is based when taking decisions to increase transparency and market awareness. I also think that increased economic governance would need a counterpoint, a balance: but this is not the fault of Mr Trichet. It is our fault for not yet having approved the Lisbon Treaty, and this is something which I would like to see remedied.

Pervenche Berès (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Trichet, Mr Juncker, I should first like to thank our rapporteur for his excellent work. I think the contributions everyone has made have produced a result that makes the situation clear; the message might be a little vague, but I think it has useful elements. Mr Trichet, everyone was impressed by your speeches in the summer of 2007. We appreciate the fact that you reported immediately to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Now, however, you have increased the rates in a climate in which we all believe that the crisis is not behind us and the bad news, including that from the major European banks, is still to come. When we saw you last December, you told us that you were basically expecting 3% inflation in 2008 and then things would calm down. Now inflation is at 4% and you are telling us you have increased the rates by a quarter of a point and that is it. With imported inflation though, if your strategy is actually to remain so vigilant on price stability, will you be able to stick to that in the short and medium terms, with the risks we are aware of for growth and so for employment? It seems to me that the phenomenon Mr Turmes has referred to, which we might describe as the European Union entering the second phase of globalisation, is leading us to reassess the tools we had at our disposal to deal with the first phase of globalisation. That first phase favoured price stability, or at any rate a reduction in the prices of consumer goods, connected in particular with relocation. Now, in this new phase, we have a new balance and a new model in which what were previously emerging countries are now fully established, also in their access to raw materials, with the effects on prices that we are aware of. In these circumstances therefore – and I am addressing my remarks both to Mr Trichet and to Mr Juncker, since Mr Juncker rightly draws attention to the competencies of the Eurogroup and ECOFIN in this area, but they never come to this committee or to Parliament – is not the fundamental issue at the moment the exchange rate ratio, the buying of oil supplies in euros and the ability of the European Union, particularly its euro zone, to speak with one voice, so that, ten years after changing to the euro, we can at last contribute to a coordinated and responsible dialogue between the main world currencies to secure the best exchange rate for our growth?

Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) May I point out that during our term of office the European Central Bank, thanks to its impressive work, has risen from being just one of the world’s many central banks into 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 9

the world leader in central banking. Today it is facing the new challenge of establishing its increasingly important role in the globalised world. We would like the bank to enhance its role of forecasting and management of macroeconomics and financial stability as, since the majority of crises have their roots in third countries nowadays, it would be appropriate to say that the European Central Bank has failed to produce an accurate forecast of the extent of the crisis and its possible impact. What could be done to improve the situation? First of all I would mention increased coordination between economic and monetary policy. The Third World is now entering the stage of price liberalisation, which is very familiar to me, as a representative of Lithuania. It could last longer, and Europe would then be under a lot of pressure as regards prices. However, this pressure could be overcome by our monetary policy, which would be more taxing on our economy. Alternatively, we could offer to help developing countries to put their revenue policy in order and stabilise prices. This could be done through our increased participation in the International Monetary Fund and communication with the World Bank. This is one possible tool that could help curb inflation in developing countries as well as relieve the World Bank of the burden of adjusting monetary policy. There is one more aspect that worries me, and that is the European settlement system. Despite the European Central Bank’s substantial input into the implementation of SEPA and the development of the TARGET 2 security system, the problem is yet more complicated than that.

Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the annual report of the European Central Bank does not, it appears, speak of a certain tendency that has developed in recent years. Whereas up to now one could speak of the European bank in Frankfurt acting with real independence, in recent times we have seen attempts by the largest European Union countries to put pressure on the ECB and to influence its decisions. This is a worrying tendency since, in practice, it means that the EU is being divided into countries that are equal and those that are more equal than others. This could lead to double standards. Countries such as France or Germany are given the right to put pressure on the ECB but, when it comes to smaller countries, the principle of the independence of the European Central Bank from the governments of European Union Member States is adhered to very strictly. I speak of this because it is a worrying development. Finally, one cannot say that Europe has a proper and stable financial system. This is something that is in the process of development. An illustration of this is given by the paradoxical example of London, which is the most important financial centre in the European Union, even though it is the capital of a country outside the euro zone.

Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the euro area is suffering from energy prices which neither the ECB, nor the Union, nor governments are able to control. The German Finance Minister, Peer Steinbrück, told you that, Mr Trichet, and the ECB then announced that it intended to support banks facing difficulties. I wonder when the ECB will announce that it wants to support citizens who fail to make it to the end of the month, by cutting the cost of money and forcing the banks to charge mortgage rates which are not as crippling as they are at present? Maintaining growth is more important than keeping the currency high. That is the policy of the dollar to which the ECB is not mounting an effective response. Mr Schmidt is keen to strengthen the role and authority of the ECB, while I am with those who continue to question the independence of the ECB. The introduction of the euro has undoubtedly had some benefits: some of those cited by Mr Schmidt are unquestionable, but there is not one word about the tangible adverse effects for every citizen of the euro area who has suffered from real inflation which is much higher than official figures as a result of the widespread speculation which accompanied the introduction of the currency and which the ECB and the institutions did far too little to control. As Mr Schmidt writes, the ECB derives its acceptance among the public from the fact that it upholds goals, such as price stability and economic growth, and for that reason he considers transparency to be less important; he also proposes that the principle of equality of Member States should be given up and would like to put more power into the hands of the Executive Committee. Mr Schmidt is afraid that the governments will in practice exert pressure on the president of their central bank, in other words he is afraid that politics will gain the upper hand over finance. I believe the opposite to be true. Mr Schmidt, Mr Trichet, I absolutely cannot go along with these proposals.

Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Schmidt for a very good report. 10 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Let me say at the outset that some Member States are in, or near to, recession, and we must ask ourselves what is the most important thing we can do in those circumstances. I believe the most important thing we can do in those circumstances is to protect jobs and promote the creation of jobs. Let us look at the situation between 1990 and 1998 when, in what is now the euro area, five million jobs were created. But what happened in the 10 years between 1998 and 2008, when the euro was in situ and Mr Trichet and his predecessors were pursuing their policies, was that almost 16 million jobs were created. Therefore, we have to reflect on this. This is a success story, and the contribution that the policies being pursued by the Central Bank made to this have to be acknowledged. We must give credit where credit is due. But is this story being sold? The reasons for the success clearly are low interest rates in the main, but in particular low inflation, and I think Mr Trichet’s constant refrain about that holds true. But do we need continued increase in interest rates? It is time now to examine this more deeply. Current economic conditions call for calm and sensible action. That is why we have an independent Central Bank. However, I would like to make a comment on the strength of the euro. This is negatively impacting exporting economies. The euro exchange rate with the dollar and sterling is not softening and not likely to soften with the divergence between the US and euro interest rates. The rate rise, while targeting inflation, may present further risks to the euro exchange rate and impede economic growth potential in a time of economic uncertainty. In the moments that are left to me, let me say that last year I was rapporteur for the Report on the ECB annual report and I pointed out then that there were EUR 223 billion in EUR 500 denominations – that is 446 million notes! I asked that it be examined, particularly because it seems to me that it is likely to be used for criminal purposes. Perhaps Mr Trichet would say in his reply what has been done about the concerns I raised then.

Ieke van den Burg (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to join in the compliments and congratulations given to the ECB for what it did last year in the financial crisis. The ECB’s role as liquidity provider of last resort and market maker of last resort has been emphasised in the report and I share this view. I think it also achieved this. Linked to this, Mr Trichet, I think it is correct that you emphasised the necessity of better information access and exchange of information, where I think the ECB could take a leading role. This is also what we presented in a report for Parliament in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which we will discuss next week, about the reform of the supervisory system. I think it is very important that we have a better link between the micro-prudential information that market and banking prudential supervisors have and the ECB information, and I think the ECB can take a leading role there. You have said that you do not want to overhaul the supervisory systems – that is not what we proposed – but I think it should also be in your interest not to be too dependent on the voluntary cooperation of Member States and Member States’ supervisory authorities in this exchange of information. Therefore, it is important that there will be more independent players in this area and there will be a stronger system and a stronger structure at European level. Another element is the payment and settlement systems. I am happy to hear that the Target 2-Securities proposal, which is elaborated by the ECB and other central banks, has now been received positively by the CSDs. I think this could be an important basis for further improvement of that system. I would also like to ask your opinion about what happens now, also from the market, in the sphere of derivatives and the over-the-counter market in order to create more central counterparties and a better system of supervision there. My last remark is a parallel with the Bernanke speech yesterday, but I will not go into detail about it.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Vice-President

Daniel Dăianu (ALDE). – Madam President, I wish to commend the rapporteur on his work. An annual report can speak volumes about achievements and also about policy intricacies and trade-offs. The current inflation rates in Europe are tormenting policymakers and citizens. The European Central Bank has built up its credibility through consistent policies. This performance has been enhanced by this inflation import on the wave of globalisation and the Asian economic rise. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 11

Unfortunately, a reverse situation is under way nowadays because of huge energy and food price rises which reflect the increasing scarcity of available resources. The cost-push pressure is straining markets worldwide. The inflation rate in the euro area is at its highest level for 10 years. This is very worrying, and stagflation also seems to be around the corner. Moreover, the financial crisis has complicated the European Central Bank’s task enormously. The ECB has to fight inflation tenaciously, and anchoring inflation expectations is key in this regard. But the risks are high. It is not clear how long the exogenous cost-push will last. It is critical that a wage price spiral be averted. As we used to talk about inflation moderation in the past decade, so we should strive to achieve moderation of price and wage dynamics in the period to come. More economic divergence in the euro area, which would not foster a good climate for the European Central Bank’s moves. In addition, when markets are increasingly global, what the European Central Bank does has to be examined in relation to what other major counterparts do. Here it is about interest-rate differentials and overall policy stances. A final note. The grave systemic risks financial markets carry nowadays demand better supervision frameworks, better coordination among the ECB, the Fed and other major central banks. The dangers of too-easy-money policies are to be underlined in this regard.

Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I very much hope that the main messages of this debate will reach the citizens of Europe. The first main message of this debate, for me, is that the ECB and the euro are not the causes of the concerns and problems, but part of the solution. The second main message is that the euro provides benefits and protection. It benefits the citizens of the whole of the European Union, not just the euro zone, the political project of the European Union and the European Union growth and employment policy. Apart from the internal market, the euro is the most effective answer to globalisation. The euro and the European Central Bank do not, it is true, make us independent of global influences, but they make us much more able to deal with them. I should therefore like to thank the European Central Bank for the steady and level-headed policy, because at a time when trust is being lost it is undoubtedly one of those that are gaining trust. However, I should also like to say to all the Heads of State and Government on this occasion, hands off the Stability and Growth Pact, hands off the European Central Bank. If you have internal problems and do not do your homework, it is too easy to say others are to blame. For that reason we have to do everything possible to improve awareness and do away with the information deficit. There is no general awareness of the connection between inflation, interest rates and price stability. I am grateful to Mr Juncker for pointing out that indirect taxation should not be increased but reduced whenever possible. We have to communicate the message that the euro is not responsible for higher energy and raw materials prices. I also welcome the fact that the cooperation between the European Central Bank, the Commission and the financial services sector has contributed to the successful launch of SEPA, cross-border payments. Let us use the sensitivity and the justified concerns and fears of the public to enter into a dialogue with them, provide answers and explain, and let us not just make complimentary speeches here.

Benoît Hamon (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the euro is an increasingly expensive currency by comparison with those of our main partners and competitors. That is particularly true compared with the dollar. Of course, the policy of systematically increasing European Central Bank reference rates, coupled with the reverse policy of the Fed, is merely accentuating the problem. This exchange trend that is damaging the competitiveness of the European economy has been the subject of much comment, particularly by highly prominent European leaders. The predominant view, in this House in particular, is that the ECB has sole and absolute competence for exchange rate trends. The ECB itself refuses, through its President, to express any views on the subject, apart from a few vague international declarations. Not only is this situation untransparent and undemocratic, it is, above all, contrary to the Treaty. Article 111 of the Treaty reads, and I quote: 'In the absence of an exchange rate system in relation to one or more non-Community currencies as referred to in paragraph 1, the Council, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the ECB or on a recommendation from the ECB, may formulate general orientations for exchange rate policy in relation to these currencies'. I repeat: 'may formulate general orientations for exchange rate policy'. 12 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

In other words, the euro zone has indeed equipped itself with the means to decide democratically on its exchange policy. My question is simple and it is addressed to the Heads of State and Government: instead of moaning, what are the governments of the Union waiting for before they act?

Cornelis Visser (PPE-DE). – (NL) Firstly, I must congratulate Mr Schmidt on his report. As someone representing Sweden, which is not a member of the euro area, he has produced a very good, very clear report. To my mind he has met the criteria for membership on Sweden's behalf. Last week the European Central Bank put up the interest rate. Clearly the European Central Bank and its President, Mr Trichet, take the Bank's mandate and the Maastricht criteria seriously. I am glad that the ECB is independent. The ECB must be protected against political meddling, by national authorities, for example, and I am glad too to hear Mr Juncker confirming this on behalf of the Eurogroup. And the European Central Bank has responded well to the financial crisis. It moved in a timely fashion to guarantee liquidity for the markets. This has stabilised interest rates for the time being. The crisis in the banking sector has been a wake-up call. The lack of transparency in the financial risks to which institutions are exposed is producing losses which may be considerable. A debate is currently under way in the European Parliament on financial scrutiny. The European Central Bank can play a crucial role here, because it is well briefed by the central banks of the Member States. But the Treaty says nothing about this. I believe we need closer cooperation between the central banks and the European Central Bank, financial markets and regulatory authorities. The European Central Bank should play a greater part in scrutiny and oversight. It is in a position to organise the cross-border exchange of information, certainly when it comes to financial stability. The ECB has proved its worth. We must make use of its power in order to strengthen financial scrutiny.

Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the light of this debate it can be said that the ECB is a kind of rock in the waves. That is to be welcomed. Obviously price stability is the top priority in the economy, If that continues to be so in the future, that can only be positive. We have noted that the average inflation rate in the euro zone is 4%. In some euro zone countries it is even higher, for instance 5.8% in Belgium and 5.1% in Spain. That is bad news. Therefore the signal – the European Central Bank decision – sent out this week is important. We just have to note, here in Parliament too, that the ECB obviously cannot do anything to combat inflationary oil prices. However, the secondary effects that will be felt in the euro zone, for instance higher wages, which the unions are demanding, and at the same time higher prices, which then affect businesses, hold a risk and ultimately lead to a vicious circle. I should like to make two further comments on the politicisation of the European Central Bank. We are constantly coming across that in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and it has also been made clear in this debate. For instance, the question of transparency of the decision-making process is a signal in that direction, an attempt to find out more and more, and also to step up influence on the decision-making process. Greater transparency – I am wary of that. I think the Bank has to decide for itself and, of course, in consultation with Parliament and euro zone representatives. Justification of decisions, though – that is going too far. We should – and this will undoubtedly play a part in the next round – reconsider very carefully when extending the euro zone whether we can continue with this policy. Slovakia was a warning sign for me. We should be less concerned with politics in the future and pay more attention to the criteria.

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the impact of the American financial crisis on the world economy has been an unexpected and unwanted present on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Economic and Monetary Union. Rising inflation is another current problem. The ECB has perfectly managed the turmoil in world financial markets, provided liquidity in the amount of EUR 95 billion and carried out further fine-tuning operations to stabilise the very short-term interest rates. Once again this has shown the benefits of the European Union’s common monetary policy for both the European economy and individual citizens in periods of instability. According to Article 105 of the EC Treaty, the ECB shall also support the general economic policies in the Community. Now the ECB has to meet the challenges of rising inflation on the one hand and an economic slowdown on the other hand. This is not only a challenge but also a real test of the independence of the ECB and the European System of Central Banks. By means of the Treaty of Lisbon, the ECB will become an institution with legal personality and a clearly established independent status. On the other hand, the continuous integration of financial systems calls for 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 13

closer cooperation with central banks of individual Member States. There are voices warning that the independence of the ECB is in danger, one of the reasons being that the informal meetings of the Finance Ministers of the Eurozone will receive, under the Treaty of Lisbon, an official status. We can already hear arguments as to the Ministers’ ability to debate whether or not the inflation target is set correctly. I think that it is very important to distinguish between professional and political arguments that have their place in a democratic society and actual interference with the European Central Bank’s fiscal policy. Considering the painful birth of the Treaty of Lisbon, making such a distinction will be an extremely important task both for us in this House and, of course, for the media. To conclude, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for the balanced and highly professional report assessing the ECB annual report.

Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, I listened very carefully to the speeches by the President of the Central Bank and by Jean-Claude Juncker, for whom I have considerable respect. We are undoubtedly facing a major economic crisis, unparalleled in recent decades. The frightening increase in the price of oil and of many other products, the high unemployment rate, the widespread poverty and the low rates of growth all contribute to this stark image. There has been extended discussion of the criticism that has been voiced. I believe that this criticism, which also came from official sources, has all had the same goal of highlighting the gravity of the situation. Besides, as politicians, we must seek criticism, because it is only through criticism that we can improve, see the issues more clearly and thus reach solutions that benefit the community.

Finally, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on his truly exceptional report.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, it is clear from this debate that the alleged fight against inflation is limited to restricting pay rises. In order to justify the ninth increase in the European Central Bank base rate in two and a half years, European Union monetary policy managers only talk about the need for pay restraint and ignore the scandalous increase in the profits made by big companies and economic and financial groups, which are about 30% per year, while pay rises in some countries do not even cover the rate of inflation. This is the case in Portugal, where most workers and pensioners have suffered serious losses in their purchasing power and where pay and pensions are among the lowest in the European Union. The complete lack of social sensitivity of these monetary policies, with high interest rates and an over-valued euro, is exacerbating social and territorial inequalities, contributing to an increase in poverty and creating more and more problems for micro and small companies, especially in the countries with the weakest economies. This policy should therefore be changed to do exactly the contrary and to prioritise economic growth and employment, eradicate poverty and promote social progress and development.

Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE). – (RO) The European Central Bank carries out its activity to maintain price stability under conditions of great uncertainties and inflationist pressures. We do not know yet if the current level of energy and food prices is the one upon which the entire price structure will rely; we also do not know what public policy actions the Member States will take to facilitate the adjustment of the population’s businesses and savings and households to the new price structure. Also, the financial crisis is still far from having said its last word. As a member of the European Parliament, I appreciate the competence and integrity of the European Central Bank’s monetary policies and its President’s determination to stay on the inflation target characterising the measure of price stability. I express my confidence in the good judgment of the European Central Bank, in the integrity and independence of the European Central Bank and the politicians’ reserve to interfere with this bank’s decisions.

Margaritis Schinas (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, the Eurogroup formulates economic policy, the European Central Bank formulates monetary policy and we, here in the European Parliament, just do politics, without any other additional definitions, and this obliges us to be accountable for the full range of decisions made in the euro area. As a newcomer to politics, while I fully respect the independence of the Central Bank, I believe I am able to offer some advice. Imported inflation, however, which is our biggest problem, cannot, in my opinion, be fully countered if the only weapon we use is interest rates. 14 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

We need to take action on the causes of inflation. We need to battle with the oil cartels, we need to battle with the raw material profiteers, we need more food on the market and, if we do not take action on the root of evil, I am afraid that we will continue to have debates similar to this, which have a logic that is understood in Brussels and Strasbourg but lack political justification in the eyes of the public.

Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I think it is absolutely amazing how the ECB has delivered the main point of the mandate: price stability. If we look at the D-mark period of 1948 to 1998, the price stability track record of the ECB is actually better than that of the D-mark, which used to be the global benchmark. I think you have delivered a very good result on that front. But I am also equally happy that you, President Trichet, referred to financial stability. This is also in the Treaty mandate of the ECB, and I think that the ECB’s role in financial supervision should be strengthened. Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa’s ‘twin peaks’ model is very enchanting, and I think that it is now up to the Member States and the Council to take this model, to have more of a role in the ECB for financial stability supervision. In the European Parliament the Van den Burg-Dăianu report about this is currently being drawn up. It has a lot of good points which you can also use in your work when we try to deliver better financial stability supervision in Europe.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the economic and financial functioning of the EU creates real stability for growth. A fundamental role here is played by the European Central Bank, which has, as its fundamental objective, the creation of monetary policy. Member States and their governments are responsible for economic policy and for creating new jobs.

However, questions do come up about whether the ECB is functioning properly and about its impact on economic processes. Should the Central Bank be more proactive, as in the USA, or not? Also, in the light of the global food crisis and the increases in the prices of energy and fuel, a number of questions present themselves. First of all, what action should be taken to prevent the crisis deepening? Secondly, how to support growth in poor countries? Thirdly, how to monitor financial markets in order to avoid a repetition of the crisis in mortgage lending? Finally, at this point it should also be clearly stated that compliance with the criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact must be equally binding on all Member States.

Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank. − Madam President, I appreciate enormously the remarks that have been made both in the remarkable report of the rapporteur and in the very large number of interventions which echo the independence of the Central Bank, as mentioned very clearly by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker himself. I think it is extremely important and I have to say that it is not questioned anywhere. It is an essential part of the credibility of the institution and it is because we have this very visible independence and this primary mandate – which is clear on price stability – that we have been successful up until now in anchoring inflation expectations. I strongly emphasised the point that anchoring inflation expectations is absolutely decisive, because it permits us to continue to have, in the medium- and long-term market rates, the incorporation of these inflation expectations over the medium and long run. Some governments in Europe are borrowing on a 50-year basis. They are borrowing on a 50-year basis at rates which incorporate the credibility of the Central Bank to deliver price stability, not only over two, or five or ten or twenty years, but even much longer. It is because we are entirely aiming at anchoring, preserving the solid anchoring of inflation expectations, that we have taken the decision which has been mentioned. In the understanding of the ECB Governing Council – and I take it, in the decision which has been taken by the European democracies in creating the ECB, the euro system and the euro area – there is no contradiction between price stability, and solid anchoring of expectations of price stability, and growth and job creation. I have to say that it is very much considered now at global level that the appropriate way of looking at things is that through price stability and credible price stability over time you are paving the way for sustainable growth and job creation. The mention of the almost 16 million jobs which were created since the setting-up of the euro is an illustration of what I just said. Having said that, I would also echo what was said by a large number of Members on the fact that in order to get price stability we had to get some cooperation from other decision-makers, authorities and the private sector. That is the reason why we are so clear in our own messages, fully recognising that we are independent 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 15

and that those who are taking those decisions are independent. But we always insist on the Stability and Growth Pact because over-burdening of monetary policies through a lax fiscal policy is always a danger. We are also calling on the price-setters in general – corporate businesses, the production sector, retail businesses – to incorporate the fact that we will deliver price stability over the medium term so that we do not have second-round effects in this domain. I mentioned price-setters. I also mention of course social partners and that is the reason why we are calling strongly not only on price-setters, but also on social partners to incorporate in their decisions the fact that we will deliver price stability in line with our definition in the medium run. The situation is obviously difficult because of the price of oil, the price of commodities or the scarcity of raw materials, which are pushing up prices. We should recall what happened in 1973-1974. It is absolutely clear that those economies which let the second-round effects gallop and had inflation on a lasting basis had both inflation and very low growth, and it was the start, in a large number of economies in Europe, of mass unemployment that we are still fighting and on our way to eliminating. Therefore, there is much at stake here in this domain and that is important. I would also like to mention here, because it seems to me an extremely important element, that it is the most vulnerable and the poorest of our fellow citizens who suffer the most in times of lasting high-level inflation. Therefore, when we are aiming at delivering price stability in the medium run, not only do we respect the Treaty, not only do we respect the mandate – which we did not create ourselves but which was given to us by the democracies of Europe – but we are doing what is best for the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens.

On the question of the price of oil, commodities and energy and the price of food and more generally all those prices that are rising, I think that there is a triangle. As was very eloquently said by a number of Members, we certainly have the demand-driven phenomenon; the big emerging economies are introducing at global level a new element of buoyant demand and that has to be fully recognised. We have, undoubtedly, a second side to the triangle, which is certainly the supply, and on the supply side we have a lot of responsibilities. Cartels are not good, and it is clear that we have cartels operating in a number of domains. Apart from the cartels, a number of countries and economies are also creating scarcity by preventing drilling, preventing exploration, preventing the construction of refineries. So I draw your attention to that point too. We have to see, on the supply side, whether we are doing all that we can. As for the demand side, all economy, all energy savings are absolutely essential and are part of the mastering of the demand side; as well as recognising the real price and not having artificial prices for oil and energy, which would continue to permit the demand to be buoyant. There is the case of the third side of the triangle, which is the reallocation of capital at a global level in the direction of commodities. That is not exactly the same in the case of oil, other energies or raw materials of all kinds. But there is such a phenomenon and that phenomenon obviously plays a role, and we have to recognise that. We have to call for markets to be as transparent as possible, to function in a fully transparent way. That is the way I will present that phenomenon and I would say that, as is the case with certain diseases where you have to treat the disease on a multidimensional basis, you have to make all possible efforts on the three sides of the triangle. Many Members mentioned prudential supervision and the necessity to improve the situation, I would certainly echo what many Members have said. We have a situation which must be improved – that is absolutely clear. Since the setting-up of the ECB we said that we would call on all authorities to cooperate as intimately as possible. We also said that we were in favour of a very close relationship between the central banks and the supervisory authorities. Recent events since the turbulence that started in August 2007 have proven that this doctrine was right: a very close relationship between central banks and supervisory authorities is necessary. I would say at this stage that we fully support the orientation that has been retained by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on a consensus basis. We think that there are a lot of workshops and that we have to proceed as rapidly and expeditiously as possible in this direction. I know that Parliament is reflecting on perhaps bolder initiatives. I would say that we, ourselves, would like all that has already been decided to be implemented – for nobody to take the pretext of a second stage, not to do what has been already decided. Then, I think we have to look very carefully at the proposals before us, because we believe that the more intimately we cooperate – and more intimately than is the case today – the better, certainly, for Europe. What I say for Europe is, in our opinion, valid for all other systemic parts in the global finance. 16 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

My last point concerns the exchange rate, which a number of Members mentioned. I think that the Governing Council of the ECB is in favour of the full implementation of the Treaty as it is. It seems to me that when we are in China, as Jean-Claude Juncker said, or when we are in the G7, where Jean-Claude and I are signing the communiqué of the G7, we are doing what is appropriate and if I am myself cautious – because it was mentioned that I am very prudent and very cautious when I speak on exchange rates – it is because we are in a domain which is extraordinarily touchy and a domain where, in my opinion, one has to fully respect the orientation which we have agreed upon. That is the reason why I would say that, again, at this stage we agree with all the partners of the G7 on the message for China. There is absolutely no ambiguity there. We made that very clear in the last G7 communiqué. We also consider it important that we look very carefully at the possible adverse effects of excessive fluctuations on both financial stability and growth. I should also mention that it is very important that the US authorities repeat that a strong dollar is in the interests of the United States of America.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup and member of the European Council − (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to go back to the comments made by the President of the Central Bank during our debate. It is better not to repeat what he said, since it was all correct, and anything I might say on the subject might be seen as an attempt to qualify his remarks, which is not necessary. (DE) Madam President, I am speaking in German to show Mr Trichet that I know that language too, as he now does. Yes, a Frenchman who already has more than enough to do is to be complimented on taking the time, because he is living in Frankfurt, to learn the language of the people he is living amongst. Not all French people do that.

(Applause) I shall speak German, so that he understands me better. I should like to make two or three final comments, because sometimes the debates in this House seem to be full of nostalgia for the 1970s and 1980s. The Eurogroup is urged to coordinate the economic policy of the euro Member States better. We are all trying our best to do that and we have now introduced a code of conduct in many areas of practical economic policy, which we are endeavouring to follow. However, you cannot, on the one hand, call for coordination of economic policy and, on the other hand, regret it when the economic policy that is coordinated in that way is then enforced in practice. Let me give you some examples. We reformed the Stability and Growth Pact in 2005. Part of the substance of the reform proposals was to strengthen the preventive arm of the Stability Pact, which was underdeveloped and weak. To strengthen the preventive part of the Stability Pact, it is essential for governments to maintain budget consolidation and redouble their consolidation efforts when the economy is going well, in order to build up reserves for less favourable years, which, in the normal cyclical pattern of our economic systems, will occur regularly. At the moment we are going through worse times. These are no longer good times. Governments that have consolidated have sufficiently wide budgetary margins for the automatic stabilisers to be brought into effect at a time when State revenue is falling. Governments that did not consolidate enough in the good times cannot, of course, react in bad times. When we in the Eurogroup agree that Member States that have achieved their medium-term financial target can now also act on the current economic downturn and rising oil and food prices, they can only do that because they have in the past worked out the budgetary margins that are necessary, so that they are not weakened and incapable of reacting in times of crisis. We have not called for a wage freeze; neither the Central Bank nor the Eurogroup has ever called for a wage freeze in the euro zone. What we are saying is that wages should not automatically rise with inflation but that wage trends must take account of productivity gains, which can be achieved in the economy, and wages can also be raised accordingly without inflation. We have made it quite clear that we absolutely cannot go on asking for wage restraint from working people in Europe, while managers and other capital owners receive extreme and excessive pay and salaries. We have stated that several times. (Applause) 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 17

Payments to the management of European firms – also and above all in the financial sector – have absolutely nothing to do with the productivity gains achieved there. They just collect the money, and their actions are not economically sound or socially responsible. (Applause) Because we did not order a wage freeze, because I, more than others, am perhaps very much intent on keeping the social contract aspect of European action in mind, we have strongly urged that, instead of letting firms pay, in the light of rising raw materials and oil prices, we must consider what States can do in the field of social support for the less well-off sectors of the population, in view of the weakened purchasing power. It is, after all, simply true that States that have consolidated their budgetary position now have the necessary resources at their disposal to be able to fund social support programmes for the less well-off sections of our population. There are States that have introduced cost of living allowances, heating and rent subsidies, and that were able to afford that because of consolidation in the past. There are also States that systematically adapt their tax systems so that less well-off sections of the population can obtain net gains from tax cuts, instead of tax cuts only benefiting those in the more prosperous population groups. To that extent, I believe that the overall policy is, if not perfect, at least conclusive. We do not want to and we must not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s and 1980s, even if that was somewhat easier in the short term. We have to act against growing inflation. In the 1970s and 1980s we allowed runaway inflation. In the 1970s and 1980s we allowed State indebtness to keep on rising. In the 1970s and 1980s we accepted public deficits, whilst playing down their effects. The result was mass unemployment in Europe, which we have now brought down to 7.2% with – and thanks to – the euro. The result was that we had excessive social security contributions in nearly all our countries, which many of us still consider too high, and that is not to do with a rejection of social solidarity, but with sensible financing of our social security systems. Labour was overtaxed and capital undertaxed. Those were the effects of the mistaken policy of the 1970s and 1980s. We are against inflation, because we are against unemployment and for growth. Growth and combating inflation are not antonyms. We need inflation-free growth, so that things will be better for people tomorrow. Handing out gifts today, supposedly helping people and being feted for acting like a generous social benefactor, is the wrong policy. To be successful now, you have to think about future generations, not vice versa. (Applause)

Olle Schmidt, rapporteur. − (SV) Madam President, thank you for an extraordinarily interesting and stimulating debate. It shows that there is broad support for the thinking and conclusions we present in the report. I also want to thank you, Mr Juncker and Mr Trichet, for the good answers you have given. You respond in a way which gives the impression that you will also take on board the views and ideas we have put forward here. Finally, let me contribute my own experiences as a politician in the somewhat less populous country of Sweden in the north. I was a Member of the Swedish Parliament and its finance committee during the 1990s, when Sweden ran into an economic wall. Experiences in politics are salutary, my friends. Those of you who believe that inflation and an unstable monetary policy will help the people who need our support most are wrong. You are wrong! As a member of the finance committee, I witnessed how the Swedish interest rate reached levels which no one could have imagined: 500%. In the 1990s, just as Mr Juncker says, we got mass unemployment, rising inflation and stagflation. I remember those experiences vividly, and they have led me to hope that my own country, Sweden, will enter the euro zone and participate fully in European cooperation. As our colleague, Mrs Kauppi, said and Mr Trichet repeats, no one believed that the euro would be the success that it has been. I think that proves the value of European cooperation. Mr Juncker, you said that the ECB acts with grace and determination. I think that was a good phrase. Let me offer my thanks for a good debate. I am also grateful that, as somebody who stands outside the euro cooperation system, I was given the task of drawing up this report.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place today at 12 noon. Written statements (Rule 142) 18 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE-DE), in writing. – As regards economic developments, the fundamentals of the euro-area economy remain sound due to investment growth and improved employment rates and labour-force participation. While moderating, growth in the world economy is expected to remain resilient, benefiting in particular from continued robust growth in emerging economies. With regard to price developments, annual HICP inflation has remained well above the level consistent with price stability since last autumn, reaching 3.7% in May 2008 and – according to Eurostat’s flash estimate – 4.0% in June. This worrying level of inflation rates results largely from sharp increases in energy and food prices at the global level in recent months. The uncertainty surrounding this outlook for economic activity remains high and downside risks prevail. In particular, risks stem from the dampening impact on consumption and investment of further unanticipated increases in energy and food prices. Moreover, downside risks continue to relate to the potential for the ongoing financial market tensions to affect the real economy more adversely than anticipated. In these circumstances the decision taken by the ECB to raise by 25 basis points to 4.25% the minimum bid rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem is welcome and should be congratulated!

3. Coordination of social security systems - Coordination of social security systems - Extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to third country nationals otherwise excluded (debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on - the report (A6-0251/2008) by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (COM(2006)0016 – C6-0037/2006 – 2006/0006(COD)); - the report (A6-0229/2008) by Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and determining the content of Annex XI (COM(2006)0007 – C6-0029/2006 – 2006/0008(COD)); and - the report (A6-0209/2008) by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No […] to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (COM(2007)0439 – C6-0289/2007 – 2007/0152(CNS)).

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all four legislative resolutions under discussion concern issues that have a direct impact on the everyday lives of European citizens. The right of people moving within Europe to be protected by social security systems is inseparable from the right of free movement in the Union. The Commission’s proposals have one common goal, and that is to modernise and simplify the coordination of national social security systems. The aim is to define mechanisms of cooperation between institutions and processes that would simplify and speed up calculating and paying social benefits to their recipients. These are family benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits and so on, in other words a range of social benefits very important to the lives of people in the Union. I should like to thank the Members and the rapporteurs for all the work they have done on these important texts in recent months. The implementing regulation sets out how Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, which we call the basic Regulation, should operate. It extends to all persons who make use of the coordination of national social security systems: citizens, Member States’ social security institutions, health care providers and employers. Its goal is to establish procedures, as clearly as possible, on the basis of which those insured persons who are in a cross-border situation will receive social benefits. Who do I turn to in order to be granted family benefits? What steps must my employer take if he wants to post me, temporarily, to another Member State? My working career is coming to an end and as I have worked in several Member States, how do I find out how my pension will be calculated and what must I do in order to receive it? 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19

The procedures set out in said regulation are meant to help recipients get appropriate answers, by means of cooperation between the social security institutions. In the process of trying to make this cooperation effective and meet the needs of citizens as quickly as possible, we realised the importance of electronically processing and exchanging data between the institutions of the various Member States. The EESSI network (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information) will ensure that data exchange will be quick and secure and will shorten the period of time that social security institutions take to reply and to process a cross-border situation. If the implementing regulation is adopted soon, citizens will be able to make use of the progress achieved, by means of coordination, in the areas of simplification and modernisation, and also to make use of the new rights that could not be implemented to date although they are included in the basic Regulation. The benefits of the new concept of coordination for European citizens will only really become apparent when the implementing regulation is adopted and when the regulation amending the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is adopted. Two further draft resolutions pertain to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and its annexes. They aim to amend the basic Regulation so that it takes into account legislative changes in the Member States, in particular those that joined the Union after 29 April 2004 when the basic Regulation was adopted. These resolutions also amend the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that were left empty when the basic Regulation was adopted. In spite of the technical nature of these texts, their goal remains the same: to ensure the transparency of mechanisms and procedures applied to persons moving within the European Union. For example, Annex XI contains a special provision that takes into account the specifics of national legislation. The annexes are therefore vital for ensuring transparency and legal certainty in regard to national regulations that are also fairly extensive. Coordination of national social security systems, to which you are contributing in your role as co-legislative authority, will ensure that two fundamental principles (equal treatment and non-discrimination) are fully applied on behalf of those European citizens taking advantage of free movement. The implementing regulation also envisages extending the provisions of Regulation No 883/2004 to third-country nationals who are not already covered by these provisions on the grounds of their nationality. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that third-country nationals who are legally resident in the European Union and who are in a cross-border situation can take advantage of the modernised and simplified coordination of social security systems. In fact, it is essential that a single and uniform coordination rule is applied in administrative matters and in order to achieve simplification. Reaching consensus in regard to these regulations will mean significant progress for all those who use the regulations and will ensure a better service for persons moving within the Union. This will show that the regulations on the coordination of social security systems are ready for the new challenges of the 21st century in relation to mobility. I should like to add that this work is the result of exemplary cooperation between the Member States and that the will to find solutions for citizens has helped overcome the differences between individual systems and the complexity of this area. Ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the Commission explicitly supports Amendments 2 and 161 that make it possible to use the electronic data processing system, which is especially important in regard to the operations of the electronic data registry and to electronic processing of cross-border cases. The Commission also notably supports Amendment 90, dealing with the granting of sickness benefits and long-term care benefits. These two amendments significantly empower citizens within the whole system.

Jean Lambert, rapporteur. − Madam President, I want to bring together my two reports in the luxurious amount of time I have for my introduction in this House. Firstly, I would like to start by thanking colleagues, the Council and the Commission for the good cooperation so far on what appears a very complex dossier – but it always is when you try to set down in writing what 20 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

you do in practice, in a way that you think will at least be clear for practitioners and those needing to understand the system. As the Commissioner has said, the basic Regulation ((EC) No 883/2004) concerns the coordination, but not the harmonisation – and I want to make that clear – of social security systems between Member States for people who are living or working in another Member State or even simply travelling there. It cannot come into force until this implementing regulation has been agreed between Parliament and the Council in a codecision procedure requiring unanimity in the Council – not the least of the complexities. The implementing regulation sets out the administrative architecture for how this should work. It sets out the rules on how each Member State, each competent authority, will deal with the various dimensions of social security in respect to cross-border issues. Central to the new basic regulation and the implementing regulation is this exchange of electronic data, with a view to providing greater speed and also greater accuracy of communication. Hopefully, amongst other things, this will see an end to the situation – or at least a reduction in the time required – where thousands of pieces of paper land on an official’s desk: prescriptions filled out in the always of course totally legible handwriting of numerous doctors, and other claims relating to cross-border healthcare. By trying to simplify and clarify that, hopefully we can also reduce the amount of fraud currently in the system. For example, people exploit the current resulting inertia by manipulating the reimbursement system for cross-border care. Equally, it could also ensure that more providers and individuals make claims as they feel there is a hope of being paid, rather than it being passed to their inheritors.

Articles 78 and 79 of the basic regulation set out the role for the Commission in terms of supporting the development of the exchange of electronic data, including potential financing, so I am a bit surprised and disappointed at the move to delete Amendments 2 and 161, which relate to implementing this essential development. When we were discussing the issue of data exchange, the committee felt that Parliament should make very explicit the safeguards and the need for proportionate collection of data. Thus we have reinforced the requirements concerning data protection in our proposals. The basic regulation also deals with aspects of access to benefits in kind for healthcare for people staying in another Member State – for example on holiday – or for whom scheduled treatment becomes necessary on medical grounds, not simply from choice. The recent publication of the directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare has links to this basic regulation. Parliament will have to ensure that there is no conflict between the two pieces of legislation. The committee has also anticipated the proposed extension of the Equalities Directives and has proposed two measures particularly relating to people with disabilities – one a cross-cutting measure to ensure that Member States take the needs of people with particular disabilities into account when they are communicating with them and, secondly, in terms of providing for payment for the expenses of someone to accompany a disabled person who needs urgent medical treatment abroad. We are aware that this is an issue requiring further discussion with the Council. The implementing regulation also concerns a number of deadlines. I know that there are varying opinions on that, which will be reflected in certain of the amendments that we discuss today. The committee also chose to support a revised schedule concerning the assessment and payment of long-term care cash benefits and the additional clarity relating to frontier workers who become unemployed. I would hope that the House will be able to support those amendments from the committee. In terms of the other report concerning the rights of third-country nationals when they travel within the European Union, there is already a regulation in existence which links those who are legally resident and in a cross-border situation with the coordination of social security systems. This now needs to be updated: because we are updating the overarching regulation, we also need to update the linking one. The new proposal is substantially the same as the existing one. Again it clarifies the scope and maintains the rights people already have. It introduces no new rights and it will become even more important as the European Union develops its common immigration policy. The so-called blue card proposal will also benefit from this update of the regulation. Again I hope that the House can support the committee amendments on this. We want a clear statement of principle and that is why I am recommending – as indeed the committee did – that we do not support the amendments concerning the addition of annexes. (Applause) 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 21

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE Vice-President

Emine Bozkurt, rapporteur. − (NL) Ladies and gentlemen, we are voting today on a proposal to coordinate European social security more clearly and more flexibly and we are thus voting in favour of clarifying the annex. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have worked to simplify the proposal so that Europeans can have a better understanding of the complex rules applied in the coordination of social security. I must start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs with whom it has been my pleasure to work on this document in recent months and years. Jean Lambert, of course, who was shadow rapporteur for my report on behalf of the Greens, as I was shadow rapporteur for her report, Ria Oomen-Ruijten of the EPP-ED Group, Bilyana Raeva of the ALDE Group, Dimitrios Papadimoulis of the GUE/NGL Group and Ewa Tomaszewska of the UEN Group, along with all those other members who made a valuable contribution to the debate. I should also emphasise that talks with the Commission and Council went extremely well. I am especially grateful here to Hélène Michard and Rob Cornelissen of the European Commission. Cooperation with the Council has involved a succession of presidencies. Given that it has taken several years to reach the point of voting on the coordination of social security we have had the pleasure of working with Finland, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and France. Ladies and gentlemen, it has indeed been a lengthy process, but one with a successful outcome. We now have a good compromise, which all the Member States and all the European institutions, including the European Parliament, can take forward. Our guiding principle in evaluating the amendments was always the conviction that changes to the current system of coordination should in no event lead to a reduction of citizens' rights. One very important illustration of this is the scrapping of Annex III, since Annex III allows Member States the freedom to curb their citizens' rights. This report reflects our efforts on behalf of a Europe which gives more rights to its citizens in as many areas as possible. The good thing about European cooperation is that it enables European countries to look after their people collectively. Social justice is a major part of that and it does not stop at borders. Citizens must be able to count on their social rights being protected, even outside the borders of their own country. The single market enables people to move around freely within the European Union. And we are keen to encourage that. People can then be confident that their social security rights travel with them, that their pensions are in order, regardless of where they are living or working, and that proper care is guaranteed, everywhere in Europe and not just for themselves but for their families too. That is European cooperation as it ought to be.

Zuzana Roithová, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion on this report, I regret that the committee responsible has not adopted my key proposals. Once again it has squandered the chance to ensure clear rules for social security provisions applying to all family members moving across all Member States, in regard to reimbursement in respect of non-urgent health care, in accordance with judgments of the European Court of Justice. Consequently we still have to clarify that the amount of reimbursement for planned care abroad should correspond, at a minimum, to the cost of similar care in the country in which the patient is insured. The citizen planning to take advantage of hospital care must apply for permission in advance but has the right to appeal if his application is refused. Advance notification of outpatient treatment is not mandatory. Citizens will now have to wait for the new directive on cross-border health care to be adopted, although reimbursement of costs is part of this regulation. In addition, the directive will not make a significant contribution in the area of subsidiarity in health care but adopting the policy may be delayed, perhaps for years. I regret that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs underestimated this angle. Apart from that, the report is very good and I will support it.

Gabriele Stauner, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I should like to say something about the Lambert report on the implementation of the regulation, which relates to the details of coordination of social security systems. As the rapporteur has said, the purpose of the regulation is coordination, not harmonisation, for which we in the EU do not in any case have any legal basis. However, some of the amendments adopted in the Committee 22 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

on Employment and Social Affairs go beyond coordination and form the basis for new competencies and services. In our opinion, for instance, it is not necessary for the Commission to be given the power to establish its own neutral central database and manage it independently, in order to ensure prompt payments to citizens. That is the task of the Member States, which have already been performing it up to now and which, furthermore, now have to designate a liaison body for it. For citizens seeking advice too, it is also more convenient and closer to go to the authorities of the Member States and not to a remote and anonymous Commission database. I should therefore like to take issue with the Commissioner specifically on that point. Nor do we consider it appropriate for every disabled insured person to be entitled to the costs of travel and stay for an accompanying person. The payment of travel expenses for an accompanying person should be linked to the severe disability concept, which is in any case largely defined perfectly by law in the Member States. We also believe that unemployed persons who have failed to fulfil obligations in their country of employment, in particular have not taken all the required steps to find a job there, should not be able to claim benefits in their country of residence as if they had always complied with the law. That is not right. The other three amendments by my Group concern periods, for all of which we consider six months sufficient. They should not vary between 12 and 18 months.

Jan Cremers, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) On behalf of the PSE Group, a word of thanks to the rapporteurs, the Commission's officials and the Slovenian Presidency.

This subject has a long history. After all, the earlier Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is one of the first items of legislation on the free movement of workers in Europe. The proposed simplification is designed to ensure a faster service for the European citizen when he claims entitlements and at the same time better verification of the legitimacy of such claims. Cooperation between payment agencies and improved data exchange are very important factors here. The implementing rules must also ensure that frontier workers and other entitled persons do not have any break in their entitlement. From the second reading our Group sees three remaining points which may need further consideration. Firstly, there are still two different rules in deciding whether someone is an employee or a self-employed person with no staff. In the social security context the definition used is the one applicable in the country of origin, whilst in the employment context the definition applied to seconded workers is that applicable in the country of employment. Until such time as we arrive at a clear European definition of self-employment, this subject is guaranteed to keep coming up for discussion in Parliament. A second point is that of information to entitled persons. In the Commission text, since amended, details of when entitled persons should receive information from the competent authorities, and on what topics, were scattered too widely over a number of different articles. A clear summary of the right to information, given at a central point in this legislation, would make the position substantially clearer for entitled persons. A third point of concern is the scrutiny of compliance. We know from the earlier Regulation that registration in the Member States and cooperation and coordination between the competent authorities sometimes worked very poorly. It would be a very good idea for Parliament to be kept informed of how the relevant rules are being implemented in future.

Ona Juknevičienė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) May I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lambert, and thank him for his cooperation in the preparation of this document. The regulation determines the order and solves practical everyday human problems. It does not aim to unify social security systems. It is a method of implementation, allowing for the existence of different social security systems in the Member States. However, it prevents people from missing out on what they are entitled to. A year ago, President Sarkozy delivered a speech in this House, in which he said that the French believed that the EU was not taking care of them and did not provide any social security. The people of Ireland are probably not aware of what they can expect from the EU either.

Today France and indeed all of us have a chance to show the people that their everyday problems are being solved at EU level. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 23

Regretfully, to my knowledge, not everyone in the Council is prepared to accept the set time periods proposed by the Commission for the Member States to reconcile their differences. The rapporteur suggests that we should not rush. My group is in favour of the proposals and amendments that oblige the Member States to resolve the issues of payment and compatibility in a six-month period instead of protracting it for a year and a half. People should not miss out because of the institutions’ inactivity and delayed decision-making. This regulation could be the best example of the EU’s efforts to gain the trust of its citizens. Therefore, I call on my fellow Members to vote in favour of these amendments. They concern practical and comprehensible help for every citizen of the EU. We have been elected to represent the people, not governments or institutions.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, each European Union country has its own social security system that differs from those of other countries, depending on many years of tradition as well as on the country’s financial capabilities. These systems are not subject to harmonisation. The right of free movement to take up employment in other countries has created a need to coordinate social security systems. Current regulations in this regard need to be simplified. The introduction of electronic data transfer into the Polish pensions system has greatly reduced the number of errors in the transfer of insurance data between institutions. There is a need to protect citizens against a reduction in their insurance rights. Workers should have the opportunity to know which system will be used to calculate their entitlements. They have the right to know how their contributions will be calculated and what will be the resulting entitlements. For this reason it is important that the regulations and procedures concerning the coordination of systems, which by their nature are quite complicated, should be simplified to the extent that this is possible, and also that they should not act retrospectively to the detriment of the insured.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt, for their detailed and painstaking work, as well as for their outstanding cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs and for their efforts to make good use of our proposals and of our contribution. These are exceptionally difficult reports containing a great deal of complex technical details, but they are also exceptionally useful for European citizens. Citizens have seized every opportunity, including the recent referendum in Ireland, to protest over the great social deficit seen in the policies of the Council and the Commission. They seek a European Union that safeguards their rights, and here we are now, debating Regulation 883/2004, which, thanks to the Council and the Commission, not Parliament, has been on stand-by for years, waiting for the implementing regulations for the annexes to be adopted. This results in red tape, lack of information, confusion, violation of the fundamental social security and social rights of employees, who are caught in the middle; an à la carte Europe, the way the neo-liberals and the large corporations want it, with a single currency but no coordination or harmonisation of the social and social security rights of employees. In the midst of this legislative gap, the Commission submits its proposal for a ‘Bolkestein directive through the back door’ for health services. These reports reveal another way. We do not need a Bolkestein directive on health services; we need an improved Regulation 883/2004, through which, according to the reports, all the issues that come to light can be dealt with, by safeguarding the rights of employees and their families while also supporting the necessary mobility. Therefore, Commissioner, please stop the Bolkestein experiments on health services and promptly proceed, together with the Council, with the procedures for the processing of the remaining chapters and annexes of Regulation 883/2004 so that it can enter into force as soon as possible. I urge you not to vote in favour of any amendments that weaken the content of the reports by Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt.

Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, in A6-0251/2008, Amendment 4 mentioned ‘mobility for the unemployed’. Does that mean bussing unemployed around the EU looking for 24 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

work – at taxpayers’ expense? A Member State is liable for social security payments for someone who worked there but moved to another Member State and then became unemployed. Amendment 148 suggests that the taxpayer should pay for travel for a medical examination in another Member State with a reimbursement system between Member States, no doubt using a complex EU formula. Member States may make decisions on invalidity which are binding on another Member State, although complicated by the degree of invalidity, but they may have rules against overlapping of benefits. The rules will concern all EU citizens moving within the EU for any reason whatever. This includes legally resident third-country nationals who have worked in more than one Member State as well as, soon, stateless persons and refugees. In several places these reports claim to simplify regulations and modernise existing legislation for social security authorities, employers and citizens, while being very inclusive. There will be, apparently, no implication for the Community budget. It says that financial and administrative burdens will be reduced by the rules for coordination – which can only be done at Community level – but that this is not harmonisation. How can one have reimbursement, EU-determined formulae, a rule covering all movement and rules for coordination, without it being harmonisation? All in all, these reports are a mass of conflicting statements. If they are adopted, they will need a great deal of administrative effort, costing money which the report says is not needed. Finally, the family here has an identity crisis. Birth and adoption allowances are, evidently, not family benefits. So when is a family not a family, and an adopted child is – well, what exactly? I too would like to avoid an identity crisis. A ‘frontier worker’ is a person working in one Member State but residing in another providing they return home once a week. Well, this is France and I am going home tomorrow. Am I a frontier worker, even though I live right in the middle of England?

Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, mobility of labour is supposed to be a key feature of the EU and of the Lisbon Strategy, yet as an MEP – like other MEPs – I regularly get complaints about lack of health-care cover, inadequate social cover and – perhaps most frustrating of all – conflicting advice from different state agencies. It is not uncommon for an employee from one Member State to be working in another at the behest of a company which exists in a third Member State, and that is where the real issue for many seems to lie, causing issues about where and how they are covered. Within our midst we have this very problem affecting parliamentary assistants and, despite the struggle of the Parliamentary Assistants’ Association, this problem persists. I have to say it is scandalous that we cannot even get our own house in order in this regard, yet here we are legislating for others. My primary concern is for usefully employed individuals, not benefit tourists. I want to see any loopholes which help benefit tourists well and truly sealed in this legislation.

Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) My thanks to all the rapporteurs for the excellent job they have done, because this was no easy task. We need good rules on the free movement of workers in Europe, Madam President, rules to ensure that workers who make use of that freedom do not fall between two stools. That is now taken care of in the new coordination regulation. That regulation was necessary because the old one was not longer adequate and there was scope for simplifying the coordination procedures. I wonder if the outcome is satisfactory. Is everything really simplified now? I have my doubts. We are coordinating social security, but what we are not coordinating is the tax treatment of benefits, when benefits are increasingly being given as tax credits. I think we ought to reflect on that. Another point is that coordination always takes place after the event. National legislators should take far greater account of the consequences of system changes for people who are mobile, that is to say people who work in one country and live in another. I would also draw attention to a change in the annex. That change is very good for Dutch pensioners who go on paying social security contributions in the Netherlands but live abroad and have not hitherto been eligible to claim benefits in the Netherlands even though they have been paying into the system there. So Dutch people living in Belgium or Germany, or even farther afield in France, la belle France, or in Spain, will now be entitled to treatment. My thanks for this must also go to the Minister for Health, who was in favour of this change. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 25

Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I want to thank the rapporteurs. Jean Lambert has worked on these matters for as long as I can remember and has great experience. Emine Bozkurt came in a little later, but both have done a fantastically good job and, in particular, have worked exceedingly well with the shadow rapporteurs from the various parties. Some general points to begin with, since they bear repeating. This is not about harmonisation. We know that the social security systems in the EU differ. It is about citizens and the right of citizens to make use of the internal market in order to look for jobs and to stay in other places within the internal market. It is of the utmost importance that there is coordination of social security systems. It is important to have coordination of pension rights. It is important that the unemployed can make use of the internal market. It is important that patients can seek treatment in other countries. These things are crucial to the internal market. Without coordination, the internal market would not function satisfactorily. We have had coordination before. It had its shortcomings. Now improvements are being introduced, on the one hand through the coverage of more people, not just the economically active, and on the other hand through the coverage of more areas, such as early retirement pensions, which we regard as a positive development. I would like to draw attention to some matters addressed by our rapporteurs. Jean Lambert referred to the exchange of electronic data and is favourably disposed to it, since it offers many improvements. However, it is also important to consider protection of the individual when information is exchanged in this way. We therefore follow the recommendations of the Data Protection Supervisor.

