19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1

WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2010

IN THE CHAIR: MR BUZEK President

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 09.05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Outcome of the summit of 7 May 2010 and the ECOFIN meeting - What is the political relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the context of the current financial and economic crisis? - Consequences of the financial and economic crisis on the EU 2020 strategy and its governance - What is the relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the framework of the current financial and economic crisis? (debate)

President. – The next item is:

– the joint debate on mechanisms for strengthening economic order, – the Council and Commission statements: Outcome of the summit of 7 May 2010 and the ECOFIN meeting [2010/269(RSP)], – the oral question to the Council and the Commission: What is the political relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the context of the current financial and economic crisis? (O-0052/2010 - B7-0213/2010), (O-0053/2010 - B7-0214/2010), – the oral question to the Council: Consequences of the financial and economic crisis for the EU 2020 strategy and its governance (O-0068/2010 - B7-0301/2010), – the oral question to the Council and the Commission: Political relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the context of the current financial and economic crisis (O-0065/2010 - B7-0219/2010), (O-0066/2010 - B7-0220/2010).

Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr President, everyone is aware that we are living in a period of exceptional financial turbulence. This has been the case for a few months, and the origin does not go back a few months, but a few years, when the subprime crisis occurred in the United States. The origin was, therefore, a financial crisis in the private sector of the financial system, which rapidly became something that was affecting the real economy in the form of a deep depression, which, technically speaking, was a deep recession. This involved a decline in production and a significant increase in unemployment, which was particularly serious in those countries in which the property or residential construction sectors had a significant influence. There was an immediate reaction from the Member States and the central banks in order to prevent the financial system from collapsing, and there was also a reaction in relation to the real economy. This reaction, of course, had consequences for public economies and public finances. We are now no longer talking about private finances, but about public finances. Firstly, there was a crisis of financial stability in public accounts as a result of very marked deficits. There was also a crisis in sovereign bonds. This is what has been coming to the surface in recent months, encouraged by the actions of very volatile markets which, at times, have even been clearly speculative. These actions have also caused a significant rise in the interest that the markets require from the Member States when they are going to issue bonds. Moreover, this clearly affected the whole of the euro area, and therefore became a problem affecting not one, two or three countries, but the stability of the whole of the euro area. That is the situation. Those are all the events, or the diagnosis of the facts that the European Union has taken into account in order to react and act in response to this, and I feel that the EU has acted correctly throughout 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

this period. It may have appeared slow to take decisions. It may, at times, have seemed to be exasperatingly slow to take some decisions, but it has achieved the right results, the results of prudent action by the EU and, more importantly, coordinated action by the EU. Although it might appear that various measures prevent us from seeing the whole, I believe that the EU has established an appropriate strategy for the circumstances, which has to include some short-term measures and look more towards the medium and long term, as it is about preventing such a crisis from occurring again. As we have already said, the short-term measures involve an injection of public money and coordination by the European Union: what is known as the European Economic Recovery Plan, backed by the Commission; a plan that coordinates this immediate action, this shock treatment that the Member States are adopting in order to limit the damage done by this huge crisis, but not make it disappear. One manifestation of this short-term action is undoubtedly the aid to Greece, which had already been warned by the Commission months before about a difficult situation in its public accounts. The Council is making a series of recommendations to Greece in relation to Article 126(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Council and the Commission are monitoring developments there. Not only are recommendations being given in relation to the liquidity of its public accounts, but also regarding structural reforms in the pensions system and the need to undertake reforms in the health system. Then came 23 April, when an action mechanism was adopted regarding Greece. Yesterday, this mechanism was manifested for the first time in funds being sent to Greece by EU countries through the system of this agreed mechanism. This is therefore the first expression of this short-term action, which is essential when a Member State is in serious difficulties, as is the case with Greece. Naturally, also in the short term – and this was expressed very clearly in the oral question put by Mr Daul, Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Schulz and others – we need to have a strategy to get us out of the crisis. It needs to be a measured, controlled strategy and, of course, it needs to be aimed at avoiding the very serious difficulties in public accounts, but it also needs to maintain the objective of growth. However, obviously a short-term strategy is not enough. We need to take medium and long-term measures. There are structural problems in the European economy; structural problems that were ultimately responsible for weakening Europe in the face of a highly volatile situation of extreme financial turbulence. The European Union is taking and suggesting measures in the medium and long term that it is important to point out. This is firstly the case because they are going to respond to the type of crisis that occurred as a result of this serious economic situation affecting the whole of the EU and, in particular, the euro area system. In order to be able to respond to the crisis in the financial sector, the European Union has planned a series of measures that are being debated in the next few days in Parliament: a supervision package, which I hope will be adopted as soon as possible. I also hope that the Council and Parliament will reach an agreement in this respect. As part of this package, or in relation to it, the Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) Council adopted a measure yesterday: the regulation of hedge funds, alternative funds or high-risk funds. I refer here to the question by Mrs Harms and Mr Cohn-Bendit, who place a great deal of emphasis on this aspect. The perspective of action in the G20 also needs to be taken into account, also implementing what has been agreed in the G20. Likewise, we have said that the European Union has structural weaknesses and that structural reforms are needed. The Europe 2020 strategy aims to do this, and it is based on the commitment of the Member States to tackle certain objectives through a series of integrated guidelines. These guidelines are also going to be accompanied by national plans, which will be designed in what are known as the reform plans. It should also be said that, along with the Europe 2020 strategy, the action that the Commission is adopting in relation to the whole of the production system is also important. In its communication on 12 May, it proposed the coordination of economic policies.

The Europe 2020 strategy is therefore a way of responding to the underlying problem in the productive economic system, preventing these fundamental weaknesses in the system in the future and making the Union’s economic system competitive and productive. It is also a way of aiming towards the objectives of technological added value, taking into account the social impact and therefore the need for specialisation in the labour market, employability and also combating climate change. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3

There is not, however, only a problem with the private financial system, with the productive structure, and essentially with the private sector: there is a problem with public accounts, which is also the focus of another aspect of the EU’s medium and long-term measures. These are the measures in the Commission’s proposal of 12 May, which the Ecofin Council began to debate yesterday and will continue to debate. These measures are aimed at maintaining budgetary discipline, guaranteeing compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact and establishing measures to resolve and prevent crises. With this in mind, a task force has been created, which is going to meet for the first time this Friday, 21 May, chaired by President Van Rompuy. Its objective is budgetary discipline and it will be using the Commission document on coordinating economic and budgetary policies presented by Commissioner Rehn. This relates to all the more long-term measures, in which we also need to include the debate that is beginning in the EU about tax on benefits in the financial sector and a tax that even the G20 is beginning to talk about, which is a tax on financial transactions, which is, in turn, being debated in the EU. This is something that Mrs Harms and Mr Cohn-Bendit emphasise in their question. On this subject, it should be said that all the European Union institutions are working towards this. It was discussed at the European Council in December of last year. The International Monetary Fund was given the task of conducting a study on a tax on international financial transactions. It was discussed in the European Council in March, the Commission proposed it on 1 April, and it was also discussed in the Ecofin Council. This is, therefore, another measure that will undoubtedly be discussed at the G20, and which is of the utmost importance; these are what I have called the medium- and long-term measures proposed by the EU. Yesterday, for example, at the EU-Latin America Summit in Madrid, a reform of the financial system was also proposed. In other words, the European Union is raising these issues in all the forums that it attends. In short, Mr President, the steps are being taken and the conditions are in place to move towards what has been described as economic governance of the Union. The European Council is playing an active role in this, along with the Commission and Parliament as the legislative and controlling body. So I think we can say – to conclude, Mr President – that it is true that the crisis has clearly demonstrated the shortcomings of the European monetary union in the absence of economic union, something that is provided for in the treaties but does not exist in reality. We have remained in monetary union, but we are not moving on to economic union. These measures adopted in the short, medium and long term by the EU are clearly taking the Union along a path towards economic union. This crisis has weakened our economies and put the Union to the test, but it has not destroyed it, it has not fragmented it. The European Union has responded and, at times, we have felt that it has done so slowly, but it has acted surely. At times, it seems that it has been hesitant, but it has been united, and its response has been correct and appropriate to the challenges that we face at the moment. I hope that the European Council in June will consolidate this move towards European economic governance, towards a united reaction to this crisis from the EU. I therefore also hope that it will adequately prepare the EU’s common position for the extremely important G20 meeting in Toronto on the regulation of the financial system and for the important debate on taxing international financial transactions.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I welcome this debate on the crisis response of the European Union and on the immediate and longer-term challenges of economic governance we are facing. I shall start with the immediate challenges and the crisis response. Ten days ago, the European Union took bold and necessary decisions to safeguard financial stability in Europe. It was a dual response to the aggravated crisis, which had turned into a systemic challenge to the euro. It was a response that I would call a consolidation pact. First, we agreed on a European financial stability mechanism that provides a financial backstop for up to EUR 500 billion, which will be supplemented by IMF funding at a ratio of 2:1. Secondly, we agreed to accelerate fiscal consolidation in those Member States where it is most urgently needed.

With these decisions, Europe came up with a credible package that shows our citizens, the markets and the wider world that we will defend the euro – our common currency – whatever it takes. We are not doing it for the sake of the mystical market forces but for the sake of sustainable growth and job creation in Europe, by ensuring that the threats to financial stability will not kill the economic recovery that is now in progress – though this is still rather modest and fragile. This is our responsibility in relation to our 4 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

citizens, and we are delivering in very concrete terms. Yesterday, coordinating and managing on behalf of the euro area Member States, the Commission delivered EUR 14.5 billion for Greece, which the IMF has complemented with EUR 5.5 billion. We said we would be ready to meet the immediate needs of refinancing, and we delivered on time. Of course, this is all conditional on a full and complete implementation of the programme designed, together with the Greek Government, by the Commission, in liaison with the ECB and the IMF. The European Central Bank has also taken extraordinary measures to tackle the attacks we have recently seen on the euro. Beyond that, our Member States have understood the paramount importance of fiscal consolidation to ensure the sustainability of public finances and thus, preconditions for sustainable economic growth. Last week, Spain and Portugal presented significant new fiscal consolidation measures which are important and difficult but, at the same time, are necessary steps in order to reduce the ballooning public deficits in 2010 and 2011. The Commission will present a comprehensive assessment of the adequacy of the new targets and measures in the course of the next two weeks. Let me underline that a faster reduction of the public deficit is indeed an essential component of the financial stability package that was agreed on 10 May by Ecofin. It is equally important that both countries adopt structural reforms that will contribute to increased potential growth, especially reforms of the labour markets and pension systems.

While accelerated fiscal consolidation is an immediate priority throughout Europe, at the same time, we need to coordinate our economic and fiscal policies by applying differentiation among the Member States. In other words, the efforts of fiscal consideration need to be differentiated according to fiscal space and economic vulnerability. Countries with little or no fiscal space will need to front-load and accelerate measures, while others with better fiscal space should maintain their less restrictive fiscal policy stances for the sake of growth and jobs in Europe. Of course, it would be a mistake to stop our efforts here. Let us recall that the first 10 years of the euro have been a success story: that is the starting point. But the crisis has shown that we need to acknowledge its systemic shortcomings. Peer pressure has lacked teeth, good times were not used to reduce public debt, and macro-economic imbalances were ignored. This is precisely the reason why last week, on 12 May, the Commission presented an ambitious set of proposals to reinforce economic governance in Europe. We want to strengthen preventive budgetary surveillance, address macro-economic imbalances and set up a permanent and robust framework for crisis management. I count on Parliament’s support for these important proposals. They are at the heart of making Europe 2020 a success in the coming years. Our proposals are based on two principles. First, prevention is always better than correction – not to mention letting a situation escalate into a crisis, as we have seen. Second, stronger fiscal surveillance should be accompanied by broader macro-economic surveillance, to go to the roots and origins of sustainable economic development. Our proposals are made of three building blocks. First, we must reinforce both the preventive and corrective arms of the Stability and Growth Pact. The essential cornerstone of reinforcing economic governance is to coordinate fiscal policy in advance, in order to ensure that national budgets are consistent with the jointly-agreed European policies and obligations, so that they will not put at risk the stability of the euro area as a whole and that of the other Member States. Let me be very clear about this: this will not mean scrutinising national budgets, budget line by budget line. We have neither the intention nor the resources for that. Instead, it will mean analysing and peer-reviewing the broad budgetary guidelines and fiscal balance before the submission of the draft national budgets by governments to Parliament with the legal right, based on the treaty and pact, for the EU to make recommendations and ask for corrective action from the Member States concerned. Some have criticised this, saying that this is a breach of parliamentary sovereignty. I myself am a former member of a national and the European Parliament, and I am fully aware of the sensitivities of parliamentary fiscal powers. However, everyone can see that this is not about breaching democracy or parliamentary 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 5

sovereignty but ensuring that our Member States respect those very same rules which they have themselves decided on previously: in other words, to practice what you preach. We need to introduce a truly European dimension to economic policy making in Europe: it is not enough to look only afterwards at international decisions. In the EU, in particular in the euro area, we know only too well that national decisions have an impact beyond national borders, and therefore there will have to be coordination at European level before those national decisions. The second building block is to go beyond budgetary surveillance to broaden and deepen surveillance, to address macro-economic imbalances. Why is this important? The divergences in competitiveness and the gap between the surplus and deficit countries of the euro area has widened in the past 10 years. This has been at the root and origin of why the financial crisis hit the EU so hard, especially some of our Member States. We should prevent and tackle emerging problems before they escalate into a crisis. Therefore, we propose to define indicators and a scoreboard, agree alert thresholds and give recommendations and early warnings if necessary. These indicators could include, for instance, productivity trends, unit labour costs and current account developments. It is self-evident that this does not mean that we would want to weaken the export performance of any country; of course not. Instead, it aims at rebalancing economic growth in Europe as a whole. We need to reinforce export competitiveness where needed and domestic demand where needed and possible. That is the way to play as a European team for the benefit of the whole of Europe.

Thirdly, we need to be very clear to whoever is watching the euro area that we will never be defeated. To discourage anyone from even trying our vigour, we need a permanent and robust framework for crisis management for the euro area Member States. The temporary mechanism established on 10 May is a bold first step in that direction, but for the medium to long term, the Commission will propose a more permanent mechanism, subject to strict policy conditionality and, of course, drawing on the lessons of recent experience. Yes, we need to avoid moral hazards. That is why we must make the mechanism so unattractive that no leader or country is voluntarily tempted to resort to it. But recent experience has shown that it is better to have a fire brigade ready for a possible bush fire than only start building the fire brigade up when the fire has already turned into a broader forest fire. It is better to be safe than sorry. To conclude, these Commission proposals pave the way for a quantum leap in economic governance in Europe, but I also want to draw your attention to another immensely important decision – on the same day we proposed these measures – namely, the proposal for Estonia to become a member of the euro area on its own merits. Just to give you one figure: while the average debt in Europe is, at the moment, around 75%, in Estonia it is around 7.5% – not 75% but 7.5% – on a sustainable basis. This proposal sends an important signal to all that the euro area will withstand pressure with self-confidence, and sustainable economic and fiscal policies will bring fruit for Member States. All in all, the Commission’s initiatives, once adopted, will lead to a substantial deepening of economic governance in Europe and to a prudent widening of the euro area. Indeed, in the EMU, it is high time to fill the ‘E’ with life.

Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has finally reacted. The Heads of State or Government have finally begun to deal with the problems by deciding, 10 days ago, on a support plan for our currency, the euro. This is a plan which accurately reflects the scale of European solidarity, thus contradicting all those who doubted it, but which is still inadequate and must be accompanied by measures to reduce our national budget deficits and measures for obtaining agreement among the 27 on the social and fiscal budgets. I think everybody is saying this this morning, and we have all been saying the same thing for the past fortnight. Well let us do it now! This plan was completed last Wednesday with the Commission’s decision, which I welcome, to radically enhance supervision and the implementation of a stability pact. Ladies and gentlemen, we will not extricate ourselves unless all these measures are implemented. We will not extricate ourselves unless we have political courage, because the measures that we should have already taken collectively at EU level and individually at national level will have to be taken now. This applies to both right-wing and left-wing governments. I am very sorry that the German socialists were lacking this courage when they voted in the Bundestag on the European aid plan. We must learn lessons from all this. The first lesson: we must know the true state of national public accounts, just as we know the true state of EU public accounts. I am asking the Commission to strive to ensure this and to punish, and not just timidly criticise, any State which fails to meet this obligation. As you well know, 6 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

everybody is afraid of the speed trap, everybody is afraid of the penalties, of the number of points on their licences when they are on the road. This is how we are made, so there have to be penalties. This is the alpha and the omega of any serious policy in this area. Second lesson: the 27 must concentrate on their budgetary policies very early on in proceedings. The Commission asked for this last week. I myself asked for it in this Chamber a few weeks ago. I know that it irritates Member States when we ask them to concentrate, but they must get used to being irritated from now on if they continue to treat their public finances as if they were living on a desert island, as if they were not connected to one another by a currency and, hence, by a necessary common discipline. Moreover, what is true of national budgets is also true of social and fiscal policy. Once again, I understand the anger of some of our compatriots when they are asked to make sacrifices for others who work less and retire earlier. This cannot continue either. That is the third lesson which I have learnt from this crisis. The euro will only be viable if we collectively give ourselves the resources to make it so. I would not contradict President Obama’s financial adviser, Mr Volcker, who said that the euro is liable to collapse if we do not change our culture and behaviour. We must look beyond national considerations and towards European considerations. We must move on from short-term policies, designed to prevent our national governments from falling a few points in opinion polls, to medium- and long-term plans, which are also being demanded by our entrepreneurs so that they can invest and recruit. My group is asking Europe to wake up. It is asking for the Commission to do its job, which is to apply the carrot and the stick technique with Member States. Financially reward the ones that clean up their public finances and punish the ones that refuse to do so!

The Commission, Mr Rehn, must not be afraid of doing this. It would be to the benefit of Europeans and of Member States. The main problem amongst our fellow citizens, which is raised at all our meetings at the moment, is whether their savings are still safe. I understand these citizens, who have worked all their lives to have a few savings. So that is the first assurance we should give them: that their savings are protected. That is quite simply what the Commission must do; it was created for that purpose. It is only in this context, ladies and gentlemen, that the 2020 strategy will have any meaning. It is only if we are once again serious of purpose, if we act collectively with regard to public accounts, that we will be able to win the battle of unemployment, education, training, research and innovation. I said this yesterday, and I say it every day: if savings have to be made in all our Member States, then we too, as Members of Parliament and European civil servants, will have to lead by example, or else we will lack credibility. That is all that I have to say, and I am still hoping – I have experienced a few very serious and very deep crises – that this crisis can at least serve as a new starting point for Europe and its citizens.

Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is taking place against the backdrop of a very serious situation which represents a threat to the European Union. We have decades of laissez-faire ideology behind us and these have been decades during which anyone who questioned the alleged superiority of the capitalist economic system was ridiculed. This economic system has taken us into the deepest financial, economic and employment crisis and the deepest crisis in the morality and legitimacy of the institutions since the end of the Second World War. The system is wrong. It is, to a certain extent, immoral, and it is also warped. I would like to give you an example, because many of our citizens do not understand the jargon that is used. What is the trade in credit default swaps and credit default insurance all about? It means that you can take out an insurance policy which can then be bought and sold like a commodity. Let me put this in practical terms. I am sure that the lovely farm owned by Mr Daul is covered by a fire insurance policy. If I, Martin Schulz, can buy Mr Daul’s fire insurance policy and if I receive the insurance payment instead of him when his house burns down, then I simply need someone, for example Mr Cohn-Bendit, who is prepared to set light to the house and I am a made man. This is a warped system. It should be abolished and these practices should be banned. These are exactly the mechanisms that we are discussing and the real-life examples are not funny. One concerns the pension fund of the Californian teachers’ union which wanted to buy a German airline via a hedge fund. The pension fund did not succeed, but it bought something else instead. However, the pension fund then went bankrupt. This has brought ruin to a whole generation of teachers, who have been paying into the fund for 40 years. That is the reality of this economic system, which has now reached its limits and which must be put on a tight leash. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 7

Now it is the governments’ turn. This is what you have said, Mr López Garrido and Mr Rehn. That is all well and good, but we are the ones who are reacting, we are the ones who have been driven to action and, in my opinion, we are reacting far too late. Regulations should have been introduced in many areas at a much earlier stage and we have often called for this to happen in this House. Now we are bringing in regulations for hedge funds, but when will the European Rating Agency be established? Is it really normal for an American rating agency, at exactly the point at which the speculation against Greece reached its climax, to set its sights on the next target and lower Portugal’s rating? What type of institutions are these which can decide on the fate of entire nations? They must be controlled and regulated. However, this should not be happening now. It should have taken place years ago and we called for it years ago, but our calls were rejected. They were rejected by the same governments which today claim to be managing this crisis. (Protests) Mr Langen, I know that you are tabling an amendment this afternoon to ensure that Parliament is not in session during carnival time in Germany. That is a good thing. It is just that when you are here, it is carnival every day that Parliament is in session. I am really sorry. We have structural deficits in the EU, which the institutions are responsible for resolving. We have allegedly created an economic and monetary union. However, the reality is that we have a monetary union, but not an economic union. In Europe, we have a patchwork quilt of economic policies. A total of 16 sovereign states are failing to coordinate their economic policies, some of which are inconsistent with one another, within a single currency area. This represents a huge risk. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his beautiful state of California are completely bankrupt, but that does not affect the dollar at all, because the economic policy of California forms part of the single currency area of the United States. If 2.8% of the gross domestic product of the euro area is put at risk, as in the case of Greece, a serious crisis will be caused here. We must get rid of this deficit, which is why we need economic governance. Anyone who is still opposed to this has not heard the warning shots. We are in the middle of an extremely serious crisis of legitimacy. People are realising that this economic system has failed and they no longer have any confidence in it. They have seen that the national and international institutions are being driven by this system and therefore they no longer trust the institutions either. During this phase, many people are returning to the refuge of national rhetoric in the face of this globalised, Europeanised challenge. This three-way contradiction between the crisis of confidence in our economic system and in our state institutions and the retreat of many state institutions into taking a national approach, rather than looking for solutions in the international structures, is a mixture which puts the EU as a whole at risk. Therefore, we need economic governance and we also ultimately need the strength to implement our own regulations. Finally, Mr Daul, who is the chair of the group which includes the representatives of Nea Dimokratia, should be a little more restrained in his criticism of other parties.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I do not think that either nationalist or Marxist rhetoric is going to provide us with the solutions we need for this crisis we are going through. (Applause) What we are currently experiencing, Mr President, is not, in my opinion, a monetary crisis in the Union, it is not even a crisis of our single currency; rather, it is a crisis of EU governance. This is the situation we are in at the moment. I would even go as far as to say that it is a crisis borne of the Member States’ obsessive belief that they can solve Europe’s problems with their intergovernmental approach, when a monetary area, Mr President, must be governed by a single method, by the Community method, on the basis of the European interest, and not by a syndicate of national interests, which is what the European Council and the Council of the European Union, by their very nature, represent. For my part, I therefore have three messages to send out this morning in this debate. The first message, Mr López Garrido, is addressed to the Council. We could perhaps ask the Spanish Presidency to invite the Members of the Council to show a little discretion in relation to the euro crisis, because each time a solution is found to help the euro, one or other Head of State or Government is compelled to come forward to say his piece, and to sabotage, in fact, the solution that has been found. I therefore think that the first thing that the Council must be asked to do is to be a little bit more discreet and to let the Commission and the European Central Bank come up with solutions. 8 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

My second message is for the Commission. I believe, Mr Rehn, that you took some brave decisions last Wednesday which are a step in the right direction, but that the Commission must go further. For the time being, then, we have a working group. This Council working group will meet to put forward solutions around October time or towards the end of the year. In my opinion, this is much too late. It is up to the Commission, which has the right of initiative, to put together an ambitious overall package over the coming weeks and months. That is what must be done. We must not wait for a working group of the Council to tell us what must be done; it is up to the Commission to take this initiative. It is up to the Commission to draw up a comprehensive package, which it will present to the Council and Parliament, and which will comprise, in my view, four elements. Firstly, strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact. This means, in fact, penalties; I personally am in favour of Mr Rehn’s idea, and I hope that everyone else is as well. He says that, as part of this package, the Commission should be tasked with screening budgets before they are approved by national parliaments. This is not a matter of subsidiarity or of a lack of subsidiarity; it is a matter of loyalty towards the Stability and Growth Pact and the euro. We cannot say, on the one hand, that we are members of this Stability and Growth Pact and of the euro area, and, on the other, that our budget has nothing to do with the euro, or that this is a strictly national competence. Secondly, I believe that this package must also integrate a convincing 2020 strategy. That which is on the Council’s table at the moment, Mr López Garrido, is not at all convincing. Are you going to reach a conclusion in June? What, though, are you going to conclude in June with regard to the 2020 strategy? Will it be the same thing that you concluded with regard to the Lisbon Strategy, which failed? Will it be the open method of coordination once again? Well, if you are serious, you must now provide the Commission with all the instruments it needs to actually manage this 2020 strategy, this economic strategy which has to extricate us from the crisis. The third thing which definitely must be done is to create a European monetary fund to replace the stability mechanism which was created, because that mechanism, as you say yourself, Mr Rehn, is not going to be up to the job. Once again, it is an intergovernmental mechanism which was concocted within Ecofin and which requires unanimity. Every single loan which is granted has to be approved by all the Member States. This is a system which cannot function in the long term, and a European monetary fund, managed by the Commission and, if necessary, by the ECB, is therefore required. However, it must not be left to take those decisions which are the responsibility of all Member States in the euro area. Finally, we must have a European bond market. This is what we are expecting from the Commission, Mr Rehn. We want you to be ambitious and courageous enough to put an ambitious package comprising these four points on the negotiating table within both the Council and Parliament. (Applause)

Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my Group has once again decided to take a positive approach to the financial stabilisation mechanism which was agreed at the weekend of crisis talks in Brussels almost two weeks ago. We are combining our support with a clear commitment to a more united economic and financial policy. This is nothing new for my group. It has been a tradition for us for many years. However, along with this commitment, Mr Rehn and Mr López Garrido, we want to see a serious decision being made not to continue simply combating the symptoms of the crisis, but instead to tackle the overall challenge that it represents. As we see it, we have been trying to cure the symptoms since 2008. We have been attempting to save the banks since 2008, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. I would like to say once again that we must be honest with the citizens of Europe. The euro was not stabilised during the weekend before last. Instead, once again, a large number of German and French banks were rescued. The share prices demonstrated very clearly what had happened. However, we must get out of this cycle of rescuing the banks, which has cost us billions upon billions. We no longer know where the money is coming from and we are only daring to take tiny steps towards state regulation of the financial markets, going by the agreement in the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin). The central aspect of what we are calling for today is that the state must return to the financial markets and take a very determined approach. It must no longer be kept in check by the banks and speculators which everyone is complaining about. It is true that the banks are a vital part of the system, but there must be 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 9

something very rotten in this system if our states can repeatedly be brought to the brink of disaster and the political system allows this to happen. I would like to summarise the situation very briefly. We must now make clear decisions on certain issues. There are indications that some of the EU Member States are moving in the right direction, but we believe that there should be a ban on toxic assets and short selling throughout the EU, that hedge funds should be kept under very tight control, and that we must stop talking about introducing a tax on financial transactions and actually do something about it. We need this tax, among other things, in order to refinance what we are doing with public money. The participation of banks and speculators must no longer be merely a matter for soapbox speeches. We can genuinely guarantee their involvement by introducing the tax. A second issue which is of great concern to me is the future of a coordinated budget policy in the European Union, in other words, budgetary discipline. I am very familiar with this term in a German context. However, I propose that, against the background of crisis management and the vote on the Europe 2020 strategy, we should once again come to an agreement on what we actually want, on how the Member States and how Europe should be presenting themselves to our citizens in five or ten years with regard to the responsibility of the state. Should the European strategy be used as a battering ram against the social responsibility of the state? I would very much like to know how you see all of this: nurseries, schools, universities, libraries, care for the elderly, hospitals, museums and theatres. A week ago, my colleague, Mr Cohn-Bendit, said that Greece needed more time to put a reconstruction plan in place. I am familiar with the disastrous financial situation of many Member States and I believe that some of them need time to decide what should be done. As I have said, using a battering ram against the social security system would definitely be the worst thing that the European Union could do at this point. However, that does not prevent us from looking carefully at our budget policy in order to ensure that the different generations receive equal treatment. As Greens, we have supported budgets of this kind in Germany time and time again. I would like to make one final point. If we were to give up on our climate policy and sustainable development now, as some people have indicated, we would really be implementing the devil’s plan. We must not neglect innovation in industry and business, a climate friendly approach to production and the organisation of public transport. We must safeguard jobs by means of innovation, future viability and sustainability, but this does cost money. The introduction of new taxes is a taboo subject. However, I am convinced that we will only emerge from this crisis if we can break down the taboo of state intervention, the role of the state and the need for intelligent taxes. (Applause)

Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, it has sadly become a characteristic of some of those who speak in support of the European Union to believe that the solution to every problem is more integration. This approach misses the point. What Europe too often lacks is not extra mechanisms to implement agreed policies, but rather the political will to fulfil commitments which have already been made but not executed. I therefore earnestly hope that the Europe 2020 initiative, which is certainly necessary to deal with the underlying economic crisis faced by Europe, does not fail on the same basis. Concerning the eurozone crisis, however, we are told that, to avoid similar crises in the future, the Union needs powers to call for the prior presentation of draft budgets by sovereign governments and to impose tougher sanctions on Member States – but budget information was already supposed to be available; it was just inaccurate and poorly scrutinised. Would the quality of information and the competence of those analysing the data improve just because a more demanding procedure was introduced? Sanctions were previously available; they simply lacked credibility. Increasing their scope does not make them any more likely to be imposed. Would the new measures be taken any more seriously? Furthermore, issuing debt, which risks increasing the EU budget and directly guaranteeing EU lending, is a major departure that undermines the principles of sound public finance which we are supposed here to be reinforcing.

In the ECR, we want the euro to be a success for the sake both of those who choose to join and of those in the wider European economy, but this requires Member States to take their responsibilities seriously, to be honest with each other, and to fulfil their agreed commitments. By its own admission, the Commission believes its proposals will lead to a substantial deepening of economic and monetary union. It is little wonder that, whereas the English version of the text of the March summit 10 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

referred to ‘governance’, which is what the Commission has also referred to, the French version referred to ‘government’. It seems that, for some, a centralised European economic ‘government’ is indeed the ambition, but this would not address the problems we face: it would be bad for our citizens, for our Member States and, I say, for the European Union itself.

Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the most recent Council meetings indicate that far-reaching changes are under way. We are currently experiencing a process of governmentalisation of European policy. The Treaty of Lisbon praised the role of Parliament and the strengthening of that role. We have also spoken out in praise of this. Fundamental agreements are now being reached between the governments and inconceivably large amounts of money are being spent. Until now, the parliaments have had little say in the matter and we must put a stop to this. The method used by those in government has resulted in huge sums being spent to rescue banks which are themselves responsible for getting heavily into debt. These governments have saved casino capitalism using taxpayers’ money. However, they have taken a very hesitant approach to rescuing the states that are in debt. Somewhere, they managed to find EUR 750 billion. The question is whether the money printing press will save economic development. I believe that it is more likely to save the banks’ capital. However, the European Union must be more than just a free internal market with a single currency. Mr Barroso is right when he says that without an economic union, we can forget the monetary union. However, I cannot yet see any clear outlines. Persisting with the failed Stability and Growth Pact has relatively little to do with the sensible coordination of economic policy. What we are lacking is a social union. We are lacking the lasting and effective re-regulation of the financial sector. We are lacking a coordinated tax policy and wage policy and a tax on financial transactions. Although we have been talking about this tax for a long time, it remains just talk. It is time to safeguard the social state by means of the EU institutions, not to dismantle it. The Greeks and other nations are afraid because they can see the measures that are being taken on the social side. It is time to fight for the harmonisation of social standards at a high level. Hedge funds must be banned and tax havens abolished. We are making very slow progress in combating the crisis in the financial markets. In the light of the speed with which the speculators are acting, we are doing far too little. During emergencies like those that we are repeatedly being faced with, it is totally wrong to nationalise the billions which are being spent as losses and privatise the profits. The banks must not be allowed direct access to taxpayers’ money with the support of the state. Incidentally, one thing is clear to me, and that is that in the current conditions, we will have to redefine the term ‘bank robber’.

Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Commissioner, I should like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for your hard and effective work in connection with the economic crisis in Greece. I should also like to thank all the parties in Parliament for the support and solidarity they have shown Greece. I have three proposals and I should like, most emphatically, to ask for their support. As far as the adoption of a permanent instrument for economic governance is concerned, the Bruegel Institute, which is a think tank in the field of economics, proposes the following: the European Central Bank should guarantee European bonds up to 60% of the GDP of each country; these are so-called ‘blue bonds’. Where bonds exceed the 60% limit, the surplus should be borrowed on market terms; these are so-called ‘red bonds’. This is a proposal for a permanent instrument for economic governance; we do not need to set up new mechanisms and so forth and it can be adopted very quickly. I have two ad hoc proposals for Greece: the International Monetary Fund could extend the repayment period for the loan to Greece from three to five years. If the same extension were adopted by our European lenders, it would be much easier and more realistic for Greece to repay its debt and this would be a good message for the markets. The second proposal is this: the amount in aid to Greece could be used to repay our bonds. It would be rational management of the issue if Europe were to release resources now, to be given to Greece in the future and used by it to develop the Greek economy. At the moment, the Greek Government is on the defensive; it is trying to scrape money together so that it can reduce its debt. However, we cannot try and stimulate growth at the same time. That is why, Commissioner, I think it would be a good idea if a parallel effort to stimulate growth were supported. To close, I should like to say that we hope that the Greek crisis will be the only price the European Union has to pay for the hasty establishment of the economic governance which we should have established ten years ago. Let us hope that the Greek crisis is the only price we have to pay. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 11

President. – Mrs Tzavela, I did not interrupt you because you are from Greece, and this issue is very important, but because you spoke for more than one minute. Please keep to your time next time.

Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, when you became President of this House last year, you said that you would treat all groups equally. I have noticed in this interesting debate that Mr Schulz ran two minutes over – all the groups ran over – but you picked on one group. Could you explain why this is?

President. – I would like to say, Mrs Sinclaire, that I am watching the time. Those speeches did, indeed, run over by some seconds. The Member who was speaking a moment ago ran over by the longest, but I allowed this because she represents Greece, and it was also the opinion of someone who lives in Greece, and this matter seemed to me to be important. As a rule, I do not allow speakers to exceed the allotted time, but I think we are all agreed that Mrs Tzavela’s statement was particularly important for us.

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, we had to be on the brink of the economic abyss in order for the Heads of State or Government to understand that the way forward is not more nationalism but more Europe. Some measures that have been adopted are aimed in this direction, such as the reduction in vetoing rights in the European Council or the seeds of a European public treasury. Finally, albeit late in the day, we have realised that we are all in the same boat and there is no point dealing with individual situations, especially in an improvised way.

I wonder, however, whether this attitude is a digression, or conversely whether it is the start of real European economic governance, because what we do not need, ladies and gentlemen, is governance. What we need is authentic government, if we want to be true to the will of the founding fathers. Parliament must therefore promote all the reforms aimed at strengthening Europe and make budgetary and fiscal discipline a reality, while forgetting about nostalgic sovereignty. Ladies and gentlemen, strengthening the European Commission and strengthening Parliament is the only right recipe for building Europe, as otherwise, it would disappear like a thief in the night.

Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, what I have learned is that, if Mr Daul’s farmhouse is on fire, you first have to put the fire out. Therefore, our group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), fully supports the rescue package on which the Council and the Commission have decided. That a decision on a package to the tune of hundreds of billions of euro was unavoidable in a single weekend is a wake-up call to the fact that stricter and more consistent budgetary rules are crucial and must be strengthened. Mr President, the Council was unanimous; let us also show that kind of unanimity. Unfortunately, however, listening to Mr Schulz, Chair of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I note that such unanimity is not to be found in this House. All of us in Parliament want a Europe with sustainable economic growth, sufficient jobs for our citizens and healthy businesses. We can achieve this only if we have a stable currency and a stable economy. A Stability and Growth Pact that is enforced is crucial for an ambitious EU 2020 strategy. For both of the above, success is dependent on sound European governance. This is at the heart of the resolution we discussed with the groups in this House last week. Commissioner Rehn deserves our support, and I think it irresponsible that our fellow Members from the S&D Group are refusing that support. Although irresponsible behaviour by speculators is not the cause, it has fanned the flames of the euro crisis. As far as our group is concerned, Commissioner Barnier must work energetically on proposals to curtail irresponsible behaviour on the financial markets.

Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Wortmann-Kool is wrong in two respects. Firstly, we definitely do not want Mr Daul’s farm to burn down. We do not want any farm to burn down. We want to take precautions, that is our objective. Secondly, we very much support the measures that Mr Rehn has proposed. It is simply that in some cases, they do not go far enough, because the majority of the measures have only been suggested when Mr Daul’s farm is already on fire. You rightly say that we must prevent the farm from catching fire in the first place and 12 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

that is the decisive point which I would like to discuss. Mr López Garrido said today that it had taken an infuriatingly long time for the decisions to be reached. It is also the case that we have spent an infuriatingly long time taking note of the changes that have happened in the European Union over the last ten years. Mr Rehn has correctly pointed out that differences between the individual euro countries with regard to competitiveness have increased and not decreased. What you do not mention, Mr Rehn, is something that is very important to us, namely, the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor in Europe is widening. If that sounds like Marxism to Mr Verhofstadt, to us it is a question of social security and social policy. However, that is simply not of interest to some people. The question is how you intend to get people to accept the economic measures and the strict budgetary requirements which you rightly propose when people begin to realise that Europe and the euro area are characterised by a growing gap between rich and poor. This is unacceptable and this is why there are more protests against the necessary measures than would normally be the case. Therefore, we are calling on the Commission and the Council to act. We must reduce the differences in competitiveness. I believe you are absolutely right when you say that we must succeed in increasing the competitiveness of countries such as Greece and Spain. This is not about making the competition conditions worse in Germany, Holland, Austria or other countries, but about improving the competition conditions in the economically weaker countries. That is absolutely the right strategy, but your proposal, Mr Rehn, does not include any specific measures for bringing this about. You spoke today about the reform of the labour market and the pension system. This is the right approach, but it is not enough just to reform the labour market and pensions. We must also look at the budget. If we do not develop our infrastructure and if we do not use all the means at our disposal in the Europe 2020 strategy, including green technologies and so on, we will not succeed in achieving this objective. Therefore, I am asking you to take note of the fact that competitiveness and social security in Europe must be strengthened.

Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to make a point on the situation in those Member States that are not members of the eurozone but which still share the same preoccupation. Political leaders in our countries have been selling the idea that EU membership should be seen as a guarantee against hard economic times, but reality has now proven differently. The euro is constantly attacked from all sides despite all the efforts made, and we all know that fresh money is only a quick fix for a much deeper problem. This is an exceptionally serious situation and we need exceptional answers. Let us face it; there is no escape from deeper economic integration and this therefore implies closer political union. Because this imbalance leads to daunting divergences between Member States, and to ensure financial discipline at European level, we need good governance, sanctions and compliance mechanisms. We need to find ways to encourage investment, attract capital and boldly cut bureaucratic expenses. We need to see intelligent measures taken by governments. In Romania, for example, the government is cutting pensions and salaries instead of reducing bureaucratic expenses or money for political clients. We have in Romania more employees of secret services than the FBI has but, instead of cutting here, we are cutting doctors and teachers. I strongly encourage the Commission to stand by the proposed measures and not to give up under Member States’ pressure, because only a few can be seen as examples these days.

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yes, we need responsible public spending. Yes, we need to balance our budgets. This requires responsible management of expenditure, and enough has been said about that for the moment. Yes, of course, this requires increased mutual supervision between equals. But, no, Members of the Council – and this is, I might add, addressed above all to the gentlemen Members, and not so much to the female Members – it is a sham to let people believe that we are going to meet the current challenges solely by reducing expenditure, as that will most certainly plunge Europe into recession, that will most certainly destroy the social fabric, this social cohesion that is part of the EU’s identity. Therefore, if we wish to bring public finances back into balance, which is the only option, and also be able to invest – because this is not simply a matter of reducing deficits, but of investing in our future – we will have to find new income streams. This means making the financial sector contribute, it means imposing a tax on financial transactions, but also on the banks, and it is not a matter of choosing one or the other. It means making those who have profited the most from the situation contribute – I am talking here about the energy sector; it means stopping the handing out of gifts, such as all the tax reforms that have been implemented, to society’s richest individuals or to companies that take advantage of tax havens, and really 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 13

trying to stamp out tax fraud. This therefore means breaking another taboo, ladies and gentlemen: not the tax taboo but the taboo of sovereignty, which you, Members of the Council – and, unfortunately, with the support of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – will defend to the death. Better to have tax sovereignty and failure than to really tackle the roots of the problem. Finally, with regard to financial supervision, I should like to encourage … (The President cut off the speaker)

Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – Mr President, the President-in-Office just asked whether there was an exit strategy from this crisis, and I would say yes, there is: it is called fiscal conservatism. The structural problem of ours has been that public overspending went on for too long. The public sector was out of control for many years. Even in good times, the German Government of Mr Schröder went through the 3% ceiling, and Greece, of course, broke all the records, because the Greek political class is utterly unable to manage money. We had the Stability Pact. What did Mr Prodi say about the Stability Pact in 2002? You know: you were the head of Mr Liikanen’s cabinet. He said the Stability Pact was stupid. So we had to change it. This was the guardian of the treaties. We did change it, and we put it on the slippery slope – and we see the results today. The EU will be faced with a track of fiscal conservatism for many years to come, and that is going to be very important. What we need is innovation, more free markets and more entrepreneurial skills, Mr Schulz. Mr President-in-Office (from Spain): do we need taxation? No, it makes things even worse. It pushes the EU into stagnation, and you will be Robin Hood in reverse. I understand the anger of the people – the people with pensions, the people with savings. I understand the German taxpayers. They know that they will have to pay, but German taxpayers cannot always pay. I find it a bit pretentious of Mr Verhofstadt (if he is still there) to tell Mrs Merkel to shut up talking about the euro. This was said by a former government leader who messed up his own country. So what is he trying to prove?

Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, you will not be able to calm the financial markets without giving up a sacrosanct principle that you defend, which is the completely free movement of capital and so-called free competition, which really means unfair competition. Today, a great deal of money is being put on the table, but this is actually designed to reassure the financial markets, whereas to the people you promise only pain. You have brought the IMF back into the European fold. Why were we not consulted about this decision? Now, in a show of strength, you wish to actually usurp power by seeking to have the national budgets overseen by the Commission itself. You talk unceasingly of deficits and debts. Why, though, do we never talk about existing revenue options? We have a deficit at the moment because we have consistently lowered taxes on capital and created the conditions for an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. Therefore, the measures to be taken should include amending the statutes and the role of the European Central Bank. We need true solidarity ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, how long will the euro last in its current form? Are we perhaps headed towards its destructuring within a year or two? I do not agree with creating a new supplementary deficit of EUR 750 billion to cover an earlier one or that these measures are sufficient for building the socio-economic future of 500 million Europeans, nor do I agree with the dogma of saving the euro as it is, because it should be done by keeping the euro as low as possible and reducing the interest rate to inject capital into productive investments for our industries, which are gasping for air, rather than into public financing. I do not agree with the European Commission expecting to review and audit the accounting of Member States’ budgets before the national parliaments: farewell to sovereignty. I disagree with an economic and financial strategy that fails to contemplate specific needs.

Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I am opposed to the Council’s unacceptable anti-European approach. You are complaining about the crisis and you are now introducing an economic protectorate, while you bear the central responsibility for many of the causes of the crisis. You have not allowed regulations to be imposed when they were needed. Just one example of this is Eurostat. The officials, who have been the subject of so much condemnation and whom I have repeatedly criticised in other areas, highlighted the 14 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

problems in Greece and also in Spain and Portugal at an early stage. The Commission called for Eurostat to be given appropriate powers to conduct investigations. Who blocked this move? The Spanish, the British – Mr Martin is not here – the Germans, Mr Daul and his people from France and the Austrians, because you did not want your books to be looked at, because you knew how much they concealed. This applies also to Mr Grasser, the former finance minister, who is now appearing all over the place on German television, instead of facing criminal charges in Austria. What we really need is, of course, not an emergency government. You will not do what the Americans sensibly did in a similar crisis, which is to pass a Glass-Steagall Act, to increase the banks’ capital, put a check on the conduit banks and reduce the systemic risks. What we need instead is democratic legitimacy, a two-chamber system which will finally put an end to the nonsense of the Council, which is outwardly so pro-European, but internally makes decisions without democratic legitimacy, so that we can bring about true democracy in Europe.

Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, the crisis highlights very clearly the limitations of the treaties, our own weaknesses, the double standards in dealings with the European Union, the deficits, the errors and the lack of seriousness. Secondly, it also indicates that anyone who does not do their homework is harming themselves and putting the EU at risk. This applies to the Member States, but also to the Commission and to us. Thirdly, when the European Union establishes objectives and rules for itself and agrees on procedures and sanctions, the Commission must not be dependent on the agreement of the Member States in order to be able to meet its obligations. The deficit and sanction procedure needs to be automated. Fourthly, I would like to call on the Council to end the Eurostat blockade. It must be possible for Eurostat to carry out investigations in the Member States when it wants to and its employees must be able to speak to the necessary people while being aware that this is the right thing to do. We need information, but without advance authorisation. Fifthly, you have mentioned hedge funds and we have not yet come to a decision on this subject. I am calling on the Council to enter into negotiations with Parliament very quickly so that we can hold the first reading of the hedge fund regulation before the summer. Sixthly, on the subject of the transaction tax, we must not just keep calling for it; we must put it into practice. The Commission should quickly submit a proposal for the European transaction tax. My eighth point is directed at the Council. We are committing ourselves to holding an impact assessment of all national legislation which is relevant to the EU. My ninth point is that we need to study the effects of all the measures on the real economy and we need more Europe and less intergovernmentalism. (The President cut off the speaker)

Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr López Garrido, ladies and gentlemen, I have a very specific question which will allow us to emerge from the position of powerlessness and confusion that the crisis has left us in, with no one knowing how the crisis arose and how we can find our way out of it. Mr Schulz has referred to the highly critical speculative products and credit default insurance and to the damaging practice of short selling, which brought Greece to the brink of disaster and could represent a major problem for Portugal and many other countries. Mr López Garrido, you have frequently attended the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) in recent months, why was it not possible for the Member States to take concerted action to ban these products? I have been asking this question in the capital of my own country over recent weeks and months and it has taken you months, in fact until yesterday evening, to introduce a ban on the damaging practice of short selling. I ask myself why we have to wait until things have gone wrong before making use of the appropriate legislative measures, which are already in place, to protect the people and the economies of Europe. I believe it has something to do with the Council’s dreadful, discouraging slowness to act, which you have referred to. I will make a deal with you. We in the European Parliament are presenting concrete proposals. In the context of regulating the supervisory bodies and the discussion about hedge funds, we have proposed that we should take appropriate measures on a European level and we will make the same resolution on derivatives, if you, Mr Langen, do what you are always saying. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 15

We are calling on you urgently to ensure that the Council finally begins to work with us to put in place legislation so that we in Europe are able to act and no longer have to wait for ever for the Council to make a move. We need to have the tools at our disposal in Europe to enable us to make progress. Please help to make sure that this happens in the Council. However, the decisive point is that the Council must take action on the legislation.

Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, this is probably the most serious crisis that has ever confronted Europe, which is why urgent action is needed; we have to take decisions, and good decisions at that, and we cannot wait until October. The rescue plan was the first decision taken and it was probably taken too late, but better late than never. Now, we must urgently follow it up with the establishment, in the long term, of a real European monetary fund, a European bond market and a European rating agency, because as we all know, the single currency will not be able to operate without budgetary, tax, economic and political convergence. Moreover, until Europe indicates that it wishes to be governed, the markets and speculators can quite simply take the reins. There is a lot of talk about economic governance, but perhaps we should concentrate on the issue of the actual governance of the European Union, which has been lacking recently. In my opinion, we should set two targets. Yes, of course the debt has to be reduced, but we must reduce it in a realistic and credible way and, at the same time, we must obtain those margins for manoeuvre and implement the reforms needed to prepare for the future. We must do both things at the same time. That is why it is vital to create synergies between the national budgets of Member States – I would have preferred the Commission to have expressed it in these terms – which is why it is probably vital to reform our tax system and to direct it more towards development and growth and to harmonise it. There will no monetary union unless there is budgetary, economic and political convergence.

Pascal Canfin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Rehn, as you know, there are two ways to reduce deficits. Expenditure can be cut or taxes can be increased. All States can cut expenditure at the same time, although separately, without needing any European coordination. However, to increase taxes and, more specifically, taxes on capital, companies, profits and banks, they do need European coordination. Your communication last week contained absolutely no mention at all of this issue. My question, which is a fairly common one among Members from all groups, is as follows: over the course of the next few weeks, are you going to propose a tax coordination plan to provide Member States with the means of recovering margins for manoeuvre so that they can increase certain taxes, which is something they are unable to do separately? This is the added value which the European Commission can provide at the present time. Unfortunately, you do not have any plans in this area. Mr Verhofstadt was saying that you had a right to take the initiative. In the current situation, you have a duty to take the initiative in this area.

Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, it is to be feared that the support package for Greece will not work. After all, no country in the world has ever managed to reduce a 14% budget deficit to 3% in three years. Greece will be no different. There is a great deal of opposition in Greece to the austerity measures, and so it is highly likely that the country will be sucked into a negative growth spiral, with sharply declining consumer spending even though an increase in that spending is actually needed to pay off the loans plus interest. Therefore, Athens will sound the alarm again at some point, saying, ‘we are not managing to pay it off’. There is a good chance that Europe will then write off the loans, with the familiar words, ‘we have no choice; we need to prevent worse happening’. Mr President, the lesson to be learned from this crisis is: be honest and keep your word. The countries of the euro area must put their budgets in order, publish honest figures, comply with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact and purge their debts. Countries failing to do those things must leave the euro area.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the biggest unemployment march in the last ten years is due to take place in Greece tomorrow. Greek workers are demonstrating against the measures taken by the government, workers who neither work less nor are paid more than their counterparts; you can see the data for yourselves. Mr Rehn, it is major hypocrisy to call this tripartite financing mechanism a ‘rescue and solidarity’ mechanism. It is a European punishment mechanism, with the International Monetary Fund playing bad cop. For six months, we have been suggesting that you make use of Article 122 of the Treaty of Lisbon. For six months, we have been calling on the European Central Bank to change its policy. For six months, we have been calling 16 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

on you to investigate the unacceptable American credit rating agencies. You did not do so. You let the speculators run riot, you brought the International Monetary Fund into the euro area and now you are asking for harsh austerity programmes. This mechanism must be debated by the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty of Lisbon; we need a real debate on solidarity policy.

Marta Andreasen (EFD). – Mr President, we can all recall the pompous presentation made by the Spanish Prime Minister earlier this year. However, Spain is now following Greece with a deficit of 11% in GDP. The EU bureaucracy immediately looks around to find someone to blame, but the fact is that it is this bureaucracy that is responsible for the crisis because it brought countries into the eurozone in the knowledge that their economies were not up to speed – or do we employ 1 000 people in Eurostat just to be a data collector? The hedge funds may be taking advantage of the situation, but they did not cause the crisis. The EU now demands cost reductions, but is it realistic to expect the cost of the public sector in Greece to be reduced if 20% of the working population is employed by the state and 50% of SMEs have the state as its only client? Now, a rescue package has been put forward but the reality is that most of the countries supposed to contribute to it do not have money to do so, such as is the case of the UK. In any case, the EU always takes the opportunity ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, too rapid centralisation and Europeanisation, possibly also in relation to the introduction of a European currency, are part of the cause of the current problems. The fact is that the European currency simply cannot be a hard currency in the long term, because it has brought together very different national economies, some of which are in a weak position, under the same umbrella of monetary policy. Now the call is for a common, centrally managed economic policy to accompany the single currency, which amounts almost to European economic governance. It is undoubtedly true that weak national economies must be subjected to strict controls on their budgets and their debt management strategy if they want to remain in the euro area. However, the sort of centralisation which takes the form of Brussels exerting budgetary authority over all the Member States would, in my opinion, be a massive and improper intervention in the sovereignty of the Member States. This would really just mean going from bad to worse. The crisis must not be used as an excuse to introduce more EU centralisation, which is something that many people have wanted since before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. If we really want to learn lessons from the current crisis, we may have to find a quite different structure for European monetary policy. This may be something like a European hard currency union in a core Europe, in which the national economies that do not meet the convergence criteria would exclude themselves from the euro area. We know that austerity programmes will soon be the order of the day throughout Europe. One thing is clear: if the Member States and the citizens of Europe have to introduce savings, then the European Union must do the same, perhaps by investigating the overlapping areas of authority and duplication of effort among its forest of agencies and sorting out its budgetary controls. We in Parliament will also have to consider whether, by increasing our staffing budget and raising the secretarial allowance, we are sending out the right signal at a time when savings are being introduced across the board.

IN THE CHAIR: MR LAMBRINIDIS Vice-President

Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, on the day that we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Schuman plan, on 9 May 2010, the Council formally laid the Monnet method to rest, with the help of the Commission. For example, a legal basis for the financial aid has been chosen which prevents Parliament from becoming involved, namely Article 122(2). The Commission has tolerated all of this. I would like to join in Mr Verhofstadt’s criticism. It is not a crisis in the system or in the euro, but a crisis in government. When I see the Spanish President-in-Office of the Council here, I have to ask myself what the Spanish Presidency has actually achieved. It has not come up with any ideas or any incentives. While we are discussing the most difficult problem faced by Europe, you are organising splendid summits in Madrid – we will not begrudge you that – but it does require us to be here. The Commission has accepted everything that has been thrown at it. It has allowed itself to be given the run around by the Council and following severe labour pains, it has given birth to a communication which does 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 17

not contain a single concrete proposal. I can only agree with Mr Bullmann in this respect. Where are the concrete proposals? Will we once again be given a basis for discussion for the next two or three years? That is simply not enough. We want the Commission to have the courage to take the initiative on the Monnet method, on the Community method and on common institutions and proposals. Everyone here knows that the cooperation of the Member States on economic and financial issues is long overdue. That is the cause of this crisis. It is caused by the level of debt in the Member States and the fact that they have lost control of it. The diversionary tactics aimed at areas of the financial market represent the wrong approach. Mr Schulz has not spoken as if he were suited to more than simply being the leader of his party, but he is right on one point and I would like to tell him so. We also regretted the fact that our Greek colleagues in this group did not support this package in the Greek Parliament. I think this is irresponsible. However, we should also point out that all the states in crisis in Europe, all of those which blocked the new moves, including Great Britain, Hungary, Portugal and Spain, have socialist governments.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the current session of the European Parliament began a year ago, and there has not been a single plenary sitting in which we have not discussed the crisis. It is true that there is nothing more important for us to talk about than a crisis that has destroyed 20 million jobs in Europe. It is very important, however, that we define our object correctly, because an equation that is poorly expressed is impossible to solve. The crisis is not the ‘euro crisis in Greece’. It is a crisis that has demonstrated three intolerable asymmetries that must be overcome.

The first is the asymmetry between the real economy and the financial economy. The second is the asymmetry between the monetary union and the lack of a fiscal, budgetary and economic-policy union that is in step with the monetary union. The third is the virulence of the crisis and its challenges and, despite this, the exasperating slowness of the response and decision-making mechanisms that are typical of the European Union. We are therefore behind in responding to all those millions of unemployed people who are looking to us, and we are raising difficulties that are not arising in other countries that are tackling the crisis with greater decision-making capacity. We have seen extraordinary decisions at the same time: the communication from the Commission, the extraordinary decisions of the Council of Ministers last week and, of course, the 2020 strategy. However, these extraordinary measures do not come free of charge: they are accompanied by major requirements, restrictions and threats of penalties for countries that are not capable of restricting spending, and which could therefore also compromise growth. Yesterday, we were talking here in Parliament about the European Convention on Human Rights and the Action Plan for the Stockholm Programme. We had the opportunity to recall that Europe cannot be built solely with an internal market and monetary union. Europe is not principally built on those things, but on citizenship. It is therefore the time to recall once again that those millions of Europeans are expressing their discontent with the Europe that we are offering them, with the Europe that is expressing more threats and penalties for countries that do not comply than incentives for a model of growth that is capable of restoring employment and social cohesion and assisting in the fight against poverty. Without that citizens’ Europe, this crisis will be impossible to resolve.

Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the Commissioner and the Spanish Presidency for everything that has been achieved recently, albeit late. Sailing a ship through a storm is not easy. You have broken down more barriers in a fortnight than in all the previous years put together, and I want to encourage you to continue along the same lines. I have a message for each of you. I should firstly like to say to the Spanish Presidency that in June, you are going to be responsible for the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy. Do not put your name to this mockery. The Lisbon Strategy has not worked; some of the problems faced by southern Europe are due to a lack of competitiveness. As Mr Verhofstadt said, we need another way. We also need financial supervision. It has just been explained to us that Parliament is going too far. I am rapporteur for the European Systemic Risk Board. I note that during the course of the most 18 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

turbulent weekend of the last few weeks, the word ‘systemic’ was uttered several times. Your presidency is responsible for this package. Be ambitious! You have our support. Do not listen to those in the Council who capitalise on the lack of regulation. My second message is addressed to Mr Rehn, whose courage I salute; I fully support the Commission’s proposal for national parliaments to work far more upstream with the EU. However, this must be approached very carefully or it will provide all the populists and all Europe’s critics with a golden opportunity. You have our support, but let us try to have a more inclusive approach with the national parliaments, rather than giving the impression that ‘Brussels’ is dictating everything. I note that it is those same national parliaments that claim to be the protectors of democracy that have put Europe in its current situation by voting, year in year out, for deficit budgets.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, we are in a situation of our own governments’ making; it is not as though rules were not there to prevent these crises happening in the first place. If rules such as the Stability and Growth Pact and the Maastricht criteria had been adhered to, we would not have the level of debt crisis that we currently have in many Member States. I find myself in the very strange situation of drawing parallels between the behaviour and financial skills of our Member States’ governments and those of our investment banks. We sit on the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs every week discussing the inappropriate behaviour of our banks, saying they have not obeyed the rules or they have applied them flexibly with financially engineered accounting measures. This is exactly what our governments have also been doing. We demand responsible corporate governance and yet the level of off-balance-sheet finance vehicles, special-purpose vehicles and undeclared contingent liabilities that our governments are engaged in does not show how to conduct responsible governance. In the UK, we have been shocked at the difference between the declared deficit of the outgoing government and what we have actually found once the books have been opened up. New leadership in the UK gives us a clear mandate to reassess the true state of finances. I really do hope that the rest of Europe can also do the same; restate their finances and find a way forwards.

Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, we need a coordinated European policy to address the consequences of the crisis; but Europe will have to stop being led by large companies, not forgetting the large financial institutions. Governments have twice had to bail out our financial institutions, without these institutions footing even part of the bill themselves. In the past two years, the aid to these institutions from the Netherlands alone has led to a EUR 2.5 billion increase in interest expenditure. In the same period, the largest Dutch pension fund, ABP, spent EUR 1 billion on Greek government bonds in order to achieve a somewhat higher rate of interest. In other words, speculation is continuing as before, and soon we may have to rescue the pension funds too. EU 2020 should lay the bill at the right door. Rather than by making extreme cutbacks to essential public services, the cost should be covered by the top earners and speculators, by means of partial debt relief for countries such as Greece and of a tax on banks, for example. This way, we preserve the European social model.

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to say that, in theory, I absolutely support the proposals made by Mr Olli Rehn, whom I am bold enough to consider the political head of Europe and the person who deserves our special respect. However, what I want to say and point out is that a raging fever is as dangerous as hypothermia, both in the human body and in the economy. We must not jump from the slow adaptation of Maastricht, through which the entire economy of Europe passed for many years, to forced and sudden adaptation which will prolong the recession. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. That is why I should like to point out that the continuing global economic disorder is due mainly to the creation of large unwanted reserves at global level and should be combated by efforts to stimulate growth at European level, so that we can address this crisis rationally.

Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Verhofstadt complained that nationalist and Marxist rhetoric are not enough to lead us out of the crisis. I will make an attempt with Europeanist rhetoric. Just a few weeks ago here in this House, many of us pledged our solidarity with Greece. Indeed, of what use is Europe if not to support Member States in need? 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19

However, of what use are the euro and the Eurogroup if they do not promote a culture of responsibility and stability? What will happen if solidarity becomes synonymous with a European Union that, in violation of the treaties, is reduced to footing the bill for those countries which sacrifice their responsibility for their citizens’ future for the fleeting consensus of a season? Commissioner, is it Europeanist rhetoric if we ask the European Commission to be independent and authoritative and not to have regard for governments that cook the books? Is it Europeanist rhetoric if we request new regulations for the financial markets? Is it Europeanist rhetoric if we complain of errors in the construction of the euro, for which there are still no common fiscal and pension policies? We are in the middle of a crisis, it is true, but this crisis was not produced by surplus or too much Europe, but by a shortage or not enough of it. Europe must strongly reprimand the States to be responsible, stable and serve the future generations. All this is not rhetoric if the initiatives we are talking about are simply created and implemented, and form part of a political strategy that is a step ahead of events so that we are not forced to run behind them.

David-Maria Sassoli (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a Europe of the people and not a Europe of the States. The crisis we are experiencing is the crisis of European policy’s inability to govern the market. In order to save the euro, political institutions need to be strengthened and intergovernmental logic needs to be left behind to allow for European governance. This is not rhetoric because a few minutes ago in Berlin, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, sounded the alarm stating that the euro is in danger. Voicing alarm without indicating strong and convincing measures risks further weakening the single currency for investors and the market and making all of Europe weaker. Imagine the response of the markets in the coming hours, considering that just minutes ago, the euro collapsed again. When we exit the House, Mr President, we may find ourselves poorer and more insecure. New European governance alone will allow us to defend the single currency, promote growth, employment and social inclusion. We must discard the old approach of coordinating national policies and equip ourselves with strong decision-making instruments. New European governance must assure three levels of intervention: a policy for growth, suitable financial instruments and emergency management. The EUR 750 billion rescue package was important but we have realised that it is not enough. Today, we need a strong political initiative that can guide the market to allow for greater mobility of the resources. The monetary and budget policies have proven inadequate in assuring productivity and competitiveness. We must not be afraid to invest, above all, in Community interest projects such as infrastructure, energy, the environment, knowledge and human capital. Mr President, Parliament has a great responsibility: to reinforce the capacity of Member States to leave intergovernmental policy behind and launch European spirit anew through its own independence.

Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European governments are being driven by the markets. At last they are reacting, but they are reacting after the event and not in advance. It is scandalous that the governments and the Commission only react when the real weaknesses appear in the markets. They should have identified these weaknesses themselves at an early stage. When the euro was introduced, we knew that we would not have a single monetary and fiscal policy, as is normally the case in individual states. For this reason, we have taken measures to find a substitute for this, but we have not adhered closely to these measures. The rules were broken very quickly and right at the start, even by the larger Member States. We need another effective set of rules with sanction mechanisms, including a name and shame policy, the loss of voting rights and suspension of payments from the European funds until the fines have been paid. Secondly, it has become clear that there are internal tensions within the euro area which are on the verge of putting its strength to the test and which take the form of differences in competitiveness. The Commission must take action in this area. It must investigate the budgets of the individual Member States to determine whether they represent a risk for the euro area.

Of course, we know that the right to draw up a budget is a central right of the national parliaments. However, that is no reason for failing to develop a common European approach. This is urgently needed. We need more Europe and not less Europe. This may well be our last chance. If the Commission and the Council do not negotiate with Parliament, I am afraid that the result will be a major disaster at some point in the future. 20 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) I agree with Mr Mauro that in the fight against the crises, there has not been enough action from the European Union. In recent years, we have concentrated on political integration – we have been taken up with the Treaty of Lisbon and strengthening the competences of political institutions – but we have neglected cooperation on combating the crises. I am thinking of a variety of crises which require cooperation and solidarity. I am not thinking just of financial crises here. As we hold this debate, several countries of the European Union, including my own country of Poland, have been hit by a huge flood. People have been killed, and there have been heavy material losses. People expect that in such situations, the European Union will come and help them, but there has not been much of this help. The European Union is weak because its budget is too small, and it does not have enough money for specific measures. Political strengthening is not being followed by the appropriate financial strengthening. I hope that as a result of this crisis, the tendency to reduce the budget will not increase still further, because then we will be even weaker and more helpless.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the moment has now arrived in this crisis, which is not only European but also global, when we must have truth and clear-headedness and when responsibility must be taken. Global governance is being established. What influence will Europeans have? How are we going to influence this global governance if we are incapable of establishing our own European governance? Nobody could have failed to see that, after 50 years of integration, increasing national selfishness was putting us at risk of 50 years of disintegration. Nobody could have failed to see that we were trying to create citizenship without the citizens, to conduct politics without the voters, to establish faith in the ideal of a rule of law without complying with it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we reunified our continent with a belief in our strength but we were too proud to see our weaknesses. And what is happening now? The crisis is hitting us full in the face at a time when our European integration is fragile and comprises poorly governed and, in some cases, corrupt States. The chain of solidarity in the Union is currently being tested, and we all know that the strength of a chain is that of its weakest link. We are right to save the weakest, because the time has come, and it will be our strength that saves them. It is not EU regulations that are inadequate but their implementation by Member States and the European Commission, which has not adequately monitored the States, which has been defective. It is not less Europe that we need, it is more Europe, but a Europe of truth, clear-headedness and responsibility. Of course, we have to respect the Stability and Growth Pact, which must be reformed. Yet the task facing us now is to regain the trust of our citizens, which means ensuring growth and jobs. Growth means investment. If the public sector does not invest, we cannot expect the private sector to do so. In addition to a crucially important industrial policy, I propose, for the 10 years of the EU 2020 strategy, a major EUR 1 000 billion European investment plan aimed at making the EU territory the most competitive in the world in terms of trans-European networks, infrastructure, interconnections, high-speed trains, broadband services, motorways, water, space, research, health, energy, and education, and achieved through a reform of our budgetary support measures, in cooperation with all the public stakeholders and, in particular, the EIB.

Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, when the economic and monetary union turned 10 years old, the Commission thought that the euro was the Union’s greatest success. It would now be difficult for us to make that statement without qualifying it, because the crisis has shown that the economic and monetary union is an unfinished project. The minimum measures needed to save it were taken in a climate of emergency, but let us not delude ourselves: the pressurised conditions, the direct interests of the main Member States, and the painful and slow nature of the decisions have led to the precarious image that the public and the world have of the euro and the European Union. We must face the facts. The European Union and the euro are a process of integration, not just inter-country cooperation: they are an unfinished process that must either be reinforced now or run a serious risk of disappearing. There are three issues that must be tackled. First, it is important to consolidate the instruments that have been created in this climate of emergency: a European monetary fund must be created; progress must be made with Eurobonds; progress must be made with the European supervisory and regulatory architecture, and progress must be made with a European dimension for managing the banking crises. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 21

Second, it is important to understand that there is no strong currency if the economy is weak: the forecast of 1% growth for the European Union is unsustainable both in terms of its demographic makeup and in terms of fighting unemployment; and the 2020 strategy is nothing more than a collection of good ideas if there are no means for realising it. Third, Mr Rehn, fiscal consolidation is important, but it cannot coexist with growing divergence between the Member States that make up the Union: convergence policy must be urgently reviewed.

Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) For the third time now, the European Parliament is giving its attention to a centrally prepared 10-year plan entitled Europe 2020. The plan has engendered antipathy among many Members, not only because of the associations it evokes with historically outmoded political systems, but also because of the spectacular fiasco of its predecessor, the Lisbon Strategy.

Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I believe that the worst crisis that we could suffer is not only the one that we are currently suffering, but the one that we will suffer if we are not capable of learning the right political lessons regarding what is happening. We have been living beyond our means, especially in some countries. We have moved away from the real economy and embraced the fictional economy, in our public accounts and, at the same time, in our family and private lives. We have not been capable of understanding that, as is the case for any living organism, growing is not the same thing as getting fat. Growth requires effort and proportion, while the process of getting fat involves a lack of proportion and balance in comparison with the work that we do and the welfare that we enjoy. This crisis does not remain static. The picture of the crisis a few months ago was a different one, a completely different one, to the picture that we have today. The picture of the crisis in a few months is going to be a different one to the picture that we have today. This crisis was economic and financial, and will have a growing social dimension involving social conflict. This means that while we are in this phase, before the conflict becomes a social one, those of us involved in politics need to be aware that our main crisis is a crisis of confidence. It is not only a crisis of the euro. Let us analyse all the political and electoral processes in recent months. There is a crisis of confidence, and that means that what we need to ask ourselves is how we need to change, how our attitude needs to change: our political, institutional and personal attitude. In this respect, instead of thinking about other institutions, the question that Parliament needs to ask itself is what contribution it can make to a change of institutional and political attitude in this House. I dare say that today, having heard many reasons for the crisis – bureaucracy, agencies, governments – there are two issues on which we need to change. Firstly, Europe requires a minimum level of cohesion from Parliament: it cannot bleed itself dry in such a profound debate on two concepts of European society. Secondly, we need to dare to tell the truth about what is happening to us.

Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) First of all, I should like to take ten seconds out of the proceedings to restore the truth. Mr Langen, who is not in the House, said that it was unacceptable that Greek members had voted against the three-year stabilisation programme in the Greek Parliament. I should like to point out that it would be a good idea for Mr Langen to repeat his recommendations at the next meeting of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), because those members, who happened to be responsible for governing the country until a few months ago, belong to the PPE. To return to the more general issue, it is a fact that the current crisis has highlighted chronic sicknesses and weaknesses in terms of the economic coordination of the euro area and in terms of the global system of economic governance and, as a result, huge, uncontrolled power has been amassed in the globalised financial system. So, today, we have, first and foremost, a question of democracy to address and Europe, if it wants to respect its values and history, needs to take a leading role here.

The decision to establish a euro area stability support mechanism is an important step, there can be no doubt about that. However, a crisis management mechanism is not enough; we need to tackle the causes at the root, not only at national, but also at European level. We are making a mistake and undermining our common future and the future of subsequent generations by putting the sole emphasis on immediate financial recovery and underestimating the impact of growth, employment and the basic structures of the welfare state which have been several decades in the making. 22 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Commissioner, the proposals to strengthen economic cooperation which you presented on 12 May may help to construct a more cohesive Europe, with fewer macro-economic imbalances, subject to two preconditions: firstly, that they will not be limited to the inflexible application of the Stability and Growth Pact and, secondly, that they will fully incorporate specialised targets for viable growth and employment within the framework of the 2020 strategy.

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, several colleagues from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) have already drawn a very complete picture of the situation. I think that what is needed now is mention of the role of the Member States. The fact is that the national government of each Member State also has a role here as regards imposing the requirements and conditions for strengthening the single currency, and moving this project of monetary and economic integration forward. I would like to say here that our party – the party linked to the PPE Group, which is the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) – is supporting the government’s austerity measures, because we believe that the mistakes that have been made during 15 years of socialist government in Portugal, which are now unfortunately visible for all to see, must be remedied; the PSD will support measures to remedy them. Nevertheless, while we are supporting the austerity measures, we would also criticise the Portuguese Government – and this is a good example to others in similar situations – because it is not cutting spending. To reduce the deficit, it is essential not just to increase taxes, but also to cut spending and the government must have the courage to take measures to reduce spending, reduce the deficit and pay off some public debt.

This is true for Portugal and it is also true for other Member States that are in difficult situations. We, as MEPs, are also responsible for defending in our countries the measures that are necessary in order for the euro to come out stronger, and for this integrated area and this dream – the dream of the PPE Group and the dream we all share – to become a reality. That is why we are critical of governments that do not have the courage to take the necessary measures in their countries.

Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, in some key points, this more communal economic policy also has an impact on the EU budget. We are talking about the funding of the strategic flagship project Europe 2020. We are talking about some costs, guarantees and so on for the loan mechanism and control of the financial markets. We are talking, not least, about a series of new duties that result from the Treaty of Lisbon. In the European Parliament, we are highly conscious of the fact that many Member States currently find themselves in an extremely tricky economic situation, often with difficult national budget problems. On the other hand, it is clear that, in this situation, the EU can help by taking measures that are important for the economic recovery of the Member States and that will give a new boost to growth and job creation. The EU budget should therefore focus on areas where the EU can provide added value – European added value – and where the budgets of Member States and of the EU can complement and support one another. That also means, however, that the Member States cannot give the EU significant additional responsibilities without providing the necessary resources. I am thinking of research policy, flagship projects and education and infrastructure investments that are required if we are to have a better economic future. I therefore think it is incredibly important that the spirit of this increasingly communal economic policy should also be reflected in a constructive attitude in the negotiations on the EU budget for 2011, in the mid-term review of the long-term budget and in the debate on the new financial framework after 2013. Otherwise, we will not be able to move forwards and put in place common measures to promote growth and jobs.

Theodoros Skylakakis (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, as a Greek member of the European Parliament, I should like to repeat in the House something which I have said in public in Greece from the outset and to express my gratitude for the help which my country has received from the European support mechanism which, in conjunction with harsh but mostly unavoidable measures, has prevented the Greek economy from immediate collapse.

It would be useful if the mechanism for Greece had been adopted with the speed at which the support mechanism proceeded for other economies, when Europe finally realised the risk which we were all running. Today is the first time that I have seen real determination, both in Parliament and in the other European institutions, to look directly and realistically at the real economic impasses in Europe. Why are we in this situation? The main reason is that we have spent beyond our means and run up credit. We spent when there 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 23

was no crisis, we spent during the crisis, we are spending now on our way out of the crisis. Anyone who wants to learn what happens when you consistently spend more than you have just needs to come to Greece. The European Monetary Fund and the other institutions proposed in the resolution under negotiation are moving in the right direction. However, if it is to provide real incentives, the Fund needs to take account not only of the absolute size of the debt and deficit, but also of the speed of reduction of the debt and the deficit. Our real problem, and I say this to the left wing, is that 4 billion people in the developing world living on EUR 200 a month have discovered capitalism and are claiming global resources and markets from us, the rich, who live on EUR 2 000 a month. We in the West do not have a monopoly on the capitalism on which the old European model was built. If we do not change, if we do not hurry up with structural changes, competitiveness and innovation, we shall simply live more poorly.

Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, there is little doubt about the seriousness of the current crisis and the ‘cost of use’ of unprecedented policy methods is very high. The task of regulators and policy makers is to undertake actions that make it possible both to restore the equilibrium shattered by market failure and to correct failed government policies. This is being done, but it has still to be seen how fast, and through what policy measures, European Union Member States will return to their path of growth. More regulation is not a guarantee against the risks of the current crisis. As we have chosen the path of more regulation, it should go hand in hand with increased simplicity and reduce the complexity of financial markets. What is also clear is that fiscal and monetary policies are not substitutes for structural reforms. Structural reforms have to address the underlying weaknesses of the European Union economy: sharply growing debts and deficits, ageing, the highly probable new surge of inflation, risks generated by climate-change policies, low productivity and lack of competitiveness. With less public money, more will have to be done; hence, public money, both European and national, will have to be used more efficiently. A business friendly regulatory environment, efficient government, non-distortionary taxes, high labour participation rates, especially among women, a good education system, research and innovation – all that constitutes a minimum core package of measures to bring growth, jobs and competitiveness. Without doubt, the European winning strategy has to be based on fiscal tightening, but its focus should be on innovation, the only way to boost productivity and growth in a sustainable way. The European Commission and the European Parliament should regain their strategic role and go for brave European solutions. Both citizens and markets need more Europe.

Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I take it as a given that sovereign states must be held to account for commitments made and be required to meet agreed objectives, so I start from there. But it is also time to look around and see what other actions are contributing to the recent turmoil. In the 1930s, the gold standard and protectionism contributed to a deepening of the recession. By contrast, within the European Union, we have had solidarity and the institutional capacity, via the European Central Bank and the Commission, to learn from past mistakes. The work of the institutions has been impressive, given that there are 27 EU Member States, including 16 euro members. Furthermore, our institutions have cooperated with the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Japanese Central Bank and others. Despite this, the markets – the so-called markets – have, in effect, moved to take a negative view of almost every step taken. Now I am all for free markets; protectionism does not work. But are our markets free? The markets were well-massaged and influenced towards getting us into the crisis in the first place. Is there not by now a reasonable suspicion that powerful interests have a capacity to take on sovereign states and win, and that some – for whatever objectives – are using this power to advance their own agenda, using the markets for their own ends? A political agenda could include concerns that the euro could, in future, replace the dollar as the pricing currency for oil, for example; a business and economic interest agenda could include simply amassing greater power and wealth by destroying sovereign rights, including shared sovereign rights, within the European Union. It is time for political leaders to reflect on just what is happening. I repeat: Member States must be disciplined, including the Member State I come from. Of course that must happen. But we are putting all the emphasis on Member States and very little on what is behind some market activity. I would like to hear from the Presidency of the Council and from the Commissioner. What is being done to police this? When we did not police these people in the past, look where they led us. So do not have just one prong on your fork: it is time to have two prongs. 24 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) The Europe 2020 strategy is a very important strategy, especially now, at a time of growing financial and economic crisis. This crisis has spotlighted such fundamental questions and negative processes that if we do not integrate these into our strategy, this may jeopardise the success of our economic policy. We must not allow the prestige of the euro to be damaged, but must do all we can for the sustainability of monetary union. I represent the last country to join the euro area. Slovakia’s citizens consider the introduction of the euro a success story and therefore it is contributing as well to the protection of the euro with every means available. We must raise awareness that the monetary crisis may have serious political consequences. These may include increased euroscepticism and uncertainty among those countries that are preparing to enter the euro area. We need to help and encourage those countries that have not yet introduced the single currency. In devising the EU 2020 strategy, policies that guarantee sustainable development must be given a major role. Although work on energy diversification solutions in Central Europe is in progress, there must also be increased use of alternative energy sources in order to reduce climate change. We must also make people aware that the capacity of current alternative energy sources is finite. From the perspective of our long-term energy security, nuclear energy is the solution that can guarantee a sufficient amount of energy with the lowest levels of carbon dioxide emissions and, therefore, we must place great emphasis on the related question of the safe storage and production of fuel. Providing impetus for further research into modern energy technologies, such as the innovation involving fusion-based reactors, is also indispensable. Many important questions arise that we wish to incorporate into our strategy, and we are faced with the major task of improving the coordination and integration of various areas. It is only by doing this that we can ensure that, in addition to a monetary union, the all important economic union will also be achieved.

Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) I very warmly welcome the measures put forward by the Commission and Council. If these measures had been adopted some time ago, we could have avoided a large number of the effects of the crisis we are going through. A lack of economic governance led to decisions being taken under pressure and without any consultation with the European Parliament. In addition, there are no mechanisms in place for monitoring the measures adopted. Last year, large sums of money were injected into banks. This was a necessary measure, but saving the banks has not helped mitigate the crisis later on. The crisis has continued. The Growth and Stability Pact has not been adhered to. Unacceptable deficits have been run up. States have taken different measures in similar situations. Some have decided to tell their citizens the truth and adopt austerity measures. The lack of common rules is having different effects on Europe’s citizens, even though all Member States have helped trigger the crisis. We cannot consume more than we produce, nor can we spend more than we can collect. We need financial stability. This is why the proposals for creating a new financial stability mechanism or European monetary fund are an absolute necessity. However, these measures need to be backed up by a coherent economic recovery strategy and by control and sanction mechanisms. This will allow us to say that we are going to establish real, effective economic governance for the benefit of all Member States.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I will abide by your rule. I welcome the Spanish Presidency’s comments about productive systems and a focus on competitiveness. I think we need a little bit more of that conversation in this Parliament, in Council and in the Commission. In relation to your comments about the slow response, we need to look at that because there is the problem of a lethargy in the European system in terms of response. Member States could have reacted more swiftly when the banking crisis hit. We are capable of doing it but we seem not to have done it in this particular instance. Finally, the Commission is looking for four pillars of a new strategy. I think the Commission needs to examine its own role in this crisis. I believe that the monitoring of the rules of the Growth and Stability Pact were on the basis of a ‘soft’ power approach which did not work. Had we all, as others have said, abided by the rules, we would not have this problem. Giving you more power will only work if you actually use the power you already have.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) During the current economic crisis, the Europe 2020 strategy seems to be posing a real challenge. On the other hand, it provides an opportunity as well. It can give an important fillip 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 25

in terms of supporting the economic and social reforms required long term. Solidarity and adaptability must be the principles on which it is founded. I believe that the allocations for the Cohesion Funds must be kept as they play a fundamental role in reducing the disparities in economic development between the EU’s regions. On the other hand, it goes without saying that the objectives adopted at European Union level cannot automatically become national objectives. They must be adapted according to the possibilities of each country. The Romanian Government has set up a high-level working group which will set national objectives. At the same time, it will help coordinate the drafting of the National Reform Plan.

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – (EL) The behaviour of the markets and of the banks is like a pack of wolves, as the Swedish Finance Minister called them, a pack of wolves ready to tear the economically weak countries apart. The first victim was Greece, followed by Spain and Portugal. In the case of Greece, we saw speculators hit it mercilessly, on the one hand, and Community solidarity which was very late coming and which came on very harsh terms, forcing the Greek people to make very unpleasant sacrifices and embark on justified strikes, on the other. It would appear that the protagonists of the international economic crisis are now the states, not the banks. We need to learn from this adversity. The European Union needs more Community solidarity, better supervision of the financial system, stronger national compliance with the Stability Pact, more coordinated financial policy and measures to prevent competitive imbalances. The people of Europe want a more humane Europe, with fewer inequalities between the Member States. The time has come for a more realistic and people friendly programme for the European Union of 2020 which listens to the challenges of the times.

Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, Europe needs more cooperation and more solidarity – not protectionism and nationalism. We know that – history has taught us. I find it hard to understand the fear that the finance ministers evidently feel when faced with this proposal for prior examination of the Member States’ budgets. In recent months, even hardened finance ministers were, and should have been, afraid. A vein of national self-assertion can certainly be detected here. By all means scrutinise other countries, but not mine. Scrutinise Greece, Spain and Portugal, but not my country. Noli me tangere - touch me not! Our mutual dependence requires openness and trust. The Swedish and Finnish governments both have experience from the 1990s of serious crises, and they should both whole-heartedly support Commissioner Rehn’s proposals.

Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) A responsible budget policy in all countries of the European Union is only the first step towards solving the current situation. The next step, which is surely more difficult to implement, should be to strive for a measured change to our workforce structure. A large proportion of EU citizens, that is to say, are employed in non-productive sectors, especially public administration, and the productive sphere is not capable of supporting such a large number of bureaucrats, who only complicate life by dreaming up ever more regulations and restrictions. Take a look at Asia, Commissioner. They do not have such a high percentage of educated people there or as many universities as we do. However, they do have a small public administration and an uncomplicated entrepreneurial environment, allowing them to develop the natural competitiveness which many people possess. An uncomplicated, transparent entrepreneurial environment, less administration and more room for the independent, entrepreneurial and creative activities of our citizens: that is the best way out of the current problems.

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the economic crisis is not a temporary illness from which EU Members will soon recover to full economic health. There are systemic flaws in the approach to economic policy of the EU and its Member States. The goal of a single currency, eventually for 27 plus countries, is based on the false assumption that one currency can be appropriate for many very different economies. The value of a currency must reflect the state of health of the economy it serves.

However, there are other distinct problems. The embrace of globalisation by the EU and its individual Member States is a recipe for disaster. We cannot allow goods and workers from low-wage countries to flood into Europe. We cannot compete with their goods without reducing our wage rates to their levels. Legal minimum wage levels will not prevent our workers being undercut covertly by migrant workers, the outsourcing of the work of our peoples or by moving our manufacturing to the Third World. 26 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Rehn for his kind words and confidence in the efforts of Estonia joining the eurozone, and I can assure you that, with the present financial burden at 7.5% of GDP, Estonia will not contribute to the increase of the average EU debt level. I trust also that eurozone colleagues will be able to accept Estonia as a positive example; that would send an encouraging signal also to Latvia and Lithuania convincing their people that it makes sense to make efforts and that all the applicants will be treated according to their merits. Joining the eurozone at this moment is not just a privilege. It means taking solidarity commitments and making our contribution to the Consolidation Pact from the beginning, but I am convinced that this is a right decision; we shall see the EU not only as an opportunity to receive but, first and foremost, as a chance to contribute to advance our common cause.

Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Today’s debate on economic governance in the European Union is a fundamental discussion, because it concerns the matter of continuing to strengthen European integration. In view of their advanced economic links, Member States should all feel an equal responsibility for a European stabilisation mechanism and for the entire economic situation in Europe. I do not think any of us should be in any doubt that accurate monitoring of public liabilities and expenses (the President interrupted the speaker), coordination of the process of creating budgets and plans for reform in Member States at an early stage and a mechanism for aid in times of crisis are measures which are heading in the right direction. Conscientious implementation of the principles of the Stability and Growth Pact should be a priority. This is a key to ensuring budgetary and macro-economic stability in the European Union. While a set of punishments and the principle of naming and shaming are essential for disciplining Member States in introducing the principles of the pact and essential reforms, I am reserved about financial penalties. For these penalties, used in the case of Member States which are already in a difficult financial situation, could have the opposite effect, an adverse effect on the economies of these countries … (The President interrupted the speaker) Therefore, I would ask that we plan the future of Europe responsibly.

Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, when there is a crisis the psychological reaction is either to curl up in a ball, blame others, look for enemies or try to find solutions. Europe is now witnessing this threeway approach: on the one hand, nationalism and protectionism are on the rise in many countries; on the other, new solutions are being sought, as is the case with the Commission. We have to appreciate them dearly. The stronger the political system is in the European Union and at national level, the better we can tame market forces. Otherwise, it will go badly. I think there is one thing we could stop doing, and that is ridiculing Greece. The Greek nation, Prime Minister and politicians now deserve our respect, since they are taking some very difficult decisions. As Mr Schmidt said, Finland and Sweden were Greece in the early 1990s. We had to take decisions that were just as hard, but we succeeded.

President. – I am sorry to interrupt you. You will notice in the Chamber that, although she was saying very nice things about Greece, I did interrupt her at exactly one minute, so I am trying to be as objective as I can be here.

Michael Theurer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the current debate on a functioning system of European economic governance, the long-term perspective is being neglected, in my opinion. Now is the right time to incorporate the short-term stabilisation measures into a long-term strategy. We need a vision of a market economy. The fundamental principle of the social market economy is already laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. We must now bring it to life. The social market economy was the successful model behind Germany’s economic miracle. Walter Eugen, the guiding light of the economic miracle, remarked as early as 1950 that the economic activity of the state should focus on designing the regulatory systems for the economy and not on managing the economic processes. Therefore, I am calling for a regulatory approach, in other words, measures taken by the state to influence the basic conditions of economic activity by means of general legislation. It is not the state which creates jobs, but it must create a regulatory framework for job creation and this is what we need to focus on. Competitiveness is not the start but the result of economic activity.

Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in the Europe 2020 strategy, we must tackle the roots of the current crisis. Would it be sensible to introduce a monetary union along American lines without the necessary 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 27

central controls on financial policy? The answer is ‘no’. The euro must not be allowed to turn the EU into a huge redistribution mechanism based on mandatory solidarity. If we are to have a monetary union, it must be a hard monetary union. In addition, the free financial markets must not be regarded as being separate from the real economy in future. Therefore, we need clear rules in the Europe 2020 strategy to deal with speculators and hedge funds. The route proposed by Austria and yesterday by Germany, towards a financial transaction tax, which involves the taxation of profits made by the banks and the financial sector, is definitely the right approach. Let us set an example to taxpayers and remind the financial sector of its obligations at last. We also need to be braver in applying the rules to the Member States. Any state which deliberately falsifies its figures must quite simply be ejected from the euro area. Countries which commit fraud must leave.

Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, the Europe 2020 strategy presents us with a specific challenge. Overall, we must focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We should make sure that by 2020, small and medium-sized companies have an average minimum capital quota of 20%. We need strong SMEs in Europe, because they employ two thirds of the workforce, produce 50% of the gross national product and pay 80% of the taxes. The Commission has simply forgotten to include objectives to strengthen small and medium-sized companies in this programme. Mr Rehn, I am calling on you specifically to take action on behalf of SMEs and to draw up objectives to strengthen the position of these companies and their employees.

Milan Zver (PPE). – (SL) Today’s has been one of the better debates we have had on the financial and economic crisis, especially on how it has played out in Greece, and most of the contributions have essentially centred on the issue of how we should govern the European Union in the future. However, I would also agree with what those speakers who seek to apportion blame for this situation have pointed out. In my view, that is the right way forward and it is important that we take that route. We need to ask questions about the responsibility of some European institutions, and not just the collective responsibility of the institutions but who exactly is responsible for what. Might I therefore suggest that we call to task Mr Almunia, the ex-Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, for example, as he was quite critical towards some countries during his term of office and then the Greek issue came up. I call on him to clarify his role in this story and, if he fails to do so, he should resign.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, the last few weeks have seen us put measures in place to deal with a financial crisis that has already occurred – a financial crisis caused by a lack of regulation, a lack of supervision and a lack of governance. Today’s measures see us trying to anticipate these situations so that they will not occur in the future, and they are to be welcomed. We all perform better when there is somebody looking over our shoulder. That applies to governments as well as to individuals. So I appreciate what has been done here today and I think that, from today on, we should also move on to dealing with the financial terrorists of the rating agencies and the speculators who are playing havoc with people’s lives and trying to bring down sovereign governments. By taking that twin approach – dealing with governance at political level and dealing with the financial terrorists – we might be able to look forward to a better future.

Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Rehn, Mr López Garrido, we are talking today about common European economic governance. I believe it is time for us to realise that the market does not have an independent value and that the citizens of Europe do not have to serve the market, but instead, that the market is there to serve the people, the 500 million Europeans. I am convinced that we need consolidation and growth, but both terms are always connected with another aspect, in other words, socially responsible consolidation on the one hand and sustainable growth on the other. We need confidence to achieve this and the people of Europe need perspectives. However, we will only be able to offer them these perspectives if we can promise them that they will live in a Europe where they can share in the prosperity or put measures in place to ensure that this is the case. In the Europe of the future, growth should not only benefit the few.

Rachida Dati (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, first of all, it is true that the sudden emergence and the depth of the Greek crisis have created a great deal of fear amongst our fellow citizens, fear which I think is legitimate. Once again, this does not mean, as a Member has just said, that we should point the finger at Greece. However, 28 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

it is important, it is urgent – as we have been saying for some time now – to learn the necessary lessons so that we can build a more political Europe and move towards economic governance. Economic governance should now be proposed as a matter of urgency. I understand that the Commission is proposing to scrutinise the national budgets in advance. Personally, I do not think we should switch horses. What is fundamentally and urgently needed is European economic governance and not prior scrutiny of the national budgets by the Commission. I think that this proposal would not only reveal constitutional inconsistencies but also create delays and complexity, which is definitely not what Europe needs at the moment. What is urgently needed is European economic governance and not prior scrutiny of the national budgets.

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) We all know that the Europe 2020 strategy was launched with the aim of helping the European Union emerge from the current economic crisis and prepare its economy for the new decade. However, it is a serious matter that the Europe 2020 strategy does not even provide clear guidance on revising one of the most important common policies, namely, the reform of the common agricultural policy. What makes this even more serious is that the reference to agriculture as a vital political instrument for achieving the EU 2020 strategy objectives was only made at the last minute. This is why we are not even surprised that there is too little mention of agricultural policies in this document. In this regard, the EU 2020 strategy includes some ideas about the future CAP. However, it fails to assign it a key strategic role as part of a wider, global approach, taking into account the huge challenges posed by the prospects of a twofold increase in the global demand for food and of climate change.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have detailed analyses of the causes of the crisis in the euro area and the economic collapse in Greece, or of the dangers which are facing other countries. Is the global financial crisis, which turned into the economic crisis, the cause of this situation, or are we dealing, here, with our own mistakes, neglect and lack of action? Let us say clearly and honestly that there was no coordination of financial policy in our Union. The Stability and Growth Pact was not adhered to, and financial discipline was not maintained. National budgets were often detached from reality: high costs, low incomes and lack of responsibility in governing the state. I would like to ask: where was the European Central Bank? Where was the Commission? Let us say honestly that the problem lies in the fact that the Member States do not allow monitoring, evaluation and analysis of their budgets by EU institutions. In recent years, we have concentrated mainly on the Treaty of Lisbon, and we have devoted less attention to economic union, and especially monetary union.

Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr President, we can really say that the European Union is facing a situation that is similar to others in its painful history that have been resolved favourably. Europe is at a crossroads, just as it was after the Second World War, which resulted in the birth of what was not then known as the European Union. It is what happened when the Berlin wall fell, when Europe was reunified, when there was, incidentally, a crisis in the European monetary system. The response was to move forward and adopt a new treaty. That is what we have done at the start of this century with the Treaty of Lisbon, and that is the only way out of a difficult situation such as the one that we are in. The other alternatives, of course, are clearly populism or protectionism, and they are not an option. The clear choice is to move towards a Europe that resolves its shortcomings, which were demonstrated when this extremely serious crisis arose, the like of which those of us here in this House have never known. Therefore, the way to respond to the situation of deregulated markets; a lack of competitiveness in the production system, which is having serious effects, with a social impact in terms of unemployment; the deficit problem, with 20 countries out of the 27 having begun excessive debt proceedings; and to an obvious lack of economic governance in the European Union, is not with less Europe but with more Europe. That is the way to respond to this situation right now. It should be said that there has been a reaction, that the European Union has reacted, and I refer to the previous speeches made by Commissioner Rehn and by me, in which we set out how the European Union has reacted. At the moment, however, times are moving even faster, and I think that we need to be quicker in our response, which must help to resolve the fundamental problems that still exist in the European Union and have been put to the test as a result of this crisis. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 29

I therefore want to propose that the European Union institutions and, of course, Parliament, cooperate on what I believe are the five aspects on which we need to move more quickly. We need to speed up, round off or complete the task that was planned and begun in the correct way. The first aspect is solidarity. We need to deepen solidarity in the euro area, which is why the aid to Greece was so right and why the decision was so right to create this EUR 750 million fund – for a three-year period, so it is not yet completely permanent – to prevent possible difficult situations with public accounts or imbalances in public accounts. I think that this is a fundamental element, and that it was right for the Council to propose it and adopt it on 9 May. Alongside this there has been the action of the European Central Bank, which is intervening even now, buying debt from the Member States through the channels permitted by the Treaty of Lisbon. Secondly, just today, Parliament has been examining a financial supervision package. We have, to some extent, had a foretaste of this with the adoption of the regulation of hedge funds in the Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) Council yesterday. Therefore we can do it, of course we can do it. This regulation has been produced, but we need to conclude the negotiations between the Council and Parliament on the whole financial supervision package as soon as possible. This package also, incidentally, regulates the rating agencies, because – in relation to one of the suggestions or questions put forward by Members – the rating agencies are going to be subject to supervision by the European authority. Thirdly, we need to commit to competitiveness. It is therefore very important for the 2020 strategy to be adopted and launched in the European Council in June, and that it quantifies the targets, including on poverty and social inclusion, which have not yet been quantified. It should be a strategy that establishes its own governance, and that governance should be much more demanding than the practically inexistent governance of the Treaty of Lisbon, as Mr Verhofstadt was saying earlier. It should also use positive incentives to ensure that the targets are reached, such as using European funds or the Structural Funds. The fourth important element is the package on the coordination of economic policies presented by Commissioner Rehn on 12 May, which was examined yesterday in the Ecofin Council. It is absolutely essential that we comply with the Treaty of Lisbon when it states in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that the Member States are obliged – not that it is better or desirable, they are obliged – to coordinate their economic policies and employment policies, and may also coordinate their social policies. Along these lines, we think that the implementation of Article 136 of the TFEU, established by this Commission proposal, is very important, and we also need to speed up putting it into practice. Finally, I also believe that we must speed up the debate or the decision, which I think must be raised at the G20, on a tax on international financial transactions. I would ask Parliament to support these very significant and very important points, which would be a step forwards towards what is being described as the economic governance or government of the Union, so that a decision can be made on it as soon as possible. We cannot wait much longer for this. I believe that unity in the EU has never been as essential as it is now, and I am not just talking about unity between the EU Member States, but also between the institutions. Parliament is a European institution, the Commission is a European institution and the Council is also a European institution. The institutions need to work together at this time so that the move towards government of the Union and resolving the fundamental problems that have emerged can be consolidated. Let this be an expression of our commitment to beginning a new political phase in the EU that is beneficial to citizens, who are expecting us to do so. Do not expect anything else; expect us to do precisely that.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you to the Members for a very serious and substantive debate reflecting the serious situation we are now facing in Europe. Let me first say that I highly appreciate the broad support given by the European Parliament for reinforcing economic governance. I also listened very carefully to Minister López Garrido and I thank the Spanish Presidency for their support and for the excellent cooperation on this issue as well as on other issues. I strongly agree with those of you who have called for an economic union to complement the monetary one. This is the way forward, and this is the critical lesson we must learn from the crisis. We have to work on three strengths. First of all, we need vigilance for the immediate resolution of the crisis in Greece and elsewhere in Europe. We have avoided another Lehman Brothers happening on European soil, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet, and therefore we must continue with vigilance and determination to safeguard financial stability in Europe and thus protect the still-fragile economic recovery of our continent. 30 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Secondly, we need to speed up, intensify and complete the regulatory reform of financial markets, bank levies, short selling and credit agencies. It is much better to act at a European level and to do it as soon as possible. We need to create a framework to correct the systemic errors of the financial markets and on this, I very much agree with Mrs Jaakonsaari and Mr Swoboda. The market can be a good servant but it is a bad master and, as Mr Theurer said, we need to work for the basic idea of a social market economy in order to create a credible legal framework for financial markets through completing the regulatory reform. Thirdly, we need to move on to decisions concerning reinforcing economic governance in Europe; we need to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact through preventive fiscal surveillance; we must put in place workable sanctions and they must be rules-based, as Mr Kallas said, and we need to get audit powers for Eurostat ... (The President cut off the speaker)

President. – Colleagues, this is the round-up of a very important debate. I kindly ask you to try to keep your conversations to a minimum in this Chamber and respect the Commissioner’s final remarks. The Commissioner has the floor.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am quite used to this but I would appreciate it if there were some interest in the House in what I am going to say.