As far as third country nationals are concerned, it is important that consideration be given to that aspect, not least because the blue card is on its way. It is all the more urgent that we have equality of treatment. As regards Emine Bozkurt’s report, I will merely say that the new regulation must not mean fewer rights but more. That is important. I thank the rapporteurs again and hope that we can get a final decision in the near future.

Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur and the Committee who have done a great job on simplifying and updating these complex provisions. The topic which we are debating today is one which falls directly within our citizens’ sphere of interest. What is important to citizens, who are after all the subject of these provisions? First, the fact that their rights are safeguarded and, in view of the free movement of labour we have today, that there is social protection provision for them everywhere. Secondly, the document should be comprehensible to them. Thirdly, the benefits mechanism should deliver in reasonable time. What are we achieving with these regulations? Our citizens’ primary concern – the right to social insurance – is very well safeguarded. Their second concern, comprehensibility, is something we have not yet fully succeeded in. I am not reproaching anybody here: this topic is complex, very technical and is not a work of great literature. The third concern, the period of time by which citizens receive benefits, is dependent on the vote we are about to take today. Social insurance benefits are not comparable to businessmen’s profits or bank dividends. Applicants are people in difficulty for whom the benefit is generally the only source of income. I therefore call upon you to support the proposals for a six-month benefits payment period. In order to ensure the exercise and protection of citizens’ rights the clearing period between the competent institutions of the Member States must be the same, namely six months, particularly in view of the fact that an electronic procedure would be used. An 18-month period for processing benefits is not appropriate in the 21st century.

Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, creating a coordinated social security system is a very difficult task. For this reason we should offer our congratulations to the rapporteur. I would like, however, at this point, to draw attention to the issue of benefits paid to families of immigrants arriving from outside Europe. Of course support should be provided to those who are there legally, and humanitarian aid should be given to illegal immigrants, but the provision of unrestricted social benefits to families for which this becomes their permanent and sole source of income is a misunderstanding. Currently there are many families that are enjoying a wide range of benefits and have no intention of working, as they consider their standard of living to be quite satisfactory. This is very demoralising for the economy as well as for the traditions and culture of work in Europe. This is compounded by the fact that these families live in a way that does not integrate with the cultures and traditions of the country where they settle. 26 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, we consider Mrs Lambert’s report to be positive from a technical viewpoint, as it makes progress in the area of social security coordination. It enables EU citizens to add up the periods for which they have lived or worked in another Member State, under the social security system at the time, in order to calculate their pension from the state or to establish other rights. It thus contributes to the easier and smoother movement of citizens within the Union. I must note, however, that we must not overlook the fact that, despite some objections raised in the report, there will be an electronic exchange of information and personal data, and we do not fully agree with this. What I wish to stress in speaking now is another need, which we currently tend to overlook in the European Union. The crucial issue is not taking measures to facilitate movement merely for the sake of taking them. That is not the priority for employees; what they seek and demand is respect for their fundamental rights. Emigration from one country to another because of unemployment or poor working conditions in one’s country of origin is not a social need. The social need is to ensure certainty and security in employment and, thus, in the family lives of all citizens. Emigration for financial and social reasons should not be the objective; far from it. The course the European Union is choosing today – placing greater importance on the free movement of capital than on self-evident employment rights, as can be seen in a number of cases heard by the Court of Justice of the European Communities – suggests that we cannot content ourselves with the right to transfer our pension rights to demonstrate, ostensibly, that the free movement of persons has been established. We need to fight for full employment with comprehensive social security, in contrast with current practices, which, on the pretext of demographic decline, are leading towards the logic of uncertain employment and are undermining the importance of collective negotiations in various countries.

Edit Bauer (PPE-DE). – (SK) In the first place, I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Bozkurt, for their excellent and challenging work. The rapporteurs, we in this House and the Council as well as the Commission have all combined our efforts and, because of that, today we have in front of us, at last, the long-awaited new regulation that will make it possible to implement Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 which is due to replace the cumbersome Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. Together these documents simplify citizens’ access to benefits and services, as many of my fellow Members as well as the Commissioner have pointed out. Access to these benefits and services, granted by individual Member States through their social security systems, has so far been difficult for eligible persons in other Member States. There can be no doubt that together these documents will help to simplify cross-border movement for work purposes, as a result of which the single labour market will be better used and will function better. As the shadow rapporteur for the other report prepared by Mrs Lambert, I should like to highlight the broadened implementation of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, by extending the provisions of the Regulation to third-country nationals. I think that, as the debate shows, we cannot assume that this legislation will solve all our problems. It does not even solve all our existing problems, let alone the future ones. Clearly, many steps will have to be taken and a lot of work will have to be done in order to achieve sustainability and adapt to the new challenges, including further coordination.

Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) We have spoken about the simply technical nature of this regulation many times. In fact, it was a wrong vision blocking a deeply political aspect. In the European Union, we have the single market, but there are 27 different social security systems. Millions of citizens work in other countries than their own and should benefit from the legal social rights due to them and their families. Institutions should manage this situation and suppliers should deduct their services. The rules according to which problems are solved today are from before the Internet era, when the Union had six Member States inhabited by sedentary citizens. Today, they are 27, inhabited by citizens who tend to become migratory. The modernization, simplification and adjustment of these rules to the new reality were absolutely necessary. This is the purpose of Regulation 883/ 2004, which is still inapplicable without procedures. We are now in 2008 – four years of delays unfavourable both to the employees claiming their rights and to the efficiency of companies and institutions involved. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 27

A proverb says that “the devil is in the details”. Today, we have to congratulate Rapporteurs Jean Lambert and Emine Bozkurt because, by solving the issue of details, we are expecting a fluidization of the information flow, under conditions of data security and more efficient coordination. These days, the new social agenda proposes minor improvements against the background of major shortcomings. The enforcement of Regulation 883 is good news. It scarcely mitigates the feeling that, in recent years, the European social agenda has been under stagnation.

Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 applies not only to employees and their families, but also to all those covered by social security systems. It extends the coordination of those systems, and there are also other important changes including calculations for pensions, benefits and other entitlements. How effective this coordination will turn out to be will depend on the contents of the new implementing regulation and on the effectiveness of electronic data exchange as well as on good communications. It is also good that the regulation affects third countries, and that work is ongoing to improve it. We should give recognition to the work and the proposals put forward by the rapporteur. One cannot require any more from her, since the Council and the Commission have not yet completed their work and have not yet presented the final contents of the Annexes. Work is continuing, and recipients of benefits are also continuing to wait, frustrated as they are by the failure to pay full benefits, by bureaucracy and by the long time one has to wait for refunds.

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, these are regulations that confirm the general direction of European policy and relate to solving practical problems regarding social security for European citizens, as well as all those living and working in EU Member States. When they enter into force, once the implementing regulation, which is currently being reviewed within the codecision framework, has also been passed, they will strengthen the mobility of employees and make life easier for their families, during both employment and retirement. According to the rapporteurs, who I wish to congratulate, the principles for the simplification of the regulations will alter the current coordination system without leading to lesser rights for citizens, as would have been the case with harmonisation. The need for effectiveness and quick solutions is met through the simplification of bureaucratic procedures and through the resolution of inter-state administrative issues. One of the main measures is for Member States to appoint cooperation authorities and special liaison organisations in order to cover the various aspects of social security in cross-border relations. One of those is long-term care, an issue that is resolved in a very complex way under Parliament’s proposal. We hope that an easier way will be found to solve the chronic problem of ageing Europe. The payment systems, the settlement of disputes, the recovery of amounts paid and the difficulties that citizens face in accumulating rights from periods of employment in another Member State are currently great obstacles, and we hope to overcome these within a set period through the coordination that the new basic regulation, as well as the implementing regulation, sets out to reinstate. The individual attributes of the national social security systems will be taken into account in the particular provisions for the implementation of national legislation in Annex XI. The regulation will also cover the rights of foreign employees.

Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Madam President, we never fail to get remarks from the Far Right when we are debating this issue – remarks such as ‘benefit tourists’. We never hear them talking about ‘tax tourists’ or ‘state aid tourists’. It is always the poor and the less well-off who are attacked in this way. I want to congratulate the two rapporteurs on these reports. Unfortunately, their positive work is unlikely to attract much attention in the Member State media, which is generally more interested in negative stories. These are complex resolutions seeking to coordinate Member States’ social security systems, which are also in themselves complex because they seek to address a variety of individual circumstances. The regulations are essential to our citizens and residents, particularly those living in border areas who, not unusually, work in one Member State while living in another. It is important to ensure that people who do work and live in this way are covered for unforeseen unemployment, sickness and accidents and, indeed, eventual retirement. They need security if we are to ensure free movement in the European Union. 28 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

However, I want to raise one particular issue which is not covered by these regulations and is not generally covered in the Member States either. That is the freedom of movement of people with disabilities, who often need personal assistance in order to move freely. (The President cut off the speaker.)

Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) The rules regarding the coordination of social security systems are closely related to the principle of the free movement of persons and should improve the living standard and employment conditions of citizens living in another European Union Member State. The present regulation in the version amended by the Rapporteurs simplifies all these procedures and expands the scope of application to all categories of citizens, both those working and those unemployed. The European citizens should be able to benefit from pension rights with a total amount corresponding to the length of service. Once they settle into another European Union state, citizens should be able to find an administrative system able to collect all information regarding former employments, as well as the financial rights arising from the professional activity. This is why I would have wanted the Commission’s proposal to include solutions as exact as possible for the way in which Member States can efficiently transfer information regarding social rights. Moreover, I consider that the present regulation is fundamental for the European labour mobility. A Eurobarometer survey shows that more than 50% of the citizens feel discouraged by the social insecurity they expect following the change of the workplace to another Member State. Consequently, only 2% of the European citizens presently live in another Member State than their own. If we want mobility to be a real driver of the European economy, we have to eliminate all administrative obstacles regarding the portability of social rights.

Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Commissioner Špidla, ladies and gentlemen, we need to coordinate social security at the European level, hence this opportunity to debate the issue. First, I would like to welcome the work done by the rapporteurs, Emine Bozkurt and Jean Lambert. Second, I would like to highlight the following points: the absolute need to guarantee compatibility between national systems, in the private and mutualist sectors as well as the public sector. Such compatibility will contribute to greater mobility and provide workers with the opportunity to move around the whole of Europe. Mr President, in this context, it is important to make progress with aggregating deductions in different Member States, just as it is important to guarantee that the coordination of social security systems strengthens and never restricts citizens’ rights. In addition, it is essential to simplify the rules so that citizens are able to understand the principles and language used by European Union institutions and feel that Europe is one entity. We know it is not easy to manage social security systems, but it is essential that the citizens of Europe understand the criteria we are using. I would go further and say that this coordination will certainly help us increase our mutual understanding of the different social security systems. We need to move towards improved social security for all Europeans, towards a social security system that takes on board the best practices from the different systems, to improve coordination today and, who knows, harmonisation tomorrow.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The internal market, embracing the four freedoms, is one of the fundamental achievements of the European Union. Adopting the directive on services and free movement of people brings advantages for European Union citizens. On the other hand, citizens turn to us with problems they encounter when in need of health and social care. Individual Member States have their specific social security systems. I am convinced that coordination of the systems, transparency, elimination of bureaucracy and the electronic information exchange system will be beneficial to all EU citizens.

I should like to thank all Members for today’s very interesting debate, and the rapporteurs for their challenging work.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the detailed debate that, in my opinion, is testimony to the high quality of the relevant report. Right now we have reached a certain stage in regard to our work on the new regulation. Indeed at this point not all problems have been 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 29

solved but, as the debate has also shown, we have achieved success in all aspects. The European system coordinates social security systems. This does not mean that it defines new rights. At this level we do not define new rights. What we do is improve the practical application of rights for citizens moving across the European Union. These are tens of millions of people, tens of millions of cases. Consequently, allow me once again to stress how important this debate is given that it is extremely practical and affects almost every single citizen of the European Union. Let me also stress that the technical proposals tabled also have some fundamental political purport because freedom of movement and access to rights belong, in my opinion, to the fundamental principles on which the European Union has been built. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to respond, just briefly, to a comment we heard regarding new directives on the movement of patients that will be tabled. I want to emphasise that the issue is not free movement of services, in other words any parallels with any previous directive are inaccurate. I am also of the opinion that the thorough debate in Parliament will prove that these proposals represent progress for European Union citizens.

Jean Lambert, rapporteur. − Madam President, I would like to thank all those Members who have contributed to the debate. It is clear that some people lead what appear to be complicated lives. In fact the situation may be very straightforward if the border is within maybe 10 km of their homes and they are looking for work or indeed other things. It is certainly clear from some speeches we have heard in this House that the current system is not well understood either in some Member States’ administrations or in this House itself. Coordination of social security systems already exists – this is not new. What this is doing is updating, implementing and simplifying. All of you who have a European health insurance card with you – which, of course, you all will have – will know that even under the existing system we can simplify. I recommend Amendment 30 to Article 11(1) to the individual who was not sure whether or not he was frontier worker. This implementing regulation is also trying to set out clearly the rights that people have. That is the aim of Amendment 34, and of Amendment 125, which is a clarification and does not give new rights to somebody who is seeking work in two Member States. I would once again urge people to support the committee text concerning the database. If this is not up and running effectively – and it is something that Member States’ administrations want as well – then it becomes very difficult to meet whatever deadlines this House decides to put in place today. I recommend the committee position for both the reports to the House and look forward to the vote in a few minutes.

Emine Bozkurt, rapporteur. − (NL) I haven't really anything more to add. My thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate: thank you for your support. I am now looking to see how the vote goes shortly.

Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, on Monday evening we were gratified at the visit by the Minister, Mr Jouyet, and the importance that the French Presidency appeared to attach to the work of this Parliament. Today, when we are discussing social security, the Presidency bench has remained hopelessly empty. I hope that is not an indication that the French Presidency of the Union is not interested in a subject as important as social security.

President. – The debate is closed. We shall now proceed to the vote. 30 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT Vice-President

4. Decision on urgent procedure

Proposal for a Council regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Union fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis (COM(2008)0454 - C6-0270 /2008 -2008/0144(CNS))

Philippe Morillon, Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, we have indeed received this request for the urgent procedure and it was considered by the Committee on Fisheries at the special meeting held here at 10 o'clock. The Committee on Fisheries was unanimously in favour of adopting this urgent procedure and I am grateful to it for its promptness in dealing with the matter.

(Parliament agreed to urgent procedure.)(1)

5. Voting time

President. − The next item is the vote. (For the results and other details on the vote: see minutes.)

5.1. Annual action programmes for Brazil and Argentina (2008) (B6-0336/2008) (vote)

5.2. EU priorities for the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly (A6-0265/2008, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff) (vote)

5.3. Safety on the Community's railways (A6-0223/2008, Paolo Costa) (vote)

5.4. Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (A6-0210/2008, Paolo Costa) (vote)

5.5. Rules for the operation of air services in the Community (recast) (A6-0264/2008, Arūnas Degutis) (vote)

5.6. Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics (MEETS) (A6-0240/2008, Christoph Konrad) (vote)

− Before the vote:

Christoph Konrad, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to make a very few remarks on this report, one aspect of which, as you know, is that it contributes to the process of deregulation and the reduction of red tape. The report provides for an obligation on the Commission to report annually to Parliament, informing us how this process of cutting red tape and deregulating is proceeding and, we hope, how well it is succeeding. We in Parliament, however, can play a far more prominent role in this process. It is therefore my hope and wish that, in addition to this reporting obligation on the part of the Commission, we ourselves can be far more actively involved in this process, for example through our work in committee. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in particular can take the lead in these matters, which includes engagement in dialogue with Commissioner Verheugen and the Stoiber group.

(1) See minutes for further details. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 31

Accordingly, we in Parliament still have work to do on this dossier, and I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that point.

5.7. Batteries and accumulators and their waste (A6-0244/2008, Johannes Blokland) (vote)

5.8. Restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (A6-0135/2008, Miroslav Ouzký) (vote)

5.9. Conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (A6-0253/2008, Atanas Paparizov) (vote)

5.10. Internal market in natural gas (A6-0257/2008, Romano Maria La Russa) (vote)

− Before the vote:

Romano Maria La Russa, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of the limited time available yesterday, I could not, as I wanted, thank all those who have worked with me. This has been a difficult directive, and there have been very lengthy discussions, but in my view we have ultimately reached a successful conclusion. I should like in particular to thank all my colleagues on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their cooperation, especially the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Reul, Mr Swoboda, Mr Manders, Mr Turmes, Mr Seppänen, and obviously Commissioner Piebalgs – I hope I have not left anyone out – as well as Mr Vidal-Quadras for his cooperation. I should also like to thank the secretariat as a whole, my staff and my fellow workers. Only three seconds. This is a directive which is of interest and is extremely important. It is a directive – please may I speak for three seconds. It is a directive – we lose so much time in this House! – which is of interest to operators, often, unfortunately, in the form of monopolies, and to consumers. I believe that in our work, we have tried not to penalise producers or consumers but have tried – and thank you for the applause, but I shall press on – we have tried to work for all European citizens in the sense … Right, you are in a hurry, let us conclude very briefly. This, and I thank you, is a very pleasing expression of parliamentary democracy in Europe. (Applause)

5.11. Coordination of social security systems (A6-0251/2008, Jean Lambert) (vote)

− Before the vote on Amendment 79:

Jan Cremers (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to propose reversing the order of the vote. Amendment 79 is broader and Amendment 163 restricts Amendment 79, so Amendment 79 is the most far-reaching. Therefore we would like to have that first.

President. − The reason it has been placed in this order is the addition of the word ‘severe’ in Amendment 163.

Jean Lambert, rapporteur. − Mr President, I am happy to support the reversal that is proposed by the PSE Group.

5.12. Coordination of social security systems: Annex XI (A6-0229/2008, Emine Bozkurt) (vote)

5.13. Extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to third country nationals otherwise excluded (A6-0209/2008, Jean Lambert) (vote) 32 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

5.14. Formation of political groups (amendment of Rule 29) (A6-0206/2008, Richard Corbett) (vote)

− Before the vote:

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, rather than invoking Rule 151 of our Rules of Procedure on the admissibility of amendments, since it seems, in fact, that an amendment bears only a distant relationship to the original text of the report, I should like to suggest that this House refer the text back to committee. I shall explain that proposal very briefly. The main purpose of the Corbett report, even in the opinion of Mr Corbett himself, is to prevent Members who share a belief in the defence of national identity, sovereignty and independence being able to form a group. However, I should like to point out the pernicious effects of the report. In the next parliamentary term, it might result in a very large number of non-attached Members who, having discovered their common ground, decide to form a group that would certainly be politically incorrect but would actually have even more Members than you fear. I am therefore following the totally anti-democratic, partisan and sectarian logic of Mr Corbett and the originators of this plan and am drawing their attention to the pernicious effects of texts like this. I suggest that the possible consequences of such a provision should be considered in committee.

President. − Mr Gollnisch, I was in the chair when your group was dissolved.

Daniel Hannan (NI). – Mr President, the worst possible reason to change the Rules is to aim it at one particular person or one particular group of people. That is the difference between the rule of law and arbitrary rule. In any case, I think this report, in the state that it now stands, is illegal because it was voted against in its original form in committee. The amended version now before the House bears such little resemblance to the original one, which was defeated in committee, so I think that, if we duly follow our own procedures, we have no option but to refer it either back to committee or to the legal services for arbitration.

Jo Leinen (PSE), chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, there is no reason to refer this report back to committee. If Mr Gollnisch had wished to present his case, he could have attended our committee meeting, but he did not. We have discussed all of this, and I put it to the House that that the number of Members of this Parliament has grown from 626 to the present level of 785 following the major enlargement, and is now set to rise from 732 to 751, and that, when such changes are made, the minimum size of a political group naturally needs to be redefined too. We have always done this in the past, and we are doing it again now. As you will know, the amendments on the table are compromise motions. For this reason, Mr President, I believe we should vote today rather than referring the matter back to committee again. Referral would serve no useful purpose. (The request for referral back to committee was rejected.)

- Before the vote on Amendment 3:

Hanne Dahl, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, I should like to briefly state the reasons for my oral amendment, and it actually concerns both Mr Corbett and Mr Leinen, who gave the size of Parliament as an argument for this change. The present oral amendment, which I am tabling on behalf of my group, is a natural extension of the amendments that were adopted in 2002 when Mr Corbett was rapporteur. I am therefore closely following his reasoning, which took account of the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 countries. Using the same ratios for an EU now consisting of 27 countries, one arrives at a figure of 3%, which must represent one fifth of these nations, resulting in a lower limit of 22 for the number of members. I hope that my amendment is seen for what it is, namely a compromise text. Yesterday’s negotiations made a plea for us to seek a compromise, one whose text was fully consistent with the reasoning used by Mr Corbett in 2002. The oral amendment reads as follows. I shall read it out in English, as I have only the English version, which was circulated among Members today. ‘A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one fifth of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be 3% of the total number of Members.’ 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 33

(DA) I would urge my fellow Members to vote in favour of this oral amendment, as it would be a compromise in which we who are opposed to the original proposal indeed remain faithful to Mr Corbett’s logic. (The oral amendment was not accepted.)

5.15. The role of the national judge in the European judicial system (A6-0224/2008, Diana Wallis) (vote)

5.16. Airbus/Boeing WTO disputes (vote)

5.17. European strategic energy technology plan (A6-0255/2008, Jerzy Buzek) (vote)

5.18. Sovereign Wealth Funds (vote)

5.19. Towards a new culture of urban mobility (A6-0252/2008, Reinhard Rack) (vote)

5.20. Report on the ECB annual report for 2007 (A6-0241/2008, Olle Schmidt) (vote)

6. Declaring 2011 'European Year of Volunteering' (written declaration): see Minutes

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Recommendation for second reading: Arūnas Degutis (A6-0264/2008)

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE) – (LT) Today in the European Parliament we have adopted the resolution on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community at second reading. We are amending the Regulation that has been in force since 1992, and I would like to point out once again the amendments that are of the greatest importance to our citizens, and primarily to passengers and aircraft crew. I am talking about the measures under consideration that would enable us to achieve transparency in air fares and to be more active in banning misleading advertising and dishonest competition in the sphere of air transport. The amendments intended to ensure greater adherence to flight security standards as well as social guarantees for aircraft crew are of great importance. It looks as if all disagreements between the Commission and the Council have been resolved, so the Regulation should enter into force at the end of the year. I do hope that the amended Regulation will be implemented appropriately in all EU Member States.

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, today, after 16 years, we have finally given the green light to simplification, unification and at the same time tighter restrictions in regard to the granting and revoking of air operating licences. I hope that the regulation will not result in the liquidation of small sports companies. I voted for the regulation. I sincerely believe that the regulation will truly make it possible to revoke the operating licences of companies that cheat customers by giving just their tariffs without any taxes, fees or fuel surcharges and therefore not giving the full price of air tickets. I hope that the supervising agency will also focus on price discrimination due to the place of residence. I believe that the amended regulation will lead to improved safety in the operation of air services, in particular by unifying the conditions governing the leasing of aircraft with crew in the EU, as well as from third countries.

- Report: Miroslav Ouzký (A6-0135/2008)

Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. As the Socialist responsible for this topic, I have supported the compromise recommendations brokered by Mr Ouzký. I regard it as a success for 34 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Parliament and also for the Socialist Group that the Council has also accepted the fact that we should restrict the two glycol solvents more, thus protecting the health of our citizens. The substance called DEGME damages health when absorbed through the skin. It is well known that it also limits reproductive ability, so it is a major success that we have prohibited its use not only in paints but also in cleaning materials and floor care products. Originally, the Commission would only have prohibited DEGME in paints, but through collaboration by all the parties we have also achieved its restriction in cleaning materials. Inhaling the solvent called DEGME is harmful to human health. According to the report by the European Commission, it would only have been banned in spray paints, but yet again, upon a recommendation from the Socialists, it has also been restricted in aerosol cleaning materials. Since there was no plenary debate, I wanted to mention the substance of the compromise recommendations.

- Report: Romano Maria La Russa (A6-0257/2008)

John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – (MT) It is important that the European Parliament is aware of the situation in my country regarding water and electricity prices and the effect of today’s decision, that is, regarding this case. That is why I am explaining my vote. Ever since the government raised the price of oil, it has raised the consumer’s bill by imposing a surcharge. This month it announced that this will increase to 96%. This will cause new poverty, poverty that will be known as energy poverty. At the same time, the government is not putting forward any short-term or long-term solution. Policy on alternative energy is non-existent, despite the fact that in my country we have a lot of sun and wind, even with regard to cleaner energy such as gas, to the extent that the Government has still not begun to give it any consideration. That is why I voted in this way and that is why what we have done today is important, if not historic.

Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me explain why I voted the way I did on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/55/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas. The key part of the directive undoubtedly concerns the proposal for the separation of ownership, which would expressly prevent vertically integrated companies from holding an interest in both the supply and transmission of gas. I voted for the amended compromise proposal because I am convinced that the concerns of countries that were against full ownership unbundling must be taken into account. I agree with the Commission that the European market in natural gas suffers from lack of investment in transmission infrastructure and a low degree of coordination between individual transmission system operators. In my opinion, however, we have to take into account the structural diversity of the natural gas and electricity markets and therefore make a distinction between them. The liberalisation of the gas market must be conducted gradually and symmetrically. It is necessary to focus especially on harmonisation of the degree of openness of the national markets.

Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I abstained from the final vote and voted against the proposal for the so-called ‘third option’ as regards the separation of suppliers and networks in the gas market, because we have lost a major opportunity to affirm the principle of free competition in the gas market. We should have followed what has taken place in the electricity market; in contrast, this third option in practice offers a guarantee to monopolies and former monopolies in Europe; our national markets will therefore continue to lack comparability, thereby making any prospect of a genuine European energy market even more remote. What is even worse is that this ambiguous third option in practice means that the former monopolies will be further encouraged and helped to enter into agreements along the lines of those with the Russian gas giant, Gazprom.

- Report: Jean Lambert (A6-0251/2008)

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, as everyone in this House knows, we have had an EC Regulation on the coordination of the European social security systems since 2004 but, unfortunately, no implementing regulation. The decision taken by the European Parliament finally gives us implementing rules too, which means that we have an instrument with which we can encourage mobility in the European Union without loss of social security. The establishment of liaison bodies also enables us to provide practical assistance to those who work outside their home country, for example by answering questions on where and how they should apply for pensions. In other words, we in the European Parliament have ensured that people can obtain real help on welfare matters. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 35

- Report: Emine Bozkurt (A6-0229/2008)

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) I abstained in the vote on the Bozkurt report, although in principle I have no objection to a limited form of coordination by the EU Member States of their various social security systems, certainly not if that works to the advantage of European citizens living in a Member State other than their own. However, I would once again warn against harmonisation, or worse still, uniformity in the different social security systems in the various Member States. As a Fleming I am, in a manner of speaking, a privileged observer of how a unitary system of social security in Belgium for just two population groups, Flemings and Walloons, is totally unworkable and leads to enormous abuses. For goodness' sake let each Member State organise and finance its own social security itself, otherwise one way or another you end up with an abuse-ridden system which is worse, more expensive and less efficient, and ultimately that creates less, not more solidarity amongst the peoples of Europe.

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I also wanted to explain that I voted in favour of this report because it proposes a new regulation in place of the old one, thereby ensuring that our systems of social security can now be more effectively coordinated, because the relevant legal provisions have been simplified and amended. The Lambert report also enables us to achieve our objectives of making another contribution to greater mobility in the European Union and enabling people to take their entitlement to welfare benefits with them when they find employment in another Member State. That is a contribution to social security in the European Union.

- Report: Richard Corbett (A6-0206/2008)

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Thank you, Madam President. So here we are today at stage two of Mr Corbett's efforts to groom Parliament still better as the lapdog of the politically correct Eurocrat caste. Yesterday it was decided that we MEPs are scarcely to be allowed to table parliamentary questions, and there is to be a system of self-censure by the President of Parliament. Today it is being made easier to form groups, and the rapporteur emphatically, and to some degree honestly, acknowledges that this measure is aimed primarily at the Eurosceptic right in Parliament. So things have come full circle. Eurosceptic opinion in this House, certainly that on the political right, has to be muzzled. The Eurosceptic vote in referendums in Ireland, the Netherlands and France is, as usual, simply ignored as if it did not exist. This is a European version of Mugabe-style democracy. Some democracy!

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr Corbett, actually expressed his views, using offensive language, I might add, outside the Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding the political family of which I am one of the representatives in this House; this clearly gives rise to serious doubts as to his impartiality. The report is highly questionable and its content was drastically reduced in committee; all that remained were arrangements to ensure the survival of politically correct groups whose total number of members would fall below the minimum number required, and an amendment has been sneaked in specifically to prevent our political family from forming a group. The reasons given are completely at odds with the facts; you need only refer to the annex to the report to see that there is no national parliament where the minimum number of Members required to form a group is higher than 20. Incidentally, that number is often much lower, at 15, 10 or 8, and in some cases a single person is enough to form a political group. The Corbett report is therefore an attack on democracy and, quite simply, on the basic rules of fair play.

Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) This Corbett report has just one purpose, and one purpose only, namely to muzzle the right-wing national voices in the European Parliament. Mr Corbett's group chairman makes no secret of the fact. When the ITS Group was formed in January 2007, he said quite openly that the Regulation would be amended specifically in order to block the formation of right-wing groups in future.

Other groups will undoubtedly suffer collateral damage as a result, but Mr Corbett will not lose any sleep over that. His proposal is probably aimed at a Eurosceptic group. Clearly it is anathema to the socialists in Parliament that groups of all political colours should have the same means and political rights. This Mugabe-style thinking is an integral part of the democratic deficit in Europe, in the same way that the democratic verdict of the voters in France, the Netherlands and Ireland is being steadfastly ignored. Rest assured, Mr President, we shall make this an election issue next year in Flanders. 36 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Daniel Hannan (NI). – Mr President, the fact that we voted at all on this today seems to me a breach of this Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The committee voted down the report because I think the chairman of the committee had miscalculated who was in the room, at which point he simply tore up the rule book and proceeded on an amended version of it. Why have we gone to such lengths? What is it that is so important that it requires us to tear up our rules like this? Well, the answer of course as we know – and the rapporteur has been clear about it – is to prevent Eurosceptics from forming a group. But why are you so frightened? What is it that makes you so nervous? We are only 50, maybe 60 people maximum, out of 785 MEPs. Could it be that the people you are really worried about are your own voters and that you are sublimating and projecting on to us the contempt and fear you feel for the electorates of Europe who vote ‘no’ whenever given an opportunity, that you take out on us, their visible spokesmen in this Chamber, what you dare not express about the people who return you to this place. If I am wrong, prove me wrong: hold the referendums that you once promised. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

Bogdan Pęk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against Mr Corbett’s report, as I believe it to be a symptom of extreme discrimination at the heart of the allegedly democratic European Parliament, which is trying to use administrative methods to make it impossible to form political groups that do not think or act in the way the majority consider to be politically correct. This is a two-fold discrimination because administrative methods are being used to stop the formation of groups and, at the same time, considerable amounts of additional financial support are being given to organised political groups, which gives them an additional advantage. This discrimination goes against the basis of the European Union and the foundations on which the EU is supposed to be built. I protest most strongly against this move; you should not have any illusions about the fact that even if you are able to carry this through, you will not be able to push it through the nations of Europe, which will definitely object.

Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, I have rarely heard such nonsense as I have just heard from the Vlaams Blok, the Front national and Dan Hannan. This report does not censor anybody, nor would this rule change lead to anyone losing their vote, their right to speak and their right to act as Members of the European Parliament. What this rule change is about is: at what threshold do you set the figure to enable Members to create a group and thereby access extra taxpayers’ money and extra resources to pursue political activities? Every national parliament that has a group system sets a threshold. We had a particularly low one – lower as a percentage than almost any national parliament. It is quite right that we stand back and examine it. I notice that in the end almost all groups supported the compromise – large groups and small groups. I notice that the speaker for the Independence/Democracy Group itself – the Eurosceptic IND/DEM Group – proposed an alternative figure of 3%: 22 MEPs. So they themselves recognise that our current figure needs to be raised, that it is currently too low. Frankly, is the difference between their figure of 22 and the figure of 25 that has been adopted really an attack on democracy? Oh, come off it!

- Report: Jerzy Buzek (A6-0255/2008)

Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Buzek’s report provides a detailed appraisal of all strategic measures in the area of energy technology. Unfortunately, a lack of financing for all the research needed, together with the sudden increase in the prices of gas and oil, meant that we had to direct our research

to issues linked to reducing their use for power generation purposes. This priority will also reduce CO2 emissions and should be included in the strategy. I believe it is important to promote research into the construction of safe, modern nuclear power stations and into the construction of the newest power stations based on producing helium and hydrogen, as well as on third generation biofuels that can be produced within local areas, easing overstretched fuel costs. In the voting I supported the amendments that spoke of these priorities.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, we have accepted the important report prepared by Professor Buzek. The European Union’s growing dependence on energy imports, which, in 2030, are to reach a level of 65%, has forced us to take steps to ensure the security of supplies of raw materials used for power generation, based on the principle of solidarity. Additional instruments should also be created to reduce the risks to energy security of individual Member States caused by continuing liberalisation of the 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 37

energy sector. In order to reach EU objectives as regards renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases, we must promote the development of new technologies, especially technologies for carbon capture and storage. It is important to support clean coal technologies and to intensify our activities as regards second and third generation biofuels as well as to increase research into nuclear power. Work on improvements in efficiency and energy savings has also become much more important. Written explanations of vote

- Motion for a resolution (B6-0336/2008) – Annual action programmes for Brazil and Argentina (2008)

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, I am voting for this resolution. I am the Development Committee’s rapporteur on the Erasmus Mundus programme and my report has recently been adopted unanimously. I hope that we will be able to endorse the final text in the September plenary, so that the new programme can start in January 2009. The aim is to export the excellence of our university system beyond the borders of the Union, enabling foreign students to come to study in our faculties – and giving students from the EU an opportunity, through support, to gain experience in a non-EU country. I believe that Erasmus is a key instrument for sustainable development since, as my report stresses, it should promote the return of students to their own countries and thus contribute, through the fund of ideas, knowledge and international contacts that they have gained, to the growth of their country’s economies.

A substantial proportion of financing, in relation to action 2, is taken from the appropriations earmarked for development. In my view it is necessary to ensure that the financial appropriations for the 2008 annual action programmes for Argentina and Brazil, specifically earmarked for the promotion of economic development and welfare, are actually used for both education and concrete action in the field and that they provide infrastructure and means of production geared to sustainable development.

- Report: Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (A6-0265/2008)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As it is impossible to mention all the important points in this report, I would like to highlight that after the Irish people’s emphatic NO to the Treaty of Lisbon, this Parliament continues to pretend and act as though nothing has happened. However, very much to the contrary, as shown by this report’s shameless ambition. Among other aspects, the majority of the European Parliament considers that: - each country’s position, that is, their foreign policies should be linked to a binding political platform established by the EU; - the EU should consider a reorganisation and expansion of its offices at the UN, in view of ‘the increased powers and responsibilities that the EU’s representatives will be expected to exercise with a view to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty’; - the Council should define, ‘as soon as possible, the operational nature of the EU’s observer status at the United Nations’; - Member States should agree ‘a more cohesive position on the reform of the UN Security Council – one which, whilst maintaining the ultimate objective, within a reformed United Nations, of one permanent seat for the European Union, aims in the meantime at augmenting the weight of the Union’. Federalism, under the thumb of the great powers, with Germany at the head, in one of its ambitious and clear expressions ...

Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. − The European Parliamentary Labour Party welcomes this report and in particular welcomes the strong calls on EU Member States to concentrate and strengthen their commitment towards the Millennium Development Goals. We strongly agree that the focus must be on meeting the promises made and scaling up the existing procedures. Labour Euro MPs, however, do not agree with the recommendation for a single EU seat on the UN Security Council and cannot support this recommendation. We do not believe this would be a good thing for the scale of European representation. Under Article 19, European members of the UNSC do not explicitly present EU positions in the Council. Furthermore, the UN Charter itself stipulates that this cannot be the case. However 38 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

there is a healthy informal co-ordination process both in New York and more widely, and it is this which should be encouraged.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), in writing. − (IT) The Verts/ALE Group has always considered that the European Union should have a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, as set out in the Lambsdorff report. Our Group does not, however, accept the ‘priority’ status that has been afforded to the initiative known as the ‘Overarching Process’ under which there would be an increase in the number of permanent national members and which, in our view, has to be seen as only one of a range of initiatives.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Mr Lambsdorff's report setting out the EU priorities for the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly. I particularly support the need to continue to push for an ambitious commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) at the Summit. The EU MDG Agenda should set a global example and we should be pushing for this example to be followed by the rest of the international community at the UN General Assembly in September. I voted in favour of the report.

Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Today the proposal of Mr. Lambsdorff for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU priorities for the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly was adopted without a vote in plenary. Not only is this practice – that is enabled by ‘rule 90’ – very dubious, it also gives the false impression that the whole EP agrees with the content of the report, which is certainly not the case. We strongly reject the recommendation that the current status of the Lisbon Treaty would call for a ‘reorganisation and expansion of the offices of the Council and the Commission in New York and Geneva in view of the increased powers and responsibilities that the EU’s representatives will be expected to exercise with a view to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.’ Not only is this an insult to the Irish voters that rejected the Lisbon Treaty by a wide majority during the referendum, it is also an attempt to interpret the Lisbon Treaty in such a way that it would ‘confer legal personality upon the EU’, thus making it a superstate.

Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. − (IT) The Lambsdorff report (and related recommendation) gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union’s profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return. However, one part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called ‘Overarching Process’, an exercise led by those countries committed to supporting only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out. While we would stress that we very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union’s profile in the United Nations, we consider that our reservations and objection to the part of the recommendation on the ‘Overarching Process’ should be minuted.

Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, I should like to give a favourable opinion on the Lambsdorff report, which once again highlights the European Parliament’s commitment to strengthening the European Union’s profile in the United Nations. I should like, however, to stress that, on the issue of the reform of the Security Council, the report puts forward a value judgment prejudicial to the discussions still under way in New York. In particular, among the various reform options on the table, mention is made of the ‘Overarching Process’ (paragraph Q), a proposal to increase the number of permanent national members of the Security Council. That proposal has up to now been supported by less than one third of the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly.

I would therefore ask you to minute my reservation about this section of the recommendation.

Gianni Pittella (PSE), in writing. − (IT) The Lambsdorff report gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union’s profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 39

One part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called ‘Overarching Process’, supported by countries which would like only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out. While I would stress that I very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union’s profile in the United Nations, I consider that my reservation and objection to the part of the recommendation on the ‘Overarching Process’ should be minuted.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) It is worrying that the issue of United Nations reform crops up so regularly. The need for reform has been recognized for some years, but so has the impossibility of carrying out such reform. This impasse is serious for two reasons. First, it aggravates the factors contributing to the organisation’s failures, and there are quite a few of these. Second, it promotes the emergence of a discourse sustained and justified by the need for alternatives. Strengthening cooperation between democracies is clearly a worthy idea to promote, even though this does not imply comprehensive adherence to the League of Democracies project. However, it would also be wise to be realistic. That is why the UN needs to adapt to the realities of power, not so much because of the question of legitimacy but rather because of the question of viability.

Regarding the European Union's role, we must recognise that none of the countries with a seat on the Security Council or that might gain a seat on it agree to their replacement by a single EU seat. Finally, we have seen that the new United Nations Human Rights Council is a long way from overcoming the deficiencies of its predecessor.

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE), in writing. − (ES) With regard to the recommendation to the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly to be held in September in New York, Rule 90(4) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that a recommendation within the framework of the CFSP, which has been voted on in committee, shall be deemed adopted and be included on the agenda for the plenary sitting without the need for the plenary to ratify the text, and without any debate and amendment procedure. Therefore, since we are happy with virtually all the document, except for one paragraph, my Group would like to reserve its opinion on the paragraph referring to sexual and reproductive health services. That concept, which is somewhat ambiguous, incorporates questions which to a large extent are a matter for the individual conscience and morals, and we consider that they should NOT form the subject of any pronouncements on the part of this Parliament, especially in relation to the new session of the United Nations. Our Group requested a separate vote in the AFET Committee and voted against for the reasons just given.

Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. − The Lambsdorff report and recommendation are of high political importance in as much as they promote a reinforcement of the European Union inside the United Nations. It may be useful to remember that though the Commission and the Member States provide more than 40% of the UN budget, the EU impact and influence in the United Nations is still much weaker than it should be. However, the text of the report contains a misleading part about the discussions which are currently taking place in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While confirming the long-term target of a permanent seat for the EU, the recommendation quotes among many others only one of the various proposals on the floor, the so-called ‘overarching process’. It is well known that this proposal has turned out to be highly divisive and has obtained the consensus of less than one third of the UN members, as noted by the President of the General Assembly. Therefore, while expressing a strong appreciation for the overall content and structure of this European Parliament recommendation, I consider it necessary to stress our explicit reservation and objection on the part mentioning the ‘overarching process’.

Marcello Vernola (PPE-DE), in writing. − (IT) The Lambsdorff report (and related recommendation) gives a clear political signal for the strengthening of the European Union’s profile within the United Nations; taking the Commission and the Member States together, the Union provides the UN with over 40% of its funding, but has not as yet acquired any political sway or capacity of influence in return. 40 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

However, one part of the text is misleading and prejudicial to the discussions under way in New York on the reform of the Security Council. While stressing the ultimate objective of a permanent seat for the EU as such, the recommendation cites, among the various negotiating initiatives, only the so-called ‘Overarching Process’, an exercise led by those countries committed to supporting only one of the various proposals on the table, i.e. that of an increase in the number of permanent national members. That proposal, which has been supported by less than one third of the membership, has from the outset seemed divisive and unbalanced, as the President of the General Assembly has himself pointed out. While I would stress that I very much welcome the political attention that the European Parliament is focusing on the overall strengthening of the European Union’s profile in the United Nations, I consider that my reservation and objection to the part of the recommendation on the ‘Overarching Process’ should be minuted.

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) I am very pleased that the European Parliament has today considered the issue of European Union priorities for the coming UN meeting. The rapporteur’s proposal mentions the fact that the UN is looking for ‘the establishment of new bodies, the radical overhaul of others, the reshaping of the management of its ground operations, the reorganisation of its assistance delivery and an in-depth reform of its Secretariat’. This is extremely important. However, we should not forget that the purpose of all these activities is man and the human rights that flow from human dignity. Pope John Paul II spoke of this some years ago at a UN forum, saying that the first type of systematic threat to human rights was linked to the area of the division of material goods, which was often unjust; that a second type of threat related to the various forms of injustice in the field of the spirit, and that it was possible to harm a person in their internal attitude to truth, in their conscience, in the sphere of what are called citizens’ rights, to which all are entitled without discrimination on grounds of their background, race, sex, nationality, religion or political convictions. In my opinion, his words should provide a signpost for the activities of the United Nations.

- Recommendation for second reading: Paolo Costa (A6-0223/2008)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The current proposal forms part of a package (along with the proposals for directives on interoperability and the European Railway Agency) that seeks ‘the facilitation of the free movement of locomotives across the EU’, as part of the liberalisation of railway transport in the EU. Before any other considerations, we must therefore emphasise that this directive’s main objective is to eliminate any obstacle to the liberalisation of railway transport by harmonising railway safety legislation in each country. There is no doubt that the most advanced standards regulating railway safety in each country must be adopted and applied. However, we should remember that the liberalisation and privatisation of the railways was called into question in some countries, for example the United Kingdom, after a deterioration in services and other serious developments led to a rethink of the attack on this public service. I stress that the harmonisation of railway safety legislation at the community level must never threaten the most advanced laws established in each country, nor should it remove each country's right to keep such laws.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of Paolo Costa’s report concerning the amendment of Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways. Safety on the European rail network cannot be achieved without common objectives and joint action, which is why I very much welcome the railway package. One of its key aspects is the authorisation of rail vehicles; according to manufacturers and railway operators, there is little technical justification for the current authorisation requirements imposed by the competent authorities. The directives relating to the interoperability of railway systems must also be consolidated and merged. Another good thing is that the new legislative proposal provides for clear rules on the maintenance of vehicles. The next step is therefore a decision by the Commission in favour of a binding regulatory system for maintenance.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in support of Mr Costa's report "Safety on the Community's railways". The rapporteur's recommendations will help streamline legislation and facilitate free movement of trains 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 41

across the EU. These recommendations will cut red tape and should boost the development of rail transport in Europe.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) It is essential to harmonise national safety procedures in Member States. This issue provides one more example of how necessary it is to insist on investment in railway transport. If we want sustained development of Europe’s transport system and if we are going to achieve the goals and respect the commitments made to citizens and also at the international level in recent years, we have to invest in railways and guarantee the interoperability of the European railway system. Simplification measures and introduction of the principle of mutual recognition are the fundamental points in this report. Another very important point is the use of more rigorous training and certification measures for all interested and responsible parties in the Community railway market, from railway companies to infrastructure managers. I think that this report is one more positive step in our search for multi-modality as the main axis of European transport policy.

Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − I voted to exempt heritage railways from the scope of this directive. This continues to reflect my appreciation of the very special case which these companies represent. Had those companies had to comply with the terms of this directive it would have meant a crippling series of costs on largely volunteer/subscription organisations. Such railways as the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway and the Kent and East Sussex Light Railway (of which I am a life member) are part of the historic fabric of the tourist industry in the South East of England and across the EU. It is a shame that some in this House who purport to be ‘nationalistic’ in leaning could not support this exemption.

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) The creation of a common railway market for transport services requires changes to existing regulations. Member States have developed their own safety standards, primarily for national routes, based on national technical and operational concepts. It is becoming vital to create harmonised regulatory structures in Member States, common texts for safety regulations, uniform safety certificates for railway companies, similar responsibilities and competencies for safety authorities and for rail accident investigation procedures. Independent bodies for regulating and monitoring rail safety should be created in every Member State. In order to ensure proper cooperation between these bodies on the EU level, they should be given the same minimum range of tasks and responsibilities. The protection of public safety and order, which includes maintaining order in railway communications designated for public use, should be one of the basic tasks for which the EU is responsible.

- Recommendation for second reading: Paolo Costa (A6-0210/2008)

Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I supported all the amendments to the Committee on Transport and Tourism’s report on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency. In the United Kingdom we have seen a growth of more than a fifth in the number of passengers on the train. In the short term this has led to enormous difficulties as over-crowded trains have led to enormous congestion and as passengers in certain regions – including my own, the South West of England – have resented and protested at the movement of rolling stock around the country. At the same time campaigns are moving to re-open long closed stations and lines to cope with demand and the need to reduce carbon emissions, such as the campaign in Radstock, Somerset. In the longer term, new orders for rolling stock will alleviate the crisis but, if Europe’s railways are to continue to flourish, we need some strategic thinking that hopefully a strengthened European Railway Agency can provide.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The current proposal forms part of a package of measures (along with the proposals for directives on interoperability and safety) to liberalise railway transport in the EU, in which the ‘agency’ takes on the central role of ‘regulator’. This policy will promote the gradual deterioration of railway transport as a public service and give the more profitable routes to private companies through privatisation (public-private partnerships), at the cost of the taxpaying public and irrespective of the interests and needs of each country and their people. 42 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

In Portugal, as time has shown, implementation of this policy has led to a deterioration in public services, restricted mobility and increased fares. It has resulted in the closure of hundreds of kilometres of railway track, the closure of stations, a reduction in the number of passengers and in service quality, a reduction in the number of workers employed in the railway sector and an attack on their pay and labour rights. The railway sector is strategic for socioeconomic development. We need a policy that promotes the development and improvement of public railway transport systems in our countries.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I voted for Paolo Costa’s report on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency. Improving the technical legal framework for the Community’s railways as part of the third railway package is an essential and welcome development, which includes measures to strengthen the European Railway Agency. As the central body, the Agency must ensure that a uniform strategy is pursued throughout Europe. Particular importance attaches in this respect to the continued development of the European Railway Traffic Management System, the interoperability and compatibility of which must be ensured at all costs. The creation of an EC verification procedure is a suitable means to this end, but its effectiveness will depend on a robust and efficient European Railway Agency. For this reason I support further development of the Agency as proposed by the rapporteur.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Paulo Costa's report on the establishment of a European Railway Agency notably supports the call for a European Railway Traffic Management System, consisting of the most advanced rail safety technology. I support this initiative which, in tandem with the "Safety on the Community Railways" report, will allow for a more cohesive European rail network. I voted in favour of the report.

Robert Navarro (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The issue of rail interoperability is critical to the development and the success of Europe’s railways. I am therefore very pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise in the interest of improving Community legislation in this area. Although I voted in favour of the proposals put forward by the rapporteur, Paolo Costa, I am not any less aware of the limits of this compromise. Ten years to achieve the certification of all types of rolling stock is a considerable amount of time. As for the role of the European Railway Agency, it could have been much more extensive, particularly with regard to the development and implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The Member States decided otherwise for fear of seeing the railway agencies and other national bodies – newly established, it is true – doomed to obsolescence. However, if this is where we are at now, then it is because, back in 2004, they did not have the courage to give a truly European impetus to the railways. This is how European integration proceeds: in fits and starts and in small steps. However, if we adopt this cautious approach, we are likely to miss some opportunities, which is why I hope that the Member States will play the game by rigorously applying what they themselves have proposed.

- Recommendation for second reading: Arūnas Degutis (A6-0264/2008)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Reaffirming our critique of its main objective, that is the liberalisation of air transport as a public service within the EU, we would like to remind you of what we pointed out one year ago. There is an attempt here: - to hide the fact that liberalisation had a negative impact on employment and working conditions. The effects of this on safety and the maintenance of quality fleets should be evaluated; - to avoid safeguarding full respect for workers’ rights and avoid mentioning that: a) the contracts and working conditions of cabin crews will be regulated by legislation, collective agreements and related rights of the country in which workers habitually perform their job or in which they begin and to which they return after work, even if temporarily deployed in another country; b) employees of ‘community’ air transport that provides services from an operational base located outside the territory of the Member States will be subject to the social legislation and collective agreements of the country in which the operator has its main office; c) participation of representative workers’ organisations in the decisions taken on the air transport sector will be guaranteed. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 43

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) The regulation that has been passed by the European Parliament changes the legislation regulating the provision of air services in the European Union, to the benefit both of air carriers and of passengers. The Regulation is important for the proper functioning of the internal market. It creates a more competitive environment for the activities of European carriers that pit themselves against their international competitors. Through it, the same conditions will be set out for the issue and revocation of operating licences, which should eliminate the distortions of competition that are currently prevalent in the market and which are due, among other factors, to different regulations as regards requirements for operating licences, to discrimination against certain EU carriers because of their nationality, or else discrimination in servicing routes to third countries. However, the greatest beneficiary of the changes that have been introduced will be the consumer. By making it compulsory to include all the taxes and additional charges in the price of air tickets, there will be greater price transparency and support for the principle of making additional payments voluntarily. It will also stop consumers from having to pay higher tariffs and will make it possible for consumers to make informed decisions. In addition, by eliminating airlines that are financially unsound, passengers will be free from the risk created by the possibility of their carrier going bankrupt.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of Arūnas Degutis’s report on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. Moves to strengthen and improve the existing legal provisions are to be encouraged, especially as regards the transparency of air fares. Passengers are entitled to a full breakdown of the price of their air tickets. The new instrument will make fares more transparent and comprehensible. In this way the European Union is acting to combat misleading advertising and to create a level playing field based on quality, not on the apparent attractiveness of deals, particularly on the Internet. The measures to ensure compliance with welfare provisions represent another improvement made by the new instrument, giving employees better cover and more uniform working conditions. The common rules will safeguard consumers’ and employees’ rights and guarantee the necessary transparency and disclosure of information on the part of air carriers in the Community.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I am in favour of the rapporteur’s view concerning adoption of the Council common position without any amendments. I also think that this Regulation strengthens and improves existing legal provisions concerning monitoring of operating licences, leasing of aircraft, air traffic distribution and price transparency.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Arūnas Degutis’ report on the rules for the operation of air services in the Community will ensure that the price you see for flights is the actual price you pay. Final prices for flights must now include fares, taxes, airport charges and other charges. This is a positive move towards greater transparency in the aviation sector and consumer protection. Workers in the air services sector will also experience greater social protection under the report’s proposals. I therefore voted in favour of the report’s recommendations.

James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. − I fully support this report, which will put an end to the unfair practice of airlines advertising fares that exclude taxes, charges and a wide range of other extra fees. The present situation allows airlines to get away with advertising misleading fares that, very simply, prove to be false. As a result, there is a serious lack of price transparency regarding airfares, which is distorting competition and affecting the consumer's ability to make informed choices. In many cases, people end up paying a lot more than they originally expected, as the advertised fare bears little resemblance to the final cost. The Commission and Parliament have worked together to ensure that this will change. This report will mean that airfares must be advertised simply and clearly, inclusive of all taxes and extra charges. The European Union's ‘crackdown’ on this practice is great news for the consumer.

- Report: Christoph Konrad (A6-0240/2008)

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Statistics are widely used, not just by companies or institutions involved in the economy. They play an important role in planning or following market trends. For this reason it is important that the indicators used to collect these statistics should be reliable and should 44 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

properly reflect reality and market changes. Existing indicators should be reviewed, but consideration should also be given to new areas of data collection. The need to modernise our statistics results also from the existence of different systems and different statistical practices in Member States, which often makes it difficult to compare data across the whole European Union. Of course, changes in this area should not increase the reporting burden on companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The sophisticated approach used in the Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics should encourage rationalisation as well as the coordination of methods used to obtain statistics from different sources and, what is most important, will mean that companies will not have to supply the same data to different institutions that are involved in data collection. I believe that the Programme for the Modernisation of European Enterprise and Trade Statistics is a good step towards reducing the administrative burden on businesses, which will help to achieve the target set by the European Commission, to reduce that burden by 25% by 2012.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support Mr Konrad’s report on the programme for the modernisation of the European enterprise and trade statistics. The report seeks to provide investment to improve the efficiency of statistical production so that new demands can be met while business burdens are reduced. I voted in favour of the report.