Immediate crisis resolution, complete financial market reform and reinforcing economic governance: these are the three main tasks that we have to work on as soon as possible now. I agree with Mr Marinescu, who referred to the Commission’s communication, and it is indeed more than anyone would have thought even half a year ago. Please read those 10 pages of the communication on reinforcing economic governance in Europe. Ten pages sounds short, but it is full of concrete initiatives. This is heavy stuff, which is what we need in Europe. I will come up with concrete proposals, legislative proposals, shortly. We have taken the initiative and we shall move on. Mr Verhofstadt said that we should not wait for the task force. Well, we contribute actively and constructively to the work of the task force presided over by President Herman Van Rompuy but, yes, we shall use our right of initiative and we shall soon put forward concrete legislative proposals on reinforcing economic governance. That is the essence of the Community method and that is what you have also been calling for today, and rightly so. We do not have the luxury of time. Instead, we must act without delay. It is now absolutely essential to move on with these initiatives. I therefore want to conclude by saying that we need an alliance of institutions to pursue these objectives. The European Union has always produced the best results by an alliance of the Parliament and the Commission, so I count on your support in this regard. It is also important that we bring the national parliaments on board by taking an inclusive approach, as Mrs Goulard has suggested. But, most importantly, please recall that the European Parliament can help all of us in the European Union to act more quickly and with determination. So please convince your constituencies and help us convince the Member States, and not only the Spanish Presidency, which is very convinced. I trust you can, and will, make your voices heard, and I count on you taking a very strong and determined position in the Europe 2020 resolution in the course of this session week of the Parliament. Dear friends, we need nothing more than full steam ahead to reinforce economic governance in Europe.

President. – The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)

George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) If there is any lesson worth learning from the current economic crisis, it must be solidarity. The fact that we are living in a globalised world where states’ economies are interdependent is nothing new. However, countries have failed to abandon their isolationist logic where solutions to economic challenges are applied at national level, without any consideration of their impact on a wider scale. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 31

The Lisbon Strategy failed due to a lack of political commitment on the part of Member States to take the lead in meeting its objectives. In order to ensure that the EU 2020 strategy succeeds where the Lisbon Strategy failed, national reform programmes need to be monitored more effectively at European level. Social inclusion must also be the main aim of good economic governance and state providers must learn to put people first before financial profit.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Little more than a decade after the creation of the euro, the warnings that we made at the time are being borne out. The integration of economies at very different stages of development, with nominal convergence criteria, and individual monetary and exchange rate policies – all done to meet the needs of the great powers – has made the divergence crisis in the EU worse, leading to a situation whereby the peripheral economies are being called into question. Faced with the crisis that they created, speculative financial capital’s decision-making centres – as well as their institutional extensions in the EU’s institutions and in governments – have just launched a new and different attack on the people and workers of Europe. The lords of the EU have decided to usurp the budgetary powers of the Member States and they have done this not in the name of solidarity, which is a concept that is increasingly alien to them, but in the name of the stability that the great powers demand for the euro; this is an intolerable affront to democracy and the sovereignty of the peoples. This affront is accompanied by measures that are pure social terrorism, to which the national governments have meekly submitted. The response to the so-called ‘European economic government’ and to the increasingly antidemocratic nature of the integration process under way is being given by struggling workers all over Europe. The necessary change will grow out of this struggle and its drive towards progress.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is regrettable that the European Council and Commission have come here to state that they are taking measures to resolve financial and productive problems in a framework of budgetary discipline, and that they are presenting the creation of the task force as the ace in the hole for long-term measures. Despite acknowledging the delays to the hesitant measures that they have taken, what the representatives of the Spanish Presidency of the EU and the Commission have reaffirmed here was that they are going to continue down the same path of capitalist integration and go further with it; they are running around like headless chickens. They prefer to ignore that the so-called ‘temporary stabilisation measure’ and related fund will be nothing more than means of easing the pain of the financial crisis, used to conceal the fact that only a break with current policies and a change of course can bring social progress. To this end, it is vital to prioritise production, quality public services, the creation of jobs with rights, salaries, living pensions, social inclusion, and the fair division and distribution of income. However, all this requires true economic and social cohesion, with a clear strengthening of the Union budget, solidarity, more public policies and monitoring of the essential sectors of the economy by the state.

Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The way out of the economic crisis is a bumpy one and, in addition, the fiscal problems in Greece and other Member States have rocked the euro area. These problems have raised the question as to whether Europe is capable of competing with the economic strength of the United States or China. With its EU 2020 strategy, the European Union must, therefore, give an effective response to the economic and financial crisis and ensure that the economic capacity of this bloc of 500 million people remains competitive, in other words, that the EU27 do not fall behind their economic and political rivals. The complexity of today’s challenges requires an integrated set of political instruments. The EU must give primary importance to research and innovation in tackling challenges such as climate change and finding solutions to increasing global competition. Since, in the period after the crisis, providing stimulus to growth and to job creation through research and innovation has become more important than ever, I suggest that this be set as the prime objective of the EU 2020 strategy. We are justified in our concern, however, that the current budget does not adequately cover the monetary needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I ask the European Commission to propose a new budget model that is bold and ambitious but also practicable, in order to guarantee the success of the EU 2020 strategy.

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) It is excellent that the Europe 2020 strategy should take account of young people. It does not, however, go far enough. The content is limited and pessimistic. There are not enough concrete objectives and more of them are needed. The figures for youth unemployment are alarming. It is more than double than what it is in other unemployment categories. Almost half of young people are unemployed in Latvia and Spain. The longer people remain unemployed, the greater the risk, not just of poverty, but of exclusion. Young people with just a little work experience are in a worse off position 32 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

in the labour market, especially when it comes to staff cuts. Predictions suggest that there will be a shortage of workers. We cannot take it for granted, however, that the young people who are unemployed now will be able to meet this future need for workers. It is not necessarily such a straightforward procedure to integrate long-term unemployed young people back into society. We need concrete measures. The young need jobs, not promises. It is very important that we take responsibility for the future, and that children and young people remain at the core of all our plans.

Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Launching the EU 2020 strategy intended to harmonise the Member States’ economic and employment policies in accordance with common principles is perhaps the most important task facing us. I welcome the fact that, in addition to the aspects concerning a sustainable social market economy, environmental protection and innovation, the strategy also places great emphasis on the fight against poverty and exclusion, in other words, on strengthening social cohesion, a prerequisite for the abovementioned aims and one of the basic pillars of the Spanish-Belgian-Hungarian Trio Presidency’s programme. I consider it an important step forward that the European Commission has, in the second half of its integrated guidelines on the strategy, set out ambitious, quantitative targets in this regard. Two of these targets are that 75% of the working-age population should be employed and that the number of people living below the national poverty line should be reduced by 25%. For the purposes of monitoring and verifying progress in meeting these targets and an assessment of the struggle against social exclusion, it is worth considering the ‘Laeken indicators’ adopted by the 2001 European Council at Laeken, along with their components that have, in the meantime, been expanded and defined in greater detail. The Laeken indicators provide a detailed, reliable image of the position occupied by various social groups in certain segments of public life. They have been used successfully in the past few years by numerous EU institutions, including Eurostat.

Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The main objective of the Europe 2020 strategy we are discussing should be to ensure economic growth in the European Union and to increase employment. The measures we take should aim to increase economic activity and, in this way, to achieve sustained economic growth in the long term. The indicators proposed by the Commission should be supplemented with an indicator of infrastructure saturation in the areas of teleinformatics, transport, energy, environment and social matters. A well-developed infrastructure is the basis for the efficient functioning of the internal market which, consequently, leads to a growth in internal demand and economic activity. In addition, a well-developed infrastructure is necessary to reduce differences in development between regions, leading to higher competitiveness and stronger economic, social and territorial cohesion. Furthermore, I would like to refer to the employment indicator, which should be treated as a priority. The steps we take should concentrate not only on structural reforms, but also on better preparation and use of the EU’s workforce and intellectual capital. I suppose none of us is in any doubt that, along with implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, we will need stronger leadership and greater political responsibility from Member States, and also the European Commission, in the area of undertaking structural reforms. In this context, it would be helpful to make a thorough evaluation of the EU 2020 strategy around five years after its introduction, in other words, at the end of the mandate of the current European Commission. This would allow political responsibility to be strengthened and actions to be correlated with results.

Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – The implementation of the EU 2020 strategy should emphasise economic cohesion, meaning that it is still crucial to reduce economic disparities between EU regions which lag behind and those which are more prosperous. I believe that the EU’s attention should be still largely paid to the principle of solidarity and instruments for levelling out the income disparities. The focus should be kept on the EU regions which have suffered the most from the economic and financial crisis, and the specific situation of each of these regions should be assessed and appropriate reaction to the corresponding challenges should be taken. In the Europe 2020 strategy, the agricultural sector is regarded like any other sector in our modern economy, and I welcome that. I am a strong supporter of a Common Agricultural Policy which secures a level playing field for all Member States. Fair competition in the internal market is a key to the competitiveness of European agriculture in the global marketplace. There has to be a synergy between the 2020 strategy and reform of the CAP post-2013 – both have to focus on promoting intelligent green growth.

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Polish Minister for Culture and National Heritage, Bogdan Zdrojewski, has pointed out that one aspect which should be included in the Europe 2020 strategy is culture. I must admit that the Minister’s argument is convincing. For what he wants to do is to ‘stress the need to make full use of the potential of culture and the creative industries – Europe’s intellectual and social capital’. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 33

The creative industries can be treated as something which will allow Europe to build a competitive advantage. The Europe 2020 strategy was discussed at an informal meeting of Ministers for Culture in March this year. As a result of that discussion, the Spanish Presidency called on ‘the Council to recognise and use the creative potential of Europe through culture and its related industries in the 2020 strategy’ and on ‘Member States and the Commission to work in their respective fields to achieve the objectives ... through representative initiatives related to innovation, competitiveness, the digital agenda and social inclusion.’ I hope these appeals will be heard and put into practice.

Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The large-scale economic crisis of the last few years has contributed to the failure of the objectives set by the EU at the start of this century. This is the reason why it is important for us to identify the shortcomings of the Lisbon Agenda and focus on the positive results that have been achieved, as well as avoid the mistakes made in the past. I believe that it is important for us now to be able to learn the lesson from the Lisbon Strategy’s failure and also to have the ability to take action to mitigate the impact of this in future. I think that we have the great advantage of knowing the reasons for failure and of successfully avoiding them as part of the new EU 2020 strategy. I would particularly like to focus at this point on strengthening multi-level governance. We must involve local and regional authorities, as well as civil society, in the governance process since, according to EU statistics, local and regional authorities enjoy the highest level of trust among ordinary citizens. At the same time, reinforcing the regional aspect is included on the list of the EU 2020 strategy’s priorities. In this respect, I feel that the role of the future Cohesion policy is to identify and utilise specific local potential.

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report spells out exactly the important contribution made by the Structural and Cohesion Funds to Europe’s economic life and in achieving the objectives which have been presented to us as part of the EU 2020 Agenda. Some ideas are worth highlighting: the key role played by cities in achieving these objectives and the role of research and education. At the same time, I would like to express my dismay that the report is not more comprehensive, by including the role played by the rural development funds. By revitalising rural economic life, modernising agriculture in Europe, helping to set up young farmers and spreading best practice, the rural development funds themselves make an important and welcome contribution to general economic advancement across the European Union.

Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Mr President, when outlining the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission certainly managed to express many of the things we would wish for, yet they seem to have forgotten the present reality. Several Member States, including Estonia, have made large cutbacks in the interests of balancing the national budget. While fulfilling the Maastricht criteria for the euro area, Estonia has been able to stabilise its own budget. At the same time, the consequences of the irresponsible budgetary policy which has operated hitherto in several Member States will obviously remain to haunt the European Union for some years to come. Taking into account the current complicated economic situation, it remains unclear how the Commission’s strategy and the large projects incorporated in it intend to deal with this. We could learn from our mistakes so that, unlike with the failed Lisbon Strategy, we would have a clear understanding of how we will achieve the objectives set, what kinds of financial resources we will be able to use, and whether our resources will enable us to achieve any of the objectives. We do not need grand words at the European Union level; every Member State, too, must strive to balance its budget and achieve economic growth. While noting the structural changes taking place in the world economy, mainly the tightening of competition, and also the demographic changes in Europe, we must, instead of lofty but empty-worded ideas, focus on radically reforming the entire economic and social system of the European Union. There is no other way to escape today from a welfare society which, although still comfortable, is quickly becoming uncompetitive and is therefore deteriorating. We necessarily face some unpopular decisions, but by making these decisions today, we will adapt much more quickly to the new reality.

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The economic crisis we are seeing is made up of a continuum of three crises that are linked to one another. These are the financial crisis, the crisis in the real economy that followed it, and the crisis in the public economies that now comes from them. These crises reveal the problems of European and global control and supervision: the economic crisis is largely a matter of a crisis in the system that once prevailed and in policy. Both the world of finance and economic activity no longer know their limits. It is not possible to manage activity that goes beyond its limits merely by resorting to national tools: we need regional and global rules. As Mr Monti’s report, which appeared last week, states, a single ad hoc solution to each crisis is no longer enough for Europe. We need predictive and longterm solutions and tools to help us manage future crises 34 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

better than we do now. Crucial here are the willingness and ability of the Member States to cooperate, and that still leaves a lot to be desired. The Council deserves praise for its decisive action in its solution to the crisis that has threatened the whole of the Union, but not for its very prompt action: real action on the part of the Member States only followed because it had to. The dawdling probably caused the situation to escalate. One of the most obvious forms of action in the future is the need to reform the EU’s budget and ensure that national budgets are more closely in line with common objectives. Financial controls and regulation are already being made more effective, but we still need more measures to ensure that all financial products are brought within the scope of effective and viable regulation.

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Achieving a minimum 25% reduction in the EU poverty level by 2020 is a target closely linked to the growth of employment among the population, which is a priority of the social inclusion policy. This is the reason why an ambitious long-term strategy is required to combat poverty, with large-scale poverty reduction targets, whose ‘key points’ must include an increase in the employment rate and in good quality jobs, including for women, young people, the elderly and poor workers. This strategy must include measures aimed at achieving a work-life balance and greater involvement in an open labour market, which also means lifting access restrictions for Romanian and Bulgarian workers. Another objective for reducing poverty is to establish a minimum income of at least 60% of national median equalised income, a minimum salary of at least 60% of the average salary in the relevant sectors at national level, along with a coordinated housing strategy in Europe. All these measures must be accompanied by a clear timetable which is easy to implement and monitor.

Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) One of the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy is to raise the employment rate among people aged 20-64 to 75%. Another is to fight poverty, which is intended to improve the situation of 20 million people. These effects are much to be desired and very ambitious. Our objective is a modernised labour market with a highly specialised, precisely oriented and very efficient workforce. However, I think this will be difficult to achieve. At present, 15% of young people do not complete a full secondary education. Over 30% complete tertiary education but, in spite of this, do not find work because the qualifications they have gained do not meet the needs of the market. The lifelong learning programme does not take account of the particular situation of people who do not possess a university education. If, however, we are talking about the phenomenon of poverty, the same social groups are most at risk from it: the unemployed, the poorly educated and the elderly. Such high unemployment is undoubtedly an effect of the crisis, which has caused, among other things, a drop in industrial production to the level of 20 years ago. I support the Commission in its consistent efforts towards making the EU economy competitive in relation to the United States and Japan, but I suggest a more realistic approach in the exceptionally difficult financial situation.

Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The economic and financial crisis has made it necessary in many Member States to introduce cost-saving measures and to reform existing structures. It has, once again, proven to be the case that a crisis can speed up the introduction of major changes and reforms. The European Union must also consider in which direction it needs to move in order to meet the new challenges and enhance competitiveness, and whether it will be able to harmonise the interests of Member States more successfully and thereby strengthen internal cohesion. I think that increased scrutiny of the particular situation in the new Member States during the process of implementing reforms is of crucial importance, not only for the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, but for the future of the Union itself. I ask the Council to pay closer attention to this matter, especially with regard to structural changes in the areas of the common agricultural policy and the Cohesion policy.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Various aspects of the Lisbon Strategy in which there was little success can be identified. Few of the established objectives were achieved, owing to various factors: amongst others, the lack of political will and of instruments – not least financial ones. Local and regional authorities have also been pointing out that they were not involved enough, in either defining or implementing the strategy, and that European and national objectives did not match up well. All this tarred the Lisbon Strategy’s programme with a credibility deficit, which is also a result of the fact that, while it was defined in great detail, the way in which it was executed was not responsible enough. At a time of economic uncertainty, fragile public finances and high unemployment, the new 2020 strategy must be seen as an opportunity for reflection on the direction that the public wants for the European Union. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to all be headed in the same direction while the Member States and their regions – particularly the outermost regions – remain as unequal as they currently are. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 35

Perhaps it is also time for us to develop new types of economic, financial and even budgetary links, particularly in the euro area. I am convinced that such links can make a decisive contribution to achieving the goals that are currently being set, particularly those relating to territorial cohesion.