- Report: Johannes Blokland (A6-0244/2008)

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) I am in favour of this report. Batteries and accumulators that do not comply with the requirements of Directive 2006/66/EC should be withdrawn and should not be allowed to be sold. The Commission decided that batteries that comply with existing regulations that are placed on the European Union market prior to 26 September 2008 will not be withdrawn. I consider this to be a very reasonable solution. The withdrawal of batteries that do not comply with requirements will result in an increase in waste. I believe that the simplest and best way to deal with this situation is to put stickers on these batteries and accumulators stating that they do not comply with EU regulations.

- Report: Miroslav Ouzký (A6-0135/2008)

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − With Mr Ouzky’s report the use of two substances 2-(2-methoxyethoxy) ethanol (DEGME) and 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol (DEGBE) will be greatly restricted and in some cases banned in products marketed to the general public. The report’s recommendations bolster consumer protection and I voted in favour of the report.

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) Toxic substances contained in products used for cleaning, rinsing and disinfecting, as well as in paints and solvents, can pose a risk to human health by irritating respiratory pathways and eyes and by causing allergies. Restricting market access to products that do not fulfil set safety standards could significantly help to protect our health and the environment. The majority of these products can be harmful in use, causing various unpleasant symptoms. They can also be harmful to the environment after entering the ecosystem. Where they pollute the soil or water sources, it is often impossible to predict what the results will be. Limiting the levels of MEE and BEE in various types of detergents or cleaning products is a very positive step and for this reason I believe that the European Union should make every effort and commitment to eliminate these unhealthy substances from our lives and from the environment.

- Report : Atanas Paparizov (A6-0253/2008)

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We voted against this report because it forms part of the gas market liberalisation package and expressly supports steps to complete the internal market as quickly as possible even though it does not, in general, approve the instruments and regulations proposed by the European Commission. There are some interesting critical observations directed at: the impact assessments submitted; the failure, at times, to observe the subsidiarity principle; and the inconsistent allocation of powers between the European structures. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 45

However, the line taken by the report is to facilitate company access to the natural gas transmission networks, that is, facilitate the privatisation of what is left of the public sector and place it at the service of the strategy of economic groups that want to enter the market.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Atanas Paparizov’s report on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks will facilitate the integration of the EU internal gas market. The report tackles cross-border issues between Member States and will increase regulatory oversight at European level. It is important for the EU to work towards an internal market in gas and I voted in support of the report.

José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) This report deserves a vote in favour from myself and all my colleagues who believed that the consistency of the third energy package depended on the effective and not merely cosmetic regulation of trade in natural gas. I welcome the willingness to create the conditions to increase investment in gas networks. In itself, this will allow a potential increase in competitiveness and competition in the sector. I welcome the efforts towards the effective liberalisation of national gas markets and third party access to the network, which increases the level of transparency. Finally, I welcome the inherent willingness of this document to put into practice the desire of European citizens to see a more transparent and less monopolised energy market. The third energy package needs the approval of this report as do our fellow European citizens.

- Report: Romano Maria La Russa (A6-0257/2008)

John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. − The position I have taken reflects my opinion regarding the importance of natural gas and its availability for consumers at the lowest possible price. A gas pipeline is going to unite Libya and Sicily. This will pass in the vicinity of Malta so that, in order for my country to benefit, it will have to either join the pipeline or, as has been proposed, there will have to be a pipeline from Sicily to Malta. My country does not have a large domestic market and its consumption varies between 16 to 18 million units annually. Should the use of natural gas become more widespread, it will no doubt change the policy on energy in both Malta and Gozo. This can take place if gas is used in the production of energy itself. I drew the attention of the then Nationalist Government to the importance of having gas-powered stations some 15 years ago. The government did not pay any heed and eventually installed only one small gas-powered station as an extension. Also, as distances in Malta are small, it is feasible to use gas for the propulsion of private and commercial vehicles. The conversion of vehicle engines is not a problem. Also gas is much cheaper and much cleaner than petrol or diesel. But the government and its agency, EneMalta, have not even considered the infrastructure needed regarding its distribution.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The proposal for a directive on the internal gas market forms part of the ‘third energy package’, which completes the privatisation of natural gas supply services. The proposal for a directive and the report aim to eliminate the high level of centralisation that still exists in certain countries, in order to complete the penetration of EU monopolies into the market, thus accelerating the implementation of liberalisation, while also imposing sanctions on the Member States that have not yet fully implemented it. The package has two key points: ownership unbundling between gas supply activities and gas transportation and storage activities, so that capital can effectively make use of that public infrastructure for the production, storage and transportation of gas that remains in the Member States. The empowerment of supposedly independent regulatory authorities, aimed at eliminating any ability on the part of the Member States to make national adjustments or state interventions, guarantees total immunity for the business groups that will be preying on the gas sector.

This EU policy will have the same dreadful results for employees as the privatisation of other energy sectors: increased prices and a deterioration in the quality of services. The struggle against monopoly interests to overturn this policy is the only way to meet the current needs of working-class families.

José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) This measure unequivocally demonstrates our shared willingness to achieve the objective of liberalising the energy market. I therefore vote in favour. 46 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I believe that the ownership unbundling of natural gas production assets and transmission networks is necessary for this, but not per se a sufficient condition. Hence the concern to create the necessary conditions to encourage transnational investments in network infrastructure. Hence the concern to demand equal treatment for third countries that intend to invest in the European energy market. Hence the concern to improve coordination between national energy sector regulators. This measure will make the market competitive and is therefore in the interests of consumers, who will benefit from the new rules of a more healthy, free and transparent energy market.

- Report: Jean Lambert (A6-0251/2008)

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I am voting for this report because it will make life easier for people relocating and travelling between Member States, without any powers being transferred to the EU.

Marian Zlotea (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the Lambert report because it is an answer to the citizens’ needs. We are living in a world of globalization where thousands of people are working in another country than their country of residence and we need a coordination of the social security systems for all people using their right to work in other states, in order to ensure and support mobility, which is a fundamental right in the European Union.

Europe allows us to move freely, but it should also provide us with more social rights, which should not stop at national borders. Hoping that the European citizens will be able to benefit, from the point of view of social security, from equal treatment and non-discrimination, I support the initiative to facilitate the workers’ freedom of movement. We have to eliminate all barriers to mobility.

- Report: Emine Bozkurt (A6-0229/2008)

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I am voting against this report because it contains proposals for the detailed regulation at EU level of such matters as the payment of Swedish parental allowances, which will create difficulties in individual assessments, and it gives the EU too much power.

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The purpose of this document is to make EU rules as regards the coordination of social security systems in individual Member States better and more effective. The regulations it contains will definitely simplify the lives of the average EU citizen who benefits from the freedom of movement throughout the European Union. Whether someone is an employee, an official in administration, a student, a pensioner or a businessman, everyone will be able to keep their entitlements to social security payments after changing their country of residence. I definitely support the ending of yet another obstacle to the free movement of persons within the EU, and this document is another important step in this direction.

- Report: Jean Lambert (A6-0209/2008)

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I have two comments on the Lambert report and the regulation that it amends. 1. In spite of the rapporteur’s denials, the draft regulation assumes that third-country nationals enjoy free movement, freedom of establishment and free access to the labour market throughout the European Union; it must be remembered that these are all things that, thank goodness, have not yet become a reality. What it does is chip away a little bit more at the Member States’ prerogatives in the field of immigration policy, in other words, their sovereign right to select the foreigners who are permitted to enter their territory and to control the entry, residence and extent of the rights of those foreigners.

2. It seems appropriate to enable the citizens of the EU Member States to benefit from a coordination of social security systems and ensure that the social protection that they are entitled to expect (owing to their work and their contributions) is not adversely affected by ‘international’ mobility in which they are encouraged to participate. However, going all out to ensure, in this area, full equality of treatment between European citizens and nationals of third countries, without any concern for guaranteeing any reciprocal treatment, 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 47

merely serves as a strong incentive to immigrate that already exists in the form of the enormous, indiscriminate and suicidal generosity of our social security systems.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) People’s trust in the EU depends to a great extent on their confidence in the social stability of Europe, and that is one of the areas that has seen the greatest changes in recent years and decades. In practice, because of part-time work and new terms of employment (‘McJobs’) European employees often end up earning little more than some unemployed people. The dark side of unbridled economic growth and constant welfare savings is an increase in poverty and social exclusion. In the European Union, one of the wealthiest parts of the world, 16% of the population were living below the poverty line in 2005. As a result of the increasing oil and food prices, even more people have subsequently slipped below the poverty line or are now living on the brink of poverty. The EU must devote itself to combating poverty among its own population as a matter of urgency, and welfare systems must be available primarily for Europeans.

- Report: Richard Corbett (A6-0206/2008)

Catherine Boursier (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Today, I voted in favour of the Corbett report on the amendment of Rule 29 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure regarding the formation of political groups, namely the requirement that a political group’s members represent at least one quarter of Member States (instead of the current requirement of one fifth) and that the minimum number of members is 25 (instead of 20), and I did this for several reasons.

Firstly, because I think that this reform is absolutely necessary to enable our institution to operate more efficiently and to put an end to its highly fragmented state, with rules that have remained unchanged despite successive enlargements and the increase in the size of our Assembly since 2004. In addition, the solution proposed by my Socialist colleague, thanks to whose untiring efforts a compromise was reached with the majority of political groups, seems to me to be very reasonable compared to what is practised at national level within the European Union. Moreover, given the resources, both human and financial, made available to the political groups by the institution, clear representativeness also seems to me to be enough to justify this change. Finally, the purpose is purely and simply to promote a certain consistency among political forces at European level; our democracy can only emerge stronger.

Sylwester Chruszcz (NI), in writing. − (PL) This document is yet another attempt by the majority to take over control at the cost of the minority. The arrogance of the largest political groups within the European Parliament has reached new heights. The thrust of this document is to increase the minimum number of MEPs required to create a political group from 21 to 30. Small groups such as, for example, the Independence and Democracy Group are seriously threatened by such a condition. Obviously I voted against this document.

Andrew Duff (ALDE), in writing. − The ALDE Group voted against a reform of Rule 29 for the following reasons: – the existence of the current seven groups causes no real problems of efficiency; – minority opinions have just as much right to be organised professionally as majority opinions; – a decent European Parliament must reflect the wider diversity of political opinion that we find in the Union: we need not copy exactly national parliaments whose job is to supply a government; – closing down smaller groups would either force reluctant deputies to join larger groups, adding to their incoherence, or inflate the ranks of the non-attached, adding to inefficiency; – the size of the Parliament is in any event set to fall from 785 to 751 (Lisbon) or 736 (Nice).

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Our vote against this report and the respective commitment is coherent with our defence of pluralism, democracy and respect for different opinions. It is unacceptable that this report changes the rules for the formation of political groups and imposes more barriers to the formation of political groups in the European Parliament after the next elections. Until now, a minimum of 20 MEPs from six Member States were allowed to form a political group. 48 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The proposal that has now been agreed requires 25 MEPs from seven Member States to form a political group. This means it will be more difficult to form small political groups in the European Parliament, which is one more obstacle to the affirmation of positions that differ from those of the dominant ideology in this increasingly neoliberal, militarist and federalist European Union. One final remark on the process followed by the majority groups, the PPE-DE and the PSE Groups. They began by presenting a proposal requiring 30 members to form a political group. They then blackmailed some smaller political groups to gain their support for a so-called compromise proposal, the one that has just been approved. As far as we, the Portuguese Communist Party MEPs, are concerned, we have maintained, from the beginning, a coherent position against the creation of any additional barriers to forming political groups.

Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (ES) My abstention in relation to this report is because, although pragmatic rules for the creation of parliamentary groups are certainly necessary, I feel that the proposed number of members and of Member States is too high. If this Parliament is to defend plurality and diversity, it is better for those affected to form a political group rather than swell the ranks of a non-attached group which would become increasingly heterogeneous and inefficient.

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. − (FI) The bigger groups originally proposed that 30 members from seven Member States would be needed to form a group. Fortunately, the project failed in the narrow vote by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in May, when the vote was 15 to 14. I have also voted against the proposed amendments now, because the small groups will often remain on the sidelines when decisions are made. It is wrong that a diversity of views should be restricted or the functioning of the small groups should now be made more difficult than previously. It is also strange in light of the fact that the greatest differences in opinion are often found within the groups. The largest group, the Conservatives, has split into two or even three groups on many large issues.

Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservative MEPs have voted against both of Mr Corbett’s proposed amendments to raise the threshold for the establishment of political groups in the European Parliament. The balance between the efficient operation of the Parliament and the need to recognise the plurality of voices and opinions within the Parliament must be struck with care. This would be better achieved by retaining the thresholds for the constitution of a political group as they currently are. Although we recognise there is a fair case for increasing the number of Members required to form a group, any increase in the requirement of the number of Member States would unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantage smaller groups and delegations. Accordingly, after consideration of Mr Corbett’s report, the Constitutional Affairs Committee did not recommend any changes to the thresholds set out in Rule 29. Conservative MEPs did however vote in favour of the one amendment, originally tabled by Mr Kirkhope, that had been approved by the Constitutional Affairs Committee. This amendment provides for a more pragmatic and reasonable approach to the circumstances in which a political group may fall below the required thresholds.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support Richard Corbett’s report amending the Rules of Procedure regarding the formation of political groups. With 27 Member States the EU’s rules on this issue need to be updated. The European Parliament cannot justify using millions of euros of taxpayers’ money to fund groupings of parties, especially fascists, who come together for nothing other than financial gain. The European Parliament has the lowest threshold of almost any parliament for constituting groups. There is no threat to any existing group – nor is the rule change an attempt to squash Eurosceptics, who have more than the new minimum number. Consequently, I voted in favour of Mr Corbett’s report.

Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) The two biggest groups far prefer a two-party system. The main feature of that kind of system is that the two parties share a common interest, namely that second, third or fourth parties are unable to get a toe in the door of political decision-making and so remain totally irrelevant in the eyes of the electorate. Only the biggest groups count; protests and alternatives have to be sidelined. If, exceptionally, others still manage to get into parliament, they are ideally given the most unattractive place possible, as individuals with restricted rights. Some members of this House do not belong to a group. That is usually the result of pressure on the part of others. That same pressure obliges other members to join a group with whose views they partly disagree. For reasons of self-interest groups take in members even when they know that those members' views deviate 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 49

significantly from the party line. The reason is that you cannot form a group here unless you have at least 20 more or less like-minded members. If all shades of opinion in society are to be democratically represented it is better to do away with that minimum figure, instead of raising it to 25 or 30 and introducing rigid rules against dissenters. I am totally against that.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) There is no plausible reason, in my opinion, to increase the minimum number of MEPs required for the creation of a political group. On closer inspection, the arguments advanced by the rapporteur are spurious, particularly his reference to supposedly higher thresholds for the formation of a political group in the parliaments of Member States. If a fair comparison is to be made with the European Parliament, the equation should include only directly elected chambers. Second chambers generally comprise delegates from federal states or regions, and for this reason they are not comparable. The average value used by directly elected national parliaments for the formation of political groups is virtually identical to the threshold used by the European Parliament. In any case, this move to increase the cut-off figure for the formation of political groups is evidently driven by a different agenda. In committee, for example, the rapporteur referred to the formation of the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) Group as an unfortunate circumstance and emphasised the need to prevent any future recurrence. Because of this attack on democracy and freedom of expression and on the equality of MEPs which is enshrined in the Treaty and in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, I naturally voted against this report.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report, in its adopted form, complements the unacceptable Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament that aim to control and stifle the powers of those who do not fully subscribe to the EU. This is a new undemocratic and authoritarian decision that further hinders the establishment of political groups. The political objective is obvious: they wish to exclude radical forces, especially communist ones, to silence all voices that are opposed and every form of expression that challenges the EU and its policies. This undemocratic operation was accompanied by the supposed political blackmail by the coalition of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to also push other forces to accept this increase, threatening that, if they did not succumb to it, they would vote in favour of a proposal for an even greater increase in the number of MEPs required, to 30. The progress of the vote demonstrates that this match has been fixed by the forces of the European one-way street, as an alibi for their undemocratic decision. The Nea Demokratia and PASOK MEPs and the Synaspismos MEP have voted in favour of this despicable amendment and the decision in its entirety, proving that, on key issues, the forces of the European one-way street are on a common course. We, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, have voted against the increase in the number to 25 and against the report in its entirety, thus denouncing undemocratic machinations and political games.

José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) To make excessive restrictions and create barriers to the formation of political groups can never be a good thing for any parliament. In addition to possibly being considered a violation of fundamental rights, the effect of such steps is often exactly the opposite of what the advocates intended. This is therefore a bad reform. The European Parliament must affirm itself as an essential democratic reference point, both in the European Union and in the world. It will not achieve this if it falls short of maintaining an exemplary position. I do not agree that this is the right direction to take. In addition, more than ever, Europe needs to continuously maintain the confidence of its citizens, all its citizens, in its institutions. All Europeans must feel they are represented, independently of their political positions. That is why this is a bad and untimely reform. I vote against.

Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (SV) I am opposed to all attempts to reduce democracy and diversity of opinion in Parliament through such measures as altering the number of Members and Member States entitled to form political groups. Despite this view, I voted for the compromise amendment of the Corbett report. The reason is a pragmatic one – it was the only way of voting in order not to risk a decision which would be even worse from a democratic point of view and which would make it more difficult to form a political group. 50 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) Today the European Parliament accepted an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, as a result of which the guidelines for the formation of political groups will change. Following the elections in June 2009 political groups in the European Parliament will have to consist of at least 25 Members representing a minimum of 7 Member States. I would like to give my full support to this increase in the threshold for the creation of political groups in the European Parliament, as this will help to avoid excessive parliamentary divisions and will make its work more effective. Both the cohesion and the effectiveness of Parliament have suffered as a result of the excessive number of small groups in the House. However, to strengthen democracy, small political groups need to be protected against temporary reductions in the number of members, if they fall below the required threshold.

- Report: Diana Wallis (A6-0224/2008)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We voted for the report, since better cooperation and more openness between national courts/judges and the EC Court of Justice is of the utmost importance for the working of the European legal system. It must be made more transparent and its application improved through better training and facilities for networking and exchange of knowledge. However, we consider that the discussion in paragraphs 26 and 27 regarding the jurisdiction of the EC Court of Justice in certain areas is a Treaty matter on which the European Parliament has already stated its opinion.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We voted against this report because of the unacceptable pressure it will put on Member States, including our national judges, who are the cornerstone of the judicial system in any sovereign country. This report makes clear what was intended with the so-called European constitution and the defunct Treaty of Lisbon, which it seeks to revive in a truly anti-democratic way. The report itself affirms the intent to establish a single European legal order. To achieve this, they want ‘to involve national judges more actively in, and accord them greater responsibility for, the implementation of Community law’. National judges play an essential role as guarantors of the rule of law, including Community law. However, the principle of subsidiarity and constitutional issues in each Member State cannot be called into question in the name of ‘the primacy of Community law, direct effect, consistency of interpretation and state liability for breaches of Community law’, as intended by the Commission and the majority of the European Parliament. It is unacceptable to continue with this pressure, now that the Treaty has been rejected.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) This report is completely frank with us. Right from paragraph 1, it sets its goal: the establishment of a single European legal order. Indeed, this report, a veritable pamphlet in favour of Community law, seeks to involve national judges more actively in and accord them greater responsibility for the implementation of Community law. Accordingly, it is suggested that Community legislation and related case-law be integrated into national codes as soon as possible. The report proceeds with the idea of merging national and Community legal systems without, at any time, raising the issue of excessive Community standards, their confused wording and their frequent lack of consistency. This move towards the simplification and codification of Community legislation is certainly a good thing. The same applies to the adoption of regulations to ensure legal certainty; I am thinking in particular of those relating to harmonisation of the rules governing conflicts of laws. However, the case-law of the Court of Justice often proves to be unsafe for the enforcement of national laws that are subject to the Court’s binding principles and dogmas even if they are clearly contrary to the best-established legal traditions of the Member States.

- Motion for a resolution: Airbus/Boeing disputes (B6-0334/2008)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) ‘Friends, friends, business aside’... I refer to one more contradiction between the EU and the United States, this time in the aircraft industry where, despite the 1992 agreement on government support, each side tries to defend its interests, because that is how capitalist competition operates. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 51

The European Parliament complains that ‘the EU has consistently adhered to the spirit and letter of the 1992 Agreement and has regularly provided documented evidence of compliance’ while ‘the US has largely ignored its obligations’, ‘unilaterally purported to withdraw’ from the agreement and brought ‘a WTO case against the EU, citing European repayable financing which fully complied with the 1992 Agreement and which is similar to that benefiting Boeing’. At the same time, faced with the ‘bitter attacks’ by Boeing and the US Congress, against the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corporation EADS for the US Air Force aerial tanker recapitalisation programme, the European Parliament seeks to pour oil on troubled waters, by pointing out the need to ‘to arrive at a pragmatic balance between European civil support and the US military-industrial scheme’. It seems that not all countries are entitled to sovereignty and ‘free trade’…

Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I will be voting in favour of this report, not because I enjoy WTO disputes or have a paranoia about the United States, but because I am fed up with the protectionist actions of the United States over many years, particularly in the area of civil aviation. The Americans have perfected the art of whinging and complaining about other countries and their lack of free trade, when they themselves have adopted measures which allow bankrupt airlines to carry on trading, and have allegedly sifted millions of dollars of aid into Boeing. The International Trade Committee is right to support the EU in its case against the United States at the WTO. What we all should be aiming for here is fair and open competition between aircraft manufacturers with a freedom of choice for airlines to choose the best aircraft to suit their needs at the best price. The official motto of the USA is ‘In God we Trust.’ Perhaps that should change to ‘Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.’

- Report: Jerzy Buzek (A6-0255/2008)

Göran Färm (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish social Democrats voted in favour of Mr Buzek’s report on the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan.

We take a positive view of CO2 capture and storage but question whether it is necessary to support such things as coal to gas conversion for the further development of that technology. We also take a positive view

of research into and the development of new sources of energy with low or zero CO2 emissions. We are in favour of the Union cofinancing this research, but do not think that we should pre-empt the budgetary process by calling on the Commission at this stage to set aside particular sums. We have therefore chosen to abstain on these two points.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I am voting against the second part of Paragraph 26 because I do not support Nuclear being one of the priority initiatives. However I will vote in favour of the report because its objective is to accelerate innovation in cutting edge European low carbon technologies. It is crucial that Europe has an energy research plan to support its ambitious energy policy and climate change goals.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I agree with Mr Buzek’s views as regards the issue of introducing new power generation technologies in the light of the challenges facing the European Union, namely environmental protection, guaranteeing the security of energy supplies and maintaining the European Union’s high level of competitiveness. I also agree with the point made by the rapporteur concerning insufficient resources allocated to new power generation technologies in the current financial framework of the European Union. We must remember that success in the area of new power generation technology should be achieved by a partnership between the public and the private sectors.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) As we know to our cost, the EU’s aim of rapidly increasing the percentage use of biofuel has had adverse repercussions. Monocultures, the felling of rainforests and competition with food and feed crops, which has contributed to the current food crisis, have seemingly prompted the EU ministers to think again and have dealt a blow to their target of increasing the share of renewables in the production of motor fuel to 10% by 2020. 52 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

While we should welcome the fact that biofuel is no longer to be produced from food crops and that there is a general desire to wait for second-generation biofuels such as those obtained from waste products, this must not lead in any way to a relaxation of EU efforts in the domain of renewables. The alarming upward trend in the price of oil makes it more important than ever to promote the production and use of energy from renewable sources. All those billions that are being spent on nuclear power generation, with all its problems, must be invested in renewables.

- Motion for a resolution (B6-0304/2008) - Sovereign Wealth Funds

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Sovereign wealth funds, these state-owned funds that are invested all over the world, are they a good or a bad thing? Rather a good thing, if we are to believe this resolution. However, it is true that a Europe that is stagnating economically on account of its own economic and monetary policies cannot afford to dismiss the thousands of billions of euros of potential investment that they represent. It is true that, for the time being, sovereign wealth funds do not disturb the financial markets (they have even come to the aid of the US banking system) and would tend to be directed more towards long-term investment. However, that may change. We are all aware of the opacity of most of these funds with regard to the scale of their resources, the distribution of their assets, their governing structures and their investment strategies that range from ethical investment to the pursuit of high yields, positions of control and perhaps the potential to cause serious damage in the future. The states that hold these funds are not all friends of Europe, far from it. One of them has already evoked the threat of its ‘financial nuclear weapon’. However, we shall abstain on this text instead of voting against it because, although it supports the free movement of capital worldwide, it cautiously calls for some monitoring of and protection against these funds.

Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − This resolution covers an important subject. Sovereign Wealth Funds are playing an increasingly important role in global trade and investment. Some of this is positive but that is not always the case as the unaccountable administrations make decisions that maximise short-term profits at the expense of countries, communities and families. We must look at ways of increasing transparency and accountability to these resources that often outweigh those available to nation states.

- Report: Reinhard Rack (A6-0252/2008)

Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), in writing. − (FI) Mr President, Mr Rack’s report on a new culture of urban mobility, in favour of which we have voted, is an important part of the new comprehensive approach of the Commission’s energy and climate package: significant reductions in emissions can be achieved in Europe using sensible, efficient community and transport planning. It must, however, be taken into account that the Member States are different in their geographical locations and living conditions. It is precisely for this reason that I voted in favour of the two amendments by our group. I come from a country of long distances and comparatively small towns. It is quite clear that the opportunities for reducing private motoring are significantly weaker in, for example, the sparsely populated urban communities of Finland, in the north, than in the densely populated areas of Central Europe.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I voted for Reinhard Rack’s report on a new culture of urban mobility. The draft report on the Green Paper is an important contribution to the subject of urban development. The economic development of a town or city and its accessibility depend on better mobility, but the latter must not be achieved at the expense of people’s wellbeing or the environment. For this reason, the report ought to give more consideration to social factors and employment policy. It must also be rooted in awareness that the diversity of the Member States will not permit a uniform European solution and that strict adherence to the subsidiarity principle must therefore continue to prevail. I also believe that, in the countries where liberalisation has already taken place, its impact on employment should be assessed. In addition, I call for a certification system for the retrofitting of particulate filters to cars, goods vehicles and off-road vehicles.

While the Green Paper highlights most of the problems that affect urban mobility today and also presents some new and innovative ideas for solving them, it falls far short of covering all the aspects that need to be addressed and so can only be regarded as a starting point for the discussion of this issue.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The most important matter raised by the rapporteur is that of delineating the areas in which the European Union should participate in issues relating to urban mobility. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 53

The rapporteur is right to point out that there are similar problems throughout the European Union in the area of urban mobility, but it is not possible to develop a uniform method to deal with these problems. At this point, the rapporteur’s views concerning the town or city being able to choose a method to achieve set objectives is sensible and I would like to express my support for these views.

Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) Towns and cities are densely populated, with few open spaces and a lot of traffic travelling relatively short distances. With space at a premium there just is no room for heavy motor traffic, and excessive noise and air pollution are further reasons to make us try to limit the number of cars in our towns as much as possible. Of course towns must be accessible to the fire service, the police, ambulances, removal vans and the vehicles of persons with limited mobility, but scarce open spaces must be kept primarily for use by pedestrians, cyclists, trams, children's playgrounds and parks and gardens. Only then is the town somewhere you can live in. The text being voted on today does not make that clear choice, but simply seeks to reconcile opposing interests and ideas. Fortunately the EU has no competence in this area. All the EU can do is help to foster best practice, good experience which has been built on and improved. Such improvements are important not only for the town which has already made them, but also as an example to others. Examples include central London's congestion charging system, the new tram networks in Strasbourg and Bordeaux or the long-established restricted-traffic city centre of Groningen. Unfortunately the EU will contribute hardly anything on the back of this report.

Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I voted against this report, because the EU is not responsible for these matters. It does nothing for legal certainty and brings Europe no closer to the people when Parliament takes the initiative to produce reports on matters that do not fall within the regulatory competence of the EU.

- Report: Olle Schmidt (A6-0241/2008)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We voted for Olle Schmidt’s report on the ECB annual report. However, we would point out, with reference to the passage in the explanatory statement which speaks of the need for Sweden to introduce the euro, that we respect the outcome of the Swedish referendum in 2003 in which it was decided that Sweden would retain the krona as its currency.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We voted against this report because it reaffirms support for the work of the European Central Bank, makes no criticism of successive increases in the base rate, even though this has already reached 4.25%, much higher than the United States Federal Reserve base rate. Moreover, the report ignores the fact that the bank’s activities are harming workers, the population in general and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. It only serves the objectives of the major economic groups and finance capital, even when they cause problems for the more fragile and dependent economies, such as that of Portugal. For example, in Portugal, where the level of debt has reached 114% of GDP, this increase, allied to the overvaluation of the euro, is another nail in the coffin of micro and SMEs, worsens the deficit in the balance of trade and increases the country's dependency. It will be more difficult to deal with unemployment, casualisation, low wages and the generalised increase in prices, considering that the level of debt of Portuguese families has now reached 129% of their disposable income. We therefore reaffirm the need for a break with this right-wing policy and the false autonomy of the ECB, which only serves to hide the fact that it is at the service of big capital.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Schmidt report is the annual pat on the back given by Parliament to the European Central Bank for its benevolence. As usual, it seems to miss the key point: the dreaded margin squeeze that is crushing Europeans’ purchasing power and for which the ECB and the European Union are partly to blame. No one believes that the official inflation figures (3% for 2008, according to the report), which are merely composite indices, reflect the reality of the rising cost of living for citizens, especially for commodities, energy and housing. Everyone recalls the statements made by the ECB authorities, warning against the inflationary effects of wage increases, as if the salaries of those same Europeans were not subjected to constant downward pressure because of unfair global competition and the immigration policy promoted by the European Union. 54 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

With regard to the highly overvalued euro exchange rate, it is true that it is sparing us the worst in the face of rising oil prices. However, it is threatening the competitiveness of many industries which are tempted to relocate, as Airbus has done, to the dollar zone. We therefore cannot support this mutual back-patting.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) In his report on the ECB annual report, the rapporteur has focused on the challenges facing the Bank. There has been a great deal of worrying information for European economies over the past few months; and unfortunately there is much more of this than in 2007. The crisis in financial markets and the sudden increase in the price of oil and food are slowing down economic growth and increasing inflation, and there are concerns about a rise in unemployment figures. The ECB will be one of the leading institutions that have to try to deal with these challenges. The steps taken in August 2007 provided liquidity to financial markets, but they did not resolve the problem. There is also an increase in the number of countries joining the common currency. Slovakia will be the first country from Central and Eastern Europe to take this step. However, Slovakia will definitely not be the last. Entry into the euro zone by the other new EU Member States seems to be just a matter of time. The experiences of Slovakia in this regard will no doubt be closely observed by countries in the region that are also thinking about joining the single currency. The rapporteur is also right to note that different levels of economic growth, different indicators of growth or different levels of maturity in EU economies could create problems for the ECB’s decision-making process. For this reason I believe the suggestion to undertake a review of possibilities as regards making changes to the decision-making process to be a sensible one. Such a review should include not just the present members of the euro zone, but also future and potential members.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Olle Schmidt’s report on the ECB annual report. I join the rapporteur in calling for the ECB to continue to improve its relationship with other central banks and relevant institutions. Indeed, I would also echo Mr Schmidt’s recommendation that caution should be taken regarding further interest rate rises so as not to endanger economic growth. I voted in support of the rapporteur’s evaluation.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The resolution that we, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, have voted against attempts to provocatively portray the 10-year implementation of the EMU and the establishment of the euro as a great ‘success’, while workers and the poor working-class sections of society in EU countries, including Greece, are experiencing their dire consequences, such as high prices, the wages and pensions freeze, unemployment, excessive taxation on employees and poor self-employed workers and the removal of employment, social and democratic rights. Any ‘success’ achieved relates solely to the profits and surplus profits of European plutocrats and runs absolutely counter to the interests of workers and the people. The European Central Bank, as a pure instrument of European capital, is required to play a more active and effective role in that direction through anti-popular measures, such as interest rate increases and so on. However, the remarks and concerns of the resolution on the monetary ‘turmoil’ and the ‘cohesion’ issues of the EU that remain and are, in fact, becoming more widespread, confirm our assessment regarding the continued and unavoidable crises of the capitalist system and of its disproportionate growth, as well as regarding the need to overthrow it and replace it with a planned popular economic system with power to the people and the need to cut the ties with the imperialist EU. Within the EU there can be no path to growth that prioritises the common people.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.15 and resumed at 15.00.) 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 55

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING President

9. European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (signature)

President. − Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, through this public signing of the legal instrument on the Galileo programme we are emphasising the importance we attach to the European satellite navigation programmes EGNOS and Galileo. The regulation being signed today is a signal reminder that many aims can only be achieved in the framework of the European Union and not by individual Member States acting alone. EGNOS and Galileo can and will give the European Union the means to establish a European alternative and complement to other systems. At the same time, they will enable us to enhance the competitiveness of our industry in major strategic technological fields. Galileo is to comprise a network of 30 satellites and a ground-control infrastructure. The text of the regulation we shall be signing today is the result of negotiations between the European institutions which were brought to a successful conclusion at first reading. The institutions found solutions that made it possible to establish such a highly complex technical system, particularly by agreeing on Community funding of EUR 3.4 billion. As a result, Galileo can become operational from 2013 at the latest. As President of the European Parliament I would like to express my very special thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Angelika Niebler, and the rapporteur of the European Parliament, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, for their successful efforts, as well as to the Slovenian Presidency for its significant commitment to this very important strategic dossier. (Applause) I also hope that this public signing will underline that we intend to go on working with vigour and dedication to achieve tangible progress for our citizens. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for your attention. I now invite the representative of the Council, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, to address us. (Applause)

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it will now be possible to ascertain precise positioning and timing information with the satellite radio navigation system launched by the European Union and the European Space Agency. I should like to join you, Mr President, in paying tribute to the Slovenian Presidency, which has brought this difficult agreement to a successful conclusion. I should also like to pay tribute to Mrs Niebler, Chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, your rapporteur and those leading Members of the European Parliament who have made the adoption of this Regulation possible. This is a major step forward that we are taking today by adopting this Regulation on Galileo. It will enable the deployment of the publicly funded global satellite positioning system. As Mr Pöttering has said, this system is based on a constellation of 30 satellites and ground stations and will provide users in many sectors with information on their location. Therefore, for many of our citizens, this is an indication of real progress being made by Europe. It will not only ensure our independence by providing a signal that could replace the American GPS signal, for example when that service is down, but it also goes much further, because it will provide services that are not currently available through GPS: the tracking of people in distress, which is also essential to the role that Europe must play in relation to its citizens, or the establishment of a safety of life service that is particularly suited to air traffic management. Galileo will therefore bring tangible results to the daily lives of our citizens. The European Commission, Commissioner, and the European Space Agency have launched the selection process for companies that will be involved in the deployment of the various lots awarded to implement this system; the establishment of Galileo is obviously also of major importance for the competitiveness of European industry. Overall, the management of the Galileo programme will be placed under the political control of Parliament and the Council. You may rest assured that the French Presidency is determined to work very closely with 56 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

the European Parliament; it proposes that the Galileo Interinstitutional Panel, the GIP, which involves the three EU institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the Council – meet as soon as possible in order to discuss the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of this programme, which is very important for the European Union as a whole.

President. − Thank you very much, Minister. Mr Jouyet and I shall now sign the Galileo Regulation, and I would like to ask Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, Angelika Niebler, chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and Etelka Barsi-Pataky, the rapporteur, to step forward and join us. (Signing of the Galileo Regulation) (Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA Vice-President

10. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

11. Situation in China after the earthquake and before the Olympic Games (debate)

President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the situation in China after the earthquake and before the Olympic Games.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, China is a strategic partner of the European Union. Our political and trade relations are particularly strong; I would point out that the European Union is China’s largest trading partner. China’s involvement at international level, like the resolution of major regional and global issues, is of great importance to the European Union. The Union also has the aim of encouraging development and reforms in China for the benefit not only of the country itself but also, given its size, of the entire planet, and it is in this context that we have followed with grave concern the consequences of the earthquake that hit Sichuan Province in May and assessed the scale of this disaster; with more than 70 000 dead and 18 000 missing, the final toll, unfortunately, is likely to exceed 80 000. In addition, more than 5 million people have lost their homes. For several weeks, the earthquake and its great human and material losses have led China to mobilise its entire state apparatus, and the international community has recognised the efforts made by China to respond quickly and effectively to the disaster. The European Union responded swiftly by providing humanitarian aid; the Community Civil Protection Mechanism was immediately activated on 13 May to coordinate in-kind contributions from Member States; aid totalling EUR 25 million provided by the European Union, including the Member States – EUR 2.2 million of which were contributed by the Commission – has been channelled through the Red Cross. Broadly speaking, we feel that China has played an effective role during relief operations and that, with the assistance of the international community, it is making considerable efforts to mitigate the consequences of the disaster. The Chinese authorities have been very open to foreign aid and media coverage of this event; therefore, we pay tribute to them for their outstanding relief and reconstruction efforts. On the other hand, as you are aware, we have all followed closely and with some concern the events that took place in Tibet, and we are continuing to keep a close eye on further developments in the region. In the declaration made by the Slovenian Presidency on 17 March on behalf of the European Union, the EU expressed its deep concern about the ongoing reports of unrest in Tibet and conveyed its deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims. It called for restraint on all sides and urged the Chinese authorities to refrain from using force, as well as calling on demonstrators to desist from violence. In our messages to the Chinese authorities, we have asked that a dialogue be established with the Dalai Lama in order to discuss key issues, such as the preservation of culture, religion and Tibetan traditions. We have also urged that information be transparent and that the media, diplomats, tourists and UN agencies be allowed free access to Tibet. Tibet was reopened to tourists in mid-June. We also welcomed the informal meeting held on 4 May between the Chinese authorities and the envoys of the Dalai Lama; we believe that this is a step in the right direction and we have expressed the hope that this 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 57

will lead to a further round of constructive dialogue with the Dalai Lama. The Chinese authorities and the representatives of the Dalai Lama met again on 1, 2 and 3 July in Beijing. It is, of course, too early to comment on this recent round of talks, but we hope that both sides will proceed in a constructive manner. The Chinese authorities have confirmed that the central government in Beijing and the representative of the Dalai Lama have agreed to continue their contacts and consultations; they also expressed the hope that Tibet could be opened to journalists and other people in the near future, once public order had been restored in the province. As far as attendance at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games is concerned, each Member State will decide the level at which it wishes to be represented. Allow me to point out in this respect that China has said on several occasions that it would extend a warm welcome to all European Union leaders. After having consulted with all his counterparts in the European Council, the President of the Republic has announced his intention to attend the opening ceremony in his dual capacity as President of the French Republic and President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the information that I wished to bring to your attention today.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am convinced that strategic EU-China relations are vital for the European Union, and I believe they are for China too, as well as for the rest of the world.

Looking back, this spring has been a test for EU-China relations. The unrest in Tibet led to widespread protests in Europe and to the disruption of the Olympic Torch relay in several European capitals. The latter events in turn led to a surge of nationalist feeling in China and to anti-Europe feelings, which translated into boycott campaigns against European interests in China. As a result, concern was rising about the widening gap between Chinese and European public opinions and perceptions of each other. These developments were, fortunately, rather short-lived. Two events were instrumental in reversing the emerging trend. One was the Commission visit to Beijing on 24-26 April, in which I participated with President Barroso. The other was the consequence of the terrible earthquake which affected the province of Sichuan in May. Let me take each of those in turn. First, our visit at the end of April focused on sustainable development and climate change but also provided an opportunity to raise EU concerns about the situation in Tibet directly with the Chinese leadership. You will remember that, when I spoke in this House on 26 March, I called for a restart of talks between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. During the talks in April, President Hu Jintao announced to us that China would shortly resume talks with the representatives of the Dalai Lama. This had been a key request of the European Union. This outcome of our visit to Beijing proved that the Commission’s consistent approach of constructive engagement with China brought tangible results and was thus the right approach. The other event that marked a turning point in China’s relations with the rest of the world was, as has already been said by the President-in-Office of the Council, the earthquake in Sichuan. The scale of the human catastrophe provoked by the earthquake and the suffering of the people were enormous: 70 000 persons were reported killed and up to 10 million were displaced. This gave rise to an outpouring of international sympathy and support for the victims. More importantly, the Chinese Government reacted in a swift and well-coordinated way on the earthquake, deploying over 130 000 soldiers for the rescue and allowing the press free access to the affected areas. This reaction cast a more positive light on modern China. The President-in-Office of the Council has already mentioned what we as the European Union as a whole have been donating, and therefore I do not need to say anything about it. Let me immediately go to the situation as it is today.

Three events between now and the end of the year will have a crucial impact on EU-China relations from the Chinese point of view, and I think it is the same for us: the Beijing Olympics, the ASEM summit which will take place in Beijing on 24-25 October, and the EU-China Summit due to take place on 1 December in France. During this time the Chinese leadership will be particularly sensitive to messages coming from abroad. 58 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Now, more than ever, we need to avoid any misunderstandings and continue our policy of constructive engagement. The situation in Tibet will continue to focus attention during these months. Today we can say that we are back to a pre-14 March situation, because the talks between the Chinese Government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama resumed in early May and a new round of talks took place last week; but I agree that we do not yet have a full assessment. We will continue to encourage both sides to continue their talks in a fruitful and result-oriented way. Last month, on 24 June, China also took a positive step by reopening access for foreign tourists to Tibet. Although controlled visits by diplomats and foreign journalists have been taking place since March, we continue to urge them for full access for foreign journalists. With regard to the Olympic Games, we all hope that there will be a chance for China and the world to come closer together. We wish China success in this. The ASEM Summit in October, in which I will participate, will be a good opportunity to underline our relations with China and, in doing this, to bring forward important global issues. In conclusion, I hope that, at our next EU-China summit in particular, we can make concrete progress on a number of issues of mutual importance, such as climate change, ongoing negotiations to conclude an EU-China partnership and cooperation agreement, human rights, and economic and trade issues. Those are our goals between now and 1 December. I think it is vital that the EU-China strategic partnership continues to be developed in a steady way, one which also takes into consideration the concerns that exist.

Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, my Group wishes to refer first of all to the resolution on the natural disaster in China and on the situation in Tibet that the European Parliament adopted by a large majority on 22 May of this year. The PPE-DE Group hails the dedicated commitment of the Chinese Government to the reconstruction of the areas hit by the earthquake. At the same time, however, we expect the Chinese Government to ensure that the new houses and other new buildings are built to withstand earth tremors, for we must remember the sad fact that structural defects led to the collapse of many schools and that many pupils lost their lives. We expect this matter to be investigated and those responsible to be called to account. Die PPE-DE Group notes with grave concern that the Chinese Government has not yet taken the opportunity offered by the organisation of the Olympic Games to improve respect for universal human rights in China. On the country, intimidation of Chinese citizens and restrictions on representatives of the media appear to be even more prevalent in the run-up to the Olympics. For this reason we call on the Chinese Government to establish universal civil rights, particularly freedom of the press, in time for the Olympic Games and to continue to guarantee them thereafter. (Applause) Lastly, the PPE-DE Group calls on the Chinese Government to show goodwill in the current talks with the Dalai Lama and to bring them to a positive conclusion, which should include provision for the cultural autonomy of Tibet. We would deem it unacceptable if the Chinese Government were to use these talks to tide itself over the period of the Olympic Games, only to have them break down afterwards. We expect an outcome that boosts cultural autonomy and human rights in Tibet. (Applause)

Libor Rouček, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to express my admiration for the way the Chinese authorities have been dealing with the aftermath of the destructive earthquake that shook the province of Sichuan and affected almost 10 million people. I welcome the fact that China immediately opened its borders to foreign aid and I can promise, in the name of the PSE Group, that we will continue doing everything possible so that European aid is delivered in a fast and effective way. Regarding Tibet, I welcome the re-establishment of contacts and the two rounds of talks that have taken place between the Chinese authorities and envoys of the Dalai Lama. I think that this is a good start, considering what the March events were like, and I also believe that these contacts and talks will continue until a solution acceptable to both sides is found. China recently re-opened Tibet to foreign tourists and, according to The New York Times, more than 1 000 Tibetans detained after the March demonstrations have already been 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 59

released. However, I still want to call on the Chinese authorities to give, to the families of those who are still under detention, at least information about their whereabouts. Regarding the Olympic Games, I wish both China and the International Olympic Committee good and successful games because I am convinced that these games, if successfully organised, can help to improve the human rights’ situation in China.

Marco Cappato, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, nobody here would question the importance of relations of all kinds with the Chinese government and even less the solidarity resulting from the earthquake. The statement that the President-in-Office has made does, however, raise a problem. That statement says absolutely nothing about the role that this Union can and must play in fostering the civil and political rights of everyone living on Chinese soil, in Tibet and not just in Tibet. (Applause) I should like to say a word on this, because otherwise welcoming the fact that foreign tourists have been allowed in again, without saying a word about everything that has happened, about the convictions, the public trials, the militarisation of Lhasa when the Olympic torch was passing through, the freedoms that continue to be denied, the torture which continues to be handed out, is a rather one-sided way of tackling a problem. The reaction to that one-sided approach may well be to brand it ingenuous, idealistic and meaningless, because there are people who think about serious things, about good relations with China, and then there are people who think about ingenuous and inconsistent things, i.e. us. That is the outcome of a statement such as the one you have made: nor have you mentioned the Uighur people simply because they do not have a transnational leader supporting non-violence, such as the Dalai Lama, and I believe that that is serious when we are talking about China. That Europe is then a Europe which says, while all this is going on: ‘it is up to each Head of State to decide whether or not he is going and we French have meanwhile consulted our partners and we shall go as the Presidency of the European Union’. What Presidency is that? What European Union is that? That is the Europe of nations and China will rightly consider that the Europe of nations lacks the ability to come up with a policy able to force it do anything to respect the human rights of Chinese and other citizens. (Applause)

President. – It is very hard to ask a speaker to break off, especially when he is in full flow, but do try to keep to your speaking time.

Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would once again like to draw your attention to the incontrovertibly catastrophic political situation in Tibet. As the Olympic Games draw nearer, the authorities in the People’s Republic of China are intensifying their policies as regards this province. Sending the army into Tibetan monasteries on the pretext of looking for arms and terrorists has become a regular practice. The result of these actions is the requisitioning of art works collected in those locations and this is accompanied by the destruction of religious objects. Information from independent research institutions and human rights organisations tells us of the latest such event, which took place in the Tsendrok monastery in the Province of Amdo Maima. The Games start in less than a month. Every day that passes shows that the belief that we had that there would be changes in internal Chinese policy because of the Games has been groundless. I do, however, hope that Europe’s interest in this matter will not become extinguished together with the Olympic flame in Beijing.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, congratulations on making hypocrisy, lies and cant into an Olympic event. Enough is enough! You are behaving in the way that governments behaved for years in the face of Soviet Communist totalitarianism. It is always the same old story, and it is always the same old yarn that you spin for us here. You talk about the state of play of the negotiations. If you ask the Tibetans how the negotiations went, they will tell you that they were subjected to constant humiliation throughout the negotiations and faced ongoing blackmail – in this respect, the Dalai Lama and his representatives were treated in the same way that Brezhnev had treated Dubček – to the effect that ‘if you move, we’ll shoot the lot of you’. This is what was said during the negotiations, and now the President-in-Office, the President of the French Republic, will say ‘Well done, China! You show us what to do when someone moves.’ This is Chinese overblown response, just as Sarkozy’s mention of ‘cleaning the suburbs out with a high pressure hose’ was an overblown response. That is the truth; and then you say that this is a Europe of values. On what basis, when and how? Well, now that everyone is present – and this is Black Wednesday for this House – I would congratulate the President 60 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

of the Socialist Group and the President of the PPE Group, they are all here. To say what, exactly? To say what, here today? Everyone tells me that ‘things will get better thanks to the Olympic Games’. In 2001, we said that, if we give the Olympics to the Chinese, things will get better. Since 2001, nothing has happened and things are going from bad to worse. So, what are you telling us? That, in four weeks, things will get better? Why should they get any better? The Chinese are prevailing. The Chinese Communist Party is prevailing. The tougher they get, the more you sink to your knees; and the more you sink to your knees, the more they triumph. Why do you think that this should change? They will control everything at the Olympic Games. They will control the radio stations, they will control the television networks, but they will not control Sarkozy, that is true. They will even invite him to dinner with chopsticks. It will be really nice. They will fawn all over him and act all touchy-feely-cuddly. Then, Sarkozy will say: ‘that’s three nuclear power stations and 36 high-speed trains’, and I do not know what else. This is abhorrent. It is despicable, and I believe that, if Europe does not wake up, if we continue to project this image of a Europe of merchants, incapable of defending the most fundamental rights in Europe or elsewhere in the world, well, it is not worth our while to build Europe, and this is what we should be saying to the President-in-Office of the Council. (Loud applause)

Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Thank you, Mr President. It is always more difficult to see the beam in our own eye than the splinter in someone else’s eye. In the first place, I should like to express my sympathy to the victims of this huge disaster and also my admiration, just like my fellow Member, Mr Rouček, of the way in which the Chinese Government reacted in order to help the victims. I also want to thank the Commission, which was unusually quick in providing financial aid, and to say that I am certain that there will be no limit to this aid. I think that I speak for the majority of us when I say that we want the Olympic Games to be conducted safely and in the spirit of fair play, and not just in the stadiums. Of course we respect the typical aspects of Chinese history and culture. However, these two events give us more opportunity to conduct an even more intense dialogue and to achieve tangible results, in discussions with our partners from the People’s Republic of China, both in regard to ecology and human rights.

Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) On the afternoon of Wednesday, 18 June I had an appointment with three respectable, peaceable Chinese citizens at a hotel in Beijing. Barely an hour before we were due to meet I learned that two of them had been picked up by the security service and the third had been officially warned not to talk to me. The two who had been detained were released about 31 hours later. The official line was that they had not been released because they had not been arrested, merely 'interviewed'. Whatever the case, the Chinese authorities clearly wanted to prevent any personal contact between a member of the European Parliament and these three Chinese nationals. But I fully understand their abominable behaviour. Beijing certainly could not expect three leading representatives of the flourishing protestant house churches to trot out good propaganda about the Olympics. On the eve of this grandiose sporting spectacle, the members of protestant churches that are not officially registered are being subjected to increasingly harsh religious persecution. China's progressive leaders prefer to keep the harrowing details of this repression firmly under wraps. Naturally. After all, what honour is there in sentencing a simple minister of Beijing house church to do forced labour? For three years he had to spend ten to twelve hours a day making footballs for the upcoming Olympic Games. Enough said about the Chinese form of forced labour! And what are we to make of Chinese officials who had members of the house churches arrested for rushing to give practical help, voluntarily and out of deeply-held altruistic belief, to the victims of the terrible earthquake in Sichuan Province? That was really beyond the pale. Mr President, long before the start of the Olympic Games in China, I would argue that Beijing has extinguished the Olympic flame by its flagrant disregard for fundamental rights!

Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my condolences to the relatives of those who lost their lives and those who have suffered from the earthquake. But I want in particular, if I may, to address my remarks to Mr Jouyet for his declaration today that President Sarkozy, who comes here tomorrow, will attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. I would like to recall the editorial in today’s local newspaper, Les Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace: ‘L’Europe a capitulé’ – Europe has capitulated. Not only is President Sarkozy going to the Olympic Games, but also, on 16 June, 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 61

broadcasts by a group that broadcast into China via Eutelsat, with the permission of the French authorities, were suspended. This has been done before. On this occasion I beg the French Government to allow NDTV to resume their broadcasts. I am submitting today, to the United Nations rapporteurs on torture and religious freedom, a dossier relating to some of the people I had contact with when I was in Beijing two years ago. Mr Cao Dong continues to be tortured in a prison in north-east China. Mr Niu Jinping was re-arrested on 20 April 2008 and is being tortured. His wife, Ms Zhang Lianying, has been tortured many times and has been imprisoned four times. I am putting on my website a dossier of 50 sorts of torture that she is suffering. Mr Gao Zhisheng, a Christian human rights lawyer, I know was very badly treated earlier this year. He remains under house arrest. Mr Hu Jia was arrested after giving evidence to the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights. This is an arbitrary, brutal and paranoid regime. We should keep politics out of sport; we should keep Mr Sarkozy away from Beijing. (Applause)

Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, like many people here, seven years ago when the Olympic Games were awarded to China I had serious reservations. But they were awarded only after a string of assurances had been given by the authorities that minority rights would be respected, that there would be an end to the torture and abuses and that the well-documented human rights violations would be addressed. Fast forward to today and we know that our worries are as great as ever, if not more so. Others have spoken about the abuses. Mr Cappato was eloquent on Tibet, and Mr Cohn-Bendit and others also spoke. We know about the violations of natural justice. China executes more people every year than all the other countries in the world put together. I think it will be to Europe’s shame next month if President Sarkozy and a line of EU Heads of Governments and Presidents and princes stand there and shake hands with the Chinese leaders, thereby giving them credibility when they do not deserve it and giving them the green light to carry on in the same vein as they have been doing. The Olympic Games should be about the Olympic ideal and what is going on in China at the moment contravenes that.

Dirk Sterckx (ALDE). – (NL) As chairman of the Delegation for relations with China I agree with the Commissioner when she says that we have strategic ties with the Chinese and that these are important to both of us. We are aiming of course for economic ties, but more than that. I think we need to keep emphasising that. There are two other things I regard as important: individual human rights and freedom of expression. These are issues which we raise again each time we have contact with the Delegation or members of the Delegation, with our Chinese colleagues. We disagree, but we discuss them and we try to exchange ideas and arguments. It is difficult, it is sometimes hard work, but it is something that Parliament must continue to do unceasingly. Have we made progress? Too little and too slowly perhaps; but I think we have made progress. I would urge the European Parliament not to forget that we need to maintain contact with the Chinese and keep on raising these issues, however difficult it is, however tiresome and however frustrating sometimes. But I think it is the only way forward. Because the fate of the Chinese will be decided not here in this chamber but in China and by the Chinese themselves. They are the ones we need to convince, not ourselves.

Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, there has been a wave of global sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake in China on 12 May. A considerable amount of international aid has poured into the country, yet within its borders distinctions have been made, anti-separatist measures going hand in hand with disaster-relief efforts. It is utterly irrelevant whether people belong to the majority or a minority – they surely need to receive aid. There should be no more calls to celebrate differences; that is an impracticable notion. China would be well advised to open up at long last. This would include free access to all parts of China for foreign observers and journalists. NTDTV, the only uncensored television station in China, must be allowed to resume its transmissions without delay. Many Heads of State or Government have not yet acted on the recommendation made by our European Parliament that they refrain from attending the opening ceremony for the Olympic Games. We support the position adopted by Angela Merkel in Germany, by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, by our own President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, and by other leading public figures, who have decided to stay away from the ceremony on 8 August. The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said that his position will depend on 62 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

the outcome of the negotiations between the Chinese and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. The negotiations have been fruitless and will remain so; it follows that he will have to stay in Paris. (Applause) Before the Games, let me remind you of the Tibetans’ plight. There were more than 200 dead following the protests of 14 March, and 5 000 Tibetans have been imprisoned, most of them without trial. Thousands have sustained injuries as a result of physical violence used in the process of patriotic re-education. That, Mr President, is meant as a reminder to those who still intend to set off for Beijing. (Applause from the Verts/ALE Group)

Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Organising the Olympics is a challenge from every perspective, but it is also an extraordinary opportunity for Chinese citizens to show the world that they have understood the universal values and spirit of the Olympics. ‘One world, one dream’: the slogan of the Beijing Olympic Games fully highlights and faithfully represents the fundamental principles of the Games. I trust that the Olympics will ensure an excellent opportunity for us to deepen and extend our cooperation and dialogue with China in many areas. However, we must not forget the earthquake in May and the destruction that left many tens of thousands dead and made millions homeless. We must assure the country of our support in difficult times, but we must always remind the leadership of the importance of democratic reforms, and give constructive criticism in many areas.

I am one of those who believe that the European Union must continue results-oriented dialogue on human rights with China, but we must accept that the results will only come about step by step. And yes, the results are coming: just a few days ago, a direct air connection started up again between China and Taiwan after a gap of many decades. Discussions with the Dalai Lama have started again. Here, too, we are interested in results-oriented, pragmatic dialogue that takes into account Tibetan and Chinese values and points the way to the future. Thank you very much.

Cornelis Visser (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the Olympic Games open in Beijing on the 8th day of the 8th month of 2008. Eight is a lucky number in Chinese culture and is associated with good fortune and prosperity. I hope this date may prove lucky for the people of China. Economically, China is doing very well indeed. 'It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice', as Deng Xiaoping used to say. He opened up the country to foreign capitalist investment. Little by little the Chinese economy is being liberalised. China is now a solid partner for economic development. It is happy, for example, for its currency to be pegged not only to the dollar but also to the euro and other currencies. China has a constructive role in the world economy. Where human rights are concerned things are not good, regrettably, and certainly not when it comes to the human rights of China's own population. I find it disappointing that on the occasion of a festive event like the Olympic Games restrictions are being placed on the Chinese-language satellite broadcaster which transmits from the West. I hope the Chinese authorities will use the opportunity of the Games to show their people that rules apply not only in the sporting arena, but above all to the duty incumbent on officialdom to respect human rights and freedom of expression.

Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, 69 000 people died as a result of the earthquake of 12 May 2008, over 18 000 are missing and the number of wounded is over 37 000. This event has shaken not just the Chinese, but also the entire world. I was probably the only person in the House today who was present at that time: I was in Beijing and Shanghai and I saw the solidarity of those people, the Chinese, who identified with the victims and the tragedy. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to express my admiration for the thousands of rescue personnel and volunteers from the whole world, from Taiwan, Japan, Australia and above all from China, whose solidarity and commitment in these tragic circumstances deserve special praise. The actions taken by the European Union should also be recognised. The Chinese government, with the support of local authorities, allocated the sum of EUR 10 billion to help disaster victims. The total foreign support received by Beijing amounted to EUR 5 billion. Most of these funds came from the Chinese diaspora living in different parts of the world. I believe that activities directed towards specific humanitarian assistance are more useful, and that dialogue is more successful than slogans and calls for boycotts and protests. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 63

Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this House must promote statesmanship, which sadly today it is not doing. Ten million homeless people is an enormous disaster – the worst in the world. We saw a people-concerned, people-centred Chinese Government and leadership in action in an area which has one of the biggest populations, including more than one million Tibetans. Unlike in Burma where the rulers did not and do not care, the Chinese Government demonstrably cares for its own people. This was self-evident to anyone who saw the relief effort. Human rights in China cannot be decided by other countries, powers, organisations or people in the rest of the world. It can only be decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese population for themselves. We well know that this population can be articulate, can demonstrate and show their anger, and they do show it when something is wrong. The human rights situation in China is improving and can be improved further. Parliament and my colleagues shouting about it is not going to make any difference. We are, as usual, deluding ourselves about how important we are. It will be the Chinese people who, having been lifted out of poverty, will ask for themselves greater democratic expression. Four hundred million people have been lifted out of poverty – a remarkable achievement. But the Chinese people are afraid. By turning our backs on them as we did over the Olympic Torch, we only infuriate the people of China, not their government. This distinction is important and should be understood.

Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Colleagues, through the ages the Olympic movement has striven for a better world. The great event about to begin in Beijing has helped draw attention to Tibet and human rights. Dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama must definitely continue. By giving China the opportunity to host this worldwide sporting event, the International Olympic Committee imposed the very clear condition that by the year 2008 China should respect human rights. We know that this has not happened. The Olympic Games has never been all about sport. The principles of the Olympic Charter echo those of the EU to a considerable extent, I refer to citizens’ basic rights and human rights where no compromise is given. The Charter states that the host country is required to uphold human dignity and not to oppress citizens on grounds of nationality or religious belief. As a result I share the view that President Sarkozy’s place is in Paris in front of his TV, not in the Olympic stadium in Beijing.

David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, the experience of the Olympics being held in China has taught us a lesson: if you are systematically going to violate human rights, you need to be a large, economically strong nation; not a Zimbabwe or a Cuba. Nor indeed a Burma. You need to be a country where hundreds of western firms have a base, a country where millions of people work in conditions akin to slavery. You have to be a country with grandiose and aggressive style, and then Europe will bow and scrape to you.

José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I offer my condolences to the relatives of the victims of the earthquake and I wish to express my sincere sadness. However, there are other issues that we must discuss and I say this especially to the Council, for I recall the remarks made by President Sarkozy a few months ago, at the time of the incidents in Tibet. What we have just heard is a proposal to turn sports into bad politics and politics into a ridiculous sport, and this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that President Sarkozy is going to represent the European Union in Beijing without visiting the political prisoners there. It would be shameful for our leaders to go to Beijing without uttering a single word about the harsh reality of the situation. That would be shameful, and these leaders could then no longer appear with dignity before the European institutions. It is essential that we come back to this issue in September.

Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, just one month before the Beijing Olympic Games, China is still experiencing the tragic impact of the earthquake. Unfortunately, it took an earthquake with thousands of casualties and homeless people for the Government of the People’s Republic of China to realise that solidarity from the nations that offered to help was essential. However, this obliged China to open up its borders, thus enabling all the mass media and humanitarian aid agencies to reach areas where, until then, one could hardly get to even as a visitor. The events that followed the earthquakes in China led to a softening, which has resulted in the whole world now being concerned with the peaceful coexistence of the peoples. The Olympic flag and the sacred flame 64 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

of ancient Olympia will hold the ideal position among the things that separate us, but also, above all, among the things that unite us.

Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, when President Sarkozy spoke out in the wake of the unrest in Tibet, I had a great deal of admiration for France in its role as guardian of human rights. Since then the situation has become far worse, with the number of detainees reaching record levels. The situation in Tibet has never been so tense. Censorship of the media has never been so rigid as it is now. And in my view the President’s reaction is a slap in the face for those who are campaigning for human rights. We are thwarting the hopes of all those people in China who are relying on our pressure to help them in their efforts to introduce democracy in China.

Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the International Olympic Committee justified their granting of the 2008 Olympic Games to China by claiming that this would help open the country up to improvements in its human rights situation. However, Chinese authorities have not heeded international calls to stop pursuing their follow-up to the riots of 14 March 2008 in Tibet. Participants in the protest are still being traced, detained and arbitrarily arrested and their families are being given no information as to their whereabouts, although this is required by Chinese law. I call on China to abide by the public commitments it has made regarding respect for human rights, minority rights, democracy and the rule of law. This was the deal struck with the IOC when it agreed to allow China to host the games in the first place. This is a historic and unique opportunity for China to demonstrate its willingness to improve its human rights record to the world but in my opinion we are not seeing sufficient progress in this regard.

Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Mr President, I support the Olympic Games being held in Beijing, but I also urge the European governments and institutions to demand that China abide by its commitments regarding human rights, namely those undertaken in order to have the Olympic Games in Beijing. This requires that the European representatives who will – or will not – be attending the Olympic Games use this opportunity to draw attention to the situation of human rights in China. It is very serious. There are many people in jail, including Hu Jia, who was jailed after speaking to us here in the European Parliament via a video-conference. We cannot accept that these people will continue to be kept in jail for no account by the Chinese authorities.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, many countries and their leaders, including those in Europe, are keen to have good contacts with China in order to obtain lucrative contract or economic agreements, paying scant attention to the lack of democracy and the failure to respect human rights in China. World opinion, world leaders and global institutions should act together and should apply various types of pressure in defence of such values as freedom, human rights and democracy. If we are divided then we will not be able to act together and we will have little effect. The Olympic Games are a good opportunity for such measures. The international community should act to help a population that has suffered as a result of the tragic earthquake.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, it was not the European Union which decided, back in 2001, that the Olympic Games should be held in Beijing; it was the International Olympic Committee. Secondly, as you have said, the Olympic ideals do exist, but they are not about politics, they are about sports, something that the International Olympic Committee is saying over and over again. Thirdly, I do not know if the best way to fight for human rights in China and to have a comprehensive dialogue is to ease one’s conscience by saying ‘I’m not going to go, but I’ll still watch the opening ceremony on television’, as a Member said just now. I do not think that the problem really revolves around this issue. I note, moreover, that a number of Members from various political groups and of varying persuasions have also expressed their views in your House on the dialogue that we should have with the Chinese authorities. Whatever the current difficulties, we must continue to make the most of the EU’s relations with China. Only a strong Union will enable the two sides to conduct open discussions – that we all have been advocating – on any issue, even those that appear to be the thorniest; the European Union did not wait for the events to 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 65

take place in Tibet to initiate such a dialogue. We want to establish dialogue with China on an increasing number of issues of bilateral and global concern that are not purely commercial – it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. This point was also made by Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. We need a comprehensive dialogue with China because that country has an important role to play in the international community, and we must do everything we can – the Olympic Games are also a means to that end – to ensure that China is more effectively integrated into the international community. In addition, I should like to point out that we shall have to hold strategic dialogue with China, particularly at the forthcoming summit to be held under the French Presidency. It was not the French Presidency which selected the date for this summit. The summit will take place in the second half of 2008. It falls to us to ensure that preparations are made in the best possible circumstances, and this summit should provide an opportunity for the partnership between China and the European Union to address new issues, in particular those relating to action against climate change and to environmental and social standards – as many of you have said. China’s determination to play a more important role in the international arena must be accompanied by new responsibilities in the field of human rights, in the social sphere and in relation to environmental protection. We are aware of that and we are prepared to work towards that goal, and the European Union is undoubtedly the most suitable partner to help China follow this path. In this respect, after having consulted his colleagues and counterparts and received their consent, President Sarkozy, in his capacity as President of the European Union, assumes the responsibilities of engaging in a comprehensive dialogue between the European Union and China. If China wishes to play a bigger role on the world stage, it must shoulder the resultant responsibilities. Many comparisons have been made, for example by Mr Cohn-Bendit. I noted the comparison with the USSR of Brezhnev. Do we really want a conflict between two antagonistic blocs? Was not some progress made in the dialogue that has also been made with this great country? We played a key role in achieving this progress, and it is also through dialogue and through democratic developments that our values prevailed, as always. We must have a challenging dialogue with China where no subject is taboo, and we must encourage it to make commitments in all areas, in the political, human rights and social fields. Indeed, some Members have mentioned the death penalty. We should also address this issue with China, but we must also address it with all the other countries, and I hope that the same conservative Members who have spoken just now on the subject will do so. I should like to remind you that there are other countries where the death penalty is in force that have relations with the European Union; however, we do need to have this comprehensive dialogue. We must also proceed with caution, and I am in full agreement with what the Commission said with regard to the Council, that we should not exacerbate nationalist feelings in China at a time when it is playing host to a very important event for the whole country, a country which is seeking to achieve its integration into the international arena. It is in that spirit, assuming all the responsibilities that are associated with his role and acting in full awareness of the nature of European values, that President Sarkozy, in his new role, will visit Beijing to convey this message and also to demonstrate that we have faith in the positive development of this great country with regard to its integration into the international arena. We have already seen tangible signs of progress in Burma and in the resolution of conflicts with Iran and with North Korea; these are all areas where we also need China’s assistance. This clearly involves much more than purely commercial interests. Finally, I would say to Mr Cappato that, in all our relations, whether within the EU, with regard to minorities, or in relations between the Union and some of its partners, we must also have the same requirements and be careful before giving the whole world lessons in morality.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vice-President

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I shall be very brief because much has been said.

I would just like to reiterate that the relationship with China is a very multifaceted one. That means that we have huge scope in this strategic relationship. Apart from the environment, trade, culture – whatever the various sectoral talks and dialogues that we have – we also take the concerns with regard to human rights that have been particularly expressed here today very seriously. We take them seriously whether they concern human rights defenders or petitioners who are in jail or the application of the death penalty. It is true that 66 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

very high numbers of people are being executed. We have always mentioned this very clearly, also the alleged cases of torture and ill-treatment. We have this human rights dialogue. It is true that sometimes it is not satisfactory, but we do not have another instrument. We have to continue having a dialogue with China. We have a saying in German: Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein (Constant dripping wears the stone). This is what we are trying to do. (Applause)

President. − To close this debate, five proposals for a resolution have been submitted in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m., by way of exception, due to the presentation of the programme for the French Presidency. Written statements (Article 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) The Olympic Games in Beijing are approaching but, according to my information, the human rights’ situation in China has not improved. Rather, on the contrary, the Chinese regime keeps arresting more and more people in order to prevent potential demonstrations during the Olympic Games.

Press freedom is extremely important because the independent media are the ones that provide uncensored information on the human rights’ situation in China. Therefore it is vital that independent TV stations, such as NTDTV, can also broadcast. This TV station broadcasts 24/7 in Chinese and English via satellites over Asia, Europe, Australia and North America. The French company Eutelsat that transmits NTDTV suddenly stopped NTDTV’s signal over Asia on 16 June 2008, apparently because of the pressure applied by the Communist Party of China. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, I appeal to you in the hope that you will use, in the name of the Commission, all possible means to restore NTDTV broadcasts over Asia. I also call on the French Presidency to prevent, in the name of the Council, the restrictions on freedom of speech in China. I call on the Chinese authorities to show the world that the fact that the Olympic Games were given to Beijing has resulted in an improved human rights’ situation in China. I believe that opening Tibet to tourists, journalists and all media will be for real and will allow uncensored information to be provided about the situation in this area.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Enlargement is one of the EU’s most successful policies, and at the same time perhaps one of the most effective instruments of external policy ever known. Every enlargement up to now has strengthened the Union, and has stabilised and generally aligned the countries that have acceded. The four years that have passed since the enlargement of 2004 have put to rest all the unfounded fears and misleading information that preceded it: the enlargement is an overwhelming success, and both old and new have gained a great deal from it. Unfortunately, some politicians, either consciously or from sheer stupidity, deny the success of the enlargement and mislead citizens in the old Member States. It is therefore of paramount importance that we acquaint society with the advantages and benefits of enlargement. The rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland really is a major barrier to further enlargement of the Union. I still trust that the EU will quickly find a solution in order to save the Lisbon Treaty. However, Croatia’s admission should not be held hostage: the accession of Croatia is legally possible even without Lisbon coming to life. Croatia could therefore become a member at the end of 2009 or the start of 2010, depending on the progress of the accession negotiations. The relationship between enlargement strategy and the European Neighbourhood Policy is a complicated question. I basically agree that our European neighbours who do not yet have the prospect of membership should move from one category to the other according to their fulfilment of measurable objectives. At the same time, it is important that the Union be able to protect its geopolitical area of freedom of movement and, with regard to integration capacity, it should itself decide in some specific cases what prospects to offer its partners. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 67

12. The Commission's 2007 enlargement strategy paper (debate)

President. − The next item is the debate on the report by Elmar Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper [2007/2271(INI)] (A6-0266/2008).

Elmar Brok, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, we have to say that the previous enlargements of the European Union have been major political and economic successes. Of that there is no doubt. In the cases of Romania and Bulgaria, Commissioner, we shall certainly have separate discussions to conduct here in the coming weeks, but my opening remark remains generally valid. At the same time, we must make it clear that, when we negotiate with countries and promise them further negotiations, we keep those promises and that, when we bestow candidate status on a country, it is actually treated as a candidate country. The promises made in Thessaloniki must be honoured too. At the same time, however, we must make it clear that this in no way implies an automatic sequence of events but that each individual country must fulfil the conditions – the Copenhagen criteria – for membership of the Union so that the transition is made successfully from the viewpoint of both the acceding countries and the European Union as a whole. We must also consider whether, with our membership having risen to 27 countries – and perhaps Croatia will shortly become the 28th member – we do not now need a consolidation phase so as to ensure that everything in the European Union is actually put into proper working order. It is precisely those who pick holes in the Treaty of Lisbon while supporting enlargement who must realise that they are pursuing a politically inconsistent line. The Treaty of Lisbon, in fact, was intended as the prerequisite for the last round of enlargement, not as preparation for the next one. Those who seek enlargement but are opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon are actually working to eliminate the possibility of enlargement. That must be spelled out very clearly. Another point of paramount importance we must appreciate is that strength does not depend on sheer size alone but that inner cohesion, by which I mean taking care not to overstretch our capacity, is a crucial factor, as history has taught us. The European Union we want is not a free-trade area but a politically effective unit. This means that our capacity for internal reform is just as much a prerequisite for enlargement as internal reform in applicant countries is a prerequisite for their accession. ‘Deepening and enlarging’ has become the standard description of this twofold process. At the same time, we must be aware of the vital importance attaching to the European perspective for countries in the Western Balkans, but also for Ukraine and other countries, as a key to the success of their internal reform process in pursuit of more democracy and the rule of law, focusing their aspirations more sharply on Brussels than in any other direction. In the circumstances I have described, however, this path will not lead to immediate full membership in every case, because these countries are not yet ready and because the Union is not yet ready either. In many cases full membership will not be an option. For this reason we need new instruments in the area between full membership and the neighbourhood policy, so that these countries’ European perspective does not merely give them hope but is actually associated with real progress in areas such as free trade and the Schengen system. We need instruments modelled on the European Economic Area within which we engage in free trade with the EFTA countries, instruments that would allow partner countries to adopt 30, 50 or 70% of the body of established Community law and practice. This means that negotiations on full membership could be very brief. Sweden, Austria and Finland took that route, while countries such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway followed a different path. But who is aware today that Norway is a party to the Schengen Accords and that Switzerland contributes to the Union’s structural policy in the new Member States? In other words, we can develop very close relations, and then a decision can be taken in each case as to whether both sides want this close cooperation to continue on a permanent basis or whether they want it to be a transitional stage on the way to full membership. Accordingly, even in the Western Balkans – though not in Croatia, where it would now be a totally illogical step – countries where accession would be a lengthier process could take advantage of this transitional stage, if they so wished, to use it as an instrument. They must be given the choice. 68 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

On this basis, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we should be able to reinforce the European perspective for use as an instrument in the area between membership and the neighbourhood policy and thereby widen the area of stability, peace and freedom in Europe without endangering the development potential of the European Union.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, the Council would like to thank the European Parliament and in particular Mr Brok, for his report on the Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper, and to take advantage of this opportunity to applaud the active part played by Parliament, and its invaluable contribution to the enlargement process. Mr Brok’s report shows that the latest enlargement has been a success both for the European Union and for the Member States that have acceded to it. We believe that it has been a success for the EU, and that it has made it possible to overcome the division of Europe and helped to ensure peace and stability throughout the continent. It has inspired reforms, and has reinforced the common principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the market economy. Enlargement of the single market and expansion of economic cooperation have reinforced prosperity and competitiveness, which has enabled the European Union to improve its response to the challenge of globalisation, and has also facilitated exchanges with our partners. Enlargement has undoubtedly given the European Union greater weight in the world, and has made it a stronger international player.

Our enlargement policy is well established, and has taken on board the lessons learned from previous enlargements. In December 2007, the Union agreed that future enlargement strategy would be based on consolidation of commitments, on equitable and rigorous conditionality, and on improved communication. This remains the basis for our approach to enlargement. The Union has concluded that, in order for it to be able to maintain its capacity for integration, candidate countries must be prepared to accept in full the obligations that ensue for them from accession, and that the Union must be able to function effectively and to move forward, as Mr Brok stressed in his speech. These two aspects are essential if we are to win widespread, lasting support from the public. They should be mobilised by means of greater transparency and improved communication on these issues, and I am counting on the European Parliament to help us in this. The European Union will fulfil its commitments as regards the negotiations under way. With regard to Turkey, the screening, that is to say the first formal stage for each chapter, has been completed for 23 chapters, in eight of which negotiations have been opened. With regard to Croatia, negotiations have been opened in 20 chapters, and have been provisionally closed in two of them. On 17 June, intergovernmental conferences were held at ministerial level with Turkey and Croatia to open negotiations with Turkey in Chapter 6, ‘Company law’, and Chapter 7, ‘Intellectual property law’, and with Croatia in Chapter 2, ‘Freedom of movement for workers’, and Chapter 19, ‘Social policy and employment’. Our aim is to take these negotiations forward, and I would remind you that with regard to our relations with Turkey, we want the reform process to continue and to be stepped up. It is this that will ensure that the process is irreversible and durable, and we shall continue to monitor closely the progress achieved in all areas, particularly as regards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. Naturally, progress also needs to be made towards normalising bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus. As regards Croatia, negotiations are going well, and this year they have entered a decisive phase. The main objective is now to continue to turn the progress achieved to good account, and to speed up the rate of reform.

Thus the European Union is encouraging Croatia to continue its efforts to establish good relations with neighbouring countries, including work designed to find definitive solutions that are acceptable to both parties, and, of course, to resolve the remaining bilateral issues with its neighbours. However, I should also like to take advantage of this speech, if you will allow me to do so, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, strongly to condemn, on behalf of the Presidency, the violent events 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 69

of this morning in Istanbul, whose victims were police officers on duty outside the United States Embassy in Istanbul. On behalf of the Presidency, we denounce this appalling attack, and of course we are currently in close contact with the Turkish authorities. (Applause)

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me first thank Elmar Brok and the committee for a highly interesting report. Your debate takes place while the EU is reflecting on the situation created by the Irish ‘no’. At the same time, the course of events in south-eastern Europe reminds us of our immediate responsibility to promote stability and democracy on the European continent. The EU’s consolidated enlargement agenda covers the Western Balkans and Turkey. I welcome the report’s firm commitment towards their membership perspective. The Commission shares many points of the report, including integration capacity, which is definitely an important issue to be taken into account in EU enlargement. I note with interest the report’s proposal on a European Economic Area Plus for relations with countries that are not part of the current enlargement agenda. In the face of economic globalisation, it makes sense to extend the European legal and economic space and thus to make the wider Europe stronger in terms of our soft regulatory power. Yet for the Western Balkans and Turkey, which have a clear membership perspective, the EU must not impose new intermediate stages before candidacy or accession. That would only create doubts about the EU’s commitment, thus weakening the necessary incentive for democratic reform. The June European Council last month reaffirmed its full support for the European perspective of the Western Balkans. It is a powerful message: the EU keeps its word. This is also a vital message to Turkey. The EU accession process is advancing: two more chapters were opened in mid-June. With regard to Turkey, last year we kept the process alive together and muddled through very troubled waters. It was a victory that required vision and stamina. The stage was set for success in 2008, so as to revitalise Turkey’s EU accession process this year. Sadly, we have not seen such revitalisation, for reasons mainly internal to Turkey. We in the EU want to continue the process according to the terms defined in the negotiating framework. For its part, Turkey now needs to improve the democratic functioning of its state institutions and work towards the necessary compromises to continue EU-related reforms. I sincerely hope that calm and reason will prevail, so that Turkey can avoid stagnation and instead make progress and continue on its European journey with a clear sense of direction and determination. I would like to use this opportunity to add a few words concerning today’s events in Turkey and join Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet in this matter. The Commission strongly condemns the kidnapping of three German tourists in eastern Turkey, and we call for their immediate release. The Commission strongly condemns the violent armed attack in Istanbul this morning. I would like to express my condolences to the family and friends of the policemen who were killed, and I wish the injured policemen a speedy recovery. To conclude, enlargement was always going to be a long-term effort and one which has to ride out political storms in Ankara, Belgrade, Brussels and many other capitals in Europe. We cannot take any sabbaticals from this work for peace and prosperity that serves the fundamental interest of the European Union and its citizens. I trust I can count on your support in this regard.

Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the PPE-DE group. – (RO) The European Union enlargement strategy should be based upon the experience gathered so far and the current political and economic situation. Previous enlargements have brought benefits both to the Union and the Member States.

Nevertheless, we should note that the countries that joined the EU went through unequal periods for negotiations and have had different routes in the real integration into the European Union. 70 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The European institutions have had difficulties in adjusting to the increase in the number of Member States. There are arguments for continuing the Union enlargement. I believe it would be to the Union’s detriment if countries such as those in the Balkans or the Republic of Moldova stayed outside the Union. The countries of Eastern Europe benefit from historical and geographical considerations for requesting to join the European Union. There are economic requirements that do not allow us to suspend the enlargement, for instance the energy file. We also have to deal with external political influences that may have unfavourable repercussions. We need neighbouring countries that develop strong democracies, functional market economies and the rule of law. At this moment, the Neighbouring Policy is materialized in cooperation or association pacts, which carry out activities similar to those in a negotiation process, but at a much less substantial level. I believe these agreements should include and apply procedures identical to those in the negotiation chapters. I am convinced that the countries that truly want to be part of the Union would accept such conditions, even if they have not signed a preliminary candidate country agreement, and the benefits would be very important for both parties. Thus, the moment of enlargement will find the countries in a position that would allow them a rapid integration. Yet, in order to consolidate the European Union and arrive at the moment of a new enlargement, there is a mandatory condition: to reform the European institutions. For this reason, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is a requirement that all Member States must understand and meet.

The content of the Brok report brings clarifications regarding the steps to be taken by the Union in the next period, which the European Commission must take into consideration.

President. − Ladies and gentlemen, you will note that, when we ask someone to speak, we wait after he or she has finished, because the interpreters have told us that we need to leave ten to fifteen seconds, the time taken to relay the speech, before asking the following speaker to take the floor. You will understand that this is to allow the interpretation to reach everyone in the correct manner.

Jan Marinus Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) On behalf of my Group may I echo and endorse what the Council President and the Commissioner have just said about events in Turkey. Secondly, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the way he has worked with us in preparing this debate and, thirdly, I would repeat on behalf of my Group that in our view – and the Council President said the same – enlargement has so far proved a success and is making a significant contribution to the development of a wider European Union. We need to stress that fact right at the beginning of my speech, and Mr Brok's report makes the point too: we stand – as the Commissioner has said – by the promises made to Turkey and the countries of the Western Balkans in our discussion of enlargement strategy. So there is no change in strategy vis à vis those countries, but greater attention will be paid to the way in which the accession criteria are applied and managed during the negotiation process. Secondly, we agree with the rapporteur that more attention needs to be paid to the Union's own capacity to absorb new members. On the one hand we are asking more of applicant countries during the preparation phase, but on the other hand the European Union clearly has to do rather more to manage the arrival of new members appropriately. And we think this means completing the necessary institutional reforms. The Treaty of Nice is not an adequate basis for successful further enlargement. Thirdly, and to my mind most importantly: this report also looks beyond the current enlargement agenda to countries that are not on the list of potential applicants. Our existing European Neighbourhood Policy is not enough. That is true of our neighbours to the south, and the EU has put forward a proposal for a Mediterranean Union, but it is truer still of our neighbours to the east. We have reached the clear conclusion that the European Union must offer more, more than the Neighbourhood Policy. We think it has to encompass both relations between those countries and the Union and bilateral relations between the countries. The Black Sea would be a good geographic framework here, with a role for both Russia and Turkey. Without these two countries the main challenges and problems in that region will not be resolved. Turkey would have a pivotal role between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and this would give it the chance to show just how important Turkey is in Europe and how valuable it is to the European Union. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 71

Bronisław Geremek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) Mr President, first of all I would like to support the position taken by the Council and the Commission in the light of the dramatic events in Turkey. This important issue is the subject of our discussions today. Mr Brok’s report confirms the sense of the European Union’s enlargement strategy. I say this as a citizen of a country that has benefited from this strategy. The report states that the new accessions to the European Union have been a success. The report also states that the hopes of European nations that are aspiring to join the European Union and are ready to comply with its entry criteria will find support from the EU. The concept of integration capacity, which is a condition for a decision on accession, has been accurately defined in this report. Perhaps it should also be said that those who expected the European Parliament to announce an end to EU enlargement and to introduce some substitute for full accession have been disappointed. The EU is expanding and is increasing in strength. I was very pleased to hear Commissioner Rehn say that we should not create any new ante-rooms for countries that wish to join the European Union, but should allow them to apply for direct access to the sitting room. However, we do have to think about the fact that future enlargement has to be understood and supported by European citizens. This is an essential part of the EU’s ability to accept new Member States, and also a factor in increasing trust in Europe among its citizens. We know that this trust is undergoing a time of crisis. We also know that Europe will come out of this crisis. I belong to those who believe in the power of European ideas and the Community institutions. The purpose of the enlargement strategy that the European Parliament is carefully considering today is to consolidate the EU’s inner strength and to respond to the aspirations of European citizens. It has responded in the same way that it responded to the aspirations of Central Europe in 2004.

Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, my main objection to the report we are discussing today is the lack of a clear plan for opening the European Union to the east. Here I would like to point out a lack of consistency in the way this House has acted. Last year we adopted a report prepared by my colleague Mr Michał Kamiński, which spoke about presenting Ukraine with a clear prospect of membership. However, the document we are now discussing is more likely to ring alarm bells in those countries thinking about joining the European Union, especially our closest neighbour, Ukraine. A report that speaks of the need to strengthen the Union’s capacity to accept new countries is a de facto brake on further expansion of the European Union. Natural candidates, such as the Ukrainians, a European nation, are being offered an alternative of doubtful value instead of full membership. Taking our geostrategic interests into consideration, we should see it as important to have the closest possible cooperation with Ukraine. In this situation it would be better to show Kiev an open door to the European Union, rather than making the possibility of membership more nebulous and thus pushing the Ukrainians into orbit round Russia. This is particularly true today, when the danger to Ukraine from the Kremlin is becoming more acute.

Gisela Kallenbach, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, let me also thank Elmar Brok, who has taken the process concept on board in this report. I see a change of strategy between the working paper and the present report, and that is right and proper. Past enlargements have been a success for the entire Community, even though some criticism is necessary here and there. That, too, is only right and proper. Nevertheless, the enlargement process is not finished. Like many other speakers, I should like to mention the Western Balkans, which must not be consigned to a black hole, surrounded by Member States of the Union. It is in our interests to avoid that. We need an unequivocal enlargement strategy, not one that varies according to circumstances. The EU must be a reliable and trustworthy partner. This also means that we must be willing to effect reforms ourselves. If there is currently a question mark about that willingness, we need to engage in critical self-analysis. It is careless and erroneous to ascribe every sign of Euroscepticism to previous enlargements and fatigue. So let us wake up! Let us work for balanced economic, social and environmental development, and let us communicate the extent of the economic, cultural and historical enrichment that comes with enlargement. Let us also tell people what it would cost if there were another conflagration on our borders or within Europe. Having clear objectives and discussing them fully and openly create trust. The Union also nurtures trust by keeping its promises, and I expect us to do that by approving this report. 72 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, after the first accession waves of 2004 and 2007 enlargement is now stagnating. Croatia has to wait until 2011, Macedonia will not be in before 2014 at the earliest and for the other five countries of the Western Balkans the wait will be even longer. Negotiations are ongoing with Turkey, but it is possible that Turkey may not be able to join for decades yet. Now that all the states previously within the Soviet sphere of influence have joined, the European Union appears to be suffering from enlargement fatigue. Behind the debate on enlargement and neighbourhood policy there are two different kinds of thinking. One is that the European Union is a world power and a superstate which is gradually making more and more of the decisions that affect its Member States. This superstate wants to make neighbouring states dependent on it, but without giving them influence as equal partners within the Union. Countries which have not made the necessary adjustments or whose economy is weak will not be allowed to join. They must be kept outside the Union, but nevertheless forcibly drawn into the EU sphere of influence where they have no voice. My Group abhors that tactic. The other view wants cooperation involving diverse and equal partners. The Union is open to any European state that wants to join and meets the requisite criteria such as democracy and human rights. That kind of Union does not seek ways of imposing decisions which lack support in the Member States, but tries to solve the cross-border problems of its citizens through cooperation. That kind of Union is the most fit for purpose and has the best chances of survival long-term.

Georgios Georgiou, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Mr President, Mr Brok’s endeavours are indeed commendable, and I wish to thank him for his speech, in which he provided some very useful explanations.

However, despite the commendable endeavours, this haste by the European Union to once again haphazardly incorporate new Member States is inexplicable. Into what kind of Union and what kind of Europe would they be incorporated? Would it be into a Europe of high oil prices, of high food prices, of unemployment – a Europe of misery, if you will? What is it that we wish to create? Should we create a new network of intercontinental misery? This cannot be in Europe’s interests. I believe that it could be in the interests of others. We must bear in mind the outcome of the Irish referendum, which possibly would not allow such simplistic enlargements as the ones we have chosen.

Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this topical subject, aimed at solving such a sensitive issue for today’s European Union. Enlargement by 10 new Member States in 2004 and by a further two in 2007 was undoubtedly a success for both the European Union and the above-mentioned countries that joined it. The competitiveness and the importance of the European Union are growing, thanks to enhanced human as well as economic potential. However, I can safely say that, in spite of this fact, the 12 new Member States still perceive, on an ongoing basis, the differences between them and the 15 old Member States. We talk about discrimination and this discrimination is caused by a lack of maturity, whether economic or social. However, I am taken aback by the fact that enlargement is presented as a reason why the Lisbon Treaty must be ratified. Ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Nice is dead. It is a document belonging to history that is not applicable to today’s political life. It has lost its purpose of acting as a contract between the 15 old Member States. Today there are 27 of us and therefore the Lisbon Treaty must be ratified, but not because of enlargement. Enlargement can be achieved through a separate bilateral treaty between the European Union and the Member State.

Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Britain, my country, was one of three countries to join in the first wave of enlargement back in 1973. Since then, my party, the British Conservatives, has actively supported the enlargement process to the current 27 Member States. Enlargement expands the EU single market, creating more opportunities for economic growth and trade. It creates more jobs and social stability, as well as projecting a greater EU voice on the global stage. Enlargement consolidates the EU’s values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in those new Member States, as we have witnessed in the past with the former dictatorships of Spain, Greece and Portugal who then joined, and the Warsaw Pact former Communist countries, who have joined more recently. For those who question the EU’s movement towards ever-closer Union, enlargement should theoretically produce a wider, looser and more flexible Europe and more debate about the EU’s future direction. President 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 73

Sarkozy, as the President-in-Office, has recently raised the issue of enlargement in the context of the paralysis of the Lisbon Treaty, following its rejection by the Irish referendum. Mr Sarkozy has said that the next foreseen enlargement to Croatia could not happen without the Lisbon Treaty. I believe this is a mistake and it is an attempt to keep the Treaty alive. I am convinced that a way can be found for Croatia to join the EU without the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, there are undoubtedly other aspects of the Treaty where attempts will be made to implement them without the documents for ratification. It is now clear that Europeans want less focus on institutional tinkering and more on making the case for the EU by reconnecting with the people. I personally support future enlargement to the Western Balkans and eventually to Ukraine, Moldova and hopefully a democratic Belarus. It is a tangible example of the good thing that the EU could bring to its peoples.

Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, let me begin by expressing my sincere thanks to Mr Brok for his willingness to engage in very constructive cooperation. The message is fairly clear: the enlargement process will not be interrupted, but we all need to do even more to prepare ourselves. That applies to those of us who are in the European Union and those who want to come into the European Union. Better preparation, of course, also entails institutional reforms and consolidation of the European Union. I need hardly add, moreover, that better preparation also means unequivocal acceptance of the Copenhagen criteria, which must be applied and enforced, not merely incorporated into the statute book. I am also very grateful to Mr Brok for adopting our idea of a Black Sea Union together with Jan Marinus Wiersma, albeit perhaps in a somewhat more cautious form. The point is that we must send clear signals to Ukraine and to the other countries of the Black Sea region that are covered by the neighbourhood policy. In order to help these countries, however, it is also important to include Turkey and Russia in this cooperation. I do value the ideas of the French Presidency on a Mediterranean Union, but we must not sideline the Black Sea region. We must fly the flag there too, and the European Union must make appropriate cooperation proposals. As far as the Balkan countries are concerned, Mr Brok makes a few offers in his report. As he emphasised clearly and precisely today, these are optional offers. ‘Wait a while with your reforms – there is ample time’ is a message that no one should be receiving from here. No, the reforms must be expedited, both in Croatia and, of course, in the other countries. Particularly when a new government takes office, as has now happened in Serbia, our signal must be clear. It must say, ‘We want you in the European Union as soon as possible, but we cannot offer an alternative to your reform process. You yourselves will have to pursue it, and you will have to apply a pro-European strategy.’ The Union is incomplete without the Balkan countries of south-eastern Europe, but the work must be done in those countries, and it must be done as quickly as possible, so that we can build a new Europe together.

István Szent-Iványi (ALDE). – (HU) The history of the EU up to now has been a history of continuous enlargement, and this enlargement is also one of the most obvious testaments to the success and attractiveness of the European Union. All the same, a sort of tiredness and apathy with enlargement can be felt more and more in public opinion. This gives us all good reason to deal with the question of enlargement realistically. However, realism cannot mean scepticism. It cannot mean halting the enlargement process, and even less can it mean drafting new admission conditions that cannot be fulfilled, or repeating the obligations assumed previously, since this would undermine our credibility. Since the Irish referendum, it has been our main basic concern to prove that the European Union is still working, and enlargement is still an important and real goal for the European Union. This is at least as much in the interests of the Member States as it is for the countries that want to accede. Thank you.

Konrad Szymański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, academic jargon has started to loom larger than policy in our enlargement strategy. The theory of enlargement capacity is just a set of pretexts for a totally arbitrary and political decision to close the Union to the world. This is a bad and harmful direction for Europe to take, as it is this enlargement that has given the EU weight in the international arena and made it possible for the Union to spread its social, political and economic model. If we accept this report, we are sending a negative signal to Kiev and Tbilisi and we are weakening pro-Western and pro-European forces there. To drum up support for Treaty reforms it was announced, in Poland among other countries, that they were essential for enlargement. This makes it all the more surprising to hear that 74 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

despite accepting the Lisbon Treaty we have to work on additional treaty reforms in the context of further enlargement. Elmar, your presentation was certainly better than the report, but please tell me one thing: how many reform treaties do we have to accept before you think we are ready to accept Ukraine into the European Union?

Adamos Adamou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, our view on enlargement is that the peoples of Europe have the right, if they so judge, and provided that they meet the required criteria, to seek accession to the European Union. This principle is also the basis for our views in the case of Turkey, the accession process of which also affects the resolution of the Cyprus issue. We insist, however, that Turkey’s compliance with the commitments it has made towards the European Union is an essential condition for the completion of its accession. While there should be no waiver of the obligation of the European Union to honour its own commitments, Turkey must comply fully with the principles of international legality, the UN resolutions and European law for an end to the occupation in Cyprus, the opening up of ports and airports to Cypriot ships and aeroplanes and the abrogation of the veto so that the Republic of Cyprus can participate in international forums and agreements. Especially at this point in time, following the initiative of the newly elected President, Demetris Christofias, and the efforts being made by the leaders of the two communities, Turkey ought to comply and to refrain from placing any obstacle in the way of this new phase in the Cyprus issue.

Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, there is an acknowledgement in this report that enlargement has not been an unqualified success. Mr Brok concedes that, without a serious alteration in the current EU policies, the EU’s internal cohesion may be undermined by enlargement. The EU has let in countries that it knew full well did not meet its own entry criteria, as was the case with Romania and Bulgaria. This may well be repeated with yet more Eastern European states and Turkey. Tremendous strains are being put on Member States such as the United Kingdom as a result of uncontrolled, unlimited and indiscriminate immigration resulting from continued EU enlargement. This is just one of the reasons for the growing hostility to the European Union among its citizens. Mr Brok’s solution is to propose a massive propaganda budget to convince people of the benefit of enlargement. The solution for Britain is to leave the European Union and regain control of its borders.

Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Commissioner Rehn again said just now that Turkey has a clear perspective for full membership and that no new requirements should be imposed. I suggest the Commissioner takes a good look at the Eurobarometer polls. There is no democratic support for Turkish accession. The gulf between policy and people is steadily increasing, getting wider and deeper. The promise was given that negotiations would be suspended if Turkey was manifestly failing to meet its obligations. That promise has not been kept. Another promise was that the negotiations would proceed in step with the process of reforms in Turkey. That is not happening either. The reform process in Turkey has effectively ground to a halt and yet two weeks ago it was decided to open two new chapters in the negotiations. This mismatch between word and deed will prove fatal to the European Union unless radical changes are made to our policy and attitudes.

Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union today is already very large, but it is still incomplete. In order to be cohesive, a united Europe needs common values at its base, as well as the goodwill of its inhabitants. In order to achieve the goals that we set ourselves, such as a better economy, greater political influence in the international arena, better demographics, or better quality of life, there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled. As regards the points presented by our colleague Mr Brok, of course greater internal integration is important. The members of the Union must also want to continue enlargement, and of course the candidate countries must fulfil the necessary criteria. What is the strategy for this enlargement? It is simply to motivate the candidates to make efforts, to work with them and to support them by means of various instruments, including the neighbourhood policy.

The eastern dimension is important for us, because there is a large section of Europe there that is not in Europe proper, not in the European Union. The only option here is to make the effort to get to know these eastern neighbours and prepare the ground as regards legal, economic and social issues. In all this, common values are important, or at least the possibility of common values. It seems to me, and I am convinced of this 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 75

fact, that the greatest social and political experiment in the whole of history – the completion of the Union of Europe – has a real chance of success.

Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, there is a famous painting by the Belgian artist René Magritte which shows a pipe with, below it, the caption ‘ceci n’est pas une pipe’. Magnificently painted it may be, but this pipe can never be smoked. The Brok report is rather like this. Despite its title, it is not an enlargement strategy, for it is not a matter of strategy or of those key questions that citizens ask themselves. Why enlarge the European Union? In what direction? At what risk or with what benefits? What Mr Brok is talking about is a consolidation method, a defensive tactic. To put it simply, enlargement is a contract between Europe and the candidate countries. The latter have to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, and Europe has to demonstrate the capacity to absorb them. And there is the rub. Trapped in a Treaty of Nice that is too constricting, from which it cannot escape, Europe is not ready for further enlargement. Accordingly, the crisis in the European institutions should have the effect of putting a stop to enlargement. That is what many European citizens think and, up to a point, that is my view too. We need to be careful though, as, put baldly like this, devoid of any ambitious strategy, this slogan is dangerous. It opens up the way to all those who are prepared to reject a new treaty, with a view to turning in on ourselves, to rejecting Turkey or even the Balkan countries – the way to all those nationalists who distrust foreigners who might one day dress up as Europeans. For them, this slogan is just a charade – in fact they want neither enlargement nor greater depth.

We have to prove to our citizens that the successive enlargements have constituted an opportunity for Europe, to emphasise to them that multiculturalism is a blessing, that immigration is our democratic future. We have to get beyond the institutional crisis. It does not signal a victory either for the Eurosceptics or for the left, but it reveals a somewhat inglorious impotence from which everyone risks suffering. The Brok report manages this impotence well and intelligently, and I congratulate him, but sadly he does not take us forward.

Inese Vaidere (UEN). – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, the results of EU enlargement are positive, and therefore it is essential that we create the right conditions to develop them. Our institutions and governments ought to provide the public with honest and complete information about both the benefits and risks of enlargement. Citizens need to be certain that, after enlargement, they will not have to worry about their opportunities for retaining and developing their languages, cultures, faiths and traditions, and they need to be certain that their welfare and values will not be under threat. If existing nations within states feel at home in their countries, there will be less fear surrounding an influx of immigrants and the enlargement process as a whole will be seen in a positive light. We need to listen to citizens, and we need to develop a dialogue. I support various types of cooperation with potential Member States. This would result not only in a more honest attitude towards the European Union’s capacity for integration, which was successfully defined in the report, but also in a clear roadmap for our partners. Thank you.

Doris Pack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Union cannot perform its function as a reliable and stable global partner unless it remains able to act and pursues a refined strategy that responds to the specific needs of different countries. We cannot admit all our neighbours as members and are therefore obliged, if only in their own interests, to offer them an appealing and worthwhile alternative. We must devise an efficient neighbourhood policy worthy of the name. The opening of our education, culture and youth programmes and the establishment of a special economic area are examples of such an approach. The options enumerated in Mr Brok’s excellent report must therefore be fully developed and fleshed out as quickly as possible. This is the only way to promote stability, peace, respect for human rights and economic reforms in the countries that are our neighbours. The situation is different, however, in the countries of the Western Balkans, which have had a clear prospect of accession for some time. A glance at the map will suffice to see clearly that they are in the heartland of the European Union, by which I mean that they are surrounded by Member States. Our policy there is based on logical steps. One country is already negotiating its accession to the EU, while others have signed stabilisation and association agreements with the EU – all of them except Kosovo, in fact. Our political action there is the litmus test of our credibility in the field of foreign policy and the guarantor of lasting peace and stability in the EU. 76 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I do not like it when Turkey and Croatia are invariably mentioned in the same breath. The conditions and backgrounds are entirely different, and everyone should be aware of that. Croatia is the first of the Western Balkan countries whose accession negotiations could be completed in 2009. The EU should expedite Croatia’s accession, thereby signalling to Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo that the essential and often painful social, judicial and economic reforms are worth the effort. Responsibility for the future accession of these countries, however, will then lie primarily in the hands of their own politicians, who are accountable to the electorate in their respective countries.

Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, it is the opinion of the rapporteur, the Council and the Commission that past enlargements have generally been a great success. I fully agree with this view. An example of this is my own country, the Czech Republic. It benefits enormously from its membership and is fast catching up with the most economically advanced countries. In spite of this, there are people in the country, including President Klaus, who constantly voice their doubts about EU membership, as well as doubts about the reason for the very existence of the EU. In the neighbouring country of Austria, similar views are being expressed. Although 150 000 jobs were created in this country of eight million people thanks to enlargement, only 28% of Austrians see their country’s membership of the European Union as something positive. I should therefore like to single out one aspect of Mr Elmar Brok’s report and that is the need to introduce a comprehensive communication strategy for informing the public about the purpose of enlargement, about its advantages as well as its potential future disadvantages. For me, this is the most important issue, apart from ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and apart from making good on the promise we gave particularly to the West Balkan countries in Solun in 2003.

Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in the report on the enlargement strategy that we are debating, there is a reference to a clause in the Treaty of Rome, according to which ‘any European state may apply to become a member of the Community’. We note with some satisfaction the signals concerning acceptance of the Polish and Swedish initiative for eastern partnership, including closer cooperation with our eastern neighbours, among them Ukraine and Belarus. It should be pointed out that Ukraine is expecting full membership. In the context of the priorities of the French Presidency, which is concentrating on contacts with the Union’s southern neighbours, we should also strengthen our eastern partnership, in order to prevent a serious asymmetry in external policy. One of the instruments could be to set up an EU-East parliamentary session, the so-called Euronest. Putting such a proposal at the top of the agenda would strengthen the signal being sent to our eastern neighbours and to their Community aspirations. It should be stated clearly that these should not be suppressed and linked with the Lisbon Treaty debacle, as certain senior European politicians are currently doing.

Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mr Brok on his report, in which there is a great deal of truth. Personally, I am a not too optimistic about new accessions and about a new enlargement, at least in the immediate future, with the exception of Croatia. However, we do wish for the world around us to enjoy political and economic stability. We wish for peace and prosperity to prevail. We wish for the world around us to be alive and very healthy. A tool to aid us in that direction, as Mr Brok also admits, is the European Neighbourhood Policy. However, the European Neighbourhood Policy does not create partners in a common enterprise. It is based on the bilateral relations of the Union with each of these countries and, in my view, that is its weak point. We must therefore create something that goes beyond just being neighbours but not as far as being a Member State. My proposal for the construction of a European Commonwealth is a step towards that direction: it will be a kind of enhanced cooperation, a zone of states neighbouring the European Union that will adopt a European approach. This will manage to both reinforce security and raise the international prestige of the European Union. It will be the alternative tool to enlargement, enabling us to extend our influence on the neighbours in question at a time when objections to a further enlargement are apparent. Finally, I wish to add that, even though this proposal may sound very ambitious, I believe that the European Union must finally boost its prestige and extend its influence, and I think this is one way to achieve this.

Adrian Severin (PSE). – Mr President, there can be no strategy without a scope of purpose. The ambiguity of the European Union purpose when we come to the enlargement policy is an obstacle which no rapporteur could overcome. This report is a victim of such ambiguity. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 77

Our duty and our ultimate scope is to grant security to our citizens. Our citizens feel unprotected. In order to protect them, the European Union needs power. In order to be powerful in a global world, the European Union needs both enlargement and internal reform. Since we failed to tell our citizens that the rights they have already acquired are not sustainable, they think that they can preserve those rights by opposing both enlargement and reform. Under such circumstances the future of the European Union is in jeopardy. Enlargement is not a concession made to the candidate countries. Some of them, such as Ukraine, Serbia, Moldova and Turkey, have alternatives – maybe worse, but alternatives. In these cases we are in competition with others. Some of their internal problems could be solved better inside, rather than outside, the European Union. If we do not offer them prospects, we do not offer our citizens security. It is not the candidate countries or the new Member States that are indigestible: our digestive system is too slow. Either we find a good digestive quickly or we will be obliged to starve for a long time.

Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, I think it is right to conclude that enlargement has been a success. I am glad to hear confirmation that countries to which we previously gave clear pledges and a clear EU perspective still enjoy those advantages. However, I am seriously concerned that the atmosphere becomes cooler every time we discuss enlargement. Words such as ‘adequate’, ‘absorption capacity’, ‘political consolidation’, ‘risks to social and economic cohesion’ are increasingly used. These are words which, to my ears, do not sound like a vision or a goal but more like a way to avoid committing ourselves to possible future enlargements. More and more references are made to enlargement fatigue in public opinion at home, but not enough is being done to change that opinion.

It is not by chance that Germany and France, two countries that had waged war with one another for centuries, were the very countries which launched the entire EU project. It is not by chance that it was precisely the leaders of France and Germany who had a vision for Europe’s future. They understood that the European Union was, first and foremost, a project for peace and security, much more than just an economic project. It is this vision and this kind of leadership which I am really looking for and which I so often find lacking here. I therefore appreciate Commissioner Rehn’s plain speaking: we must not create a waiting room for countries which aspire to membership, and enlargement has a future. I am particularly grateful to the Commissioner for that.

Vural Öger (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, in my view the European enlargement policy has been a great success story. Within fifty years the EU has managed to create a peaceful, democratic and prosperous continent. What strikes me about this report on the EU enlargement strategy, however, is that it also focuses on relations between the EU and countries with no accession prospects. This attempt to water down the enlargement strategy and blend it with the European Neighbourhood Policy poses problems. Although the report deals with many very interesting substantive issues and makes good points, these would be at home in a report on the ENP but are out of place in an enlargement report. I am thinking, for example, of the proposals for a Mediterranean Union and a Black Sea Union. The enlargement policy of the EU should remain quite separate from the European Neighbourhood Policy. Instead, I regret to say that the report contains some very vague and even confusing statements which leave room for diverse interpretations.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, the Brok report relates to one of the most outstanding successes of the European Union: the enlargement process. If you will allow me, I would like to make three comments. First, enlargement has highlighted the Union’s so-called ‘capacity for change’. The desire for integration has been a powerful stimulus for profound political and economic change in many European countries. Those countries have gone on to become members of the Union, thereby benefiting themselves and also the existing Member States. The fifth enlargement is the most recent proof of this success. Second, I endorse the concepts, advocated by the Commission, of conditionality, consolidation and communication, concepts which also inform the Brok report. I also support the requirement that the Union must strengthen its integration capacity. In fact, enlargements demand that the Union be able to assimilate them and continue to function properly. In order to do so, it needs to carry out institutional reforms where necessary and, for example, secure its financial resources. Enlargements must not endanger the common policies or the objectives of the Union. Furthermore, I endorse the need for an ambitious communication policy, something which the Union has so far lacked. It is true that we have not been able to put over the benefits of enlargement to our citizens. 78 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Finally, the Brok report refers to the possibility of creating a specific area of the Union for eastern countries which as yet have no membership prospects. As paragraph 19 of the report indicates, such an area or zone would be based on common policies in various areas, from the rule of law and democracy to education and migration. In my view, many of these common policies should not just be implemented with respect to our eastern neighbours but should also be extended to countries bordering the Mediterranean. The latter have enjoyed very close relations with the European Union for over fifty years. The European Neighbourhood Policy and the so-called Barcelona Process – now the Mediterranean Union – need to ensure that countries on the southern shore do not feel as though they are being treated as second class citizens.

Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, just a warning: in one minute there is no time for subtleties and so I am speaking solely on my own behalf. Enlargement has not always been successful. The political elites of four or five countries in the latest 2004 enlargement have not, in my view, either understood or taken on board European policy or the Community acquis. They are prioritising relations with the United States and placing more emphasis on NATO than on a genuine and secure process of integration with the European Union. There can be no more enlargements until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. Current negotiations with candidate countries should continue without interruption but I emphatically believe that those negotiations should not be closed until the Lisbon Treaty is approved. Finally, we should not prevent those countries which want to progress further from being impeded by the more Eurosceptic, nationalist or sovereignty-seeking countries.

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the Brok report the European Parliament demonstrates very clearly that it has learned the lessons of the last major wave of enlargement which saw the accession of twelve new Member States and that it has been able to catalogue all the resulting problems while effectively highlighting all the benefits that enlargement has brought to both the new and the old Member States. The main thing, however, is to draw the appropriate conclusions, and this it has done, particularly in two areas to which I attach importance. First of all, we shall have to examine the absorption capacity of the European Union prior to any future enlargement and, secondly, candidate countries really will have to meet the criteria before they are admitted. When we come to discuss the absorption capacity of the European Union, I believe there are important points to consider, such as the principle that new accessions must not jeopardise the European integration project. By this I mean that the Union’s development impetus and the pursuit of its aims must be boosted, not deflected, by the admission of new Member States. The institutional framework of the Union must first be created and consolidated. The fact is that we need a treaty, be it the Treaty of Lisbon or another adequate treaty, and enlargement must also be affordable for the European Union, otherwise it would jeopardise the integration project. Our overarching aim is continued progress. Subsequent accessions of additional countries should not be excluded, but everything must be done in accordance with rules and conditions.

Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) The strengthening of the European Union’s role as an actor on the international scene is impossible without continuous adjustment to the 21st century global context. A geostrategic element in this respect is enlargement and the previous enlargements, including the latest, of 2007, have proved the unquestionable advantages of this process. Therefore, it is essential that this process continues and I welcome the reiteration of the firm commitment to the Western Balkan countries in the report. Nevertheless, it is not less important to provide a clear European perspective to the European partners in the Neighbouring Policy, including the Republic of Moldova. I remind you that we are speaking about European countries that have already stated their objective to acquire a European prospect and the Treaty of Rome stipulates explicitly that any European state can request to become a Community member, provided that it meets the Copenhagen criteria. I request the Commission and the Council to... 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 79

(The President revoked the speaker’s admittance to the floor.)

Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE). – Mr President, the Irish setback to the Lisbon Treaty has provided enlargement sceptics with an unexpected opportunity: The EU has to stop considering new members, because there is simply no room for them. Of course, in strict legal terms, this is true at the moment, but, at the same time, we should make a clear distinction between the Lisbon Treaty and enlargement. Firstly, because the rationale for the Treaty has not been enlargement per se but the adaptation of the EU to a globalised context and, secondly, because enlargement is a political rather than a strictly legal matter. Enlargement is a power ingredient showing attractiveness and authority as well as the absorption capacity – things we do not miss a chance to claim for our Union. Therefore, strategic planning, actual negotiations and new initiatives in relation to further enlargement should continue in parallel to the efforts to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, could Mr Jouyet explain and justify the extraordinary situation inside the French Parliament about the use of referendums to sanction Turkish accession? Does he not agree that the choice of such a populist device is entirely wrong for the ratification of an international treaty?

Nicolae Vlad Popa (PPE-DE). – (RO) Enlargement has proved to be one of the strongest political instruments of the European Union, serving the Union’s strategic interests of stability, security and conflict prevention. This has contributed to more prosperity, growth opportunities, as well as to ensuring vital transport and energy corridors.

The European Union policy on enlargement has been a success both for the European Union and for Europe, in general. In this context, it is important to maintain the open door policy both for the candidate or potential candidate countries and for the countries with European prospects in the Eastern part of the continent, an approach that is conditioned, of course, by the fulfilment of required criteria and commitments. However, in order to continue the enlargement, we need a viable solution for the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

Monika Beňová (PSE). – (SK) We have heard words such as enlargement fatigue, crisis or the need for consolidation. These are very depressing words and attitudes, more a testimony to helplessness and elitism than to the ability to actively push ahead with the vision of a united Europe. Consolidation is not a problem for those countries that joined the Union during the last two enlargements. It is mostly a problem for the old Member States. They should ask themselves why they need consolidation. As regards enlargement fatigue, it is us who are bedevilled by contradictory views and standpoints, not the countries that are ready to meet all our requirements and conditions in order to become EU members. For example, our conduct towards Turkey is tragicomic because today we cannot even say whether we will be willing to accept Turkey into our elitist circle when the Copenhagen criteria are met, and consequently the question or all questions which … (The President cut off the speaker)

Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, it is reassuring to hear the French Minister stating in essence that, in order for Turkey to prove its wish to proceed with its European aspirations, it must normalise its relations with Cyprus. It is indeed inconceivable and defies any sense of logic that the EU will continue accession negotiations with a country that continues not to recognise one of its Member States and continues to occupy part of that state. I understand that the carrot-and-stick policy must be used in the case of a country where democracy is constantly under attack by its military, but there are limits to our patience and to our tolerance. We have been to communal talks in Cyprus. This is a good time for the Commission and Council to strongly impress on Turkey the need to show goodwill – not only to Cyprus but to the EU in general – by urgently removing its occupation troops from the island of Cyprus and by immediately implementing the Ankara Protocol. Such moves will undoubtedly act as a catalyst to finding a solution to the Cyprus problem. (The President cut off the speaker.)

President. − I am told that we are running very short of time, so we are not going to be able to allow everyone to speak. 80 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I would like to point out to those who have asked to speak that they can submit their intervention in writing, for inclusion in the minutes of the sitting.

13. Welcome

President. − I would like to point out, ladies and gentlemen, that on the rostrum we have a delegation from the Republic of South Africa, led by Mr D. Obed Bapela, Chairman of the International Relations Committee, who is known to all of us for his friendship towards Europe and for his involvement in the fight against apartheid. (Applause) I would like to extend a welcome to our guests, to this the twelfth European Parliament/ Parliament of South Africa interparliamentary meeting. This is a very important visit. The frequency of these visits is enhancing political dialogue, which is a vital element of the joint action plan, which we adopted in May last year, for the implementation of the European Union/South Africa Strategic Partnership. Heightening our cooperation with a view to increasing international security and stability is without a doubt more necessary now than ever before, in view of the current tense regional situation in southern Africa and, especially, the crisis in Zimbabwe with which we are all familiar. I would therefore like to welcome our friends from South Africa.

14. The Commission's 2007 enlargement strategy paper (continuation of debate)

President. − We will now continue our debate on the Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, I should like to make three comments before I turn to this debate, which has been extremely productive and exciting. First, on behalf of the Council, I would like to welcome the South African delegation who are here with us, and to tell them that we shall be seeing their country’s leaders very soon, as that will be the first European Union summit that will take place in France, at the end of July. Secondly, I should like to join Mr Rehn in expressing great sympathy for the German tourists who, according to a dispatch, have been kidnapped by Kurdish rebels in Turkey. We in the Council very much hope that, if this is confirmed, these people will be found safe and sound as quickly as possible, and we would stress that our thoughts are with them. Thirdly, I want to thank Mr Duff for his knowledge of French politics, and of the positions I personally hold. I shall, of course, be happy to talk to him in greater depth over a coffee, but unfortunately my duties today do not allow me to comment on them now. To move on to our debate, enlargement is definitely part of the story of European development, and to date we have always ensured that enlargement and strengthening of the Union go hand in hand. It is important that this should continue, as Mr Brok emphasised. All debates are helpful in making our citizens aware of the issues involved in enlargement, and so we pay particular attention to the European Parliament’s debates and positions on this topic. Following on from what many Members have said, I wish to emphasise the stabilising role of enlargement. This is obvious in the case of the Balkans. The rapid progress made by Croatia, which the French Presidency wishes to expedite further if all the Member States agree, shows that countries that experienced conflict in the 1990s have a genuine prospect of accession. This is an important message for Serbia in particular, given that it has just acquired a government that also aspires to strengthening its links with the European Union. The same is equally true of Turkey, and in this context I should like to remind you that the current status of the negotiations is linked not to the position of one or other of the EU Member States, but to Turkey itself, and the rate of reform there. Above all, it is linked to Turkey’s fulfilment of its obligations to all the EU Member States and, in particular, with fulfilment of the Ankara Protocol. The policy of enlargement does not mean that we are neglecting the European Union’s other neighbours. The Council is currently discussing how we can enable Ukraine to reach a new stage in its relations with the 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 81

European Union in the forthcoming EU-Ukraine summit, which will be held in Evian on 9 September. We also wish to advance relations between the EU and Moldova, a country in which the Council has already invested a great deal. As the Council Presidency, we also support the regional processes that have been described. I myself attended the conference that launched the synergy on the Black Sea, and the summit of the Baltic countries. And of course I cannot fail to mention the forthcoming summit on the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean Union, which will take place in Paris on 13 July. Finally, as you can see, the enlargement process has not broken down. It is continuing to make many demands on the candidate countries, and also on Member States, which have to explain this process to their citizens. Mr Rouček and Mrs De Keyser are absolutely right to say that a great deal of education is needed, with or without Magritte. However, it is true that, as you emphasised, citizens also need to be reassured. It is precisely to make it possible to continue this process, the strategic import of which has been mentioned by some of you, and Mr Brok in particular, that the Treaty of Lisbon sets out to reform our institutions so that the new Member States – we must be clear about this – can be welcomed under the best conditions, without calling into question the European Union’s capacity for action.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am particularly happy to conclude my part in this debate in the presence of a parliamentary delegation from South Africa, as I started my political activity some decades ago in a campaign to free Nelson Mandela. We are lucky that in this House the only prisoners left seem to be my friend, Elmar Brok, and myself, as publicly announced on the table.

(Laughter) I would like to thank the Members for a very substantive and responsible debate today. I only want to make one cross-cutting point of a general nature. I am glad that the Brok report and today’s debate essentially endorse the renewed consensus on EU enlargement, which was achieved in December 2006 – not least because of the events in 2005. The key virtue of this strategy is that it strikes a carefully calibrated balance between the underlying strategic importance of enlargement in extending the zone of peace and prosperity, liberty and democracy on the one hand, and our own capacity to integrate new members with rigorous conditionality and our internal reform on the other. I cannot help recalling – I have an elephant’s memory – that in the autumn of 2004, after a parliamentary hearing, I was criticised by the Committee on Foreign Affairs for a lack of vision because I did not immediately want to provide an accession perspective for Ukraine. I only said that we should not prejudge the future as regards Ukraine. A year later I was criticised for emphasising absorption capacity and stopping the motion of enlargement. In this light I particularly welcome today’s debate, which strikes the right balance between the strategic importance of enlargement and our own capacity to integrate new members. This debate and the report find a solid third way by combining both a deepening of political integration with the gradual widening of the European Union. In my view this clearly shows a convincing convergence of the use of the European Parliament and of the Commission, and of the European Union as a whole, and I certainly welcome this phenomenon and the direction towards the renewed consensus on enlargement which has been prevailing since 2006.

President. − I would like to inform you that tonight, at the meeting of the Bureau, I am intending to express my concern about the ‘catch the eye’ procedure, for which there are no rules, the matter being left exclusively to the arbitrariness or judgment of the President or of his or her eye, and I think it is essential to lay down some ground rules, because the procedure is becoming unsatisfactory. Today we had as many as fifteen requests and this is altering the normal procedure and the amount of time given to each Group to speak.

Therefore, I would like to leave you to think about this, particularly those of you who may have been disappointed, because many people have asked to speak but few have been able to do so.

Elmar Brok, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, first I want to thank the Commission and the Council Presidency for the solidarity they have expressed regarding the German tourists in Turkey. 82 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

We are looking at a whole range of subjects and need to find a balance among them. They range from the Mediterranean Union – which is an important step forward if it is supported by the Community as a whole rather than being a priority of certain countries from certain regions – via the Swedish-Polish proposal, to the proposal for a Black Sea Union. These are all ideas we must look at together as a Community while also making it clear that some of these options offer the prospect of accession while others do not. The statement by the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr Sikorski, that some countries are Europe’s neighbours while others are European neighbours is perhaps an indication of the fact that the two are equally important but that there are differences as regards method and objective. If, however, we have the scope to do so – bilateral relations, multilateral intermediate solutions or even permanent solutions somewhere between Neighbourhood Policy and full membership – and therefore have a whole range of instruments at our disposal, we should consider how we can also safeguard this balance, to which the Commissioner referred, politically and administratively in the long term; that would maintain both the European Union’s potential for development and those countries’ prospects of accession to Europe and their stability. Let me ask some of the critics of the EU who have spoken here one question: which European Union do they mean? The European Union that we have now and that represents the greatest success story in terms of peace, freedom and prosperity in the history of this continent! We want to continue with this project and expand it as much as we can in order to continue achieving this kind of success and this objective and to bring in more countries. That is the issue! That is why, when we talk of the Western Balkans, we have to say: if yesterday or this week we have a government in Serbia that says it wants to look towards Brussels, towards Europe, then for the sake of ensuring lasting peace in a region that has been a source of conflict for the past 150 years we should accept that offer and further that prospect in order to continue with the peaceful development of our continent.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SIWIEC Vice-President

Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, because the debate on Palestinian prisoners held by the Israeli authorities is to start so late – almost an hour late now – I am afraid I have to withdraw my name from the speaker’s list. But I ask that my minute, allocated to me by the PSE Group, be added to Ms De Keyser’s time allocation. She is leading for the PSE Group. I express my deep regret that I have to do this, but unfortunately I have to go to the airport.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Thursday, 10 July 2008. Written Statements (Rule 142)

Titus Corlăţean (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The prospect of countries of South-Eastern Europe joining the European Union is the driver of reforms for the democratic transformation of these countries. The Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper should send a clear signal regarding the firm commitment toward the countries with which accession negotiations have started or the countries with accession prospects. This is the case, among others, of Serbia and the Republic of Moldova. For the latter country, Romania represents a window by which the Moldavian citizens can preserve their hope in a European, more democratic and more prosperous future. A future accession to the European Union is an impulse for the democratic opposition in the Republic of Moldova to continue the fight for establishing democratic legislative and institutional structures, a process that the EU has committed itself to encouraging. The need for institutional internal reforms in the EU, by the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, cannot represent a preliminary reason and a pretext to block the Union enlargement.

Dragoş Florin David (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The EU enlargement has always been only a matter of time and of making political and economic systems compatible between the Member States. A short evaluation of the 2004 and 2007 enlargement process shows us a stronger and more dynamic Union, both regarding internal and external matters, which proves to us that the enlargement process has been beneficial both to the Union and to the newly-acceded countries, as well as that, inside the Union, we gather only our values 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 83

and not our problems too. The political and economic, European and global context is probably not the most favourable for a rapid enlargement, but this should not prevent us from developing and even reforming the strategies and mechanisms for enlargement. The Western Balkan countries, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey are countries that have stated their interest in joining the EU and that benefit from privileged partnerships with the EU, but also have to solve, at an internal level, compliance with the European standards, democracy, stability and prosperity. In this context, I congratulate Mr. Brok for the sense of balance and pragmatism used in the report he drafted and I also hope in a rapid solution for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all Member States.

Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE), in writing. – The process of enlargement has been an integral part of the development of the EU over the last 50 years. From the six founding members, the EU has enlarged to 27 member states and represents more than 450 million people The European Union is more stable, more secure and has a bigger voice on international issues than before. We have experienced through the years that enlargement has been at the core of the success and development of the EU. Enlargement has enabled the peaceful reunification of Europe across the Cold War divide. We have to agree that development of the EU has gone hand in hand with enlargement. But what is the current attitude towards enlargement inside our society? Attitudes towards further enlargement are unenthusiastic, mostly influenced by non-enlargement-related issues and partly related to the lack of information about enlargement.

I am one of those who are convinced that the prospect of eventual EU membership is indispensable to driving further political reform and pushing for democracy. The fear is that if the prospect of EU membership is taken off the political agenda, the Balkans may slip back into instability.

Kinga Gál (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) Mr President, in connection with the debate on enlargement strategy, I would like to draw attention to the substantial criteria relating to our immediate neighbours, the Western Balkans and Ukraine. The prospect of accession, and especially the obligation to comply with the Copenhagen criteria, has been a huge motivation for the candidate countries to modernise and develop into constitutional states. The Western Balkans and Ukraine need this motivating force. If we take away the prospect of accession from our immediate neighbours, with whom we share European traditions and history, the motivating force that can make the constitutional statehood of these countries a reality ceases to exist. Legislation such as the anti-minority education decrees will be appearing very shortly, and this, along with closures of schools that teach in the mother tongue, language death and assimilation, is generating huge anger in Ukraine. When the bar is dropped or the goal becomes more distant, standards move further away from what we call a constitutional state. So we have a great responsibility. It is now important for us to ensure that the criteria are fulfilled not just on paper but in reality – consistency is needed from our neighbours in their preparations, and consistency is needed from the Union in its promises and calls to account. Our consistent behaviour will create confidence among our voters and neighbours alike.

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) As a representative of a country that joined the EU in 2004, I fully support all the parts of Mr Elmar Brok’s report that emphasise the importance of continued enlargement and its positive contribution to the creation of a strong, cohesive, citizen-friendly and prosperous Europe. I agree with the statement that the possibility of EU membership, once acknowledged, has a very positive influence on the internal policies of candidate countries, encouraging them to act faster to restructure their administration, to reform their education systems and institutions of higher learning, to pay more attention to human rights, including those of minorities, to combat corruption in public life, in a word, to adopt the values that have guided the European Union for many years. I also think that the report should give much greater emphasis to the openness of the European Union and its readiness to accept the next new Member States. This is especially important for my own country, Poland, particularly in the context of the expectations and European aspirations of our eastern neighbours, particularly Ukraine. It would be very unfortunate if our neighbours saw our eastern frontier (the Schengen border for the whole EU) as some new wall that will 84 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

permanently separate us from them. The calls that we hear sometimes in this context, that further enlargement of the Union should depend on its so-called ‘integration capacity’ – these I consider to be badly thought through and constitute a threat to the objectives that the EU has set itself.

Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE), in writing. – An important start for dealing with further enlargements is a clear understanding that the EU has greatly benefited from all past enlargements. The latter have resulted in a win-win situation for all interested parties. This provides us with a credible basis to believe that the EU will also benefit from coming enlargements. One can well understand the concern relating to the EU integration capacity. However, the most efficient potential for enhancing integration capacity is still not fully used. This is making full use of the EU’s four fundamental freedoms – liberalising markets, unbundling big companies, providing for transparency. To successfully address the global challenges we need to rely without further hesitations on the fundamental values and principles of the European Community, which has been and still is the biggest success story of European history. One should welcome the emphasis put by the rapporteur on regional cooperation mechanisms. The recent Polish-Swedish initiative to set up an Eastern Dimension to integrate all Eastern European states into a meaningful cooperation seems to be especially valuable. However, regional cooperation agreements cannot be used as an excuse for excluding certain states in this area from prospects of future full membership.

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, Parliament is considering its resolution on the EU’s enlargement strategy at a time when EU enlargement has gone out of fashion. It has even become something of a bogeyman in the hands of Eurosceptics. For this reason the statement, which is true, that ‘previous enlargements have undoubtedly been a success’, and have helped to strengthen stability, growth and prosperity in the whole of Europe, is very important. However, this needs to be explained to the citizens of the Union, in order to increase social support for the next steps. Unfortunately, information campaigns to date have not been a success. As usual when debating enlargement, it is interesting to consider the geography of potential membership candidates. Reading the draft resolution, one might think that the doors are open wide. There is unequivocal support for the aspirations of Balkan nations. There is an important declaration that eastern partners in the Neighbourhood Policy can also be described as European countries. However, the key definition of the EU’s ‘integration capacity’ (paragraph 7) puts a damper on any hopes and, in addition, the reference to ‘shared values’ is clearly addressed at Turkey. The resolution in this form diverges somewhat from Poland’s views. Poland, a country that itself was once knocking on the EU’s door, is now calling for the opportunity of membership to be offered to Ukraine and other countries that were formed after the collapse of the USSR. For stability in the whole continent!

Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) First of all, I would like to congratulate the Rapporteur for the objectivity with which he expressed the position of the European Parliament regarding the Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper. With each enlargement, the European Community has become stronger and the enlargement process itself represents a success that all Member States have enjoyed. The European Union has recorded an amazing evolution by means of the institutions and policies it has developed both at internal and external level, but especially by promoting harmonization in fields such as the economic, social and legal field. The Union is also dealing with a series of problems proving the need that each enlargement be followed by an adequate consolidation and revaluation of its policies, thus avoiding situations in which countries in the centre evolve towards a deeper integration, while others stay at the periphery. I support the Rapporteur’s opinion regarding the encouragement of Eastern countries by creating an area based upon common policies, which would focus on economic, trade, energy, transport, environmental, rule of law, justice and security matters. By encouraging this type of project, the Black Sea region could become a development and economic growth pole, which would favour not only the welfare of countries in the region, but also stability and peace at the European Union Eastern border.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) As the report emphasises, there is now a need for in-depth reform of the European Union’s enlargement strategy. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 85

Firstly, it is important to provide candidate countries and potential candidate countries with pre-accession instruments appropriate to the challenges they will face: consolidation of the state, governance, socio-economic reforms, etc. Secondly, the report stresses the need to review our approach to European Neighbourhood Policy, which must cease to be regarded by third countries as a substitute for accession or a stage on the way to accession. For example, the constitution of free trade zones, on the model of the extended European Economic Area (EEA+), represents an initial step towards developing closer relations with these countries. This strategy will promote the strengthening of economic and trade relations with them, and it will also enable the European Union to promote its ideals as regards democracy, the rule of law and human rights there. Here the recent relaunch of the Barcelona Process, which sets out to establish a Mediterranean Union, is an encouraging sign, and a promising move towards establishing special partnerships with our southern neighbours.

Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, we must not close the door on accession to those countries which seek it, since our founding treaties state that any European State which wishes to accede to the European Union should be able to do so. Early accessions have been very successful, and that is the direction in which things should continue to move. We must not demotivate candidates for accession. It is not for us to decide whether they want to become fully democratic countries, although the three Copenhagen criteria should be complied with 100%.

As I am from the ‘new Europe’, I personally know how important it was for us to have the opportunity to join the European Union, how it inspired us to undertake reforms and redouble our efforts. We should not deny the republics of the former Soviet Union the opportunity of becoming fully European States governed by the rule of law. I refer here above all to our closest neighbours Ukraine and Moldova. Europe’s credibility and those countries’ future are in the balance. It is important to keep them on the path towards Europe. The European Union should abide by its promises and continue its natural process of enlargement. Momentum will be provided by accession, not by standing still. All the talk of absorption capacity is mere hypocrisy to pull the wool over the eyes of the uninitiated.

Dumitru Oprea (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) As a Member of the European Parliament from Romania, recently acceded to the European Union, as well as a former Rector of a prestigious university in my country, I would like to emphasize the importance of cultural-educational exchanges between the candidate countries and the Union Member States. In Romania, numerous young people who benefited from one of the European Union mobility schemes (either programmes such as Socrates-Erasmus, Marie Curie – for research or Leonardo – for practice), have returned to their country and played an active role in what we might call its "Europeanisation". Due to their learning and life experience, they have become active members in NGOs, got involved in information, volunteer activities or have used their knowledge in structures related to European integration. These are the reasons why I would like to call attention to the importance of taking actions to increase the attractiveness and promote participation in the EU education and culture programmes, such as establishing a special system for student visas, increasing funds designed for mobility – in order to truly cover the cost of living in an EU country, increasing efforts to promote European programmes, especially among young people, as well as disseminating the positive results/experiences both in the European countries and in the candidate countries.

Pál Schmitt (PPE-DE), in writing – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as Chairman of the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee, I feel that one of the most positive aspects of the report is the fact that it confirms the continuation of the accession negotiations that have already begun, and offers the Balkan countries the European perspective. In the last three years of accession negotiations, Croatia has already proved its commitment, and Parliament gave favourable opinions in the country reports for both 2006 and 2007. I would have felt it was important for Croatia, as the only country holding advanced accession negotiations, to be mentioned explicitly in the document, which four and a half million Croatians are now reading with great expectation. These positive messages would be particularly important following the Irish referendum. 86 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The first statements by the French Presidency of the Council, which talk about the continuation of accession negotiations, give me confidence. By producing fast, effective solutions, we can preserve the credibility of the EU; we cannot afford another three years’ ‘thinking time’, since in 11 months’ time the whole of Europe will be giving its opinion on the EU in the European elections. Thank you for your attention.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE), in writing – (PL) The prospect of EU membership works as a powerful engine for change in countries interested in accession. It encourages implementation of necessary reforms, both political and economic, and compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. For the prospect of membership to be sustained, progress in negotiations has to be dependent on the tempo and scale of reforms carried out in the candidate country, and the EU must have the capacity to accept these countries. We need to have a strong, cohesive and, above all, a united Community. It is very important for the citizens of our countries to appreciate the benefits of new members joining. Enlargement brings benefits, it brings economic and social growth to both new and existing Member States. Successive enlargements of the European Union have been a success, for the acceding and existing Member States, and for Europe as a whole. I am very pleased that the report points out that the road is still open for eastern European countries to become members of the European Union. This, together with the recently adopted Eastern Partnership Programme, should encourage these countries to make efforts to adopt European democratic, economic and administrative standards.

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. – (PL) Previous enlargements of the European Union have, without doubt, been beneficial both for the Union itself and for the countries that acceded to it. These enlargements stimulated economic development and led to greater stability, growth and prosperity in Europe. It is very important to create the conditions needed to ensure the success of future enlargements, and to improve the quality of these enlargements, based on experience gained from the past. The EU must be open to new countries, but the Enlargement Strategy should fulfil the conditions of the EU Treaty and reflect the EU’s obligations towards all candidate countries as well as those countries that have been presented with the prospect of membership, while accepting that full and rigorous compliance with the Copenhagen criteria is an absolute condition. At the same time we should carefully observe the progress of these countries as regards the creation of the rule of law, an independent judiciary and respect for fundamental rights. The Union must take steps to increase its capacity to integrate new countries. It is vital to undertake internal reforms aimed at improving efficiency, creating greater social cohesiveness and democratic responsibility. The Lisbon Treaty provides the answer to these ideals and, without it, further enlargement of the Union becomes much more difficult. At the same time, however, the EU will only be able to achieve success in its process of political integration if there is clear and lasting social backing for EU membership in each of the candidate countries as well as for the EU itself as a political and economic project.

Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) We like to say that the European Parliament is the only real forum for airing the views and opinions of EU citizens. It is therefore a pity that it is only in this House that we are able to convince each other that successive enlargements of the European Union have been an enormous success. We are all to blame for the fact that not all EU citizens share this opinion. In turn, this creates misunderstandings about the need to reform the Union. However, I cannot accept the argument that not having the Lisbon Treaty is the principal cause for slowing down enlargement. In itself, the Treaty solves nothing. What is needed is vision and strategy. The European Union will not be a complete political and geographical creation until it includes all European countries. It is not true to say that the citizens of countries that want to join the Union expect this to happen immediately or even very soon. What they do need, however, is a clear signal that there is a place for them. Without such a declaration, it is difficult to expect them to undertake all the difficult and comprehensive reforms, which involve many sacrifices and hard work. In particular, we cannot forget about Europeans in the Balkan countries and in eastern Europe. The European Neighbourhood Policy is a good instrument for regulating cooperation with neighbouring countries in our continent. However, our EU European neighbours have a right to a clearer and more effective cooperation policy, a policy that does not result in successive hallways and waiting rooms. If so much energy is being devoted to the creation of a Mediterranean Union, which is particularly being supported by France, then at least the same amount of energy should be directed to the creation of Euronest. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 87

15. Palestinian prisoners in Israel (debate)

President. − The next item is the debate on: - the oral question to the Council on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails (O-0040/2008 - B6-0166/2008); - the oral question to the Commission on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails (O-0041/2008 - B6-0167/2008);

Luisa Morgantini, author. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we put a simple question to 47 Members from different political groups: what are the Council and the Commission intending to do about the violations of international conventions by the Israeli authorities as regards Palestinian prisoners? The vast majority of prisoners are detained in Israeli territory, violating Article 76 of the Geneva Convention: arbitrary arrests, house-to-house searches, administrative detention, torture and abuse during interrogations in detention centres. Men, women, teenagers, students, MPs and mayors, some 10 000 people imprisoned out of a population of three and a half million; there is a ban on visits for those aged between 16 and 35, with the result that prisoners have not been able to see brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers for years. All this has been documented by international organisations including Amnesty International, the United Nations and admirable Israeli organisations such as B’Tselem and Hamoked, and by Palestinian organisations such as Addameer and Defence for Children International. However, no pressure is being exerted on the Israeli authorities to respect the conventions and the rules that they are themselves ratifying and that we are also ratifying. I should like to read an account, an appeal from a mother: ‘I am the mother of the prisoner Said Al Atabeh, of Nablus. My son has been in jail since 1977, and I am 78 and suffer from high blood pressure and diabetes; I am losing my sight and cannot really get around my own home any more. Perhaps you will be surprised but my only desire in this life is to see my son and give him a loving embrace before I die. All my children, sons and daughters, are now grown up, married and have left my home. Said has lost everything and I cannot see him, not because I am old and ill, but because the Israeli authorities will not let me have a permit to visit him, on security grounds, they say. I have only been able to visit Said once, when I was taken by an Israeli ambulance in cooperation with the Red Cross, and that was eight years ago after he had been in prison for 29 years. That was the first and last time that I embraced my beloved son. He took me in his arms and said “Mama, it is as though I am being born into this life again”. Those minutes were the most precious for me and for him, but the moment when we were separated from one another was the hardest and most painful’. This mother makes an appeal: ‘I should like to see him once again’. Can we allow this? Can a man who has been in prison for 32 years be prevented from seeing his mother? Where are the international rules? Where is the humanity, I ask myself? I believe that as the Council, as the Commission, as Parliament, we have to stand our ground and say as forcefully as we can that the international rules have to be respected, that Palestinian prisoners, and as I have said there are 10 000 of them, must be freed to pave the way for peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Madam Vice-President, Mrs Morgantini, ladies and gentlemen, you have raised the subjects of Israel’s imprisonment and administrative detention of Palestinians, including minors, and of their treatment in the occupied territories and in Israel. The Council believes that penal policies and practices must, in all circumstances, respect the fundamental principles of human rights as enshrined in international law, in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All detention that could be described as arbitrary should be proscribed, particularly in view of the fact that the person detained has not been advised of the charges against him. The principle of the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial and independent court is fundamental in a state governed by the rule of law, and we note that special courts may be put in place only in very limited and clearly defined cases. It is also essential to respect the obligation to treat detained persons properly and, of course, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners must be strictly prohibited and prevented. The Council recognises that the human rights situation in the Middle East is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the Council is very pleased that the dialogue between the European Union and Israel is addressing all these 88 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

issues, including the situation in the Palestinian territories. The human rights issue is a topic that continues to be discussed at all levels on an ongoing basis in political contacts between the EU and Israel. Thus in its declaration of 16 June 2008, published at the end of the EU-Israel Association Council, the European Union called for the informal group discussing the human rights issue to be transformed into a standing subcommittee. The Council is aware of the facts set out by honourable Members in Parliament, especially the Vice-President, and raised in particular in the last report by Mr John Dugard, special United Nations rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, and by various non-governmental organisations. The Council has had the opportunity to register its concern, and has called several times for Palestinian prisoners to be released in greater numbers. Moreover, it reaffirms its position that the political process begun in Annapolis in November 2007, which must be accompanied by measures of trust on the ground, constitutes the only means of reaching a solution negotiated between the parties, based on the coexistence of two states, namely an independent Palestinian state that is democratic and viable, living peacefully alongside an Israel with secure, recognised borders. In this context, and with a view to rebuilding trust between the parties and involving the civil populations in the current political process, the Council invites Israel to make significant gestures, in particular by releasing, as a priority, the Palestinian children, women and elected representatives who are in prison or in administrative detention.

(Applause) With regard to invocation of the instruments of international law, as mentioned by Mrs Morgantini, the Council maintains its position, that international law is to be defended and developed, as stipulated in the European Security Strategy adopted by the Council in December 2003. I would emphasise that the Presidency, on behalf of the European Union, is very pleased about the signature of the exchange agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, which we learned of on Monday. This agreement provides for the return of the bodies of Hezbollah fighters and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of the bodies of the Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, captured in 2006. We hope that this exchange will be effected as agreed, but this issue also reveals, for the future, just how complex the ‘prisoners’ issue in the Middle East is, and how important it is to resolve it. The Council points out that the political process, as defined in the road map, represents the only means of reaching a solution negotiated between the parties, and, as I have indicated and on the terms that I have indicated, the coexistence of two states.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all to Mrs Morgantini I would like to say that I am very sensitive to the question that you have put to us today. Last February I, too, met with the Palestinian Minister for Prisoners’ Affairs in the company of Mrs Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of Marwan Barghouti, who is in prison. I listened very attentively to them. Their account of the situation of prisoners corresponds to those of the reports the honourable Members, and you personally, quote in their question. I would like to stress therefore that I am very concerned about human rights violations and I have great sympathy for the suffering of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The Commission is very mindful of Israel’s responsibility as an occupying power, and of conflicts with international law these conditions illustrate. We therefore regularly raise, for example, the issue of administrative detentions with our Israeli counterparts, both in informal and in formal settings. The single case that you mentioned today touches me very much and if I could have the documentation I will personally try to do what I can. Maybe there is a chance of getting this mother to see her son again. The European Union has also called many times for the immediate release of Palestinian legislators detained by Israel. The Commission is also aware of the Palestinian children who are held in Israeli prisons and detention centres. This contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that sets the minimum age to 18 years for minors, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention that requires prisoners to be held within the Occupied Territory. These detained children are particularly vulnerable. We know that. Their treatment must be brought into compliance with international law. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 89

We need to give increased attention to the situation of children affected by this conflict situation. This is why the European Union has added Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the list of the priority countries for the implementation of the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed conflict. In line with these guidelines, the European Union also integrates all aspects of the rights and well-being of children affected by the conflict into the political dialogue with Israel. In addition, the European Union also cooperates closely with UN agencies, as well as Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, actively involved in monitoring, reporting and advocating the rights of the child. The respect for human rights and compliance with international law is one of the fundamental values of the European Union. It is an essential element of our foreign policy. Consequently, protecting human rights is of great importance in our relations with Israel. Our human rights dialogue with the Israeli authorities at different levels bears witness to this. The Commission, in its meetings with the Israeli authorities, and I personally in my meetings with Israeli decision-makers, will certainly continue to urge Israel to comply fully with international law and conventions. The European Union stated at the last Association Council with Israel very recently its desire to set up a formal subcommittee on human rights. This would then be an important step forward to further formalise a dialogue on these issues. Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement will continue to remind both the European Union and Israel that respect for human rights and democratic principles are the basis of our bilateral relations. We believe that dialogue is the most promising means to exert a positive influence on Israel. We do not shy away from raising difficult issues, such as the one the honourable Members have inquired about. I completely agree with the Presidency when it says that all this has to be seen in the context of the Middle East conflict, and therefore I think a solution to this conflict would in the end also mitigate or even solve the problem of the prisoners.

Charles Tannock, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, yet again the anti-Israel forces in this Parliament are seeking any opportunity to attack the Jewish State and yet again those of us who seek a balanced debate and a genuine peace in the Middle East are compelled to come to Israel’s defence. After all, Israel is a democratic country, which faces an existential threat from Jihadi terrorists and their cheerleaders, who are the very individuals currently held under administrative detention by Israel. Concerning the issue of children, sadly children have been dragged into and recruited into the Intifada and even as potential suicide bombers by the terrorists. I particularly question the need for this motion for a resolution at a time of a truce with Hamas, which has just stopped firing its rockets from Gaza at civilians, and also a prisoner exchange taking place between Israel and Hizbollah, whereby five terrorist prisoners were returned to their homes and families, whereas two Israeli soldiers will be returned in body bags. One of these terrorists – Samir Kuntar – murdered a young Israeli man by drowning him and then took the man’s daughter, smashing her on rocks and beating her skull with a rifle butt. He also killed a policeman. The Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro – during which time they murdered an elderly Jewish man, throwing his body overboard – demanded Kuntar’s release. Doing deals with terrorists brings with it a heavy price to pay for any democracy, but this is doubly so in Israel’s case. Samir Kuntar has vowed to resume Jihad against Israel now that he is set free. I therefore applaud Israel’s courageous decision. I hope that it will ultimately bring positive results, but I fear not, because it is quite apparent that those who wish to destroy Israel as a state are gaining strength from politicians like Mrs Morgantini who table resolutions like this one at this moment in time. While she is on the topic, she might also wish to examine an allegation in the British press of the torture routinely carried out in Palestinian jails against their own people both by Hamas in Gaza and, perhaps more surprisingly, by the Palestinian Authority itself.

Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I recently attended the Berlin Conference, where the key issue was that of restoring the rule of law in the occupied territories. What applies to Palestine, a constantly evolving state, is all the more applicable to Israel. And on this point, the fate of the Palestinian prisoners is a genuine paradigm, for what this is about is the fate of more than 8 500 Palestinian prisoners, and the reasons for and conditions of their detention. 90 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I would point out that 48 elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are currently in prison. This is unacceptable. That the overwhelming majority of the detainees have been transported to Israeli prisons, contrary to the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of detainees from occupied territories to the occupier; this is unacceptable. That the penal code applied in the occupied territories applies only to Palestinians, and not to the colonists. To put it plainly, what is criminal for one group is no longer criminal for the other group. This is unacceptable. That around 100 women have been imprisoned, and that those women who are pregnant or breastfeeding are not receiving the care their condition requires; this is unacceptable. That 310 minors are being detained under the same conditions as the adults, although Israel is a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And let nobody try to tell me what I have already heard, namely that at the age of 15, these little Arabs are already adults, and capable of anything. What is to blame for this, Mr Tannock, if not the occupation that has deprived them of their childhood? And the list continues: torture, mistreatment, non-existent rights of defence, lack of a judgment, and so on. I would remind you that these facts have been documented by both Israeli and international sources. Of course the European Parliament cannot wave a magic wand and bring this conflict to an end, but I assure you that it will put human rights at the heart of the review of Israel’s status, which will be debated throughout this year. Article 2 of this Agreement puts it clearly: ‘Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.’ Naturally the exchange needs to be made. The exchange and release of prisoners, for example, such as Gilad Shalit on the one hand and Salah Hamouri on the other, must be negotiated. And I am certainly very pleased that the exchange agreement has been signed with Hezbollah. However, I should like to remind our Israeli partners that for the European Parliament, human rights are non-negotiable. And therefore, I am delighted, and I congratulate you, Minister, as a representative of the Council, and you, Commissioner, for the firmness of your words, which reassure us that we three institutions do indeed make up one European Union.

Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I am speaking on a personal basis on this issue. Successive governments in Israel are pursuing a policy of trying to suppress the Palestinian people’s wish to live freely on their land by using the iron fist and the bullet and by arbitrarily arresting, imprisoning, torturing and murdering civilians, including women and children. This they do most unwisely, not realising that the genuine problems of security that Israel is admittedly facing cannot be solved by this type of inhuman response. On the contrary, such brutality can only bring about more violence and can only slowly erode away any international support they might have enjoyed in the past. The time is long overdue for the EU leadership to boldly warn the governing Jewish politicians that, if they continue to act as Nazi-style military commanders and if they continue to think that the support of the US leadership and those they influence in Europe – not excluding MEPs – will be there for ever, they will sadly but inevitably and with mathematical precision lead their state into non-existence.

Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Obeida Assida is a Palestinian student. He was arrested in 2003, at the age of 17, and is being held in administrative detention in Israel, without charges and without a trial. Saed Yassine is a Palestinian champion of human rights. He is 34. He has been held in administrative detention in Israel since 2006. He has not been charged and nothing is known against him, and his wife and children have only been able to visit him three times. Noura al Hashlamoun is a 36-year-old housewife and the mother of six children. She has been held in administrative detention in Israel since September 2006, without charges and without a trial. Marwan Barghouti, the instigator and writer of the prisoners’ document, has been held in Israel since April 2002. Moreover, I would draw my fellow MEPs’ attention to the fact that an appeal for his release is still circulating, and you are welcome to sign it at any time. Everybody knows that if I were to go through the long list of thousands of Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli prisons, in total violation of international and human rights law, I should need a great deal of speaking time. Yet each of them, each of their families deserves a lengthy speech. For they have been spared nothing – brutal interrogation that may last up to 188 days and is known to include torture, confessions and judgments to be signed in Hebrew, detention without foundation in Israel, outside their own territory, arbitrarily renewable every six months, submission to an ad hoc and discriminatory military jurisdiction that has absolutely no legal justification, no access to a lawyer for the first 90 days of their detention, and virtually non-existent visiting rights. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 91

Mrs De Keyser is right to say that it is precisely this that the EU cannot accept. This is all totally unacceptable. And you tell us that you are going to use this new dialogue. Why should we believe that tomorrow the European Union, you, the Commission and the Council, will be more capable of imposing respect for the clauses already included in the agreement that we have, tomorrow, with the ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, during our previous plenary session on 16 June in Strasbourg, you made a statement regarding the situation in Palestine. This statement reflected the disappointing findings of the ad hoc committee that, on your initiative, visited the Palestinian territories in early June and observed the Palestinians’ squalid living conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation. It is now time for the Council and the Commission to give answers regarding the actions they intend to take to ensure that the occupying forces, the State of Israel, observes international law with regard to the state of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons. Today, we, the Members of the European Parliament, demand that the Council and the Commission provide an explanation for the fact that on 16 June they upgraded relations between the European Union and Israel, at a time when 11 000 detainees, including 376 children, 118 women and 44 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as 800 administrative detainees, are being held in Israeli prisons, in breach of international law.

We will be revisiting Palestine in two months’ time. In the meantime, we would ask that you demand, on behalf of the entire Parliament, that the Israeli authorities immediately release all the children held in Israel’s prisons, as well as those in the case of whom normal legal procedures were not observed… (The President cut off the speaker)

Nickolay Mladenov (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I believe that this House, together with the Commission and the Council and every politician in Europe, is convinced that the protection of an individual’s human rights is much more a fundamental duty in times of war and terrorism than it is in times of peace and security. I believe we share this understanding. This is the understanding that is also shared by the Israeli Supreme Court. In a number of decisions the Israeli Supreme Court has upheld the rights of both Palestinian prisoners and petitioners against the actions of the Israeli defence forces or Government. Let me remind you that in 1991, as Israel was expecting an attack with chemical and biological weapons, its Supreme Court upheld a petition that literally said that the power of society to stand up against its enemies is based on its recognition that it is fighting for values that deserve protection. The best partner in defending the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israel is the Israeli Supreme Court. I believe that this legal system in a democratic country like Israel should be addressed with all concerns that Members here have. But I ask the Members of this House: Which convention protects the rights of those who have been kidnapped or terrorised or killed in the last number of years? Under what court was Alan Johnson allowed to appeal his kidnapping? What visitation rights were given to Gilad Shalit? What rights did Ophir Rakhum, aged 16, have? What legal protection was he granted? I urge the Members of this House, I urge them in all honesty and with all my heart, to stand up and support the Commission and the Council in their balanced approach towards this conflict and towards protecting the rights of those whose rights have been infringed. We should not take a side which will undermine the ability of the European Union to stand up and support the peace process in the Middle East as it is now doing.

Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by saying to the President-in-Office that Amnesty International has stated that 8 500 Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories being detained in Israeli prisons are being held contrary to Article 76 of the Geneva Convention, and for many of these prisoners family visits are impossible due to the restricted travel permits. For those visits that are allowed, even though under international human rights standards Israel is responsible for ensuring that the Palestinian detainees receive these visits, it is the international community, via the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has being shouldering the cost. That is why it is right for us in the European Parliament to ask the European Council to act. 92 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Like Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, I have met Mrs Barghouti and I thank the Commissioner too for her specific reference to our parliamentary colleagues from the Palestinian Legislative Council who are amongst the imprisoned. Although I agree with Mr Mladenov and Mr Tannock that the abduction and failure to allow family visits of Israeli nationals is an equal breach of international law, I regret that Mr Tannock sought to portray my co-author, Mrs Morgantini, as someone who is committed to the destruction of Israel, when she and I support human rights and upholding international humanitarian law.

Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, it is the extremely difficult question of maintaining our democratic values in the struggle against terrorism that is the actual thrust of our debate today. Unfortunately I do not have time to address the points raised in the texts submitted by our fellow Members, even those raised in writing, and I shall not repeat the comments made by my colleague, Mr Mladenov, on the Israeli Supreme Court. Nevertheless, I shall address the issue of minors. Yes, there are minors in prison, for the most part adolescents, whom Hamas manipulates and sends to their deaths, armed with grenades or belts filled with explosives. You and my fellow Members have mentioned international law. This also condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Every young person in prison constitutes a failure for any society. Israel is duty-bound to confront this challenge in compliance with international law, but the real tragedy is the loss to peace of an entire generation in Palestine. Just a word about Gilad Shalit. I think I am right in saying that he is a prisoner who is both an Israeli and a French citizen. He deserves more than the culpable neglect to which he is condemned by the inconsistent indignation of some of my fellow Members. Not to mention the global political context cited by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner. Mr President, I will end with the very fragile, but real, truces that are taking hold on several fronts. I just wanted to say that, more generally, what I would criticise is that some people here are obsessed with talking at every sitting about how a democratic state should be organised.

Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I am losing count of the number of times we stand up in this Chamber to condemn the Israeli authorities for their systematic abuse of the human rights of the Palestinian people. The occupation, the separation wall, the siege of Gaza – the list goes on. Today we focus on the terrible situation of Palestinian prisoners, including 44 members of the Legislative Council. These are our counterparts, our partners, who still languish in prison without charge and without trial. My question is this: When is the European Council going to act? How many more violations of international law does it take? How many more Palestinians have to be arrested, imprisoned and tortured before the EU stops just talking about human rights and starts taking action to defend them? To consider upgrading EU-Israel relations at a time like this demonstrates the most breathtaking disregard for our responsibility to the Palestinian people. To fail to invoke Article 2 of the Association Agreement demonstrates the most deplorable political cowardice. Our argument is not with the Israeli people, many of whom join us in our condemnation of the Israeli authorities. My argument is right now not even with Israel. It is with the European Council and its grotesque failure of political leadership.

Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, I agree completely with Caroline Lucas. It is ironic that our next debate is on Zimbabwe. Mugabe did not like the result of an election and has since fixed it; he now arrests parliamentarians to try and achieve a new balance, and does worse. We are going to condemn him utterly. The comparisons are of course far apart, but two and a half years ago we paid for elections in Palestine. Israel did not like the result, so we refused to recognise the new government. Since then, Israel has arrested more than 40 parliamentarians, people who belong to the wrong party, people who had not used a bullet but who had resorted to the ballot box. We are not going to apply sanctions. Instead we are seeking closer partnership with Israel. So, Commissioner and Minister, the contradictions are surely evident. You say you have a balanced approach – but where is the evidence that our approach is achieving anything? 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 93

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I do not let Israel off the hook but it is extremely unhelpful for the European Parliament to single out one party – Israel – in a complex conflict where human rights abuses demand a balanced approach. A debate only on Israeli actions is also very bad timing. Are we forgetting that our overriding aim is to encourage the parties to achieve a peaceful two-state solution? Only if our criticism is accurate and constructive and non-partisan will we be heard by both parties and have a brighter prospect of influence. I think Human Rights Watch and the UN’s Martin Scheinin achieved such a standard. The latter points out the significance of decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court – entirely absent from the oral questions. Even John Dugard’s report said he was deeply concerned and condemned violations of human rights by Palestinians upon Palestinians and by Palestinians upon Israelis. No mention of that. I regret that Israel still relies on emergency regulations of 1945 inherited from the British colonial power but it is worth noting that they have been applied to Jewish terrorists in Hebron as well as to Palestinian people.

John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this is not a question of terrorists arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned; it is simply a question of individuals seized and held. And it is a question, in particular, of children, not child soldiers – some children have thrown stones and so on, it is true, but children. Imagine this Chamber full of children. Take half of them, put sacks over their heads, tie their hands behind their backs, take them away without telling their parents where you are taking them, put them into jails, put them into 1.5 m2 rooms with no windows, put on the light, keep them away from medical attention, keep them away from any outside visits and so forth, do not allow them to have changes of clothes. That is what we are talking about. That is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should be about. My plea to Israel is: For goodness’ sake, you are not winning friends by doing this. Please, Israel, my cry to you is: Set the children free!

Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – Mr President, it is precisely because some of us believe that Israel is a democracy – a democratic state – and because the European Union treats it as such, that we hold it accountable to the rule of law. If it was not a democratic state, we would not be trying to hold it accountable to the rule of law. There is no supreme court for those who are out of the whole judicial system. We know what the Supreme Court says, but that applies only to those who can reach the Supreme Court. When you are under administrative detention and you have no access to court whatsoever, there is no Supreme Court ruling which will protect you. The conflict cannot be used as an argument for such violations. It is not a balanced approach to remain neutral and to treat these individuals as if they did not exist. These individuals are under arrest without any guarantee whatsoever, without any procedure; their families are beside themselves, and their houses and families in many cases are being destroyed and punished for what they have done or what they are accused of, and that deserves a reaction from the European Union.

Frieda Brepoels (PPE-DE). – (NL) I would remind Mr Tannock that this question was tabled not by Mrs Morgantini alone, but also by two EPP-ED Group vice-presidents of Parliament, Mr McMillan-Scott and Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, and by Mr Bowis, Mr Kasoulides and myself. Just to clarify that to start with. As a member of Parliament's Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council I have experienced first-hand on several occasions what it means to be unable to meet your democratically elected colleagues because they are in gaol. What indeed can one say of the many women and children scattered amongst various prisons outside the Palestinian Territories, something that makes it well-nigh impossible for their lawyers and families to visit them? Everyone has talked about the everyday living conditions and the lack of medical care. How long are the international community and the European Union going to go on tolerating this? I urge the Commission and Council to get this unacceptable situation brought under control.

Bernard Lehideux (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would just like to make two comments. The first is that in this Parliament, certain problems are apprehended in rather curious fashion; it is always the same people who are condemned, and it is always the same people who are discussed. Try to have Cuba 94 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

condemned here for the presence of political prisoners in its jails, and you will talk to me about the way in which human rights are dealt with in the European Parliament. My second point is that there is a solution to ensure that Israel finally releases those who must be released – stop the attacks, stop bombarding Israeli villages, stop killing children, stop the attacks with mechanical diggers, and stop sending in children with pockets full of dynamite. Then Israel will release its prisoners!

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mrs Morgantini’s words are very moving and we cannot help but show our solidarity with these duly documented cases of alleged violation of the human rights of Palestinian prisoners. I say duly documented advisedly, because some fellow Members of the Left have directed very serious and intolerable accusations at the State of Israel. Have they ever been accused of murdering women and children or of acting like Nazis? Is this the way to further the peace process? Mrs Morgantini, I know that your initiative is based on a specific and moving case and that your intentions are worthy. However, some of your Leftist colleagues have used this opportunity once again to try to crush and humiliate the people of Israel. We clearly still need to stamp out the Soviet anti-Semitism which still marks the mentality of some of your colleagues here in Parliament.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be brief, since I made the essential points in my opening speech. However, the debate we have had has been very moving in some respects, and I wanted to assure you that the Council is aware of the facts mentioned, and that it will continue to register its concern and to invoke the instruments of international law. The Presidency will continue to raise this issue in the political contacts that take place between the European Union and Israel during our term. We note also that the political process under way can develop only if measures of confidence on the ground increase. The pursuit of the colonisation process, the persistence of terrorism and violence, and the fate of Palestinian detainees are obstacles to efforts to bring about peace, as is the situation of Israeli hostages held by terrorist groups; I am thinking of Gilad Shalit in particular. To end on a hopeful note, what I wanted to point out to Parliament is that the European Union has a key part to play in this process, owing to its position as a member of the Quartet, its status as the main source of funding and its actions in support of the Palestinian Authority, and also in its position as a major partner of Israel. The European Union has always recognised that Israel has the right to feel secure within recognised borders, coexisting with Palestine, as I said in my introduction.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place during the next sitting in September 2008.

16. Situation in Zimbabwe (debate)

President. − The next item is the statements from the Council and the Commission on the situation in Zimbabwe.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the presidential election recently held in Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe was re-elected to his country’s presidency for another five years. The second round of voting took place following the withdrawal of the only other candidate, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, which enabled Mr Mugabe to win 85% of the votes cast. The election was described as a mockery of democracy by many heads of state, including Africans, and by the United Nations Secretary-General, who regarded it as unlawful. Immediately after being sworn in, Mr Mugabe travelled to Sharm el-Sheikh for the African Union Summit on 30 June and 1 July this year. In the course of the Summit, Nigeria launched an animated discussion of the elections. A resolution was adopted, expressing the intense concern generated by the situation in Zimbabwe, and emphasising the critical reports drawn up by electoral observers from the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament, and the violence and loss of life. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 95

The resolution also urges Mr Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai to start a dialogue in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, to put in place a government of national unity, and to support the mediation mission undertaken by the SADC. In the face of these developments, the international community is mobilising. The United States has presented a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for the application of sanctions against Zimbabwe – an arms embargo, freezing of assets and a travel ban – and including an annex listing 14 individuals to be sanctioned, including Mr Mugabe and other politicians, the majority of whom are already included in the European list of sanctions adopted in 2002. Canada has also intensified the measures it had taken, and the European Council of 20 June declared itself ready to take further action, which will, incidentally, be examined with Commissioner Michel on 22 July. The Presidency of the European Union strongly condemned the second round of voting as a denial of democracy immediately after it had taken place, that is to say on 29 June, and the Presidency stressed, in a fresh statement made on 4 July on behalf of the European Union, that it would not accept the fait accompli ensuing from the distorted ballot of 27 June, and that the only possible solution was a transition formula based on the results of the first round of voting. It is also important that Africa should have expressed its concern in the face of a crisis on a regional scale, and the efforts made by the African Union in particular and by the SADC must be supported. It must be ensured that the principles laid down in the African Union Charter on Human and People’s Rights in particular are complied with. It would be good for the African Union and the UN to be involved in this approach, with a view to supplementing the regional perspective of the SADC with an African and international perspective.

In its resolution, the African Union also urged the states and parties concerned to refrain from taking action likely to prejudice the climate of dialogue. This is a signal that was sent to the European Union in particular. Nevertheless, the EU will not refrain from preparing to extend the list of persons responsible for violence who are the subject of targeted sanctions by refusal of a visa or freezing of assets. The EU must also ensure that it obtains a restriction on the planned exemptions from visa bans and the establishment of new sanctions, economic sanctions in particular, and, of course, this whole range of retaliatory measures will be dependent on the progress made in the negotiations. The negotiations between the two parties should begin as soon as possible. I think that the Commissioner will confirm this, even if their outcome is uncertain. In our view, they must in any case be based on the results of the first ballot on 29 March, which constitutes the truest expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe, while the second ballot was a denial of democracy. Any form of coalition can constitute an interim measure with a view to fresh elections that are free, democratic and transparent, as stated by the candidate opposing Mr Mugabe. Finally, I should like to mention that at their latest meeting, which has just ended, the members of the G8 envisaged supplementary financial measures targeting those responsible for violence at the time of the last elections. So there we are, and we must maintain this pressure without fail, in order to put an end to this unacceptable breach of the law.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am very happy to be able to share with you today, in this exchange of views, future prospects and thoughts on the part we could play in supporting all the efforts to find a solution to the crisis which will be accepted by all the main political stakeholders, and above all a solution that has a prospect of lasting and which can open up a new era of prosperity for a country and a people who need it so much. Shortly before this sitting began, I was able to talk to Mr Ping, the President of the Commission of the African Union, and about half an hour ago I had quite a lengthy discussion with the opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai. So I have some fresh news, which obviously has not yet been definitely confirmed, but at last I can, perhaps, give you more detailed and more up-to-date information. Firstly, of course, I should like to share with you my profound concern about the situation. I was extremely sorry, as I said publicly both before and after the event, that the second round of presidential elections did, as the Minister said, take place despite the many appeals from the international community, including, incidentally, appeals from Zimbabwe’s African partners, for it to be postponed. Naturally, the environment of extreme political violence and systematic intimidation tainted this election and deprived it of all legitimacy and credibility. 96 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I have repeatedly said publicly, as has the Presidency of the European Union, that, in view of the conditions under which this second round took place, it is completely out of the question for any legitimacy to be accorded to the President who emerged from this ballot. It must be repeated again and again that it is a victory that was wrongfully won, and is very far from the spirit of democratic renaissance that animates Africa today. The African Union Summit that was held in Egypt and was attended by President Mugabe witnessed a very tense and passionate debate between African leaders, a debate that has been described by many as unprecedented. The African Union resolution is critical of President Mugabe, and calls on him to seek a political agreement with Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), with a view to forming a government of national unity. Moreover, the African Union called on the SADC to continue its facilitation task, with a view to reaching political agreement. We could certainly regard this resolution as inadequate. In particular, we might criticise the fact that the African Union refrained from expressing a clear opinion on the legitimacy or otherwise of President Mugabe, but it has to be acknowledged that in the current circumstances, this resolution constitutes a substantial result. Of course, that is not the end of the matter. It is important for the African Union and the SADC to provide concrete evidence of their commitment to finding a political situation. From this point of view, the European Union and other international players have made it clear what they expect to see. This political agreement can be concluded only on the basis of the results of the first round of voting, which reflected the opinion of the Zimbabwean people, freely and democratically expressed. The results of the second round of voting cannot be taken as the starting point for mediation, for negotiation. In other words, in our view the political solution will involve a coalition government led by Mr Tsvangirai as Prime Minister, endowed with the most extensive powers and, moreover, relying on the majority that he holds in Parliament. As far as the European Union is concerned, all the options are still on the table. Firstly, we are prepared to support the efforts of the SADC and the African Union, and we expect to see tangible progress in the next two weeks. If a constructive political agreement is reached reflecting the results of the first round of voting, we are, of course, prepared, as we have said, gradually to re-engage with Zimbabwe. Moreover, we are prepared to start immediately. I would remind you that when the programme for the tenth European Development Fund was being drawn up, I ensured that the work was done as if democracy had been restored in Zimbabwe, in order to avoid penalising the Zimbabwean people for the tragic situation in which they find themselves. Now to the two conversations that I have just had this afternoon, with a view to the meeting I was to have with Parliament. First, the conversation with Mr Ping. What is the problem? The problem today is that everybody in the African Union agrees that they should support negotiation between Mr Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai, and that the basic principles should, of course, be that the government should be led by the leader of the opposition, Mr Tsvangirai, that this government is potentially to be based on a coalition, in which Mr Tsvangirai’s party, which is in the majority in Parliament, will of course have the dominant position, and that this government must have the fullest and most extensive powers as regards executive decisions. For the moment, then, I think you know that this approach appears to be disputed. It is all the more complicated in that Mr Tsvangirai has expressed certain doubts as to whether the mediation is well balanced, and obviously wants to give this mediation a framework, a setting, support, let us say, which makes it possible to guarantee a balance. I am not making a value judgement in saying this, I am simply stating the situation. For the moment, Mr Ping has assured me that the work – I will not say the work of mediation, but the work – aimed at preparing minds for this development is under way, and that, all being well, it should be possible for a genuine prospect to open up in the next few days. I then had quite a long talk with Mr Tsvangirai. He confirmed that he supported the idea of a government including members of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, but within which, of course, he would have the last word in appointing the people who would be part of it. Basically, although this is not how he put it, it is rather like the Kenyan scenario, even if (and I agree with this view) the two situations cannot be compared. They are not at all alike. People take advantage of the opportunity to behave as if they were identical, but, looked at completely objectively, and men and women are different, the situation is quite different. So this is the first point. Secondly, he would like to see a ‘permanent negotiation team’, that is to say a team to lead the mediation, which should, of course, assure him of balance. Naturally he would like this team to be put under the aegis 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 97

of the African Union and the United Nations, as the Minister stated. He seems to me to be reasonably optimistic – he believes that things are moving. Obviously he sees the issue of sanctions as relevant, and he emphasised something on which I think we are all agreed, namely that if there are sanctions, they must apply to individuals and must not, of course, affect the population either directly or indirectly. I have the feeling that the African Union has completely got the measure of its responsibility, that it is actively involved, that is seeking a solution through mediation which at all events takes account, as the Minister emphasised, of this need to translate the result of the first round of voting into executive power, since this is the only result that bestows legitimacy on those who benefit from it.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN Vice-President

Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the situation in Zimbabwe has reached an absolute low in political, economic and humanitarian terms. The people there are hostages to a regime that does not want to surrender power because the clique around the President, the military command and the secret service, wants to continue enriching itself at the expense of the country’s resources. To that end they fund militias and misuse the police and the military, who are terrorising the population across the country. By SADC standards, even the parliamentary elections of 29 March were neither free nor fair. The country-wide campaign of intimidation that has followed, with dozens killed and thousands injured and persecuted, made it impossible for the winner of the first round, Morgan Tsvangirai, to send his electors out to vote when they feared they would be punished for doing so. The leader of the Pan-African Parliament’s Election Observer Mission, Marwick Khumalo, and the SADC mission assess the events of 27 June as follows: ‘The atmosphere prevailing in the country did not give rise to the conduct of free, fair and credible elections. The elections did not represent the will of the people of Zimbabwe.’ What is important now is to develop a transition scenario that will lead to a situation in which a legitimate government and a legitimate president come into office. The AU and the SADC have a crucial role to play here. Unfortunately, President Mbeki has achieved nothing with his years of quiet diplomacy. Nor has he gained the trust of both sides in the conflict and he himself knows best why. I would urge the political parties in South Africa to take the initiative themselves. I call on colleagues from South Africa to decide in their parliament to freeze the accounts and assets of the profiteers of the Mugabe regime in South Africa. They should refuse to allow Grace Mugabe and others to go shopping in Cape Town or Sandton while the people are starving. I ask them to show solidarity with the three million Zimbabweans in their country, who will return home when Mugabe’s rule comes to an end and thereby also make room for millions of unemployed South Africans. We succeeded in pressurising European companies to withdraw from Zimbabwe because their activities helped stabilise the regime.

Alain Hutchinson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, President Mugabe has employed unbelievable violence and demonstrated a scandalous contempt for the most basic human rights in seizing power and taking an already battered population hostage. The Socialists condemn this violence and do not recognise the power in place as having any legitimacy. First of all, however, it is the Zimbabwean population that European socialists are thinking of. In particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that five million Zimbabweans are at risk of suffering severe famine by the beginning of 2009. Furthermore, we know that a third of the population of Zimbabwe are already surviving only thanks to international aid. Consequently, it is absolutely essential for the European Commission, the Council, every Member State and the whole of the international community to exert maximum pressure on the Zimbabwean authorities to allow completely free access by international humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable populations. We cannot emphasise this enough, for Mugabe’s current position is quite simply criminal.

In the same spirit, if we are asking the European Union and the international community to adopt strong sanctions in respect of Zimbabwe, a prospect which you raised, Minister, we would also emphasise that they must not harm the population but must target members of the regime responsible for the attacks on human rights and the current reign of terror in that country. 98 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Of course, we must also urge the European Union and regional structures such as the SADC to take the lead with Zimbabwe’s elected Parliament and civil society in resolving the current crisis rapidly and democratically. Mr President, I should like to make one last quick point about the 200 000 displaced Zimbabweans. We would ask their South African neighbours, and President Mbeki in particular, to act responsibly by not sending back Zimbabwean refugees who have taken refuge in South Africa.

Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the people of Zimbabwe have suffered horrendously. After years of intimidation, brutality and economic meltdown, the election came as the final twist of the screw. Since the election, the violence has continued unabated. At least 90 people have been killed since the first round of polling on 29 March and just this Monday residents were attacked and abducted from an IDP camp east of Harare. We may feel tempted to just wring our hands in despair but I believe there are things that the EU can do towards a solution to the crisis. Firstly, the EU can offer diplomatic support to those seeking to find a way forward via an interim transitional government involving all parties in civil society and respecting the results of the first round. A transitional coalition is an African approach that has over the years worked in a number of other countries such as Togo and the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, the motion for a resolution notes the failure to date of President Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy and it may be the case that a different African neighbour respected by all sides would be better placed to broker such negotiations. And, if there is an international accompaniment, that would also be helpful in the negotiations. Secondly, we must step up the pressure against Mugabe in the international community. Russia’s adherence to the G8 summit call for sanctions was very encouraging and I welcome the Council’s comments on the strengthening of sanctions by a number of countries. Thirdly we must start planning ahead now for the day when Zimbabwe has a legitimate government and will need a broad package of international support. Finally, we must not forget that ordinary Zimbabweans are in desperate straits and need basic aid now just to keep going.

Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) The European Union has had sanctions in place against the socialist dictator Mugabe for some time, but those sanctions are not always consistently and clearly enforced. For example, the Portuguese Presidency obviously had no problem at all in inviting Mugabe to the EU-Africa summit. The European Union should also have protested forcefully against the grotesque fact of Mugabe's attendance at the FAO summit in Rome not all that long ago. The travel ban on Mugabe and all senior members of his regime must be made watertight and expanded further. We should in any case think about extending the sanctions against Mugabe's regime generally. These sanctions must be vigorous and unequivocal, and we must also put pressure on the Government of South Africa which, by its 'silent diplomacy', has in fact simply bought more time for Mugabe's regime.

Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the crisis in Zimbabwe did not burst suddenly on an unsuspecting world: this is the 16th time in eight years that we have debated a motion for a resolution on Mugabe as he has systematically and deliberately plundered his country, ruined the economy and oppressed the Zimbabwean people. The response of the international community until very recently has been pathetic. At least the European Union imposed targeted sanctions – but it could not even properly uphold these. The Africans – with a very small number of honourable exceptions – have merely applauded Mugabe. They should be ashamed. What is to be done? Firstly, it should be made clearer in the Council that no EU state will recognise the illegitimate regime of Mugabe. I am heartened that the EU is extending its sanctions.

Secondly, the European Union and its Member States should be persuading African countries, especially the SADC, to join these sanctions against the Mugabe regime if negotiations fail. Thirdly, the members of the Joint Operations Committee – the military gang that is behind Mugabe – should be put on notice that they will be held responsible for the systematic atrocities against the people of Zimbabwe. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 99

It is not too late for some senior members of the armed forces and police – and senior ZANU-PF functionaries for that matter – to abandon Mugabe and to come over to the democratic forces. Fourthly, France should call for an emergency session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva to address the situation in Zimbabwe and, fifthly, more robust action is required by the United Nations. Above all, we must actively encourage the African Union to become even more positively and actively engaged in pushing for this government of national unity. This, of course, should be based on the outcome of the elections of 29 March rather than the farce of 27 June, as both the President-in-Office and the Commission have indicated. We have heard from the MDC spokesman, Nelson Chamisa, that there are currently no negotiations between ZANU-PF and the MDC. Instead there is continuing violence. The African Union must insist on an end to violence and the appointment of a mediator, backed by observers, who will have the confidence of the MDC. Mugabe yet again is playing for time. There must be a deadline for negotiations to be successfully completed and someone meanwhile should offer Mugabe a retirement home.

Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, I, like others, will have to comment on the fact that the Parliament which was duly elected on 29 March in Zimbabwe has never met and its elected members continue to be harassed and intimidated and suffer from violence. Our resolution calls for a strengthening of sanctions, and of course we will also have to join the calls made at the UN for an international arms embargo and for worldwide travel bans and the freezing of assets.

We know who the additional ringleaders that need to be targeted are, we know who the henchmen are, who the bag carriers are. You have Chihuri, the police chief; Shiri, the Air Force head; Gono, the governor of the central bank; Chinamasa, the Justice Minister; Bonyongwe, the chief of Central Intelligence: these are the people that can and must be targeted. Our resolution clearly reflects the pre-conditions laid down by the MDC. All talks must be based on the outcome of the 29 March election which the MDC won and not on the sham run-off in June. It must be a transitional arrangement designed to lead to a new constitution – nobody has mentioned that, and that is what Morgan Tsvangirai is calling for – followed by fresh elections. He says very clearly, and I quote him, ‘I want no power deals and no power sharing’. As Geoffrey van Orden has said, there are no negotiations going on so we should not take heart from the current situation. There has to be an additional mediator. Clearly Mr Mbeki is unable to do it alone and we call for an African Union nominee to be put in place. That nominee must be of equal standing with Mr Mbeki and people like Mr Chissano and Mr Kufuor come to mind at this stage. Finally the unchecked state-sponsored brutality and violence and savagery have to stop, and that is why the international community must act, and act urgently, in the interests of the suffering people of Zimbabwe.

Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, once a beacon of hope, an example of African self-empowerment and a leader among African states, Zimbabwe is now the epicentre of African despair and hopelessness. The people of Zimbabwe deserve better, and they must get it. But it is going to take an ending of the regime of Robert Mugabe, a murdering thug, for this to become a reality. We in the international community must toughen our resolve against this tyrannical Mugabe regime. I welcome the fact that the UN Security Council is considering an imposition of further sanctions against the leadership of Zimbabwe, including the implementation of an arms embargo. How is it that a country where there are five million people dependent on food aid, where inflation has reached over ten billion per cent, and where a loaf of bread now costs over ZWD 1 billion, still has one of the best equipped armies in the African continent and is totally awash with weapons? That is an extraordinary admission. The recent presidential campaign was not a legitimate election. The brutality of the Mugabe regime was such that 90 people were killed, 3 500 were injured and a further 200 000 people were displaced during the campaign. These are hardly the ingredients of a free, fair and transparent democratic contest. 100 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

South Africa and other African countries must intensify the pressure against Robert Mugabe. Nelson Mandela was right when he said that there was a tragic failure of leadership in Zimbabwe. South Africa exercises strong political influence over the Mugabe Government, and South Africa must show strong and decisive leadership on this issue for the people of Zimbabwe and also for the people of Africa, who are having to watch this leader lead his country down into the swamp.

Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, so as not to repeat what my fellow Members have said, I will concentrate on the opening of the parliament. The March elections were elections in which the opposition won a majority, and up to 17 July the parliament of that country had still to be formed. We, as parliamentarians, should focus our efforts on exerting European Union pressure to ensure that the promise of democracy in a parliament with an opposition majority can operate. The process needs a kick-start. We really must do everything possible to ensure that, following the sham of the presidential elections, the legislative elections, which gave the opposition an acknowledged majority, enable the parliament to function. The second point regards the mediator. It is quite clear that South Africa has reached the limit of its mediation capability, to say the least. It is essential for another mediator to support, if not replace, the South African president. Otherwise, the mediation will also give the appearance of a corrupt mechanism, under the thumb of the Zimbabwean government.

José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is no longer just Mugabe and his regime that are under scrutiny. Mugabe, because of his terrible deeds and this whole tragic farce, has already been condemned by international public opinion. It is the international community that is under scrutiny now. It is Thabo Mbeki, it is the SADC and the AU, it is China, it is us in the EU, it is the United Nations. The Zimbabwean people, Tsvangirai and the MDC deserve all our support and solidarity in these difficult times. We could invite Morgan Tsvangirai to come to a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development in July or September. We all continue to receive terrible news from Zimbabwe about the violence there. We must not fail. Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC majority deserve not just words of comfort or any sort of consolation position but rather to be invested in office according to the results of the 29 March elections. The international community, if it fails in the transition – if we fail – will be covered with shame. I hope it will not happen like that.

Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, Mr Mugabe’s regime is responsible not only for election fraud but also for arbitrary arrests and the torture and murder of hundreds of citizens in Zimbabwe for a number of years now. So far, resolutions and sanctions appear to have been ineffective. I suggest that the time has come to initiate action to bring Mr Mugabe before an international court of law, charged with crimes against humanity. I know Zimbabwe has not signed the convention relating to the International Court in The Hague, but I am sure some other procedure having an international law basis could be found, and perhaps Commissioner Michel or the President-in-Office could enlighten us on this. I believe that only if such drastic action is taken will this African dictator and his accomplices be forced to start thinking and listening to reason and which will eventually rid their country and the international community of their criminal presence.

Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would urge the Commission to consider and prepare a proposal for measures that would be effective against Mr Mugabe, who continues to use violence and who has completely disregarded the results of the March elections. At this time we are, practically speaking, powerless and the only tool left to us is that of words. I would strongly urge that consideration be given to what steps could be taken to bring him to trial, so that there could be peace in Zimbabwe and so that its people could have a real possibility of enjoying the citizens’ rights to which they are entitled.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Zimbabwe needs international aid and our support, but it also needs to make reforms itself. The European Union, the African Union and the Republic of South Africa should encourage a dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition. Zimbabwe must finally start along the path to democracy and appoint a government of national unity. […] UN initiative, according to which an embargo on arms supplies to Zimbabwe would be imposed and the assets of persons closest to Mugabe would be frozen. Steps must be taken immediately to make it possible for humanitarian 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 101

organisations to function. One solution could be for aid to be supplied to the regions most in need by non-governmental organisations.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Mugabe is not listening and that is the tragedy because if he were he would do the right thing and go back to the elections of March and live with that result. I thought one of the most shameful things that happened was that Mugabe attended the World Food Summit where he was allowed to parade, when in fact he is the cause of some of the major global food insecurity problems in his own country and on his own continent. I spoke to a farmer from Zimbabwe just last week at a conference in Brussels and the harm that has been done to the food production base of that country is quite horrific. Somebody else said it is horrendous that a country can be armed to the teeth and that its people can be suffering hunger, violence, intimidation and torture. South Africa needs to do more. The continent itself needs to be strong in its condemnation and we need to push them and urge them and convince them that this is the right thing to do, because our people are looking to us to take definitive action in a situation which is quite appalling.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) What is currently happening in Zimbabwe is a challenge to our conscience and capacity to act. On one side is a government that uses violence against its own people, that causes misery and that has benefited from the connivance of other African dictatorships and autocracies. On the other side are the forces that are striving peacefully for democracy and human rights: the people of Zimbabwe, the international community and, of course, the European Union.

As has already been said here, the European Union could use its diplomatic power, impose sanctions, refuse visas, pressurise regional powers and support the defenders of democracy and human rights. What can we do in the European Parliament? We can support our resolution tomorrow and recommend that the Commission and the Council take these initiatives, but we can do more. We can also prove that our actions are consistent with our words and offer the Sakharov Prize to the leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai. We put this challenge to our fellow Members. In this way, we will have the opportunity to reward a struggle and, simultaneously, contribute towards a democratic and peaceful victory.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Michel, ladies and gentlemen, the debate has been perfectly clear, and so are the conclusions that we must draw from it. People have spoken in strong terms, and that is as it should be, because the European Union can accept only one solution, and that is that the will of the people of Zimbabwe, as expressed in the first round of elections, should be respected, and it is the result of those elections which should serve as the basis for any settlement. Together with the Commission, we shall be examining the situation in Zimbabwe at the next Council meeting on 22 July. We shall take into account the views which have been expressed and the suggestions which have been made – not to France, Mr Van Orden, but to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, since France itself has no power as France, but merely holds the mandate which has been given to it in this context by the European Union – including your proposal that the Council should call for an extraordinary session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, providing, of course, that it is possible to do so. We shall follow Mr Michel’s recommendations, which are always sensible and based on experience, regarding the continuation of our mediation efforts. I believe that as far those efforts are concerned we cannot demand more than Mr Tsvangirai himself recommended to Mr Michel at their meeting, and I think that this is the position we should adopt. The European Union, the Council and the Commission must stay in contact with those involved, the SADC, the African Union, and also South Africa – and once again I should like to welcome the South African delegation here with us today – and of course we shall also have to take into account the resolution which Parliament will be voting on tomorrow, in the work which the Council will be doing. I have nothing else to add, and without wishing to waste his time, I shall hand over to the experience and eloquence of Mr Michel on this subject.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I shall be very brief. Mr Jouyet and the other speakers have said it all. Obviously I can only endorse wholeheartedly the views expressed, particularly by Mr Van Orden and Mrs Kinnock, but at the same time I have to add that the Commission’s power is, of course, essentially the 102 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

power of diplomacy, but perhaps it is also the power to prepare for what action we could take if – and this is obviously what we wish for with all our hearts and will press for with all the means at our disposal – the mediation process were to succeed in bringing about the emergence of a government led by Mr Tsvangirai. I therefore completely agree with the views expressed by Mr Van Orden, Mrs Kinnock and all the others who spoke, Mrs Hall, Mr Hutchinson and Mr Gahler – I hope I have not left anyone out. There is just one point on which I disagree. You know that I am in the habit of speaking frankly. I do not agree that we should condemn the Portuguese Presidency for having organised, in Lisbon, a summit which had been awaited for years and which the Zimbabwean question was preventing from being held. This summit between the European Union and Africa was long overdue, and it was time to take action. We are perfectly well aware that Mr Mugabe’s presence was guaranteed by the African Union’s desire not to be restricted by the other party, i.e. the European party, in its choice of whom to invite. I therefore believe that this criticism is unfair. Moreover, I should also like to emphasise the particularly difficult situation in which South Africa finds itself. In South Africa’s position, it is no easier for it to move than it is for President Thabo Mbeki to the play the role of mediator. Everyone knows perfectly well, in this case, that at the present time the first country to feel the effects of the crisis in Zimbabwe – or rather the failure to resolve that crisis – is South Africa. I would therefore ask you to try and look at the situation from the point of view of South Africa’s difficulties. I also believe that South Africa is conducting the mediation process as conscientiously as it should. Obviously I share the view, expressed by all those who have spoken, that the mediation process should be expanded, not only to ease South Africa’s position, but also to give the various parties involved in solving this crisis a more balanced perception of the situation. Finally, to reply to one of the questions raised, for the time being we are preparing a real ‘development and humanitarian’ package, so as to ensure, if Mr Tsvangirai comes to power, that he has immediate support, so as to give the people of Zimbabwe, immediately, reasons to believe in this change of government, and also perhaps so as to give rise locally to a certain amount of desire for regime change, with the support of local opinion and public opinion and, of course, with the support of the actively involved international community. I would just like to make one last point about the African Union. I would argue in favour of a little more understanding. What is the African Union’s problem? As I have already said, the problem for the African Union is that it has to juggle two different opinions. One opinion is extremely and openly critical of Zimbabwe and its virtual President, and another opinion takes the view that more flexibility is needed, that sanctions will be useless, and that there should not be any sanctions. Unity, therefore, is not easy to obtain within the African Union. We have to recognise this, and that is why we must also interpret the conclusions of African Union meetings from this perspective, from this viewpoint. However, I have to say that the information I have been given just now inclines me to believe that, for the time being, unity is making headway and the African Union will be in a position to make useful and effective proposals on how to emerge from this crisis, which is obviously regrettable, and which is a real insult to all those who, in Africa, support democracy and ensure its progress.

President. − I have received two draft resolutions(2) submitted in accordance with Rule 103(2). The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Thursday 10 July 2008. Written Statements (Rule 142)

Colm Burke (PPE-DE), in writing. – The recent elections in Zimbabwe were a sham with Mugabe being the only eventual candidate, having intimated Tsvangirai and other members of the MDC to the point of withdrawal. There should now be fresh presidential elections in this country precluding most vehemently state-sponsored violence, intimidation and murder. I welcome yesterday's decision of the G8 summit in Japan to adopt financial and other sanctions against members of the Zimbabwean government. It is significant that there has been consensus at this level, even from Russia, on a strong condemnation of the Mugabe regime. A UN Security Council resolution concluding

(2) See Minutes. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 103

that Zimbabwe is now a threat to international peace and security is looking likely. I would urge China not to block this important action during this coming week. I regret that the African Union is not doing enough to isolate Mugabe as I believe that this union, along with the Southern African Development Community and the Pan-African Parliament, are the key forums which should be charged with removing such a despot. The human rights violations currently being perpetrated by the Zimbabwean government are bordering on crimes against humanity and I believe that the UN Security Council should also therefore consider referring members of this government to the International Criminal Court in the not too distant future.

James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – The recent elections in Zimbabwe were wholly illegitimate and undemocratic, sparking widespread criticism and condemnation from the international community. Although the situation in Zimbabwe has prompted concern for a while now, the fallout of these elections and evidence of brutal state-sponsored violence against supporters of Tsvangirai's opposition MDC party have brought the crisis to another level. Zimbabwe now finds itself in an extremely grave situation. In addition to this political crisis, years of mismanagement by Mugabe's regime has left the country's economy in tatters and its currency virtually worthless. Life expectancy for both men and women is under forty and recent events have prompted many to leave the country and seek refuge in neighbouring African states, which is proving to put pressure on the stability of the entire region.

I welcome this resolution which stresses the EU's unequivocal rejection of the recent election results in Zimbabwe due to their undemocratic and illegitimate nature. The resolution also wholeheartedly denounces the use of political violence by the Mugabe regime and calls for sanctions to be used against those who support it, both inside and outside of Zimbabwe.

17. Question Time (Commission)

President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0168/2008). The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Question No 43 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0455/08)

Subject: Performance of the automobile industry as regards CO2 emissions Is the Commission satisfied with the performance to date of the European automobile industry in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption? Does it consider that its initiative to revise the Directive

on the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of cars (1999/94/EC(3)) amounts to an acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of the existing Community regulatory framework for the car industry?

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, the question is whether the Commission believes that the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the European automobile industry has been satisfactory. The answer is ‘no’, and this is why we have proposed the mandatory reduction by 2012. The second part of the question is whether the initiative for the revision of the directive on the labelling of cars amounts to an acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of the existing Community regulatory framework for the car industry. The answer is ‘yes’, and this is why are proposing the revision. I could limit myself to these two simple answers, but I wish to explain a little further. We have proposed the mandatory limit on carbon dioxide emissions of 120 g by 2012, as provided in the strategy for carbon dioxide and cars. This will be realised through improvements in car engine technology, bringing the figure down to 130 g/km and, additionally, through other technologies, to 120 g/km.

(3) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16. 104 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

I should mention that there was a voluntary agreement between car manufacturers and the European

automobile industry, as well as the Japanese and Korean ones, for cars not to emit more than 140 g of CO2/km by 2008. Unfortunately, this objective was not realised: in 2006 emissions were at 160 g, whereas in 2007 they were at 159 g, according to the latest figures. The improvement by one gram is, of course, far from satisfactory. We hope that in the codecision procedure Parliament and the Council will approve the Commission’s proposal, so that we will have cars consuming less energy, less fuel and emitting less carbon dioxide. By consuming less energy and less fuel, consumers will enjoy huge savings, especially at the current fuel prices. With regard to labelling and to the information provided to consumers, by the end of the year we will have a proposal on how the relevant consumer information is to be provided. I must mention that the European Parliament has adopted a resolution on this issue. Some of its points are highly positive, but there are others that I cannot agree with: for instance, that we should follow the example of tobacco advertising in the case of cars. These are two different cases and therefore we will not follow the example of a mandatory section set aside for information in advertisements. There are other ways of informing consumers, given that when they buy a car they go to the dealership and they are provided with information on carbon dioxide emissions and also on fuel consumption through the brochures and signs found there.

Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the G8 members propose a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. However, the advanced, rapidly developing countries (namely China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) do not seem to be responding to this proposal. Do you believe that this position will affect the negotiations on the post-Kyoto period? What are the prospects of the crucial negotiations on the post-Kyoto period following this G8 proposal?

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) The question posed by Mr Papastamkos is, of course, completely unconnected with the first question we discussed regarding cars, but it is still very important and timely, considering the debate held and the decision taken at the G8 meetings yesterday and today. It is a positive step that the G8, comprising the eight largest economies in the world, has agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 50% by 2050. Of course, as I have said previously, this is only half a step, because there was no agreement on any mid-term objectives for 2020, which would have been necessary for an international agreement that would effectively fight climate change. I think that the matter of the other large countries, the developing large economies such as China and India, has also been dealt with and debated; of course, an effective solution to climate change requires the participation of these countries, for instance through measures to reduce the rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions, always in accordance with the United Nations principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. I believe that agreements will be reached, both on the long-term objective, where there is general consensus, and on the mid-term objectives, given that these agreements are essential in order to achieve the desired outcome in 2009 in Copenhagen.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, I want to come back to automobiles. At the time when this 120 g target was fixed, there were a number of questions about the extent to which these 120 g should be regarded as an average, in terms of the entire industry and in terms of similar measurements. Have these questions all been resolved or can we expect them to be resolved in time for the industry really to be able to react if it needs to do so in the short spaces of time provided?

Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) I would be interested to know whether it would not be worth offering incentives

for taking old cars off the market, since they have the highest consumption and highest level of CO2 emissions. Could you consider a system of incentives here?

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − It is very interesting that fiscal incentives were emphasised in the G8 conclusions. In the European Union, fiscal incentives could be of great importance in order to promote the purchase of cars which are cleaner. Some countries are introducing such measures – France is a recent example, and it appears to have been more successful than expected. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 105

We are positive regarding whether industry will be able to achieve the target of 120 g by 2012. It should be underlined that they have known about this target since 1995, and they had a voluntary agreement for achieving 140 g per kilometre in 2008. In any case, according to our impact assessment and to the cost estimates that the industry provided to us, they will be able to achieve this in time. The King report, a very important and interesting study carried out for the Ministry of Transport of the United Kingdom, makes it quite clear that it is technologically and economically feasible to achieve this target in 2012. Of course, the concerns of the industry and the specific problems of each particular automobile industry should be taken into account. In any case, it is up to you, the European Parliament, and the Council to reach solutions that will both achieve our environmental objective and also provide for the competitiveness of the European automobile industry. We think this proposal will give incentives to the automobile industry and it will get the first-mover advantage, and also that European consumers will save by spending less on energy, especially with today’s very high oil prices.

President. − Question No 44 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0470/08) Subject: Policy on biofuels The Commissioner has previously stated that the European Union must review its priorities regarding biofuels if they proved to be having an adverse impact on the food supply in poor countries. But according to his colleague Mariann Fischer Boel, the impact of biofuel policy on food prices is not so serious. According to the UN's Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler, however, the massive production of biofuels is a crime against humanity, in view of its impact on world food prices. The FAO likewise states that the rapid rise of biofuels has substantially increased the prices of a number of crops, thus contributing to the current food crisis. According to the OECD, farm prices will rise yet further in the next few years. When will it be clear to the Commissioner whether damaging effects are occurring or not? Does the Commission intend to conduct research into this and if so, when will the Commissioner be able to present an evaluation?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − The European Union has agreed on a 10% target for renewable fuels within the transport sector, and this 10% is by 2020. I think it is important that we say ‘renewables’ because it is not only biofuels – it is not only ethanol or biodiesel. It could be electric cars as well, so we have to make this distinction. I think we have to say that such a long lead time makes it unlikely that this can have had an impact on the price level that we see today. According to our calculations, by 2020 this could mean an increase in cereal prices of between 3 and 6%, rapeseed by about 8-10% and sunseed 15% as compared to the 2006 prices, assuming a share of 30% coming from the second generation of biofuels. I think I can see that there is some hesitation among some Members of Parliament. One of the honourable Members does not seem to agree, but I think you have to take into account that quite a lot of the present increases in food prices stem from the high oil prices. We have seen lots of calculations and impact assessments from the OECD, and the latest one clearly says that estimating an oil price of EUR 130 per barrel means an increase in crop prices of between 9 and 13%. So this is related to the oil price increase and not to the discussion on renewable energies. I think it is also clear that the impact will be limited through the growing use we are hopefully going to see of the second generation of biofuels, which is encouraged by our policies. Second-generation biofuels are produced from feedstock other than food crops and can come not only from dedicated energy crops but also from sources such as recycled vegetable oil, animal fat, by-products from the forestry industry, forestry residues and solid waste such as grasses. In the Commission proposal put on the table on 23 January this year for a directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, the Commission proposed that it will monitor, amongst other things, the commodity price changes associated with the use of biomass for energy and any associated positive and negative impacts on food security. In addition, the Commission proposes to report every two years on, among other things, the impact of our European biofuel policy on availability of foodstuffs in exporting countries, the ability of people in developing countries to afford these foodstuffs, and wider development issues. 106 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The Commission has presented its view on the cause of the recent rise in food prices in the recent communication ‘Tackling the challenge of rising food prices: directions for EU action’. So, given the volatility and the complexity of the current price trends, the Commission will closely monitor price developments within the European Union and internationally and will report by the end of the year on the evolution of the situation. As stated in the communication, although demand for agricultural commodities is also influenced by the biofuel market, Commission analyses indicate that current European biofuel production has little impact on current global food prices.

Johan Van Hecke (ALDE). – (NL) Thank you to the Commissioner for her answer. A year and a half ago biofuels were still a miracle aid in the fight against global warming. Now, they are starting to be vilified and I note that the Commission endorses last weekend's U-turn by the energy ministers – though it will doubtless deny the fact. My question – the Commissioner has bombarded us with figures here – is whether the Commission agrees with the World Bank study which claims that 75% of biofuels are responsible for 75% of the rises in food prices worldwide. The FAO reaches similar conclusions and the UN's special rapporteur, Mr Ziegler, describes the massive production of biofuels as a crime against humanity. Does Mrs Fischer share the view of the World Bank, FAO and UN?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − First of all, I think we can see that renewable energies and biofuels have recently been the scapegoat for increased prices within the agricultural commodities sector. Clearly there are different reasons for these increases. The adverse weather conditions that we have seen in parts of the world have had a high influence – almost four times as high as the influence of biofuels. Secondly, we have seen a huge demand from Asia. In China and India they are now starting to eat meat, which means that they need to import much more cereal than they used to do. Thirdly, speculation: investors are moving their money out of stocks and shares and bricks into agricultural commodities, into gold and silver. This is obvious. Some countries have closed their borders for exports of agricultural commodities and this has also contributed. Looking at the United States, the fact that the Americans have now introduced a very comprehensive use of corn for bioethanol has had an effect on the corn sector. Of course this has an influence on the world market price for corn. But in Europe we use less than 1% of our production area for renewable energies and that cannot have an influence on the price level that we see. What is important is that we produce these renewable energies in a sustainable way and that we apply certain

criteria to the different types of renewable energies. We have said clearly that a 35% reduction of CO2 emission is the minimum and we would be prepared to go further. For example, 50% has been mentioned as a figure to be introduced by 2015. Regarding the honourable Member’s question on the World Bank study, I must say first of all that it has not yet been published. A pirate copy has been leaked. It is therefore difficult for the World Bank to comment on something that has not yet been published. But I have to say that personally I would like to see a commitment and a confirmation from the World Bank that they are going to sign up to the 75%. I do not believe that 75% is a figure that can be defended. It is not even on cereal prices but on food prices. When you know that sometimes on food – bread, for example – only up to a maximum 10% of the value of the bread can be related to the wheat, I simply cannot imagine how this figure of 75% can be right. I would be very happy to come back to the European Parliament to discuss it when this report has been made public and we have a solid basis for discussion and not just rumours that appeared in one single newspaper when it was leaked.

Jim Allister (NI). – Commissioner, I admire your tenacity in sticking to the line about the low impact of biofuels on food prices, but I do wonder how long you can sustain that. As has been pointed out to you, you are very much out of line with other experts across the world. You have heard about the FAO and, it seems, the World Bank. You make the point repeatedly that we only put 1% of our production into biofuels. That may be, but we in Europe depend so much on imports for our feedstuffs from the Americas – and that is where the impact on 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 107

food prices is coming from. It is the requirement to face up to that and to move as speedily as we can to second-generation and even third-generation which the Commission should be focusing upon.

Glyn Ford (PSE). – It seems to me that if the argument is regarding lead times, then oil prices are exempt from being a cause of rising commodity prices rather than biofuels; but will the Commissioner urge the World Bank to publish the result? Will she write to them and indicate that we would like to see this report published, so that we can all debate its argumentation? On that basis, does the Commission not feel we should urge, in the interim, a moratorium on all new biofuel products that are not based entirely on non-edible by-products of food and food processing?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − First of all, in answer to Mr Allister, when we talk about the dependency within the European Union on feedstuffs you are quite right, we are dependent, especially on soya bean imports. That is why we have ongoing discussions as to whether it is possible to find a solution on the GMO issue in order to lower the price on imported soya beans. This is by far the biggest and most important crop for our pork industry. I had hoped to be able to convince the honourable Members that we are actually doing quite a lot to push, and to invest in, the second generation of biofuels; because I agree with all of you that the first generation is not a long-term solution. But we need the first generation as a stepping stone for the second generation. If we now send a clear message that we will no longer stick to our target of 10%, I can guarantee that all investments within the European Union are going to disappear and the investments will move to South America and we will be depending on importing all our biofuel from Brazil produced from sugar cane. Then our independence – as we would like to see it – would be much more difficult to fulfil. In relation to the not yet published World Bank report – I presume we are in agreement that it is not published, it is leaked – by coincidence, the morning we got the press release on the 75%, the chief economist from the World Bank was sitting in my office and he could not confirm the 75%. Therefore, I am sure we will return to this issue and I would be very happy, as I said earlier, to discuss this on the solid basis of a published report.

President. − Question No 45 by Paulo Casaca (H-0479/08) Subject: Execution of the perpetrator of an attack on the United Nations According to the eNewsletter Hands off Cain, No 107 of 6 June, Leandro Despouy, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, has reaffirmed the UN’s belief that the Iraqi authorities' execution of Awraz Abdel Aziz Mahmoud Sa’eed for carrying out the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 – which killed, amongst others, Sérgio Vieira de Mello, UN Special Representative for Iraq – prevented the international community from learning who the real perpetrators of the crime had been. What steps did the Commission take to voice the EU’s blanket opposition to the death penalty? What measures is the Commission intending to take to clarify the reasons underlying the speed with which Awraz Abdel Aziz Mahmoud Sa’eed was executed, despite the express requests made by the United Nations, which legitimately wanted to discover the underlying reason for the attack on the UN and identify the organisers thereof?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, together with the Member States the European Commission is the world’s foremost institutional player and donor in the fight against the death penalty. Its activities in this regard are at the forefront of its external policies on human rights. The general principles of the European Union’s policy towards third countries concerning the death penalty, adopted in 1998 and reviewed in 2008, set out the criteria for issuing demarches and define the standards that should be used. Abolition of the death penalty is one of the main thematic priorities when providing help within the framework of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. Since 1994 the Commission has financed worldwide approximately 30 projects, the total monetary value of which is roughly EUR 15 million. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner categorically expressed her opposition to the death penalty, whether actually used in practice or set out in legislation, in a public declaration on 10 October 2007, on the occasion of the World Day Against The Death Penalty, and on other subsequent occasions. 108 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The incident, which is the subject of the letter written by the Member of this House, is known to the Commission. Iraq is one of the countries to which the European Commission often sends demarches on the use of the death penalty. In this particular case, the demarche was sent in June 2007. Both the European Union and the Commission have repeatedly called on the Iraqi Government and the Supreme Court of Iraq to abolish the use of the death penalty and to mitigate all death sentences that have been passed but not yet carried out. Furthermore, they have called on the Iraqi Government to introduce, without delay, a moratorium on all executions. Needless to say, in the case of the bomb attack on the UN headquarters on 19 August 2003, such a moratorium would have made it possible to carry out a detailed cross-examination of all persons who could have provided potential evidence needed to ensure that no perpetrator of this attack goes unpunished. Indeed, the Commission is alarmed by the speed with which this case was dealt with. Our main goal, however, is to advocate the abolition of the death penalty in general. The Commission continues to cooperate closely with the Member States of the European Union in an effort to express our position and dissatisfaction with the Iraqi side.

Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) The issue raised here, however, is that the Iraqi government prevented an investigation of the assassination of Sérgio Vieira de Melo in the same way it did in other cases. I have here in my hands a copy of a magazine recently published, in which Zenaib Ahmed appears. I have invited this person to come to the European Parliament to speak about the mass executions in Iraqi hospitals carried out on purely ethnic grounds. In the light of this situation, which is much worse than the situation in the Western Balkans, I want to know when the international community and the European Commission is going to demand an international tribunal to investigate and judge the killing of tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) Mr Casaca, of course the European Commission and the European Union explore, in general, all options available to us, so that we can strengthen our ability to gradually limit and eliminate the use of the death penalty, in particular in those areas where it is used most frequently, and that, of course, includes Iraq as well.

President. − Question No 46 by Claude Moraes (H-0427/08) Subject: Anti-discrimination horizontal directive The European Commission announced that this spring would see the launch of the new horizontal directive prohibiting discrimination. What is the latest development regarding the scope of the directive? Will there be a far-reaching anti-discrimination directive including ALL of the remaining grounds of Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty – namely age, disability, religion or belief, and sexual orientation, as supported by a majority in the European Parliament? If not, could the European Commission give its reasons, and outline its detailed plan of action for the coming months?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last week the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive which provides for protection from discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief beyond the workplace. Discrimination on these grounds in employment and occupation is already covered by Directive 2000/78/EC. In this way we have fulfilled the commitment that we made, in front of you, at the beginning of our term of office. We have answered your repeated calls for such a proposal, last expressed during the part-session in May. This proposal for a directive is based on principles that Member States have already adopted in existing directives. For example, it contains provisions ensuring protection for victims of discrimination and dealing with harassment and victimisation, as well as provisions concerning the establishment of equality authorities. As I said earlier, the proposal for a directive provides for protection from discrimination on four basic discrimination grounds, but giving equal importance to all four of them does not mean that provisions concerning all these types of discrimination are equal.

The proposal for a directive therefore takes into account the specifics of each ground of discrimination so that the directive is as effective as possible. Specifically, it makes it possible, depending on the context, to take into account the age, and to consider the issue of age and disability in the insurance and banking sector, if this is adequate and reasonable, and I stress the words adequate and reasonable. This may never mean wilful exclusion of older or disabled persons from these sectors. In cases of disability, the principle of equal 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 109

treatment is a positive commitment providing for general accessibility for disabled persons and carrying out appropriate adjustments in individual cases. Such measures do not represent a disproportionate burden. The proposal for a directive clearly states that account shall be taken of the size, nature and resources of the organisation, the estimated cost, the life cycle of goods and services, and the possible benefits of access for persons with disabilities. The proposal is an important step towards closing a huge loophole in non-discriminatory legislation. Of course we realise that protection from discrimination on grounds of gender outside the workplace is not yet as strong as protection from discrimination on grounds of race. This is because Directive 2004/113/EC does not cover the area of education, as can be seen from the explanatory statement of this proposal. We think that it would be too premature to propose changes to said Directive, since the period for its implementation ended only recently. However, when we are preparing the implementation report in 2010, we can propose changes to the Directive if necessary.

Claude Moraes (PSE). – Commissioner, this is an example of a question tabled some weeks ago which, very happily, received its positive answer on 1 July with your announcement. I think you should take personal credit for championing this within the Commission and for listening to the vote of the European Parliament. Let me just ask you and the Commission to maintain your vigilance so that derogations and exemptions to the principle of equal treatment are not sought on just any grounds: they must be sought on necessary grounds and on genuine principles of subsidiarity, because we have seen transpositions of the Employment Directive and Race Equality Directive which were not complete and we must ensure that this good package becomes law in the Member States.

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) It is obvious that such a directive which is far-reaching and which protects the fundamental values of the European Union is often viewed differently and is often exposed, for various reasons, to pressure for its effectiveness to be limited. Being fully aware of this, the Commission prepared this complex proposal which we are of course ready to defend in further stages against any unjustified challenges.

Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Could I ask the Commissioner to comment on British newspaper reports? Apparently, as reported in the press, anti-discrimination legislation does not currently apply to workers over the age of retirement, and people of retirement age or older are being legally sacked. Does the Commissioner have plans to tackle the British Government’s discrimination against older workers?

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) In general, the Directive protecting people who belong to the labour force also protects them from discrimination on grounds of age. I cannot make specific comments on the British newspaper report since it is, as always, qualified by the specific circumstances of the particular case. I can only say, with confidence, that in this regard there are no exceptions in this Directive, according to which protection no longer applies above a certain age.

President. − Question No 47 by Brian Crowley (H-0433/08) Subject: Supplementary pensions and mobility across the EU Today, changing job or country often means losing occupational pension benefits in some Member States. The ‘portability of pensions’ Directive (2005/0214(COD)), proposed in October 2005 and now amended, will bring more flexibility into the conditions regarding acquisition of pension rights and vesting (such as different qualifying periods before which workers acquire rights) and preservation of dormant pension rights (such as pension rights losing value over time), as well as improving information for workers on how mobility may affect supplementary pension rights. Can the Commission inform us when it envisages agreement on this directive and provide a timeline for its implementation, in the interests of EU citizens’ being able to move freely within the EU without having an additional worry regarding pensions?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) To start with, I am glad this important question has been asked and I am thankful for the European Parliament’s efforts to achieve progress. Of course I am also thankful for the efforts of the Slovenian Presidency and other presidencies to reach an agreement. In spite of this, the disappointing fact remains that agreement has not yet been reached. This is because the question of removing the obstacles to the free movement of workers caused by supplementary pension schemes, which is at the heart of this problem, has not yet been answered. In today’s constantly changing world, the possibility of changing jobs easily or employing the right person with the necessary qualifications is more important than 110 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

ever. Moreover, supporting the adaptability of the workforce, labour market flexibility and modernisation of social security systems are the basic elements of the Lisbon Strategy. It is quite obvious that, if we expect people to be more flexible, we have to make sure that they are not punished for this by the loss of the social safety net. The case of supplementary pension schemes is a typical example of the strategy of flexicurity advocated by the European Commission. The Commission has tried especially hard to solve the issue of supplementary pensions but, try as it might, unfortunately a compromise has not yet been found. That said, considering how important this issue is in regard to the social rights of workers in general, to the development of pension schemes and to giving the right response to the matter of demographic ageing, the Commission is ready to continue and will not relax until a compromise that can become the basis for the overall solution is found. Although we are not there yet (since this decision must be unanimous and the Council has not yet adopted a unanimous position), the Commission continues working towards the goal of improving the situation regarding supplementary pensions.

Brian Crowley (UEN). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response. Commissioner, you raised two points that I think are essential within this whole complex issue: first of all the flexicurity idea, and secondly the Lisbon Agenda about creating another freedom within the European Union single market – free movement of workers. In many ways the lack of availability of mobility of pensions is denying many people the opportunity to take up what could be better paid jobs in other areas because they cannot carry over pension entitlements or even freeze pension entitlements in their home Member State.

So maybe you could suggest to us as part of the social package which you are now bringing forward – rightly welcomed by so many – where we can push the buttons to ensure we can get Member States – those that are blocking this – to come on board for the ideal.

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) All I can do is to say that, in just a few words, Mr Crowley gave us an almost perfect analysis of the problem. Yes, this is how it really is. This is also the reason why we will remain active. This is not an issue that the Commission would regard as closed.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, you were right to draw attention to the problem and to the fact that the main reason it cannot be resolved is that because of the unanimity principle Member States are not budging. Sometimes rough customers need rough handling. Is it not high time, with the debate on the internal markets as it stands now, to actually name and shame the Member States in question so as to ensure that at least some Member States reconsider the disastrous way they have sometimes behaved in the past and change their approach?

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) You are quite right: all fundamental political ideas are debated in the Council and these debates are not carried out behind closed doors. All Member States have gradually managed to express their opinion, and only the Federal Republic of Germany did not express its consent. This is the situation but, as I have already said, this does not mean that we have reached the end of the road. We will be looking at other ways and options in order to achieve unanimity. I want to stress that of course the systems are different in individual Member States, and of course the decisions concerning these systems are not just minor technical matters. Therefore I fully understand that countries take this question seriously but, as I have already said, this is how the situation is at the moment.

President. − Question No 48 by Robert Evans (H-0443/08) Subject: Medical support across the EU Can the Commission clarify exactly what entitlements to medical support EU citizens have when travelling to another Member State? Does the support provided by the European Health Insurance Card apply to all age-related illnesses? As the methods of financing health services vary from Member State to Member State, what procedures are in place to enable a fair and equitable system that provides proper support for all those in need? What arrangements are in place for those travelling to tax havens such as Andorra, the Channel Islands, Lichtenstein, etc., which are surrounded by the EU but are not themselves deemed EU territory? 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 111

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the holder of the European Health Insurance Card is regarded as insured under the legislation of the Member State in which he has arrived. In accordance with Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 this card is valid for a temporary stay, whatever its purpose: tourism, employment or study. If the holder of this card is in need of health care during his stay, the card entitles him to receive this health care from medical staff. The European Health Insurance Card covers its holders for ‘essential health care’. This term, which depends on the patient’s state of health and on the anticipated length of stay, was defined by the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers in 2004. The health care in question is a treatment that must be given to a person who resides temporarily in another country’s territory, so that this person is not in danger of death and forced to return prematurely to his country of origin in order to receive the necessary health care. Medical staff must apply these criteria on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the patient’s state of health and the length of his stay. The Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers also adopted instructions aimed at ensuring that all stakeholders (health care providers, insured persons and health insurance companies) interpret this term the same way. These instructions are available from the Gateway to the European Union. Both a pensioner spending three months with his children and a student making use of the Erasmus programme will therefore have access not just to the necessary health care but also to the care that would be offered, in the same situation, to persons residing in the given Member State.

The system of health care provision, as stipulated in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, lays down the provision of health care and the payments for this in accordance with the legislation of the country in which the patient is temporarily residing. This means that persons temporarily residing in the country enjoy access to health care under the same conditions as persons participating in the health insurance system of that country. Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also applies to the countries of the European Economic Area, including Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Negotiations concerning Andorra have not yet been successfully concluded.

Glyn Ford, deputising for the author. − Mr President, unfortunately, Mr Evans has had to return to the United Kingdom. On his behalf, I thank the Commissioner for his answer to the question. With the sharply rising number of cross-border marriages – almost one in five couples now come from two Member States – and with the rising percentage of couples and individuals over retirement age travelling around the European Union, does the Commission not feel that, unless it takes urgent action on these matters, unequal treatment will lead to health refugees rather than the more widely speculated health tourists in the EU?

Vladimír Špidla. − (CS) You asked several questions, each of which needs a complex answer. Let me give a simplified answer to the first question: this morning we were debating Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 which will significantly amend Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and which will definitely improve the situation of many people precisely in the area of cross-border contact. Regarding your question about health tourism, I think that this is a very vague concept; so vague that it is dangerous. Since it may become a very significant phenomenon, we have to define, very carefully, what health tourism means. However, I think that real health tourism is not particularly widespread because in most cases people suffering from really serious health problems try to stay in their own environment, and also because individual Member States’ systems do not substantially differ from each other at a basic level. Clearly, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and the future Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 cover the vast majority of cases linked to tourism, but not health tourism. Primarily, they concern people who have set out on a journey and then something has happened to them while away from home. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps up to one million cases each year. The solutions are adequate and do not adversely affect the stability of the health systems. Regarding the Commission’s intention to bring about improvements in this area, this intention is tangible, as shown for example by the amendments tabled by my colleague, Mrs Androulla Vassiliou. I think that there will be an opportunity for a detailed debate on cross-border care and related issues but at this stage I want to distance myself once more from the concept of so-called health tourism. I think that this is a rather vague concept, one that can provoke reactions not appropriate to the situation. 112 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

President. − The time allocated for questions to Commissioner Špidla is over. Answers to Questions 49 to 54 will be given in writing.

President. − Question No 55 by Eoin Ryan (H-0439/08) Subject: Reporting burden of small and medium enterprises I welcome the recent initiative taken by the Commission to reduce the statistical reporting burden on businesses, especially small and medium enterprises. However SMEs still face large reporting burdens, such as VAT reporting, that cost many man-hours and that put small businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Does the Commission have any proposals in the pipeline that will reduce red tape and the reporting burden for SMEs?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, Mr Ryan, I am very grateful to you for this question because it addresses a problem with which the Commission has been deeply concerned for years: how to reduce unnecessary red tape for small and medium enterprises in Europe. I am glad to be able to tell you that we have indeed made huge progress in this area and I am firmly convinced that we are about to see a real breakthrough. Basically we have identified the costs of red tape for European enterprises as costs arising from reporting, documentation and information obligations. We are currently engaged in actually measuring those costs, in the largest project of its kind in the whole of history. That means we really are establishing what costs these rules actually create for enterprises so that we can then see where the costs come from and whether they can be reduced. You can expect a large number of Commission proposals from about September this year, based on the results of the measurements and the screening of all the existing rules. We expect that will enable us to put forward so many proposals by the end of 2009 that the cost of red tape for European enterprises will fall by 25% in the year 2012. We are assuming that will trigger a 1.4% to 1.5% growth in the entire European GNP. So you can see we really are talking significant orders of magnitude. You then addressed a particular problem that is, however, quite distinct from the matter of normal bureaucratic costs. It is the burden placed on small enterprises in particular to comply with the tax requirements – and you know that the European Union’s powers in this regard are extremely limited. We know from all our inquiries that the enterprises themselves feel that the requirements of the financial authorities represent by far the most serious and heaviest burden, so this is an area where it really is up to the Member States to simplify matters. After all, we only have competences in the area of turnover taxes and even there they are very limited. The Commission has, however, made one very important proposal that would be a great help to small and medium enterprises: it is substantially to raise the threshold above which they need to declare turnover tax in advance, i.e. register for VAT. The current threshold is EUR 20 000, we want to raise it to EUR 100 000, which would free nearly all very small enterprises and in particular newly established enterprises from this heavy burden. Sadly I must tell you that so far the Member States have not been prepared to accept that proposal. I hope that the Small Business Act that the Commission presented a few days ago and in which we addressed the question once again will put more pressure on those Member States that are creating difficulties here and I am extremely grateful to the European Parliament for its numerous signs of support in this regard.

Eoin Ryan (UEN). – I would like to thank the Commissioner and I look forward to the announcements in September. I think that some of the administrative burdens, especially on small and medium enterprises, are absolutely huge, and they very often do not have the manpower or womanpower to deal with them. But could you elaborate more on the EUR 100 000 threshold? Are you announcing that, or are you going to name and shame the countries that are resisting it? Could you give us some more details about that threshold?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr Ryan, as I said it is an official proposal, which the Commission agreed as early as 2004. Since then, the Council has still not adopted the proposal. I pointed out that we have now put the proposal forward again, in the context of the Small Business Act; basically that means we are presenting it again. It is not an announcement; it is something the Commission has already proposed. It regards it as necessary. A short time ago Mr Špidla referred, in the context of another answer, to the need for unanimity on certain issues. Here too we need unanimity and unfortunately it was not achieved. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 113

I am sure I need not tell you, who represents Ireland, that a whole number of Member States regard questions of tax in the European Union as a taboo subject.

Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Commissioner, I have the following request. If you are going to be doing all this research, can you look into the indirect costs of running a small or medium-sized enterprise? Could you please have a look at the World Bank report from around two years ago, which analysed these costs. The report states that Poland, for example, has very low legal costs, but in practice this is not true. I also have a related request, which is not really a question. Instead of looking at what officials say, could you look properly at what the real costs are? All the stamps that need to be paid for, all the documents that have to be submitted. There are so many of these sorts of additional costs.

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) The measurements we are conducting now and that are nearly concluded will give us exact information about which European rules give rise to which costs. We will then be in a position to say which specific European rule gives rise to precisely which costs for enterprises. Of course we already know quite a lot. For instance, we already know that most of the costs go back to a very small number of rules. The vast majority of rules come from no more than some 42 directives. We also know which area gives rise to the highest costs, namely European company law, which is why we have now put forward the first proposals relating to that area. We also know that the distribution of costs varies widely, depending on the size of the enterprise. As a rule of thumb we can assume that the smaller the enterprise, the heavier the relative burden of administrative costs. Those costs may easily be far higher than 5% in the case of very small enterprises, while being considerably lower for very large ones. We know all that anyway and it will be taken into account in the proposals. Let me take this opportunity to make a request to Parliament. Whether this whole project succeeds will, of course, depend very much on whether Parliament deals with the Commission’s proposals rapidly. We do, after all, have a general political agreement on them. I just wanted to point out that it certainly involves amending existing legislation, which requires the assent of both co-legislators.

President. − Question No 56 by Colm Burke (H-0448/08) Subject: Price of fertiliser The price of fertiliser has gone up dramatically over the last 12 months. Ammonia phosphate, for instance, has increased from EUR 181 per tonne to EUR 800 per tonne in wholesale markets. Does the Commission plan to take any action to counteract this price hike?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr Burke, I share your concern about rising fertiliser prices. They have indeed risen disproportionately. Understandably, that creates major problems and great concern in European farming. Fertiliser prices have risen because of the sharp rise in demand, which comes on top of higher transport and energy costs. There are, therefore, three factors: higher demand because of the rapid growth in other parts of the world, higher energy prices and higher transport prices. Demand has risen across the world, as you know, and this affects not just fertiliser but a whole range of other goods too, including cash crops and food. It is important to remember that, for the fact is that although European farmers have to spend more money on fertiliser, as they are indeed doing, at the same time they are getting better prices for their harvests. FAO statistics over a comparable period show that food prices have risen by 37% over a 12-month period. We saw the sharpest rise with milk products, at 80-200%, and cereals, at 50-80%. The Commission believes it is vital to observe the rules of competition. As long as that is the case, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to intervene in a market where the latest developments can be traced largely to factors over which the Commission has no influence whatsoever. Let me repeat: we have no influence over the three deciding factors that led to the price rises. As regards longer-term developments, the Commission would also draw your attention to the importance of promoting competition on the natural gas market. I think there is a real chance here of easing the situation somewhat. If the measures the Commission proposed under the third energy package are accepted, we should see an improvement in gas market prices. That could also lead to lower prices for nitrogen fertiliser produced 114 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

in the European Union. As you know, however, it all depends on whether the energy package proposed by the Commission is accepted.

Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Thank you for your response on this matter. It is of concern. I know you referred to the price of milk products and other items going up, but unfortunately farmers are not getting the benefit of those rises: it is the parties in between who are getting the benefits. My question really is about our reliance on supply from outside the EU. It appears that we are relying on Russia and Ukraine for the raw materials for our fertilisers. I am just wondering what action we are taking in order to make sure that we have adequate supply and are not over-reliant on one or two sources. Can we not identify other sources and put mechanisms in place to encourage importation from those other sources?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) As regards Russia and Ukraine as major supply countries, I must point out that we are applying trade protection instruments to fertiliser exports from both countries. To put it quite simply: both countries can of course offer fertiliser at low prices because they know that the energy required to produce fertiliser is particularly high and they apply different prices for exported energy and for energy used in their own country. That price difference leads to dumping, which is why we have applied the appropriate measures in relation to Russia and the Ukraine. On diversifying supplies, the Commission has little margin for influence here. I can tell you, however, that as far as I know the large European producers and distributors are naturally seeking to diversify their raw materials basis. I am quite prepared to look into this question again in more detail.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I would like to thank the Commissioner. This probably flows over into other questions for Commissioner Fischer Boel. You made a point about higher prices in the harvest, but it seems that the costs of producing food are now increasing faster than prices are rising and this is surely a problem that Europe needs to address. Perhaps you would respond to that?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mrs Fischer Boel is here, which is why I will answer very carefully, because she is the one who really knows about the prices that European farmers can achieve. On the basis of what she has told the Commission to date, I assume that producer prices are indeed rising for all important EU products. I do not deny, however, that you may be right in saying that the higher harvest prices do not necessarily make up entirely for the rises in costs. That is a point the Commission will certainly address. Regarding developments in the food sector in general – and here we are not talking just about producer prices but are also concerned with what the consumer eventually has to pay – a few weeks ago we launched an initiative and set up a high-level group to consider the future of the European food industry, which, and not everybody knows this, is the biggest European industry. Many people actually think the automobile sector is the biggest European industry, but that is not true. The food industry is the biggest one of all in Europe. In this high-level group we are looking very specifically at price trends and we will conclude our work by the end of the year, when we will make the appropriate recommendations.

President. − Question No 57 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0457/08) Subject: Policy in favour of small enterprises As part of an open single market which encourages small enterprises, will the Commission say Commission proposes to ensure that new technologies are used to benefit them and what practical benefit they derive from research programmes funded by the European Union in the 27 Member States?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, this is a very topical question and only a few days ago the Commission put forward a very broadly based initiative in this sector.

Let me start by saying that I am very pleased that the enormous importance of small and medium enterprises to our economy and to job creation has been widely recognised throughout the European Union in recent years. I was particularly concerned to ensure that all the European institutions and the Member States pay due attention to the role of small and medium enterprises. If we do not make full use of the SMEs’ growth potential, if we do not make full use of their workforce potential, we will not be able to master the 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 115

consequences of globalisation in Europe. Let me make this point quite clear: we will successfully master the consequences of globalisation if we manage to strengthen the SME sector in Europe. To that end, the SMEs must be able to make even better use of the opportunities offered by the internal market and global competition. A vital factor here – and I now come to your question – is access to knowledge, research and innovation. It is not just large European enterprises but also small and medium ones, if they are at all active on the international markets, that must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy. That is their only chance now. They cannot compete in terms of price; they can only compete by offering a better quality of product or service and that better quality comes from better technology and from innovation. One of the main instruments available to them at Community level is, of course, the Seventh Framework Research Programme, which will provide funding of at least 15% for small and medium enterprises, and it appears from the early results that we will certainly achieve that target. The Small Business Act to which I referred earlier brings with it a whole range of other proposals designed to give small and medium enterprises easier access to innovation, knowledge, research and technology. Let me give a few examples. Firstly, there is the proposal to simplify the rules on state aid to promote research, development and innovation, in particular through the block exemption regulation. The Commission decided that last week and it will free up great potential. The second is incentives for establishing enterprises with a high growth potential by promoting research and innovation capacity, in particular by the closer coordination of national programmes and initiatives. Then there are measures to promote greater participation by small and medium enterprises in the transfer of knowledge. Here we will be setting up a new pilot project aimed to help finance the industrial use of intellectual property. I could also mention that we are encouraging SMEs to play an active part in the activities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, to ensure that they can also benefit from the transfer of knowledge that Institute will promote. As you can see, a lot is happening here. Let me make it quite clear, though, that in the end it is of course up to the entrepreneurs and enterprises themselves whether they make use of the opportunities they are offered. It is, therefore, very important to make market participants far more aware of the opportunities that already exist today. That is a question of information and communication, both of which need to be greatly improved. And that is why the Commission created the European e-Business Support Network early this year. It is the largest network of its kind in the world and its aim is to put every European enterprise within reach of a contact point that can answer all the questions about innovation, access to EU programmes and access to research resources.

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, please accept my sincere thanks for your answer, because it has indeed been comprehensive and you have also covered the supplementary question regarding the issue of communication with and information for businesses. Would you mind giving me some more information? I come from a region located on the eastern borders of the European Union as it currently stands. Information does not reach that region and small businesses are struggling, simply vegetating; they are relying solely on price differences, as you said, and not on quality, and are heading for closure. What is your advice on this?

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, I am very grateful for your support. Of course, I knew I would be able to rely on you entirely in this matter, just as you can rely on me entirely. Regarding the density of the network, I must admit that we have not yet achieved the desired density throughout Europe. When we complete the project, as we will do over the next five months, every region in Europe will have one of those facilities. There will be contact points in every region, located near enough to the enterprises to ensure nobody will have any difficulty in accessing them.

President. − The answer to Question 58 by Mr Heaton-Harris will be given in writing. Question No 59 by Liam Aylward (H-0435/08) Subject: Proposed increase in modulation in the context of the CAP Health Check In the context of the CAP Health Check, could the Commission envisage a situation in which the proposed increase in modulation would be on a voluntary basis? 116 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Question No 60 by Sean Ó Neachtain (H-0437/08) Subject: CAP payments Farmers in receipt of less than EUR 5 000 in farm payments annually will not experience a reduction in their farm payment under the proposed Cap Health Check as outlined by Commissioner Fischer Boel. Would the Commission consider increasing this threshold?

Question No 62 by Ioannis Gklavakis (H-0444/08) Subject: 'Health check' for the Common Agricultural Policy Tobacco growing is the sole source of income for some 130 000 European farmers. Despite this, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003(4) provides that from 2010 50% of Pillar I resources (direct aid) will be transferred to Pillar II (rural development), thereby significantly reducing the income of these producers. Furthermore, tobacco cultivation occurs in semi-arid regions where no alternative employment opportunities are available. At the same time, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is currently being given a 'health check', and many decisions taken during the CAP reform of 2003 are being reviewed. In view of the above, will the Commission say whether it intends, as part of the CAP 'health check', to re-examine the tobacco aid regime and to preserve existing arrangements beyond 2009 until 2013? Has it drawn up a study to establish which crops could replace tobacco in these regions so that European tobacco farmers are not affected financially or socially?

Question No 65 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0458/08) Subject: Common Agricultural Policy: planning and application in favour of small producers It should not be forgotten that agriculture is the basic form of employment for inhabitants in rural Greece, in particular in geographically disadvantaged regions, such as islands and mountainous regions. The cutting of compensation and direct aid with the transfer of resources from the First to the Second Pillar promoted by the Common Agricultural Policy has particularly alarmed Greek producers, since it will affect their already low income and lead to economic stagnation among small producers. How does the Commission intend to address, both in the short and long-term, the grave economic problems facing farmers (increase in fuel prices, high production costs, differences between producer and consumer prices) and to ensure the survival of small producers at European level?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − I am quite happy to have this opportunity to answer all four questions, since we seem to be fairly late, according to the initial schedule. Regarding the first three questions, I would say that the European Union’s agriculture is both at the contributing and the receiving end of today’s global environmental challenges. We cannot stand by and fail to act. EU action is needed and, through rural development, we can provide the most targeted and effective measures. But, as you all know, our funds within the rural development policy are limited. The fairest and most straightforward way to raise money is through an additional shift of funds from the first pillar – from direct payment – into rural development policy in Pillar 2 through what we call increased modulation, of course on a compulsory basis. I am not prepared to consider the increase in modulation on a voluntary basis. It is quite clear that the Commission took into account the fact that in February 2007 Parliament adopted a report rejecting the Commission’s proposal on voluntary modulation. I have to say that I am quite happy that we have always been in agreement on this issue. Concerning the threshold, the Commission’s proposal is to transfer EUR 5 billion from the first to the second pillar in the period from 2009 to 2012. This calculation is made on the basis of the present threshold of EUR 5 000 or the franchise, as we normally call it. Raising this threshold would mean a substantial reduction in the funds. The Commission believes that, with less budget available, the effectiveness of dealing with the challenges within climate change and water scarcity will be significantly weakened.

(4) OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 117

Within the health check package, small producers who receive direct payments of a value less than EUR 5 000 will continue to be exempted from modulation. Therefore, small farms will not only continue to be protected from any possible negative effect of the shift from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, but could also profit from the money that is generated through the modulation by engaging in the appropriate rural development programmes. With regard to modulation, farmers sometimes say to me, ‘Well you take my money’ or ‘you reduce the payment to the agricultural sector, to the farmers’. This is not in fact true because of the fact that, when you modulate money, you generate more money to the sector in general, because the modulated money needs to be co-financed by Member States. It is clear that, with the new modulated money, we will be much more specific. We will simply make a menu of possibilities explicitly targeting the new challenges. This means that, to those who say that modulation or money in rural development policy can be used for whatever reason, I can promise you this is not going to happen with the money that we propose for modulation in the health check. So, instead of saying that we take money, we actually generate more money to be transferred back to the agricultural sector. I am not sure if Mr Arnaoutakis is here tonight so therefore I am not going to answer that question. To Mr Gklavakis, asking about maintenance of the coupled payments for tobacco, I have to refer to the answer I gave in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 24 June. I actually had the same opportunity to give the answer here in plenary on several occasions, namely that the Commission does not intend to re-examine the tobacco regime within the context of the health check. I will just repeat that the tobacco reform was agreed by all tobacco-producing countries in 2004, so therefore I see no reason to re-open this discussion. I hope that we can all agree that the money that will be transferred into the rural development policy, specially earmarked for support in those areas where tobacco production is taking place or has taken place, will be very important. We will also present to the Parliament a report on the consequences of the tobacco reform at the end of 2009.

Liam Aylward (UEN). – I am sure, Commissioner, that you – like all the other Members of the House here in this Parliament – are very frustrated at the manner in which Question Time is handled here. We have referred to that on many occasions, but nothing seems to happen. I want to thank the Commissioner for the reply, even though I am not happy with the response given. If compulsory modulation is introduced, in my view it will create division and friction between the various farming groups, between big and small farmers and, in particular, between farmers engaged in different agricultural enterprises. I would not like to see that happening. For example, in my recent sheep report which was adopted with a very large majority in Parliament here last month, I proposed that modulation and Article 69 (now 68) be introduced on a voluntary basis in Member States. Would the Commission not accept the spirit of that decision, which was made here just last month by the elected Members of this Parliament?

Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – (GA) Mr President, it is the small farmers under the EUR 5000 payment limit who are faced with the greatest amount of problems but yet receive the least amount of money. Would the Commissioner accept that since this limit of EUR 5000 was set a number of years ago – 2002 I believe – inflation and large changes have come about? And would you not agree Commissioner, that it is a form of protection for small farmers to receive more now than when the policy was formulated and that the limit should be increased?

Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner even though her answer was negative, because I know that she is a diligent, scrupulous and fair person, and I would like to ask her the following question. Tobacco is the only agricultural product subjected to this type of treatment, and that treatment is unfair. However, I would like to add this: given that tobacco producers are poor, small-scale farmers, could you, in order to prevent them from vanishing, at least please carry out a study to help us see what these people could grow, now that tobacco is effectively eliminated under these measures?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − If you look at the proposal on the Health Check, it actually contains a number of actions to the benefit of the sheep and goat sector. First of all, we clearly state that it will be possible to maintain a coupled payment for the sheep sector because we are aware of the fact that it is a vulnerable sector. It is desperately important that we maintain some production in those regions 118 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

where, if sheep production disappears, probably nothing will be left, so a coupled payment could be a solution. I have to say, regarding the new Article 68, that it is a voluntary possibility for Member States to use and to top-slice up to 10% of the direct payment, and then, according to the decisions by the Member States, to transfer some of that money into the sheep or goat sector. The possibility of coupling the payment is valid both for suckler cows and for sheep and goats. I am not sure if I understood the next question completely, but if you look at the budget – the overall budget for agriculture agreed by Heads of State in 2002 – this budget was fixed but adjusted with an inflation rate of just 1%. The honourable Member is right that we have an inflation rate higher than 1%, especially these days when we have high oil prices and high food prices so, yes, you can say the value of the entitlements is not completely following the value of other products. But this was a decision that was taken by the Heads of State, and therefore the present situation, especially in some sectors where we see an increase in prices diverging from what we have seen throughout the last 30 years, namely that prices are now starting to increase, is a sound signal for those that are going to make a living out of it. I would say to Mr Gklavakis that we have had lots of discussions, and I always enjoy discussing this with him. I think he can go back to his constituency saying that he is fighting like a lion to maintain the coupled payment. Tobacco production is not sustainable in all areas, but I think that, with the earmarked rural development money for the tobacco sector, it can also mean that those that want to maintain or to stay in business can modernise their tobacco production and maybe at the end of the day have a tobacco production that can be economically viable, because the quality of the tobacco will increase. I think that you have to face reality – the fact that this is not going to be re-opened – and then try to find the best possible solutions.

Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Madam Commissioner, you are well known as someone who is always fighting to reduce production costs in agriculture. I have a question that relates to this issue. In our country, that is, in Poland, the government has recently imposed additional taxes on farmers who produce rapeseed oil for their own use and add it to fuel. This is, in a way, related to the production of biodiesel. As this is the same as paying a tax for drinking your own milk, or eating your own vegetables or potatoes, can you give these farmers assistance to continue their activities without the imposition of additional taxes as if they were buying this oil from outside?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Since entering into European policy I have always been very keen on maintaining subsidiarity. This means that when we talk about taxation we are not discussing a common policy and therefore it is up to the Member States to decide on how they manage their taxation systems. Therefore, for various reasons, I had better keep out of – I would not say national infighting – but national discussions on how taxation on rapeseed is being managed. I understand your worries, but I would rather stay out of this discussion.

President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex). (The sitting was suspended at 8.45 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS Vice-President

18. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

19. Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity : see Minutes

20. Space and security (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0250/2008) by Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on space and security (INI/2008/2030). 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 119

Karl von Wogau, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, operations under the Security and Defence Policy are becoming more dangerous. That has been shown by the fact that for the first time a soldier has been killed during an operation under European command. Gilles Polin was killed on the border between Chad and Darfur. We must, therefore, consider whether some of those risks can be avoided. They arise as a result of the wrong kind of command structures, but also when the necessary equipment is not available for specific operations. When we consider this matter, we start with Javier Solana’s broad approach to security strategy, which covers the armed forces and also the European Union’s critical infrastructure, its external borders and humanitarian operations as well. Here we keep finding weaknesses in the area of space, satellite-based reconnaissance, satellite-based telecommunications and satellite-based navigation. If we cooperate more closely in this area, we will be able to spend our money more usefully and achieve greater efficiency. I will start with reconnaissance. We have the Helios reconnaissance satellites, the German SAR Lupe ones and the Italian Cosmo-Skymed. It is vital to ensure that the imagery received from these reconnaissance satellites is actually available to our satellite centre in Torrejón. Then there is the MUSIS project, planned for the future. In the report I urge that this project eventually be brought within an appropriate European framework. Then we have satellite navigation, the Galileo project. The report states quite clearly that the Galileo project should also be available in future for military operations, because our military forces that plan and conduct such operations need Galileo to give them directions.

That brings me to telecommunications, which must also be satellite-based. Closer cooperation can be of great benefit here. I also regard software-defined radio as a joint project that offers great opportunities; it sets a common standard for protected telecommunications that could lead to interoperability between armed forces on the one hand and the police on the other, and also with the forces that have to stand by for disaster aid. We also need space surveillance to monitor our space infrastructure and protect our satellites. Here we should develop a common European system. We need an early warning system for ballistic missiles and for communications and electronic intelligence. A word on financing. We note that we are already spending a sizeable amount of the European budget on security, firstly on security research, secondly on GMES, the satellite observation system, which also has security connotations, and now on Galileo. We are in fact spending EUR 750 m of the budget on security aspects. Perhaps we should consider whether European budget funds could not also be made available for the other planned projects I mentioned.

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, space policy will play a very important role over the next six months, as it is one of the French Presidency’s priorities. The Commission finds that most welcome. All of us here know, of course, that space is a fascinating topic. We see it today as we follow the scientific adventures of the Phoenix Mars probe, as we did a few months ago with the successful installation of the European Columbus Laboratory module in the International Space Station. I must add that over and above its major achievements, space technology is offering a growing number of instruments we need in order to achieve our policy aims. That applies to environmental policy, transport policy, agricultural policy, but also to major external policy areas such as development policy, humanitarian aid and international aid for disasters and, of course – and this brings me to the subject Mr von Wogau has successfully kept on the agenda for many years, for which the Commission is most grateful to him – space policy and European security. The Commission described the importance of space applications for the European Security and Defence Policy in its communication on European space policy last year. I agree with the rapporteur that the two are closely linked. The Commission therefore welcomes this report on space and security with its proposals and details about specific initiatives and measures.

I would like to discuss a few points in more detail. The report stresses that the European Union is allocating more than EUR 5 billion to financing space projects under the current financial perspective. The lion’s share of that goes to applications of the GMES system – Global Monitoring for Environment and Security – which will soon be given its own and, in my view, very attractive brand name, like Galileo. That will happen in September. 120 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The potential applications of GMES are also most important to the European Security and Defence Policy. I want to leave no room for doubt here, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past: GMES has a multi-use potential, we do not deny that, and this multi-use potential should and must also be used sensibly, to avoid duplication and unnecessary costs. That is the only way we can ensure that our space industry is competitive and that we develop its technology. My next point is most important to the Commission, in the context also of our experiences with Galileo. If we want to make GMES services available for the long term, we need a permanent operational financial basis. We do not have that at present. We are still at the development stage and are funding GMES from research and development resources. We will be entering the operational stage very soon, however, and then we will have to be prepared to draw the necessary conclusions from what we have jointly decided so far, not just specifically in relation to space policy but also on the basis of the European budget. It would make little sense to spend billions on developing a technology and then not want to finance it once we are in a position to apply it. If we want a long-term, operational financing basis – and I am speaking without any reservations here – then we must incorporate space projects that are relevant to security and defence. That brings me to a second point. We agree that there is a close link between space and security and defence policy. We should, therefore, make optimum use of the synergies between space and civilian and military security, both in the field of technology and in the operational field. I am, therefore, very glad that the report encourages strong inter-pillar cooperation, i.e. between the Commission, the Council, the European Defence Agency and the European Union Satellite Centre.

I would also stress that we must look at the whole spectrum of the question of space and its links to European security and defence policy, while respecting the provisions of the Treaties – the Commission would never touch them and has said quite clearly that we cannot finance any European defence measures or measures of a military nature out of the EU budget. The Commission very much welcomes the fact that the report also addresses aspects of foreign and security policy in the stricter sense of the term, such as the development of a code of conduct for space activities or the potential of satellites to monitor international arms control agreements. A central concern of our policy is the use of space for purely peaceful purposes. The European Union – and here I can refer to various European Parliament resolutions – supports every initiative to prevent the weaponisation of space. That is also why the Commission welcomes the European Space Agency’s intention to develop an instrument to that end, called space situational awareness, that can not only verify the observance of the relevant agreements but also monitor the security of our satellites. We will be discussing how to coordinate that with the Community’s activities in a few days’ time at a meeting between the ministers responsible for space affairs, the French Presidency and the Commission to be held in Kourou, our European spaceport in French Guiana. The report on space and security clarifies the security challenges that will face Europe in the coming years. We should see this as an opportunity to make Europe more capable of action and more competitive. An innovative European space policy and a common European security and defence policy can bring us some way towards achieving that.

Romana Jordan Cizelj, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (SL) The European space policy is exceptionally important for two reasons: firstly, because it contributes to greater security, and secondly, because it contributes to the pursuance of development targets prescribed by the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs. It was primarily this aspect that we in the Committee on Industry focused our attention on. We are delighted that, in its chapter on research and technological development, the Lisbon Treaty provides a legal basis for the European space policy. We will carefully examine the proposals for a European space programme which the Commission is to draw up, and we will then adopt a position on them. We must also define relations with the European Space Agency accordingly.

I am also delighted that, on this very day, the relevant regulation has been signed guaranteeing a practical start-up of the EGNOS and Galileo programmes. Our experience with these two programmes will enable us to agree on how to manage other programmes. We must now prepare and establish in practice an environment in which it will be easier for us to make effective use of new systems and as wide a variety of applications as possible, without limiting ourselves too narrowly in advance. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 121

Ladies and gentlemen, space is a natural shared asset and not just the property of one nation or community. That is why, when we are developing future European legislation, we must also take into account the international framework. Here I mean the existing United Nations treaties as well as the principles of space legislation. Finally, I should also like to thank the rapporteur for his cooperation and for taking account of the Industry Committee’s views, and I am convinced that by working in this manner we can still achieve much more.

Anna Ibrisagic, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SV) Mr President, thank you Mr von Wogau for a good, clear report. Let me begin with something that at first sight does not seem to have much to do with space, namely the Balkan war. We eventually realised that Europe made quite a lot of mistakes during the various conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990s. Europe did not make those mistakes because of a bad common foreign and security policy, but because of the total absence of a common foreign and security policy. There are still people who oppose both a common foreign and security policy and the areas the report deals with. I share Mr von Wogau’s view that satellite surveillance systems should be financed from the European budget, not just because such systems can be used for security purposes, but also because they can be used for other purposes in which we have a common interest, for example the environment. I would also emphasise that, in these important, but also sensitive, issues to which the space dimension of European security responds, it is good to have a system which is not dependent on the USA, which builds upon increased cooperation between the Member States and which makes better use of resources. A system such as the one described in this report is also a guarantee that in the future we may better manage any conflicts, which we do not want in Europe but nevertheless may find ourselves having to deal with.

Ana Maria Gomes, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, I congratulate our fellow member, Karl von Wogau, on this report and on the tireless way in which he has supported the deepening of the European project through the construction of a European defence policy. The report strikes an appropriate balance between what should be the main objectives of a European policy in the field of space and security. First, the capital importance of using all diplomatic and political channels to prevent the weaponisation of space, as emphasised by Commissioner Verheugen, so that space can continue to be used as a public asset for all humanity. Second, to equip Europe with the policies, financial resources and equipment needed to ensure its strategic autonomy on the international stage. With regard to the first objective, it is important to emphasise that we are not talking here about the use of space for military ends. We know that, from the beginning of space exploration, satellites have been used to support the armed forces of various countries in the area of communications. Some of our fellow Members persist in confusing this type of operation, which is compatible with international law, with recent attempts by some, especially the United States, to put arms into space and transform it into a fourth battlefield, in addition to land, sea and air. It is such warlike strategies and other unacceptable initiatives, such as China’s anti-satellite test in January 2007, that must be combated. The report responds to these threats by seeking a pro-active diplomatic role for the European Union. It is Europe’s task to lead a global strategy that seeks to equip the international community with an effective legal architecture that guarantees the total exclusion of arms from space, through the revision and strengthening of the Outer Space Treaty. With regard to the second objective, the report warns against neglecting the crucial importance of space for Europe’s strategic autonomy. As the Galileo project showed, an overwhelming majority of MEPs believe that sharing financial and technological resources and equipment among Europeans is the only way for Europe to avoid dependence on the United States, Russia and China for vital strategic activities, such as navigation. The report also underlines the importance, frequently ignored or feared, of Galileo and other European national programmes for a serious common foreign and security policy. Without the peaceful and effective use of space, our economies, transport systems and meteorology and our whole way of life would be impossible. Europe must think strategically about this important area, in the same way as Washington, Beijing and Moscow do. Think and act. It is with this in mind that I very much regret that the Council Presidency is not here for this debate.

Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, paragraph 41 of the report reads: ‘urges that under no circumstances should European space policy contribute to the militarisation and weaponisation of space’. So far so good. Yet the entire report contradicts that statement. It actually lists military measures. 122 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Paragraph 5, for instance, states that there is a need for telecommunications, information management, observation and navigation in the military area. The report even underlines the necessity of the Galileo satellite project, which is quite clearly a civilian project, for autonomous ESDP operations. I am grateful to Mr Verheugen for clarifying the budgetary aspects again. The European Union’s current Treaty provides quite clearly that the EU budget cannot be used for military purposes. That is why the GUE/NGL Group has tabled amendments to rectify the legal situation, to the effect that space may be used only for explicitly civilian purposes and that Galileo is an explicitly civilian project. Looking at the other amendments tabled, it is interesting to see how contradictory some of them are. My favourite was the amendment by the Greens, which begins by stressing that Galileo must remain a space project for civilian purposes and continues by nonetheless acknowledging its importance for autonomous ESDP operations. That is clearly a contradiction in terms. We should make it quite clear that the issue here is the militarisation of space by the European Union. It is easy to keep pointing the finger at others who are (also) pursuing the militarisation of space. Such military use is precisely what we do not want to see! That is why the content of this report, taken as a whole, as it is worded, is wrong, because it calls for precisely that militarisation. We reject that. We want space to be used for civilian purposes and want Galileo to remain a purely civilian project. We have now shifted the burden onto the taxpayer – EUR 3.4 billion – with this latest call for tender. We keep saying we want a system that is independent of the USA, but now Boeing is clearly interested in this tender, so that does not seem quite true any more either.

We want the purely civilian use of space, no militarisation!

Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report opens by saying ‘the various political and security challenges which the European Union is increasingly facing make an autonomous European Space Policy a strategic necessity’. If you accept this opening proposition at face value then of course the report’s recommendations follow as a logical consequence: a common European space policy, the implementation of the European security and defence policy, the use of the Galileo satellite system for military purposes, and, of course, a budget to pay for it all. But if we do not accept the proposition, the logic falls apart. There are indeed political and security challenges facing the continent of Europe, but why should the European Union have an autonomous space and security and defence policy? As far as the overwhelming majority of its citizens are concerned, the European Union is not, and should not be, a political state. And only states legitimately have security policies and military capabilities. As the report says, the Lisbon Treaty includes a legal basis for the European space policy and the possibility for permanent structured cooperation on security and defence. But of course, legally, the Lisbon Treaty is dead. It was killed by the Irish ‘no’ vote in the recent referendum, so the implementation of a space and security and defence policy should also be dead. Space and security and defence policy would of course require a common communication system, and the report underlines the necessity for Galileo to be used for an autonomous European security and defence policy. But until recently we were told that Galileo was for civilian purposes only. Finally it has to be admitted that its real use is for EU military purposes. The report also wants it both ways. It wants an EU space programme linked to the security and defence policy but at the same time says that the space policy should not contribute to the militarisation and weaponisation of space. Of course space will be militarised and weaponised. That is inevitable. It will be done by the USA, probably by Russia and in due course certainly by China. The security interests of the West should be represented in space not by an illegitimate European Union but with our ally the USA, in partnership with the only legitimate security organisation that has the democratic backing of the people of Europe, NATO.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) My congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr von Wogau, who has prepared a very important and topical report. In my opinion, the report could be summarised as follows: more peace 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 123

in space, better cooperation between the EU Member States and other countries, and more funding for common space projects. I approve of the proposed amendments, which once again highlight Galileo’s importance as a strictly civilian project and reject any possibility of using space for military purposes. More and more countries are becoming involved in space projects, with space having started to play an increasingly large role in our lives. Military and civilian satellite systems intended for Earth observation as well as telecommunications, navigation, positioning and timing have become our eyes and ears. Geopolitical classics stated long ago, that ‘whoever dominates space dominates the world.’ The European Union does not aim to achieve superiority. The multipolar world in which the rights of all nations are secured is much more attractive. Having combined their power in space, the 27 EU Member States would increase their potential to carry out successful independent civil and preventive operations pursuing common foreign and security policy. It could give the EU an important advantage in observing arms expansion and monitoring the implementation of international agreements. The EU countries have created several space projects for the purpose of increasing their security. To avoid wasteful duplication, it would be better to make full use of the potential offered by these systems and reduce the cost of Earth surveillance. The telecommunications satellite sector should undergo more effective standardisation. We need more intensive interaction between space projects developed by the EU. The EU should allocate more substantial funds and have a common budget to prevent individual countries from wasting their efforts and resources. Meanwhile, the forthcoming negotiations on the EU-Russia strategic partnership provide us with a good opportunity to organise even more productive cooperation in space, undoubtedly seeking to expand strategic cooperation in common space programmes with the United States and NATO in every possible way.

Philippe Morillon (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I asked to speak when I heard Mrs Ibrisagic describe the crisis which occurred in the Balkans, in which, as you probably remember, I was involved. At the time, our former fellow Member Jean-François Deniau said, ‘Europe died at Sarajevo’, and I replied, ‘Europe did not die at Sarajevo because Europe does not exist’. Europe still does not exist, and I congratulate our fellow Member Mr von Wogau for battling, as he has done since becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, to ensure that Europe fulfils the expectations expressed not only outside Europe, in every corner of the world, but also within Europe, where, as you know, 70% of our fellow citizens are calling on Europe to take its place on the international stage and prove worthy of its heritage.

Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, since there are not very many of us here, I too will take advantage of the opportunity to add, in the same spirit as Mr Morillon, that people actually expect a great deal from Europe and even today – as Mr von Wogau knows – Georgia, a country which is covered by our neighbourhood policy, is almost on the brink of war. Every day there are confrontations between Georgia and the separatist region of Abkhazia. I would say that the situation is becoming worse with every hour that passes. Moreover, this afternoon we have received an urgent appeal from the Georgian authorities, urging the European Union to become involved in resolving this conflict, and this just goes to show how much we need Europe. When we introduce a neighbourhood policy, then we must also take it upon ourselves to put it into practice.

Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as was only to be expected, this debate has focussed very clearly on the really crucial issues. We should talk about them openly because we are dealing here with reality and not wishful thinking.

The reality is quite simple. The traditional patterns of conflict are no longer what they once were. The traditional distinction between internal and external security is becoming increasingly blurred. For instance, not everybody in this Chamber will agree with the American view that the fight against terrorism is a war. Yet most Americans share that view. 124 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

The technology used to maintain internal security, especially to combat international crime and terrorism, is tending more and more to come from the same research centres and the same enterprises and also to be used for the same purpose, although with different fields of application. We must clearly recognise that we need to draw the boundaries elsewhere, namely in the place where the political decisions on the use of instruments are taken. At this point let me state quite clearly: the Treaty applies here. General Morillon – if I may use Mr Morillon’s title here, given that he referred to his important role in the Balkans – has drawn our attention to that again. There have been European operations to prevent conflict, resolve conflicts and avoid conflicts for a long time. I do not need to call any senior officers as witnesses, since everybody here knows that those who are responsible for the safety of European soldiers sent on these missions rely heavily on having an exact and precise picture of the situation. Under today’s conditions it is no longer possible to obtain that kind of picture without the use of space technology, because otherwise the other side would have it. We would be putting our own forces in extreme danger and making them less effective if we said that for reasons of principle we Europeans could not allow such a thing. I want to draw attention to these problems again to show that I am very much aware of them. They relate both to our space policy and to the area of security research. I can only urge Parliament to see its role as also ensuring that in this difficult situation in which we find ourselves, where things are not just black and white but there is also a large grey area, we still proceed in a manner that does not compromise our values and our principles.

Karl von Wogau, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, I would like to take up what Mr Verheugen said and also answer Mr Pflüger and Mr Batten on the question of what the citizens of the European Union want. Eurobarometer surveys show that 70% to 80% of EU citizens believe we need a common security and defence policy. That became particularly clear with the terrible events in the Balkans. The 27 European countries spend EUR 170 billion a year on defence, yet these countries were unable to put an end to the bloodshed in the Balkans because we simply do not yet have a common European organisation for such operations. There were German, French, British, Italian, Luxembourgish and other forces, yet at the time it was only the Americans, not the Europeans, who had the capability to put an end to the bloodshed. Mr Morillon saw that with his own eyes and experienced it very much in person. It is also quite wrong to refer to weapons in space here. What threat is there? If, for instance, we station Galileo or observation satellites in space to find out what is happening, it is done for the security of our citizens. The real danger is that weapons are stationed in space and used to destroy our communications satellites, because then our entire social system could be disrupted by relatively minor means. Just imagine what would happen if the telecommunications satellites for TV, for radio, for everything that makes up our society today, were destroyed. That is why I believe we are on the right track, including with Galileo. We will probably find at the vote tomorrow that there has been a change of mind in the European Parliament. The first step was that we managed to get Galileo financed out of the European budget. The Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Foreign Affairs urged this very strongly and managed to obtain it. The second step is that Galileo is of course a civilian project, somewhat different in type from the American system, but that it is also necessary and that it is available for operations by EU forces in, for instance, Congo, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Chad. I believe, therefore, that tomorrow will see a change in the majority view in the European Parliament.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, 10 July 2008.

21. EC/Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0278/2008) by Mrs Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 125

between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 (COM(2008)0243 - C6-0199/2008 - 2008/0093(CNS)).

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me first extend my gratitude to the Fisheries Committee and especially to its rapporteur, Mrs Fraga, for her report. This revised protocol has set the fishing possibilities and the financial contribution for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2012. It is the result of a long and complex negotiation process between the European Commission and Mauritania that was launched in October 2007, following serious under-utilisation of the protocol by European ship-owners, namely under-utilisation for cephalopods and the small pelagic species. The main changes introduced in the new protocol are, firstly, related to the duration of the protocol, which we have extended from two to four years, and, secondly, a reduction of the fishing possibilities for cephalopods, following scientific advice, and for small pelagics, following the actual utilisation and the forecasts for the European Union fleet. Thirdly, an overall reduction of the financial contribution over a four-year period, from an average of EUR 86 million per year to an average of EUR 72.25 million per year, but with an increase within this allocation of the part dedicated to supporting the country’s fisheries policy: from EUR 11 million per year in 2008-9 to EUR 20 million per year in 2011-2012. Fourthly, there is a revised procedure for dealing with infringements in Mauritanian waters. This is a well-balanced protocol which conciliates the different interests: the need to adjust the EU financial contribution to reduced fishing possibilities for the EU fleet, and the importance of giving greater support to the fisheries sector in Mauritania so as to encourage the integration of this sector into the Mauritanian National Development strategy. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement contributes 20% of the budgetary revenues of the Mauritanian state, compared to approximately 30-35% in the period 2004-2005. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement amounts to 80% of the overall revenues from the fisheries sector within the state budget. The European Community fishing effort in the Mauritanian EEZ represents 20% of the overall effort – that is both artisanal and industrial fleets. During the negotiations, the Mauritanian side asked the Commission to make every effort to pay the first annual financial contribution by the end of August 2008. This contribution is crucial for the Mauritanian national budget considering, as I said earlier, that annual payments under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement represent 15 to 20% of the country’s budget. It is also of vital importance for EU operators in the region whose activities may suffer in the event of non-payment before that date – that is due to non-ratification on the Community side. I would also like to make reference to the question of relative stability, which was also raised by one of the Member States during the June Council, and to remind you that the Commission has no legal obligation to apply the previous allocation of fishing possibilities (i.e. relative stability) under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement, that is agreements which have a financial compensation, such as the one we are considering today. This is because it needs to guarantee that the allocation reflects the best possible option for ensuring value for money (i.e. optimisation of the utilisation for the financial contribution). Under these agreements, fishing possibilities should be allocated according to other criteria such as the utilisation rate of the previous protocol, the Member States’ requests during negotiations and historical fishing possibilities allocated to the Member States and also the situation/capacity of the fleet.

Carmen Fraga Estévez, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, I would like to say that, once again, we have worked very hard in the Committee on Fisheries so that the Commission and the European Union can honour their commitments. It was perhaps the Commission’s initial lack of interest in the negotiations that led to some of the criticisms in the report about the procedure that was followed, despite the fact that Mauritania continues to be one of the European Union’s major fishing partners and despite the fact that the financial contribution is still one of the largest and involves ever-greater commitments towards developing the Community fisheries sector.

It is therefore difficult to understand why the text that has been negotiated entails a big reduction in the permissible catch of between 25% and 50% for almost all categories of fish and why, in addition to the technical measures, conditions have been accepted which for us are difficult to understand. As we have said on several occasions in this forum, and as Europêche said in a letter to you, Mr Borg, there is not much point in negotiating marvellous fishing opportunities – which is not the case in this Agreement 126 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

– if we then accept technical conditions which prevent us being able to take proper advantage of those possibilities. The minimum size set for octopus bears no relation to the size set for adjacent areas; the additional two-month biological recovery period negotiated at the last minute, virtually unbeknown to the fisheries sector, was based on a poor quality scientific report and was introduced at the request of the Mauritanian party without the necessary prior consultation of the joint scientific committee; it is based solely on cephalopods, despite the fact that the recovery period affects all categories. All of this is a disturbing indication of how the European Commission sometimes negotiates. It is for this reason, Mr President, Mr Borg, that we must renew our insistence on greater involvement for the European Parliament, at least as an observer at the joint committee meetings, as a minimum institutional transparency requirement, which should have been met some time ago. It would not be a bad thing, given the new powers which we hope the European Parliament will acquire with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty – which was imminent and I am convinced must take place soon – for the Council and the Commission to prepare themselves for involving Parliament in a role which, sooner or later, it will be called upon to fulfil. We also hinted in the report that we were disappointed that the Commission, and here I am afraid that I have to disagree with you, Mr Borg, had failed to respect the relative stability of the Agreement, by giving itself powers to relax a criterion which on other occasions it has regarded as virtually sacrosanct, an action which we will keep a very close watch on, as our remit demands.

I hope that in the case to which you referred, that of cephalopods, the allocation keys based on relative stability and on the historic fishing rights in this fishing ground will be respected. We will be very keen to know the outcome of the meetings which have been scheduled in various fora and joint committees to resolve some of the technical questions to which I referred in the report and which can, as is still the case in Morocco, tie up a fleet which desperately needs access to the fishing opportunities for which it is paying large amounts of money. Despite all this, with its duration increased to four years, as you said, this protocol continues, along with the Morocco protocol, to be the most important fisheries collaboration between the European Union and developing countries, and for this reason we obviously seek a vote against the two new amendments proposed and swift approval of the Commission proposal.

Cornelis Visser, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) The fisheries agreement with Mauritania, concluded as recently as 1 August 2006, was due to be extended this year. On 14 December last year the Commission suddenly suggested that it should be terminated since the fishing opportunities were not being fully used by the European fishing fleet, particularly those relating to small pelagic species. This came as a great surprise to us. Partly at the urging of Parliament itself talks were held to re-negotiate the fisheries protocol. The new protocol now put to us by the Commission represents very rigorous cuts compared with the old one. Not only are the fishing opportunities for species not fully taken up in previous years cut, but there are severe cuts for all fish species: 25% for cephalopods, 10 to 50% for demersal species and 43% for pelagics, whilst the financial compensation paid to Mauritania remains unchanged or only slightly reduced in the years ahead. We wonder if these cuts were really necessary and what was the rationale behind them, especially since the fishery sector is currently experiencing great difficulties due to the crisis over fuel prices and the cuts in fishing opportunities. There would thus seem to be no obvious reason to limit fishing opportunities further, certainly when there was no biological or scientific need to do so. The fishery sector must be able to use any fishing opportunity there is just at present. One possibility, for example, might be to switch the Mediterranean tuna fishery to Mauritania. The Dutch pelagic fishing fleet is also hit by the proposed restrictions, especially on pollock, herring and mackerel. So much for Mauritania. A brief word or two on the Commission's proposals. I am very happy with these, if not with the proposals on Mauritania. I think there are many useful pointers for adapting the fleet in response to the fuel crisis and I hope that these new measures will be enough to prevent job losses in the sector.

Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, the noteworthy fact about this new protocol is that although its duration has been extended from two to four years, fishing opportunities have been reduced. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 127

The allocation of licences under the protocol for category 5 (cephalopods), which gives Spain 24 licences, will not please the Spanish administration because that number is not enough to satisfy the applications from the sector directly affected by this category. The Council has the power to decide on a new allocation of licences, taking utilisation into account. However, in this case it has not been based on averages but on the period between late 2007 and early 2008, when the situation engendered by the disputes with Mauritania, due to the use of certain technical measures, led to a large part of the European fleet being reluctant to conclude this Agreement, due to the fear of boarding, as happened in the first quarter of 2008. Since the new protocol has solved the technical problems and opened up a more secure procedure for settling technical differences between the parties, that will surely lead to a greater number of vessels wanting to access this fishing ground, which is becoming safer by the day, and therefore offering more guarantees, than in the previous protocol.

Marie Anne Isler Béguin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to fisheries agreements, we Greens have an interpretation which is slightly different from those of the other groups. We regard fisheries agreements as falling not only under the heading of purely and strictly commercial agreements, but also under the heading of European policies. That is why I shall be referring to the opinion of the Committee on Development, which also emphasises our commitments on providing development aid and supporting democracy and good governance. The question which we have already asked in the discussions within the Committee on Fisheries is why the Commission has threatened to terminate the fisheries agreements with Mauritania barely a year after they were signed. As far as we are concerned, fisheries agreements are not merely agreements in which we are allowed to utilise a resource and pay for it, and when we utilise less we pay less. No, we are cutting fishing opportunities because the European fishing fleet has utilised less in the areas concerned. Yet is it Mauritania’s responsibility, is it Mauritania’s fault, if the European fleet has gone elsewhere for certain fishing categories? We have always asked that fisheries resources be respected in other fisheries agreements, and we have always said that too much was being utilised and that in any case there would come a time when resources would be reduced. This is exactly what is happening at the moment. We agree with the Commission that resources should be restored to the level at which fishing is viable, and that that is a good thing. However, there is something else which we certainly do not agree with. During the discussions which took place we asked what would happen when the compensation is reduced in line with the level of fishing, so that the compensation would be reduced from EUR 86 million to EUR 70 million, which would mean that Mauritania’s income would be reduced by EUR 40 million over a period of three years. You told us, ‘There is no problem. We cannot switch from the fishing quota to something different, and decide to work on development instead’. We understand this too, and you undertook, on behalf of the Commission, to ensure that there would be compensation for those EUR 40 million as part of development policy. Yet today, in this agreement, we cannot see any sign of this compensation except in a footnote which says that the possibility of compensation exists. So we do not believe in this compensation, and I think that you have deceived Mauritania to some extent in this agreement, because no provision has been made for the agreed compensation. If you will permit, I should just like to remind you that when I was head of the EU mission covering the elections in Mauritania, the European Union undertook to support this young democracy, yet our first political act is to threaten to terminate the fisheries agreements. This is not, in my opinion, a policy of development aid, and I should really like to know what guarantee you can give us, as MEPs, regarding this compensation for the reduction decided on.

Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the fisheries agreement between Europe and Mauritania, about which our fellow Member and friend Mrs Fraga Estévez has written a report, covers one of the richest regions of the world in terms of fish stocks. That is why, for example, in Dakhla, the former Spanish capital Villa Cisneros, in that part of Western Sahara now under Moroccan control, there is a 40 km sea inlet which is called the Rio de Oro, or Gold River, because of the reflection of sunlight on the scales of the shoals of fish. In the past, this abundance of fish has actually caused us problems with Morocco. Now we are having to tackle a similar problem, but one which concerns fishing in Mauritania from 2008 to 2012. This is an area 128 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

where octopus and cephalopod stocks, for example, may decline, hence the biological recovery period, but where, conversely, it is essential to fish for sardines, since the sardine is a predator of the octopus. In practical terms, this means first of all distributing the fishing quotas, the licences, between five European countries, including Spain, obviously, and Italy, but also Portugal, Mr President, and there are some other vessels, freezer trawlers, perhaps from the Baltic States. After that, it is a matter of reducing catches from approximately 400 000 tons to 250 000 tonnes because, strangely enough, these quotas are not being used, and this also applies to Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara, which is something, General Morillon, that our Mediterranean tuna fishermen can only dream about. In Mauritania, the average use of fishing opportunities ranges from 90% for crustaceans to a mere 22% for tuna. As in all these agreements and protocols, there is obviously a financial contribution which is paid for the right to fish, and which is round EUR 300-305 million over four years, at the rate of EUR 70 or 80 million a year. Mr Borg has told us how important this contribution is, since it represents approximately 15% of Mauritania’s annual budget. This operation is also advantageous for Mauritania because the contribution remains at more or less the same level whereas catches, by contrast, are declining. Nevertheless, the Mauritanians are causing a serious problem by their harassment of our vessels, and by the boardings which they carry out simply in order to collect fines along the way, although it is true that the European Commission, as Mrs Isler Béguin reminded us just now, has not been particularly sympathetic here, and is now putting pressure on the Mauritanian Government. Although fishing is obviously very important in these areas, on the Moroccan side, for example in Dakhla, the fish is exported to Brazil and provides a living for the entire town, hence the concern, on the part of the FAO and the ACP countries, to have a sustainable fishing industry and a code of good conduct. Mr President, perhaps in spite of the conduct of the European Commission, which has not always been very ‘good’ during these negotiations with the young democracy of Mauritania, we should nevertheless welcome this agreement, because it is perhaps one of the last that we shall obtain in this region, now that Morocco wants to preserve and resume control of its natural resources.

Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we had great hopes that renegotiation of the protocol to the Agreement with Mauritania might be able to make up for the previous poor negotiation; we also thought that it would serve to rectify the unsatisfactory outcome to the negotiation of the Morocco Agreement for the commercially important cephalopod fleet, which has huge socioeconomic significance in Galicia and has therefore been suffering the effects of these two poorly negotiated agreements, in addition to the general crisis in the fisheries sector. However, it was not to be, and so we cannot praise or congratulate the Commission on this outcome. In general, there is a huge reduction in fishing opportunities and financial compensation is not tailored to that reduction. Little heed has been paid to the sector affected, and the technical measures which have been agreed, besides being ambiguous, are prejudicial to the Community fleet. In the case of cephalopods, the minimum size for octopus, as the report said, is the highest in the region, and there is no need for it, with the result that this cephalopod fleet has effectively been finished off and, as if that were not enough, the allocation of licences is damaging to relative stability, which is harmful to the Spanish fleet. As you will understand, Mr Borg, although we very much regret the fact, all these considerations mean that we cannot congratulate you on the results achieved in this case, because I believe that they could and should have been much better.

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the interesting comments and the debate that we have had. I would like to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. First of all you are correct to point out that there are fewer fishing opportunities under this revised protocol. This was precisely the reason behind our decision to effect a renegotiation, because we needed to ensure maximum utilisation of the fishing opportunities, whereas under the previous situation there was significant under-utilisation of the fishing possibilities both with regard to small pelagics and with regard to cephalopods.

On the issue of technical requirements, for example with regard to dredges, we hope that we will find a solution quickly to this issue, and the Mauritanian authorities are very well disposed to finding a solution to the satisfaction of both sides. Regarding rest periods, this request came originally from the industry since they maintain that, after such rest periods, catches become more profitable. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 129

On the question of setting the minimum size for octopus at 500 g, I need to make the point that we are dealing with a third country, a sovereign nation, Mauritania, and its own regulation specifies that the minimum size for octopus is 500 g. This was a line we could not cross during negotiations: one cannot ask a third country to change its legislation because it is interesting to our own fishermen to catch smaller-sized cephalopods. However, we do recognise that there is not one harmonised regulation on the subject in the region. There are other countries which allow catches of cephalopods of smaller size, and therefore a decision on this matter should be taken within the COPACE organisation. On the issue of allocation keys, i.e. what is known as ‘relative stability’, as I said before the Commission is not bound to transfer relative stability from one agreement to another or from one protocol to another. However, it is provided for in the agreement and in the protocol that, should Member States need more opportunities, and should such requests be based on science, on the state of the stock, then such requests could certainly be considered, and I would undertake to take them up with Mauritania in order to negotiate increases, as in the case for example of cephalopods, if there is a specific request to do so. I need to make the point that with regard to cephalopods licences were utilised on 22 occasions and in the new protocol there is provision for 25, so we are actually catering for creating a buffer, allowing for utilisation. If the particular Member State involved maintains that they have requests in excess of 25, as long as they give us the specific facts, we will take those up with Mauritania in order to bring about an increase, always as long as the state of the stock allows. I need to underline the fact that with regard to cephalopods we do have problems concerning the sustainability and the health of the stock.

Again on the question of this whole issue of relative stability, I would also like to point out that one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. On one hand, when it comes to the allocation of cephalopods, the allocation seems not to please one particular Member State. But then when it comes to tuna where there is a significant increase of allocations for that same Member State, then that works out in the Member State’s favour and we have received no complaints in that regard. Concerning the reason for the denunciation and the renegotiation of the protocol, namely that it was under-utilised, again I would like to make the point made by Mrs Isler Béguin that such agreements are not only about fisheries but also about development assistance. In fact, whereas we have decreased the financial component for fishing opportunities, there is a clear undertaking on our part to increase the development component, and we are fully committed to respect this. Therefore, in total, the financial allocation has been maintained over the four-year term. The budgetary support to the 10th EDF will compensate for the remaining EUR 40 million for 2009/10-2012 at the rate of EUR 10 million per year and this means that Mauritania will be receiving a financial package which, when you take into account both what they are receiving by way of compensation for fishing opportunities – which have been reduced on the basis of what was actually being fished in Mauritanian waters – and the increase to the budgetary support through the 10th EDF ad hoc compensation within this protocol, we end up with a situation where the total package is equivalent to the fishing package that they had under the previous financial protocol. Finally on the issue of boarding I would like to say that a meeting of the working group will be held this Sunday, this weekend, in order to discuss this specific issue and to agree on recommendations and guidelines that should solve the issue. On the point made by Mrs Fraga at the very outset concerning participation of MEPs, the Commission considers that the same approach that is followed for the participation of MEPs in bilateral negotiations has to be followed as regards joint committees where the two parties are officially represented. The Commission will, however, continue to cooperate with Parliament on the basis of the framework agreement that exists.

Carmen Fraga Estévez, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, I will try to be systematic. In the first place, with regard to the point made by Mrs Isler Béguin, I would point out that the funds for development cooperation increase over the four years that the protocol is in force. It is the total financial contribution which is being reduced by 19 %, but amounts allocated to development cooperation are increasing to EUR 11 million, EUR 16 million, EUR 18 million and EUR 20 million, so as far as development cooperation is concerned you need have no worries, because those amounts are actually being increased. 130 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Mr Borg, as regards the minimum size for octopus, and since the technical measures are important for take-up of fishing opportunities, I would say that this is not a problem which needs to be dealt with at this juncture. You know very well that the matter is still pending. I keep on saying this: the size is the highest in the whole region. The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) said at its meeting this year that a common minimum size should be set for the whole region and I think that here the Commission should make an effort to ensure that this matter ceases to be an issue. The report drawn up by the Mauritanian scientific committee states that in November, for example, 50% of the catch in the Mauritanian fishing ground can be octopus of between 300 and 500 grams, in other words there is a problem with minimum size in the Mauritanian fishing ground and elsewhere. With regard to relative stability, I am not going to get into an argument with you, but this is a topic which we have discussed in Parliament, one which is in the basic regulation which we have been discussing along with the regulation of licences for third countries, but the initial allocation is another matter. The initial allocation needs to respect historical rights and then if, under that allocation, fishing opportunities are not taken up, the Commission may, I agree, give them to whoever wants them and applies for them, but initially it is the historical rights which must be respected and, in the case of category five in Mauritania, this has not been the case, Mr Borg. I will not elaborate any further. I could answer more questions, but I think that, even though I cannot see very well without my glasses, I have run out of time.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, 10 July 2008.

22. Common consular instructions: biometric identifiers and visa applications (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0459/2007) by Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Common Consular Instructions on visas for diplomatic missions and consular posts in relation to the introduction of biometrics including provisions on the organisation of the reception and processing of visa applications (COM(2006)0269 - C6-0166/2006 - 2006/0088(COD)).

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, in my opinion, the vote on this proposal is taking place at a stage in the discussions where perhaps not all the options for achieving agreement at first reading have been sufficiently explored. Following the adoption of the draft report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 29 November 2007, the Slovenian Presidency tried to reach a consensus between Member States on the rewording of several aspects of the text, so as to take into account the concerns expressed by the European Parliament.

In spite of this, there was disagreement with the report adopted by the Committee on three major issues. The first of these was the age limit for obtaining fingerprints, the second was the diplomatic and consular immunity granted to the premises of external service providers, and the third was the conditions for using such external service providers, together with the question of visa fees. On these three issues, the Slovenian Presidency proposed new wording to take into account Parliament’s amendments. At the tripartite ministerial talks on 17 June, the discussion essentially concentrated on the issue of diplomatic and consular immunity for external service providers, and its corollary, the transmission of data, without any agreement being reached. The other subjects were not discussed. Since then, there has been no new debate within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. On the extremely sensitive subject of the age limit for fingerprinting, the additional technical information provided to the rapporteur by the Commission confirms the technical reliability of taking fingerprints of children from the age of six. Nevertheless, the Commission supports the Presidency’s proposal that fingerprints should be taken from children between the ages of six and twelve only for verification purposes and not for identification in the VIS (Visa Information System). In addition, the Commission has also undertaken to carry out the study requested by the European Parliament. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 131

Moreover, I note that this solution seems to have been chosen for the proposal on passports, on which the European Parliament has to make a decision. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be useful to continue discussions on this point, in order to find out whether this suggestion might meet with Parliament’s approval. Another issue concerns the use of external service providers. The conditions in which Member States may use such service providers, as a last resort, have been specified, and a list of requirements to be complied with has been drawn up, based on Parliament’s amendments. Discussions on this subject should also continue. I should like to remind you that the adoption of this amendment to the common consular instructions constitutes an essential prerequisite for the implementation of the VIS. Even though the regulation and decision establishing the VIS were adopted at first reading following an agreement between Parliament and the Council, it is true to say that if the present proposal has to go to a second reading this will run the risk of compromising the launch of the VIS in May 2009. It is therefore essential to reach a rapid overall compromise on this proposal. Well, I am here, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to confirm the Commission’s commitment to continuing the negotiations and discussions, particularly, of course, with your rapporteur Baroness Ludford, and also with the Council, in order to achieve a satisfactory compromise in the coming months. Once again, it seems to me that this compromise is something that is achievable, provided that the work is carried out thoroughly and that there is a sustained dialogue between the Council and Parliament, a dialogue which the Commission will obviously do its best to assist and encourage.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN Vice-President

Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. − Mr President, this is the third element of the Visa Information System (VIS) package. In modifying the existing Common Consular Instructions, it provides, firstly, for the obligation to give the biometrics to be stored in the VIS and the standards for doing so and, secondly, for the organisation of the reception of visa applications. It would, indeed, allow the VIS to start operations. Although a complete revision of the visa rules is foreseen with the Visa Code on which my colleague, Henrik Lax, is rapporteur, the rationale for making a specific proposal separately is that the adoption of the Visa Code is likely to take even longer. But it is important to ensure coherence between the two proposals. I have been discussing and negotiating with the Council for a considerable period. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted my report last November and I am sorry I am not able to present a first-reading agreement today, but I believe that is partly because the Council has been rather slow, but also because it does not appear willing to respond with a real movement towards the points that we are making. So I am asking my colleagues to endorse the report, as adopted in committee, and hopefully the new presidency will be able to persuade Member States to take our opinion more carefully into account. I would cover the same ground as the Commissioner but would put the issues into four groups rather than three. The first concerns what I see as the Council’s willingness to go forward with fingerprinting young children, while ignoring both the issues of principle and the significant costs and inconvenience for the parents with the problems of frequent changes of child fingerprints and also the problem of false matches or rejections. I do not believe I have had full information from the Commission. Secondly, what I feel is a lack of willingness to work together on the part of the Member States in trying to deal with the new challenge of organising the collection of biometrics together. Thirdly, insufficient regard for data protection and data security: despite a series of data loss scandals, Member States are not sufficiently sensitised to safeguarding personal data from loss, interception by a third state or technical faults. Lastly, the question of the visa fee. I do not think it is right that Member States should make visa applicants pay for their own administrative choices by allowing commercial companies with which they make contracts for collecting biometrics to charge an extra fee on top of the visa fee. I believe that, despite repeated requests, the Commission and Council have failed to provide credible substantive evidence supporting the proposals to start fingerprinting children from the age of six. I think there could be considerable extra costs if you have to take them every two years. So what we are proposing is to exempt children under 12, initially, from the obligation to provide fingerprints, but have a review after three years, following a detailed study on the 132 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

technical feasibility, reliability and proportionality of the taking of fingerprints from young children. I believe that would be a sensible way forward. On outsourcing, I have no problems with the general concept, in so far as it improves services for visa applicants and as long as it takes place under conditions ensuring the integrity of the visa-issuing process, that it is a last resort and that the service provider operates in the building under diplomatic protection, ensuring consular officials are present to supervise the staff of the service provider. This would guarantee that data protection is ensured and the material protected from seizure, but I am not getting any concession from the Council on this point. Also I am finding that Member States are not even willing to explore co-location with another Member State or a common application centre. I will just finish by saying that I went for an opinion to the Article 29 Working Party of national data protection supervisors. They pointed out a paradox whereby, while there is reinforcement of the reliability and security of visas by introducing biometrics on the other hand, if you have means of collection which are not of the same level of security as can be ensured in a consulate or consular section of an Embassy, this weakens the reliability of the whole process. I will deal with any other points, particularly on the visa fee, in my concluding remarks.

Ewa Klamt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal to amend the Common Consular Instructions is urgently necessary in an EU of open borders. My group strongly supports Sarah Ludford’s report. I thank the rapporteur for the good cooperation, thanks to which the European Parliament’s Groups managed largely to agree on a joint text.

The Common Consular Instructions need to be redefined and adapted to the situation today. In future applicants for visas will be identified beyond any doubt by the collection of biometric data such as photographs and fingerprints. It became clear in the past that some Member States, among them Germany, were interpreting and applying the existing rules differently and therefore not uniformly. In 2000, for example, German consulates and embassies were instructed to be less bureaucratic in issuing visas and when in doubt to decide to grant a visa. As a result of the generosity with which the German Embassy in Kiev tended to grant visas, the number of visas issued to Ukrainian nationals rose from about 150 000 in 1999 to about 300 000 in 2001, which led to a considerable rise in illegal immigrants in the Schengen area. It is therefore urgently necessary to ensure that all Member States apply the rules on issuing Schengen visas in a uniform manner. My Group is in favour of seeking a compromise between the Council and the European Parliament, as Commissioner Barrot just suggested. Our Group endorses nearly every point in Baroness Ludford’s report. The only points we cannot endorse concern the age limit for children and fingerprinting. We support the Commission’s proposal to set the age limit for children at six years. My Group considers it most important to keep to that age limit in order to prevent child trafficking in the European Union.

Martine Roure, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank Baroness Ludford for her proposed report, which my Group fully endorses. The European Union’s visa policy is a reflection of how we welcome people. That is why we want to find a solution that will enable us to guarantee the security of European visas while respecting the fundamental rights of third-country nationals who apply for them, particularly with regard to the protection of personal data. With this in mind, I hope that the Council can understand the European Parliament’s requirements. We must find a solution which is acceptable to everyone. I share the rapporteur’s concern about the outsourcing of the collection and processing of the biometric data inserted into the visas. We do not believe that it is enough simply to validate the practices of Member States. If we are to have a real common visa policy, it is essential that Member States study the feasibility of the other options proposed before resorting to outsourcing. It is also our priority to ensure that the privacy of people who provide biometric data is protected. We believe it is essential to define very clearly the contracts of the external service providers who might be collecting these biometric data. Moreover, in order to guarantee the security of these data it seems to me absolutely vital that they should be collected on premises which enjoy real protection. Regarding the age limit for the collection of biometric data, I do not have any ideological opinion on the subject. However, I think that our present level of experience does not enable us to guarantee that the 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 133

fingerprints of children less than 12 years old are sufficiently reliable to enable them to be collected in order to be used. I think that that would give a false impression of security. That is why I should like us to adopt a precautionary principle by fixing a lower age limit of 12 years for the collection of fingerprints, and that limit can then be revised, once we have at our disposal the independent study which the Commissioner has promised us, which will supply all the necessary information about the reliability of children’s fingerprints. As for the price of visas, fixed of course by the Council, this should be a maximum price. We cannot expect visa applicants to bear the financial burden of the additional requirements of the European Union. Finally, I should like to say, Commissioner, that I appreciate the work that you have put into these negotiations, because the European Parliament wants its voice to be heard, and at the moment the Council does not seem to be listening to our basic arguments.

Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group I would like to thank to thank Ms Ludford for the excellent cooperation she demonstrated, as usual. Nevertheless, a number of principal points make us very anxious. We fully agree with the European Data Protection Supervisor that using biometrics in information systems is never an insignificant choice, especially when the system in question concerns such a huge number of individuals. Therefore, in our opinion the VIS regulation itself would be a more appropriate place to include provisions specifying both general rules and exceptions.

Also the age under which the children are exempted from the obligation to provide fingerprints raises many questions, as we have heard. Here we thank the rapporteur and other colleagues for the sensible decision to change it from 6 to 12. However, the scientific literature does not present evidence that fingerprinting of children below the age of 14 can provide for reliable identification. The second problem is the outsourcing of visa applications. Here we need to provide for the necessary safeguards to ensure data protection compliance. Also, in this respect the rapporteur has managed to achieve significant progress if we compare the initial text of the Commission with the text suggested now. Nevertheless, our group strongly opposes the extensive introduction of biometrics. We believe that it has crucial implications for data security and for fundamental rights without highlighting any significant gains. Also, recent events in Italy clearly show how easily the use of fingerprinting can become the abuse of power. To sum up, we really appreciate the rapporteur’s efforts and her courage in order to achieve the best results. Nevertheless, the Verts/ALE Group is very reluctant to accept any use of biometrics in the EU until its necessity is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore we cannot vote in favour of the report.

Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I am in favour of introducing uniform conditions for issuing visas in order to prevent what is called visa shopping. I am, however, opposed on principle to including biometric data in visas, especially in the case of small children. I find that totally inappropriate. Moreover, we cannot propose to fingerprint six-year olds without, for instance, first being able to produce a broadly-based independent study on the use of fingerprints of children of that age and without knowing how long such children’s fingerprints can be kept in the first place. I do not think we can or should pass laws on that kind of basis. I also see problems with implementing the proposed new regulation. All applicants, including children, are now supposed to appear in person at the consulate in order to be fingerprinted. That may be too much to expect of people living in remote areas in large countries. It could mean that the less well-off, especially families, will find it almost impossible to apply for a visa to travel to the European Union. Is that really the image the European Union wants to project abroad? The Council and the Commission are trying to counter that by looking to the private sector. They propose giving external service providers the right to receive visa applications and biometric data and forward them to the appropriate consulates. The costs involved are then actually to be passed on to the applicants. And that is not all! In my view that is not the way to ensure that all these extremely sensitive data are kept safe and confidential. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that outsourcing, which should in any case only be 134 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

allowed under the most stringent conditions, is permitted only on premises that enjoy diplomatic protection. On this issue, I emphatically support the rapporteur.

Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it was our intention with this initiative to guarantee interoperability between all Member States, ensure the same level of protection for personal data and equal treatment for all asylum seekers. I particularly support the efforts to facilitate procedures for issuing visas to applicants through the one-stop shop principle, and with the collection of biometric identifiers, that is, a facial image and ten fingerprints from the applicants, for storage in a centralised Visa Information System (VIS). We should emphasise that these data will be used for identification, as Vice-President Barrot has already pointed out. This is very different to what happens with European passports, where it is only permitted to take two fingerprints so they cannot be used for anything other than verification, that is, ‘one-to-one’ comparison. From this point of view, I welcome the European Commission’s willingness, as revealed just now in plenary by Vice-President Barrot, to cooperate by conducting the study requested by Parliament on the feasibility of taking the fingerprints of children. Mr President, given that we are going to carry out a complete review of the Community Code on Visas, separate discussion of this specific proposal would only have made sense if it would have speeded up the process. However, this objective will not achieved. We will be voting tomorrow on a proposal on which no agreement was reached at first reading and that represents only the first phase of a slow process. I therefore have serious doubts about the need to continue discussing this proposal separately, when its timetable seems to be very similar to that of the review of the code itself.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, just a quick point. The greatest civil liberty we all have is life itself. There is always a debate and polarisation when we are discussing issues around extra security measures – issues which might be perceived to be limiting what we generally refer to as civil liberties. I just want to be sure that the Commissioner is satisfied that the necessary checks and balances will go hand in hand with what is before us here now; to be sure that we are not going one step beyond what is actually warranted; to ensure that we are only putting in place the security measures, the identification measures that the world we are living in today actually warrants. We have just been reminded by my colleague Mr Coelho that failure to reach agreement on this at the first reading carries a huge message. This is a very sensitive area and more and more our citizens are questioning the ‘liberty’ – to use the word generically – being removed from them. I finish on this point: the greatest civil liberty is life. We must do all that is genuinely warranted to protect life in terms of security and extra measures. I would like assurances from you that the checks and balances are there nonetheless.

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I have listened carefully to the various speakers. First of all I should just like to remind you of the information which has already been added to this file. On the subject of children’s fingerprints, it was said that figures showed that the quality and reliability of fingerprints on a data base containing details of 1.5 million visa applicants were of a high standard, and I was told that a technical document supporting this position had been sent to Baroness Ludford. However, for my own part I should like to assure you, in any case, that I am perfectly ready to launch the study which you have quite rightly asked for, so that we can really see how reliable these biometric data are, and also whether they are advisable or not. I think that that is a very good idea. I did wonder, Baroness Ludford, whether perhaps we might reach a compromise by making a distinction between the fingerprints taken from children between the ages of six and twelve, which would be used solely for verification purposes, and the fingerprints of children older than twelve, which could actually be used for other purposes. Anyway, I shall continue to do what I can to reach a compromise with the new Presidency of the EU, by trying to ensure that Parliament’s wishes are taken into consideration to a greater extent. On the second point, i.e. outsourcing, we have certainly had some concerns about the annex, which lists the minimum requirements to be included in contracts signed by Member States with external service providers. The Commission had also issued a document listing the various technical methods for making data secure. However, I appreciate your concerns about this issue of data security, and it is true that there could be a risk, in a third country, that data held at the premises of an external service provider might be the subject of seizure or compulsory search. It is essential to recognize that we should be on our guard against this risk. I am 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 135

cautiously optimistic that the dialogue on this question will continue. Those are my thoughts. It is true, as Mr Coelho has said, that we could try to ensure that this report and the visa code are processed side-by-side, as it were. Having said that, I can only confirm, to Parliament and to the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, whom I should like to thank for all her work, that I am nevertheless determined to reach a compromise fairly rapidly, by asking the Council to listen more to Parliament, and also by hoping that Parliament, for its part, bearing in mind the commitments which the Commission will be making, will show a certain amount of understanding. This is the price we shall have to pay if we want to achieve a compromise. I am emphasising this point slightly, because we want a visa information system which is effective and fair, and if we are to achieve such a system, then the problems which we have discussed will have to be resolved, Mr President, and I should like to thank those MEPs who have expressed their opinions this evening.

Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank all colleagues and especially the shadows I have worked with. We have had very constructive work together and I have welcomed their positive contributions. They have all been very engaged and I have been very grateful. I want the VIS to work and to get going as soon as possible. In a sense it is my baby, as I was the rapporteur on the system itself. But, as colleagues have stressed, we are talking about very sensitive personal data and maybe 70 million entries at any one time. The VIS cannot afford to be treated as one vast experiment. We must proceed on a precautionary basis. I agree with those like Mrs Ždanoka and Mrs Roure that we do not have enough experience to be confident of avoiding problems, for instance with fingerprinting six-year-olds.

The Commissioner talked about whether we might not get going on the basis of having only verification between 6 and 12. Now that might meet some concerns, but not, I think, those of practicality and the cost of having to collect them every two years. Frankly, I do not think the Council thought that one through at all. As Mrs Roure pointed out we are supposed to be building – or already to have – a common visa policy. That is why it is so disappointing that Member States basically have no willingness at all to cooperate on the same premises, and that they want to apply different visa fees by topping up the EUR 60. I would like the Commission to be rather proactive in trying to push the Member States to cooperate in different locations. Mrs Klamt, whom I very much thank for her constructive criticism and willingness to work with us, has suggested that taking fingerprints of children from the age of six would be an effective tool against child trafficking. I have to say I am not aware of any serious research suggesting it would achieve this aim. Why choose the age of six? Why not five, or four, or three, or indeed zero? There might be a far bigger risk of baby-snatching than of six-year-olds being kidnapped. Finally, Mr Coelho’s suggestion to merge this report with the visa code is an interesting one. He has thrown what cricketers call a ‘googly’ into this debate and I think we will have to take that back to the committee and see what they think about that. In one sense I am open-minded but I think it is up to the committee.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Thursday, 10 July 2008.

23. European Union fishing fleet affected by the economic crisis (debate)

President. − The next item is the joint debate on the proposal for a Council Regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Union fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis (Committee on Fisheries) (COM(2008)0454 - C6-0270/2008 - 2008/0144(CNS)).

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, firstly I am very grateful to the European Parliament for arranging this debate at such short notice. As you are aware, yesterday the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation containing key elements of the EU package of emergency measures to address the fuel crisis. Today I am seeking your agreement to this proposal. 136 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Unfortunately it was impossible for the Commission to adopt its proposal on 3 July as had initially been planned. The reason for that is the depth of the analysis that had to go into the proposal, to guarantee that it is a really effective instrument to address the severe problems the sector is facing. The Committee on Fisheries held a useful discussion this morning, for which I am thankful. A number of questions could be clarified and debated and I hope to be able to take the important and useful suggestions into consideration during negotiations in the Council next week. I am looking forward to more debate with you, now hoping that this can pave the way to your favourable opinion on our proposal in the vote tomorrow. As I explained to you only three weeks ago, the fisheries sector is facing a crisis which is structural and long lasting. For many years, the EU fleet has suffered from a vicious circle of overcapacity, overfishing and declining profitability. At the same time, fishers have been unable to benefit from reduced supply and rising retail prices for fish products. As a result, profits are decreasing, making the sector more vulnerable than others to a drastic rise in costs, such as we have seen with the price of oil. The Commission understands the need for coordinated action at EU level to avert a severe crisis for the industry and to ensure that the problem is really tackled head on. This means not only providing the possibility of emergency relief but committing to finally addressing the underlying issue of overcapacity, which is undermining all our attempts to get the industry back on a sustainable and profitable footing. For these reasons, the Commission has proposed an emergency package of measures to tackle the immediate social and economic hardship triggered by the dramatic rise in the price of oil, while also tackling the underlying structural problems of the European fleet. I believe that it is vital to focus aid on the fleets which are most dependent on fuel and thus most affected by the current overcapacity. We therefore propose that Member States can immediately grant temporary cessation aid as a lead-in measure to restructuring and that they can then set up Fleet Adaptation Schemes under which limitations on access to permanent cessation – scrapping – premiums will be lifted. Additional aid for temporary cessation, as well as modernisation and energy efficiency, would be available for vessels involved in such schemes. Partial decommissioning aid would be granted to operators who replace larger old vessels with smaller, more energy-efficient ones. Based on further economic analyses, possible modifications to the de minimis regime for fisheries may also be considered. We will, furthermore, propose provisions to allow for temporary reductions in employees’ contributions to social security payments. A number of specific initiatives to promote the value of fish at the first point of sale are also envisaged. The Commission is planning to assist ad hoc projects in this area, in addition to the funds available under the European Fisheries Fund. Further measures are planned to encourage the shift to energy-saving technologies, cushion the socioeconomic impact of the crisis, and facilitate the reprogramming and the disbursement of EFF funds. The above measures will consist of temporary derogations to the rules of the European Fisheries Fund so as to support faster adaptation of the EU fleet to the present situation and provide temporary relief during the transitional phase. I believe that these measures will help give an essential thrust to the industry to structurally adapt, whilst easing the transition for fishermen, vessel owners and people employed in support services during the period of adaptation. The Commission has engaged in very important and constructive discussion with the industry on this matter and the industry gives general support to our initiatives. With regard to the official amendments that have been tabled by Parliament to the Commission proposal, we can accept the amendment referring to Recital 13 and, in fact, it should be applied to all vessels. However, the Commission cannot support the amendment to Article 18(2) as this would make the partial decommissioning measure virtually impossible to apply in practice. Finally, and very importantly, let me express my belief that throughout this process we can give further impetus to the common fisheries policy, in particular in the context of resource sustainability. I am aware of the very short deadline and that this leaves the European Parliament with little time to react. However, given the exceptional situation being faced by the fisheries sector, I trust I can count on the support of Parliament to adopt the said measures as speedily as possible. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 137

Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, firstly, I agree with Mr Borg that it is a pity that we have had to work in this way, on the basis of unofficial documents which have not yet been translated into all the languages, when for some considerable time this Parliament has been requesting measures and sounding the alert about the serious crisis threatening the fishing industry. Obviously, Mr Borg, we too have accepted the urgency out of respect for our fisheries sector. Likewise, I would like to stress that this proposal is, as Mr Borg indicated, just one element of a package of measures and that we do not have a timetable or the salient details which would enable us to make an overall assessment of the new de minimis measures, the amendments to State aid, the guidelines for the new common organisation of the market, or the new ad hoc financial instrument, to which the Commission proposal refers. As regards the modification to the European Fisheries Fund proposed by the Commission, I appreciate the efforts at flexibility, although it would have been more practical to follow the European Parliament’s proposals at the time they were adopted, proposals which were more appropriate for times of crisis, such as changes to engines, and which might, perhaps, have been able to prevent this steep descent towards scrapping which now faces us. I am also very grateful, and I really mean this, for Mr Borg’s willingness this morning to include various amendments suggested in the Fisheries Committee, including my own proposal, and for accepting that the period of reference for accessing benefits under the Fleet Adaptation Scheme should include turnover for the first six months of 2008, which was the time of the highest fuel price rises, in addition to 2007.

Lastly, we would like the Member States affected to make greater efforts to implement these measures, as well as the other measures. The ball really lies in their court; they need to act swiftly in order to ensure as far as possible that these measures, and those which are still pending, really help to alleviate the crisis in the fishing industry. I would not like what happened with the Regulation on illegal, undocumented and unregulated (IUU) fishing, where the Council decided that it would not enter into force until 2009, to happen here.

Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I spoke at the plenary in June and emphasised the need for Europeans to tackle this crisis together through an effective and impartial mechanism capable of allowing emergency measures to be adopted at Community level. We European socialists are pleased that the problems in this sector have received a response at Community level and that the proposal includes measures which we Members of Parliament, who have debated them here on various occasions, and the governments of the Member States most affected have been demanding for so long. We trust, Mr Borg, that the measures which you are proposing will help to highlight two problems which European fleets have been facing for a long time: excessive fuel dependency and the need to improve the marketing of fisheries products. We agree, as you might expect, with the financing measures, and with some more than others, as for example the temporary cessation of fishing activities and changes to engines and fishing gear; we are also very pleased that the aid is being extended for the first time to shore-based workers, something which socialists have called for on many occasions. We also welcome your own announcement that other, wider-ranging proposals are in the pipeline such as those intended to improve marketing and also the price-setting mechanism, with a consequent increase in the de minimis regime, which, as you said, depends on the outcome of an economic impact study. As you are well aware, we in the Party of European Socialists have foregone the opportunity to amend the proposal so that it can be approved unopposed at tomorrow’s meeting, as you requested, with a view to its adoption by the Fisheries Council in March next year.

Philippe Morillon, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, evidently we are now continuing the debate in which, after almost two hours this morning, we were able to make some progress on this subject. I should just like to refer back, briefly, to three points which I believe are essential. We fully understand your priorities when it comes to exceptional and temporary measures to be put in place to tackle the problems of our fishing fleets, which are major consumers of fuel oil. However, I must emphasise that this should not be at the expense of those who have been able to reduce their energy dependence by 138 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

using fishing methods and equipment which are better suited to current requirements. This is an initial point which I believe, from a psychological viewpoint, needs to be emphasised. Secondly, you have proposed measures which will, of course, have immediate effects, but which will also extend over the medium and long term. These are measures for regulating the market, and they are very welcome, although unfortunately we cannot expect miracles in this area in the very short term. My third and final point is that all this will not prevent us from continuing the debate that we have been having with you since you took up your present position, on a reform of the common fisheries policy which will enable our fishermen to have a better idea of their capacity, so as to avoid the disruptions which occur when TACs and quotas have to be changed suddenly without warning and which, in terms of profitability, are obviously very damaging to the activities of our fishing industry.

Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, the title of the Commission communication and of the Commission’s proposal for a Council regulation is enough to confirm, if there were any doubts, that the measures proposed do not aim to deal with the causes of the current exacerbation of the socioeconomic situation in the fisheries sector. Despite sporadic measures to meet the justified demands of the overwhelming majority of the fisheries sector, we are once again faced with attempts to use the deteriorating financial situation in this sector to introduce measures that further encourage and accelerate the reduction in the number of vessels. We would point out that no concrete proposals are being put forward to respond to the two main issues here: the increase in the price of fuel, diesel and petrol, and the formation and increase in the price of fish at the first point of sale without a corresponding increase for consumers. There are no financial resources to coordinate and implement measures to help the sector deal with the increase in the cost of fuel, yet there are many hundreds of millions of euros available to promote a reduction in vessels, referred to as market measures. No-one wants to grasp the nettle and promote a fair distribution of the added value in the chain. Basically, the Commission is putting forward a series of proposals that are essentially inadequate because they do not respond to the needs of the overwhelming majority of the fisheries sector. This shows that, at the end of the day, the only real objective is the destruction of much of this strategic economic sector.

Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, I continue to see much to welcome in this package, but I do have an abiding concern, and that relates to the all-important issue of delivery. How, Commissioner, do we assure across the EU that these measures do not induce some distortion in competition? Not arising out of anything the Commission may do, but arising from the fact that it is a reality that some Member States are much more enthusiastic about public expenditure and reaching out to help sectors than other Member States, and where there is reticence in some and enthusiasm in others, will there not be an uneven application and drawdown of these measures, with a potential impact on competition? How will you monitor that? Indeed, will you monitor it, and what action will you take if distortion results? My second issue is also somewhat parochial and focuses particularly on the fleet adaptation scheme. Within that, you anticipate special support measures, on condition that the scheme brings about a permanent reduction of 30% in a fleet’s capacity. Take the United Kingdom, Commissioner. There we have three of the constituent countries: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where fishing is a devolved issue, with devolved governments making the decisions. It is entirely conceivable that any one of them could come up with a fleet adjustment scheme for their own region whereby fleet capacity would be reduced by 30%. But taken across the whole United Kingdom, because others have dragged their feet, that may not be the overall outcome. Is that fair? Are there any steps that the Commission can take to alleviate that unfairness? In short, can the Commission look at any steps to deal with that potential inequity in countries where there are regional governments which might be pulling their weight and national governments which are not?

Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I believe that the political direction taken by this proposal, as well as its timing, are absolutely right. I think that these are appropriate measures for the situation we are experiencing in Europe’s seas. I believe that this is the right way to go. If we examine this proposal carefully, the major problem is whether it is workable or not. As the Commissioner requested urgency, Parliament has acted urgently and foregone its right to analyse and present amendments 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 139

to the regulation. However, the problem is in knowing whether it is possible to implement such complex rules as these within the intended period. One clause says that plans for reduction should begin before 30 November. However, these plans to reduce the number of vessels must be formulated by Member States and some of these programmes have to be approved by the European Commission, because the financial resources for the programmes will come from the existing European Fisheries Fund. Such programmes are extremely complex and involve compulsory percentages and some of the rules are almost impenetrable, as the Commissioner has seen today with Article 19(4). This seems to me to be the major problem: will the detail of this proposal make its practical application unfeasible? If so, this would be extremely regrettable. I therefore ask the Commission, the Commissioner and all the Directorate-General officials to think very carefully about the feasibility of what is being proposed here, because if it is not feasible within the proposed period, it is not worth the effort that we are being asked to make here.

Elspeth Attwooll (ALDE). – Mr President, the ALDE Group welcomes the proposal for a regulation but shares the general feeling of regret that we have not had time to submit fully considered amendments to it. It is good, therefore, to hear that the Commission will take full note of the concerns expressed both in committee this morning and in the course of tonight’s debate and that it will negotiate with the Council to make such adjustments as are appropriate. Two such concerns relate to partial decommissioning, both in terms of whether it will detract too much from the targets for capacity reduction and about the uses to which any subsidies might be put. It would be helpful to gain some reassurances from the Commission in these regards. As to the two amendments, the first, we think, is effectively already covered by the text. We sympathise a great deal with the second, as we believe it is intended to address the concerns just mentioned, but we feel that it might actually prove counter-productive to capacity reduction. So, rather than vote in haste to promote its inclusion in a legislative text, we ask the Commission to consider the merits of the idea, and also that of developing other measures that place emphasis on the reduction of fuel consumption. Finally, and on a more personal note, I would point to two sentences in the Commission communication. These read: ‘It is essential that this package is applied in a way that safeguards a level playing field across the Union. There should be no distortion of competition among EU fishermen resulting from the different ability of Member States to mobilise public or Community funding.’ I would endorse the point that has already been made that there should equally be no distortion of competition resulting from the different willingness of Member States to mobilise such funding. I trust that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that each and every one of them with a fishing fleet takes advantage of the opportunities that the regulation offers.

Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Borg, ladies and gentlemen, in this debate there are a number of things we need to recognise. In the first place, if the fishing industry were not crying ‘enough is enough’, we would not be here today debating the urgent need to adopt measures. That is the first thing. Secondly, we need to recognise that the European institutions have taken up this cry of protest. Parliament in particular has already adopted a resolution on the crisis at its last part-session. Moreover, we have to acknowledge, as we told Mr Borg this morning, that the Commission has acted with uncustomary swiftness in presenting us with the package of measures which we are debating today. We should all welcome this. Is everything sorted out, then? No, far from it. We are only just beginning. The Commission has submitted what we might call an initial first-phase document to tackle the crisis, an aid plan focussing on fleet restructuring. We now need the Commission to submit a plan for the second phase, with the same urgency, containing measures to increase fleet profitability and improve marketing as well as measures aimed at promoting the value of fish at the first point of sale, measures for which we have no precise timetable as yet. Nonetheless, the Council and the governments of the Member States have to apply the measures, acting as swiftly as the Commission and Parliament have done, and in line with our requests they must increase controls on imported fish products and launch extensive consumer information campaigns in order to promote the interests of our fishermen. If such a plan did not materialise, and if we were left with what we have on the table today, Mr Borg, all we would have is an ingenious and generous operation which takes advantage of the current crisis to reduce 140 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

the fishing fleet rather than make it more profitable and rescue it from the serious crisis which it is facing today.

Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fisheries sector is certainly the economic sector suffering the most from the current oil shock. We all know this. We therefore welcome the political signal given by the Commission with this package of measures. It will not be the European Parliament that stands in the way of its rapid approval, as my fellow Members have said here. We know there are no magic solutions, given the scale of the problem. Nevertheless, having analysed the Commission's proposals, I cannot hide my enormous disappointment. All the measures point in one direction: a reduction in the number of vessels. Even allegedly emergency measures, such as temporary cessation, are associated with compulsory reductions in the fleet. I do not understand why the measures set out in Article 7 exclude the replacement of engines, and it is also difficult to understand why the Fleet Adaptation Schemes should cover vessels with energy costs equivalent to more than 30% of the production costs. What about the other vessels, Commissioner, which includes almost all of them except trawlers? And what about the coastal fleet, which is socially very important? Nor do I understand why the only vessels covered by the partial reduction programme are those that use one and the same fishing gear and represent 70% of the fleet using that gear. This requirement, coupled with the rule to reduce capacity by 60% and to limit this capacity to 25% in order to support new vessels, makes this measure completely unfeasible, as my colleague Mr Casaca said a short while ago.

Commissioner, I understand how difficult it is for you to find solutions for problems on this scale, but we cannot give the sector the illusion that we are trying to cure their ills when this only leads to reduction and abandonment. It is better to call a spade a spade and say what you are doing. I therefore ask you, despite the short period of time that we have before the Council on Monday, to make an effort to simplify and to be realistic, so that the positive political signal does not become an enormous disappointment to the sector, which is looking to us with great hope.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we are all reacting here within hours of having received the text from the Commission, which contains a package of measures to support our fishing fleet in the present economic crisis. The Commission is providing urgent measures of limited duration, and mainly of a social nature, which are welcome. The social measures apply to self-employed fishermen as well as to employees. In Ireland we have a particular situation following a court judgment some years ago, whereby virtually all our deckhands are self-employed or share-fishermen and have to date been precluded from social security assistance at home when out of work for either economic or weather-related reasons, so I welcome this aspect. In terms of the temporary ‘tie-up’ measures, I would like reassurances from the Commissioner that these will apply to all those who have to tie up for a short time for economic reasons, and that the restriction that they will only be available to those who are part of the restructuring scheme will be applied with the broadest interpretation. An application to restructure in any sense should be enough to allow an application to tie up in this particular area. I also welcome very much the partial decommissioning aid to allow fishermen to trade down to smaller, more climate-friendly and energy-efficient vessels. I would also like to think that the reduced carbon dioxide emissions from such a new contribution to the fleet should be able to be banked by Member States to contribute to their effort-sharing under the climate package, which is rapidly coming down the track towards us, and we should connect the climate package with Member States’ efforts in relation to energy-efficient vessels, smaller vessels and trading down in this particular area. I also think it is very important that we encourage the partial decommissioning proposed in the text because this will allow fishermen who really would love to continue fishing, who have the skills and the expertise of generations, to continue, albeit in a smaller way, while we get over the present economic crisis facing them.

So, thank you for the measures. I sincerely hope that Member States roll them out even-handedly. There is no extra money. It is only from within the EFF. It is rearranging the financial deckchairs, but let us hope that we do not have anti-competitive measures as a result of the Member States’ differing strength of resources to respond. 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 141

Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, I think that we are all well aware of the negative impacts of the current oil and fuel prices. Only in June, Age Concern Scotland said that fuel price rises will leave more vulnerable people struggling to keep warm this winter. A charity spokesman said, and I quote, ‘Every time fuel prices increase by 1%, this results in about a thousand people in Scotland living in fuel poverty’. Many of these are the poorest pensioners, who are on a very low fixed income and could already be living below the poverty line. In this context, we might well ask why the Commission is dashing to the supposed rescue of one particular sector. I say ‘supposed’ rescue because I think we have to question whether the studied rewriting of the EFF guidelines, and potentially the de minimis guidelines, can ensure that we have a sustainable fishing industry. I doubt that this package will satisfy the demands of some of the fishing sector, especially if fuel prices remain high and we still have excess capacity. In a recent reply from the Commission on the extent of overcapacity in the EU fishing fleet, I was informed that the Commission estimates that we have, and I quote, ‘significant overcapacity in some Community fisheries of, on average, at least 40%’. The communication and accompanying Council regulation refer to the need to reduce overcapacity. Let us make sure that is delivered upon.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the hour is late so I will be brief. I think it is important to let you know what the Federation of Irish Fishermen said in June when this package was first announced. They were sceptical and said that it was essential that any such proposal be backed up by significant funding. I think it has already been said that there is no additional funding, and what we are doing is rearranging the current pool of money that is available. I think we need to be honest about that, because this emergency package will take from other measures that may have been needed if oil prices had not caused the problems that they have for the fishing sector and, indeed, for other sectors. It is rather a shame that it took the industry to come out of the sea and go onto the streets for us to react in full. Having said that, there are parts of this package which, if they are implemented – and I think that is the key – should be very positive. I think it is important that fleets that had to get out, so to speak, prior to the announcement of this regulation will be assisted under these measures. But there are lots of other issues for the fishing industry. One that you mentioned, Commissioner, is the fact that prices for fish have gone down rather than up. I would be interested (but perhaps it is too late tonight) to hear how you think that might be addressed, because that is where we will really make progress in the fishing sector. Very often when people have a problem, whether they are farmers or fishermen, they say that Europe reacts too slowly. In this case we have not reacted very quickly, but at least there has been some speed in how we have reached the position we are in. However, as others have said, we have only got the paper. It is complex and it is a bit like the Lisbon Treaty, and I hope it will be accepted – certainly in Ireland, where the Lisbon Treaty was not.

Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome the proposals from the Commission. This time last year I visited my own constituency in Castletownbere. At that time, in July 2007, fishermen were in a fairly bad state as regards the whole industry. Twelve months on, we are now facing up to the problems, and I welcome the proposals that are set out by the Commission here today. However, there is also a need for a response from Member States in other areas in relation to the whole fishing industry. The whole issue which you have raised in your own memorandum about quantity, quality and supply is a very important one and is about making sure that the people who produce and supply the fish get an adequate reward for the work that they do. I think at the end of the day, while the consumer may be paying, it is people in-between who are making quite a large part of the profit from it. I think one of the things that we need to change is the whole area of voluntary labelling. We need to bring in that mechanism so that we can clearly identify the product that comes from outside the European Union and, in many cases, the product that is not caught in compliance with the regulations that are laid down. I think there needs to be change in that area. There is too much product coming into the EU which is not properly caught in accordance with regulations, and we are not doing enough in that area to make sure that we do have a level playing field for all the people within the EU. I think that is a major area that we need to work on. While I welcome these regulations and these proposals, I think we also need to implement the regulations that are there for the product that is coming in from outside the European Union. 142 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to put a specific question that came up this morning in the Committee on Fisheries, raised by my colleague Carmen Fraga Estévez and myself. Article 12(3) states that ‘A Fleet Adaptation Scheme shall concern only fleets where the energy costs represent on average at least 30% of the production costs, based on the turnover in 2007, of the fleet concerned by this scheme.’ Could you guarantee to us here and put on the record that the first six months of 2008 will be able to be taken into account in the compilation of those figures too, because they have been a critically bad six months in terms of the actual percentage increase in energy costs for the fleet, particularly the more vulnerable aspects of our fleets?

Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, as we are allowed to ask another question, I would like to put this question to the Commissioner. In the light of the partial decommissioning schemes and the proposal that we possibly reallocate 25% of the fishing capacity permanently withdrawn to new vessels, would this effectively mean reintroducing harmful subsidies for vessel construction?

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, thank you very much for all those interventions and for the number of questions that have been placed. I will try to respond to as many of them as I can given the fact that we did not have sufficient time as we usually have within the Fisheries Committee and in Plenary to discuss proposals given the urgent nature of this proposal. On de minimis, as we said in the communication, we will be carrying out the necessary economic analyses in the coming weeks and months and we intend to come forward with a Commission proposal, if appropriate, if the economic analysis shows that we can move forward in this direction and if WTO rules allow, before the end of this year. The subsequent, quite lengthy procedure involving consultation of the advisory committee of Member States and of stakeholders, and the final adoption by the Commission will normally take around six months. So we are speaking of a time frame which is quite extensive, it is true. However, I need to underline that the de minimis is not the solution to the restructuring of the fleet which is needed. Whether we like it or not we have a situation of significant over-capacity, and unless we address it effectively we are never going to find a permanent solution. It is no use, I have said it on a number of occasions, throwing money at the problem without trying to address the real cause of the problem, and this is what we are attempting to do. We are willing to give assistance immediately and in the medium term to fishers but we are also stressing that there needs to be effective restructuring. Otherwise we will need to come back here, year in year out, to discuss the same issue. So I need to make this abundantly clear: the Commission is not prepared simply to throw money at the problem. So any form of permanent operating gate to fishers is a non-starter. This is why I need to make it abundantly clear that we need to really address the problem. So that is my answer on de minimis, which we are looking into. Concerning market measures, we will be providing more specifics and making the situation much clearer, because there are various fronts on which we intend to deliver on this. First of all we will be making more financing available for POs and other industry associations in order to elaborate fishing plans, marketing plans, quality initiatives, labelling initiatives and inter-branch initiatives. And, as shown in other countries, for example in Norway, we can see how POs can work efficiently to assist the catching sector. As we indicated in our communication, these are not new tools or instruments. They are outlined extensively in both the CMO and in the EFF. The problem is that, so far, industry and Member States have not promoted them sufficiently. With regard to the price monitoring system, again, together with the industry and the Member States we will use this additional knowledge to set up monitoring tools along the value chain to help the sector to anticipate price developments more effectively in the future. The Commission has launched a study on this issue which will be completed in September. There is political momentum on this issue on a wider level. The recent European summit has supported wider initiatives of the Commission for monitoring food prices and price development mechanisms. Again, additional funding for a price monitoring system on fish prices will be made available by the budgetary authorities by September. We will start the work immediately, first through launching a pilot project on the scope and modalities of this exercise, and the full price monitoring system should then be defined and become operational before the end of 2009. Concerning more control with respect to certification, labelling requirements and mitigating IEU, here again, the Commission will give financial support to industry initiatives in the area of market monitoring, and in particular in relation to monitoring the sector’s compliance with legal requirements concerning certification, 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 143

labelling etc. We plan to launch calls for proposals by the end of 2008 whereby we would invite sectoral organisations to elaborate concrete proposals, and implementation of these projects will start during 2009. Then in 2009 we also have the full CMO review. So I will try to give some indicative time-frames with regard to the various market measures that we are envisaging. On the question of the reference period raised by both Mrs Fraga and Mrs Doyle, I can repeat again that the preliminary assessment of this suggestion indicates that we can take this on board. We realise that the fuel situation has changed considerably since 2007 and it does seem logical that current realities should be reflected in the aim of this package. We will nevertheless need to ensure that all economic data used for the reference period 2007 to 2008 are an accurate depiction of the economic situation for the fleet and vessels concerned. The mandatory 30% capacity reduction will still be maintained. The possible impact of using the 2008 figures could indirectly lead to more extensive application of the package. So I can confirm that we will be moving forward and taking on board this suggestion that came from the Fisheries Committee this morning. Concerning the point as to whether the proposal attacks the causes of the problem, I would state my belief that in fact there are two primary objectives: tackling over-capacity, as I have just said, so that we can survive in a profitable way long into the future, and also trying to assist fishers to get a fair price for their catch. I have just outlined the measures that we are proposing in this regard. With regard to the question, raised by General Morillon, concerning measures which should not be implemented to the detriment of those who have already undergone restructuring, and with regard to the point raised by Mr Allister and Mrs Attwooll and others, these are very relevant. I would like to say that in general terms, if there is further reduction of capacity by some Member States, this will benefit other Member States, because if there is a reduction of capacity with a consequent reduction of effort, there would be more resources and more market opportunities. However, more specifically let me say that the proposed ad hoc instrument to which I will come to soon will be designed in such a way as to set criteria that are needs-based and do not follow the EFF so that, for example, the requirements of those who have already undertaken substantial restructurings are recognised and that those who have low EFF allocations are also recognised. On the question of social aid, first of all we have to see how this measure will be defined in practice. To the extent that the measure only provides benefits to workers and not to companies, it might be that aid elements are not even involved. Therefore that would mean that the process of adoption of this would be faster. If an amendment to the state aid guidelines is required, then we will prepare a Commission decision, which normally takes two to three months. Concerning the Irish court ruling, we shall analyse how the definition of workers as self-employed potentially impacts on the application of this measure, and will seek a solution in order to address the specific problem concerning Ireland. On the request that emergency temporary cessation should not be linked to restructuring (which was also raised by Mrs Doyle), restructuring is relatively loosely defined in our package so there should be ample opportunity for vessels in trouble to adapt to new realities. They can receive aid now, and then they have six months to adapt. This link to restructuring has to be maintained for the emergency package, however, to have the desired result. With regard to the question concerning the financial requirement which was raised by Mrs McGuinness, the financial requirement solely for the temporary and permanent cessation of fishing activities is estimated at around EUR 1.6 billion. The total financial requirement is estimated to be in the region of EUR 2 billion. The current programming of the EFF Axis 1 for these measures is estimated to cover around EUR 600 million with an estimated additional EUR 250 million coming from national co-financing. The Commission further estimates that EUR 550 million will have to come from the programming of EFF operational programmes. Therefore this would leave a shortfall of EUR 600 million. So there is additionality as well. We are not just making use of EFF funds. There is an additionality of EUR 600 million. A substantial part of this amount could be financed through the unallocated margin under heading 2 of the financial framework ceilings for the years 2009-2010, with the bulk coming in 2009. It is this additionality which could form the ad hoc instrument I referred to before. The ad hoc instrument should be needs-based, so it would not directly reflect the proportionate allocations under the EFF but should target those segments of the fleet that need to restructure but which would not find assistance under the EFF, 144 EN Debates of the European Parliament 09-07-2008

either because the EFF allocation to the Member State concerned is very limited or because it relates to areas which are non-convergence and therefore which have very limited allocations of EFF, or because there is enormous demand and therefore the EFF falls short. So that is my response with regard to the financial allocations. I would also like to make the point, in regard to the question raised, that while in the short term we are not proposing any miracle solution, we are providing for immediate temporary cessation for three months effective from 1 July 2008 and, as I said, we will be taking a flexible view with regard to the definition of restructuring, whereas with regard to the further temporary cessation provisions, those have to be part and parcel of a fleet adaptation scheme. But with regard to the first three months, as long as there is restructuring in a general way then the entitlement would apply. On the point raised as to whether we can deliver within the time-frame because of conditionalities involved, my response is that most of the conditionalities relate to partial decommissioning which is a new instrument and which was very contentious even in reaching this stage. Removing partial decommissioning would remove also most of the conditionalities attached to it. I am sure, however, that this is not what you would want. But I can assure you that the Commission will urge Member States and the industry to take up the fleet adaptation schemes and to ensure that these are properly monitored and properly implemented so that the time-frames envisaged and the conditionalities set will be adhered to and respected. Again I would like to say that it is not true to say that all measures relate to decommissioning of vessels. It is true that there is a continuation of total decommissioning but there is the introduction of partial decommissioning, and partial decommissioning means that we will be removing older vessels and introducing new smaller ones, and in this sense therefore there will be introduction of new vessels with lower capacity in absolute terms. We will have a real effective reduction of capacity but at the same time we will also have properly addressed the fuel problems. There are also measures with regard to engine substitution and with regard to gear and equipment change, and there are the measures that I have outlined concerning the market measures and social aid. So I do not think it is correct to say that what we are proposing is simply a continuation of total decommissioning of vessels. There are various other instruments and I hope that Member States will be able to pick from these the ones that would in the most appropriate way address the concerns and realities of the sector. With regard to the point made by Mrs Stihler concerning the fact that these could be harmful subsidies for new construction, I need to underline the fact that we will not be paying one cent for decommissioning for vessels whose capacity is maintained. What we will be paying is the scrapping aid for total decommissioning and we will be paying scrapping aid for the part that is decommissioned. We are not paying any state assistance for the capacity that remains. We are simply trying to find a solution whereby the necessary restructuring through reducing capacity, which we attempted by virtue of total decommissioning which has not proved too successful, might hopefully be more effectively addressed through this new instrument of partial decommissioning. The combination of partial decommissioning, total decommissioning, retaining vessels in operation with the possibility of engine substitutions, with the possibility of modernisation on board etc., all measures which already exist, and the whole package within a fleet adaptation scheme, could lead to a situation where we effectively bring about the needed reduction in capacity, which would translate to a reduction of effort to meet with the present state of affairs we have concerning the health of fish stocks. I just want to conclude with regard to the original intervention by Mrs Stihler that I can only repeat the well-known maxim that you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Thursday, 10 July 2008. Written Statements (Rule 142)

Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the approval of the proposal for a regulation to address the crisis in the fisheries sector. These provisions will undoubtedly not resolve all the problems of a sector which is uniquely complex, as the European Council recognised at the June summit, given the dual constraint of resources and the market which makes the sector less able to withstand economic pressures. The measure approved today in the wake of the fuel crisis undoubtedly opens up new prospects and new scenarios. It is important for our fishing operators to grasp all the opportunities that it offers. It should be borne in mind 09-07-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 145

that the increase in the price of fuel, which has more than doubled in the space of a few months, has not just cancelled out earnings, but is now causing fishing operators to operate at a loss. The regulation makes provision for a special temporary measure with a deadline of 31 December 2010 whose objective is to support faster adaptation of the Community fleet to the present situation, cushioning social and economic consequences in the transitional period. The package focuses chiefly on reducing fishing effort and overcapacity and modernising and converting fleets with a view to a resolving the problem of high fuel dependency. Other measures are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions from fishing vessels, and to encourage a shift away from fishing techniques which are damaging for the environment, such as bottom trawling.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing – The emergency package that has been proposed by the Commission is a step towards putting a stop to the precarious situation faced by European fishermen. Irish fishermen have some serious concerns that must be taken into account. How will the 2 billion in aid be distributed? Will it be fleet by fleet or by quota allocation? Furthermore, what will be done about the bottom trawlers that make up the vast majority of the current European fleet and are at risk of being wiped out by the current emergency package which has been proposed? This greatly concerns the Irish fishermen as Ireland has experimented with alternatives to bottom trawlers and so far no success has been achieved. If Ireland is to continue providing fish to the rest of the EU and still have the means to provide for their families this is not acceptable.

Ireland has the biggest coastal area in the European Community. The common fisheries policy has not worked for Ireland. Irish fishermen have faced hard times before but now they no longer have the control to work through their troubles. It is time for a change. It is time to reinstate Irish fisherman as stewards of Irish waters.

24. Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

25. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.45 p.m.)