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In March, the European Commission presented a new economic development plan for Europe. After the Lisbon Strategy, Europe 2020 is the next attempt at reviving the European economy. However, this time the challenge is more difficult, because the plan has to be put into effect in a situation of economic crisis. Smart growth, sustainable growth and inclusive growth are the priorities proposed in the new strategy, and they define where the EU wants to be by 2020. However, before we begin to act upon these priorities, we must draw some lessons from the economic collapse, which has spread permanently across the world. The economies of Europe are strongly linked. None of the Member States is able to mount effective resistance to global threats on its own. When we act together, we are stronger, and therefore, to emerge successfully from the crisis and put the principles of Europe 2020 into effect, we need close coordination of the economic policies of all the countries of the European Union. Not doing this may lead to another lost decade, a lasting halt to growth and mass unemployment. The new strategy is based on very ambitious ideas. In relation to this, we must make every effort so that this attempt to develop another economic strategy for Europe does not turn out to be just wishful thinking and does not end up like the Lisbon Strategy, which was supposed to transform the European Union into the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, but which was a spectacular failure. Thank you.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS Vice-President

4. Calendar of part-sessions

President. – Before going ahead with the vote, I must inform you that, at its meeting on 12 May last, the Conference of Presidents decided, in accordance with Rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure, to hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday, 23 June from 15.00 to 17.00. At that session, the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, will have an opportunity to inform the Parliament about the conclusions of the European Council meeting to be held on 17 June, pursuant to Article 15 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Robert Atkins (ECR). – Mr President, I rise on a point of order to enquire whether it is going to become a precedent that we are to find, on our desks in this House, items of information relating to motions to sign. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case, surely it is to be deplored that we get junk put on our places over which we have no control whatsoever. Can you please stop it? (Applause)

President. – Mr Atkins, we take good note of your remark or protest or whatever it is.

Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, on the subject of the same point of order, it is not enough for the President to take note of this. I am calling for this to be stopped.

President. – The Presidency has taken note to act accordingly. However, taking note is the first step. After taking note, one acts accordingly.

5. Welcome

President. – I am delighted to inform you that a delegation from the National Assembly of Kuwait is present in the House in the public gallery. We would like to extend a warm welcome to the Kuwaiti Delegation. (Applause) The Delegation is led by Mr Ali Al-Debaqbasi and has come to Strasbourg to meet with Members of our House. 36 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Relations between the European Union and the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which this year is chaired by Kuwait, are very important for our Parliament. We are convinced that a fruitful dialogue between the European Parliament and the Parliaments of the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council will serve to strengthen cooperation between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council and thus encourage a swift and successful conclusion to the free trade agreement negotiations. We therefore wish Mr Al-Debaqbasi and his colleagues a fruitful stay with us.

6. Voting time

President. – We shall now proceed to the vote. (For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

6.1. Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee - Citizens initiative (vote)

6.2. Request for consultation of the Committee of the Regions - Citizens initiative (vote)

6.3. European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013 (amendment of Decision No 573/2007/EC) (A7-0117/2010, Claude Moraes) (vote)

6.4. Labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (recast) (A7-0128/2010, Anni Podimata) (vote)

6.5. Amending budget no 1/2010: Section I - Parliament (A7-0158/2010, Vladimír Maňka) (vote)

6.6. 2008 discharge: EU general budget, Council (A7-0096/2010, Ryszard Czarnecki) (vote)

- After the vote:

Ryszard Czarnecki, rapporteur. – (PL) It might be said we are in a significantly better position than last year, because then we did not grant discharge until November. This time, we have the opportunity to do this six months earlier, although it should be said very clearly that Parliament finally has to convince the Council, firstly, to submit documents earlier, and secondly, to submit full documentation which really does cover the reporting period in question. We have been given, for example, documents from the year before. I think this situation – one of a certain crisis in relations between Parliament and the Council – points to the need for the European Parliament to put greater pressure on the Council concerning greater transparency over budgetary expenditure. In view of the Treaty of Lisbon in particular, which increases the role of the European Parliament, this is simply indispensable.

6.7. Standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (A7-0106/2010, Miroslav Mikolášik) (vote)

- Before the vote:

Miroslav Mikolášik, rapporteur. – (SK) Today is a great day for European citizens and for European patients. Through the adoption of this directive on human organ donation and transplantation, we are enabling 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 37

treatment and a high quality of life at home and at work for thousands of people who are desperately waiting for a transplant. I would like to thank all of the political groups who are intending to support my directive. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about politics, it is about people’s health. Thank you very much indeed.

6.8. Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions - 2011 (vote)

- On Amendment 4:

Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, on a point of order, can you confirm that voting for Amendment 4 will succeed in reducing the number of times that we visit Strasbourg but, at the same time, will comply with our treaty obligation to hold 12 sessions? (Applause) - On Amendment 2:

Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I see from the voting list that you, Mr President, intend to declare Amendment 2 inadmissible. I would like to ask you to reconsider this. It is correct that Article 229 of the treaty requires a session of the European Parliament to take place on the second Tuesday in March. However, this does not conflict with the amendment tabled by my group. My group’s amendment aims to move the Strasbourg week from week 10 to week 11. That does not prevent you from holding a plenary session on the second Tuesday in March. We want the Strasbourg week to be week 11, but this does not mean that our amendment is inadmissible. I would like to ask you to reconsider this.

President. – You have read my mind, Mr Lehne, because I was going to proceed exactly as you had anticipated. - On Amendment 4:

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) I shall be very brief, Mr President. I think that, despite its ambiguous wording, Amendment 4 should have been declared inadmissible because it contradicts the treaties and, even more so, the interpretation of these treaties that has been given very clearly in a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, which provides that the current number of part-sessions in Strasbourg must be maintained. I understand that some Members may disagree with this but, nevertheless, the treaties make this absolutely clear, and the judgment by the Luxembourg Court is equally clear as the law stands at the moment.

President. – I must inform you before voting that the Presidency believes that Amendment 2 is in breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, declares Amendment 2 to be inadmissible. Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Parliament, and I quote: ‘shall meet without requiring to be convened, on the second Tuesday in March’. The Conference of Presidents has approved a calendar proposal for 2011 that includes a part–session period from 7 to 10 March, thus complying with Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Amendment 2 proposes that this part-session period be postponed to the following week. If Parliament were to approve this amendment, we would be in breach of Article 229. Accordingly, it is declared to be inadmissible. - Before the vote on Amendment 3:

Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am sorry, but it is not as simple as that. You have quoted Article 229 completely correctly, but it is not in conflict with our amendment. Article 229 refers to a specific day, which is the second Tuesday in March. Our amendment refers to the Strasbourg week as a whole, which consists of four days. Therefore, it must be admissible to move this plenary week in Strasbourg from week 10 to week 11. That does not prevent anyone from holding a plenary session in Brussels on the second Tuesday in March. As you say yourself, those are the terms of the treaty. 38 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

President. – Mr Lehne, this amendment raises a question that could very well be open to different interpretations. The Rules of Procedure stipulate that in these cases, the Presidency has the last word as regards the applicable interpretation. For the reasons I have explained, the Presidency has decided to declare Amendment 2 to be inadmissible as a result of being in breach of Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It goes without saying that any other interpretation merits respect. However, as the Presidency has to decide, it has so decided. - Before the vote:

Potito Salatto (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, please excuse me for taking this opportunity to state that intervention is needed to provide direct flight connections without complications between Strasbourg and the European capitals for those who are currently forced to take three or four flights to reach Strasbourg. I request that you take appropriate action. (Applause)

6.9. Food additives other than colours and sweeteners (bovine and/or porcine thrombin) (B7-0264/2010) (vote)

- Before the vote:

Jo Leinen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, we do not need to take a detour with regard to this vote. We can decide directly. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has recommended that plenary bans the sticking together of separate pieces of meat and therefore does not allow thrombin to be used as an additive. A steak must be a steak and a ham must be a ham. I am sure that this is what the constituents of all the Members of this House want. Therefore, please vote in favour of our amendment not to include thrombin as an additive in our food regulation.

Pilar Ayuso, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, thrombin is an additive that can be used to stick meat because the fact is that there are no technological or food safety problems related to its use. Indeed, it is already used in some countries. The proposed amendment to the annex states that meat processed with thrombin can be sold pre-packed and labelled; thus, the consumer will not be deceived, which is the basic principle of the resolution. Whatever the case, I would like to ask the Commissioner if the European Commission can commit to products that contain thrombin not being able to be considered as imitations as a result of a suitable label, especially within the framework of the present study of the proposed Regulation on the food information provided to the consumer.

John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, when considering the authorisation of the food additive thrombin, the Commission’s collaboration with all Member States considered carefully all four requirements set out in the Regulation on food additives. These are: the safety aspect; whether there is a reasonable technological need; information aspects; and advantages and benefits to consumers. As regards safety and hygiene, EFSA evaluated the product and concluded that this additive raised no safety concerns. As for hygiene, I cannot share the view that, in this case, the risk of contamination is higher than other products, for example minced meat. Secondly, the reasonable technological need for this product has been established. The enzyme preparation functions as a stabiliser in the final meat product. This technological function is explicitly described in the Food Additives Regulation, which was adopted by Parliament. Thirdly, information aspects and, in particular, the major concerns expressed in the report that the product would mislead the consumer. Because we are fully aware of the possible risk of this, our proposal includes the following strict requirements – which, incidentally, go further than what is usually required for food additives. Firstly, the product can only be sold pre-packed to the final consumer. Secondly, the product must carry additional labelling and the term ‘combined meat parts’ must be mentioned in the proximity of the sales name. The consumer, therefore, will be well informed about the nature of the product. Thirdly, the name of the enzyme and its animal origin must be mentioned in the list of ingredients. I must emphasise 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 39

that these labelling requirements are more stringent than the requirements that apply to products to which other ingredients, such as blood proteins and authorised additives, have been added for the same purpose but for which no additional labelling is required. If more stringent labelling requirements are indicated, they will be considered. The enzyme preparation in question is already used in several Member States as a processing aid without any labelling requirements. Our proposal clarifies the situation and would oblige Member States to apply the required labelling rules. As a consequence, the consumer would be better informed. Furthermore, consumers, especially those who need more support, will benefit from the availability of cheaper meat products as better use is made of valuable meat pieces occurring during the processing of meat. This additive is, in my opinion, an example of a food-sector development which will benefit consumers. I see no reason for its suppression and hope very much that you will appreciate the entirely valid reasons I have set out as to why it should be approved. I have made a commitment to Parliament; I will not tell people what to eat. But I will tell them what they are eating. My position is in line with this commitment.

6.10. Action plan on organ donation and transplantation (2009-2015) (A7-0103/2010, Andres Perello Rodriguez) (vote)

6.11. Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (A7-0144/2010, Ramón Jáuregui Atondo) (vote)

6.12. Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (B7-0265/2010) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 3:

Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, in Amendment 3, I simply want to replace the word ‘notes’ with the word ‘welcomes’. (Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment) (For oral amendments not submitted in Parliament: see Minutes)

7. Explanations of vote

***

Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have a high opinion of you and your chairmanship, but today I must make a protest. You have given the floor to many Members, including twice to Mr Lehne and to Mr Gollnisch and Mr Fox. I also raised a point of order concerning the calendar and it is an important point. I would like to ask you to check whether Amendment 4 was unlawful. I know that we rejected the amendment, but this is a question of principle. The treaty does not refer to 12 plenary sessions per year, but to 12 monthly plenary sessions per year. The amendment tabled by Mr Fox attempted to combine the August and the September plenary sessions in one week. This is not about a September I and September II plenary session, but about an August and a September plenary session. I would really like to clarify that this is unlawful.

President. – The fact is, Mr Posselt, that this issue has already been voted on and we cannot therefore reopen it. Nonetheless, you can rest assured that all the amendments to the calendar have been carefully considered by the Presidency.

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Commissioner informed us just before the vote about the thrombin issue. I wonder if you could ask him to provide the statistical data to justify his statement that it is economically beneficial to consumers to replace cheap meat parts and put them in beef-like products, rather than using them today in sausages and other products. I would like him to show the statistical evidence that it is economically better for consumers, because they have so far not proven that. The Commissioner also made a comparison with minced meat but we know 40 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

that the hygiene standards for minced meat are not the same as for prepared meat products, so I would question if both statements by the Commissioner are correct. If he misinformed Parliament, just before the vote, that would be a serious error. I would like you to write a letter to the Commissioner to justify those statements.

President. – We are not dealing with that item now, Mr Schlyter. We are dealing with explanations of vote. We are dealing with explanations of vote concerning the amending budget. Oral explanations of vote

Report: Vladimír Maňka (A7-0158/2010)

Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) I voted against the report of Vladimír Maňka setting out the EU budget for this year. At a time of economic crisis, when it is essential to reduce public expenditure, I do not agree with the European Parliament going in completely the opposite direction and sharply increasing its expenditure. I do not agree with the European Parliament taking on an additional 150 staff, nor do I agree that Members of the European Parliament should receive additional new funding for their assistants, over and above what we already receive. MEPs are to receive EUR 1 500 more per month this year under the Maňka report, on top of the additional EUR 1 500 per month under the Helga Trüpel report, which was passed yesterday. This will cost taxpayers an additional EUR 13.4 million per year. MEPs are already the subject of public criticism over the large sums of public money they receive. A further increase will meet with justified public anger throughout Europe, and I have therefore not supported this proposal.

Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) In contradistinction to the previous speaker, I endorsed the amending budget. It is not an amendment which only concerns accounting. This amendment makes very good sense. How is this? Well, it comes from our new function as Parliament, as a body which has been given legislative powers. The voters expect from us, MEPs, that we will be able to revise proposals submitted by the Commission, and that we will be able to revise proposals submitted by the Council. Let us remember that each Commissioner has a team of hundreds of people working with them. We have just one or two people to support us. So it is not a saving which we are ostensibly talking about, here. It is simply a response to a new function, a new role. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Maňka, for his superb report.

Report: Miroslav Mikolášik (A7-0106/2010)

Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I wish to say that I supported the reports on the organ transplantation action plan, as well as the report on organ quality and safety. However, I wish to say that there are great differences between Member States in this respect. I therefore hope that this action plan and the report on quality and safety will help Member States to standardise their criteria and that they will be used as a benchmark for the future. I am mentioning this because my country, Bulgaria, has 35 times fewer donors than Spain. The problems in this area are linked to the whole chain of actions: from providing information to citizens to the actual transplant itself and post-transplant treatment. We do not have a network of donor facilities. There is insufficient equipment available, and we do not have a reliable donor database. Bulgaria is not a member of Eurotransplant and post-transplant treatment cannot be provided either. We do not have dispensaries built for hospitals which carry out transplants. This is why I hope that this report and the decisions made by Parliament will provide some impetus and that this directive will be implemented as soon as possible.

Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report, because it establishes uniform and binding requirements on quality and standards for human organs used in transplants in all the Member States, and thus guarantees the protection of donors and recipients while, at the same time, enhancing cooperation between the Member States. With this report, we have given the opportunity of a better quality of life to those people – more than 56 000 European Union residents – who are currently waiting for an organ transplant.

Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) I also voted for this important document on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. It really would be excellent to establish and organise a community-wide organ transplantation system that would be transparent and clean and which would ensure quality and safety at EU level. That is one of the most important objectives. 56 000 citizens 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 41

are waiting for donors and this shortage of organs intended for transplantation also causes other problems, criminal activity and criminal problems. Therefore, I believe that this document will contribute to the creation of a suitable system that will ensure safe and reliable organ transplantation methods.

Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report and I would like to congratulate Mr Mikolášik on the excellent work he has done. I believe that today is an important day, because we have ensured that donors and recipients of organs will have consistent standards and greater safety. I hope that this will also help to simplify the cooperation between countries and, therefore, I am very pleased that we have voted in favour of this report with a large majority.

Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, I very much welcome this report and the new European rules for organ donation. If you die in another European Union country, why should your organ not be used to save life? If you need a rare match from another European country, surely these rules are sensible to implement. Although it has not been part of the debate, I would also like to put on record my personal support for an opt-out rather than an opt-in system for organ donation. Eighty per cent of European citizens say they support organ donation, yet only twelve per cent hold organ donation cards. We have to close the gap. Last year, 25 people in my East of England regional constituency died because they were on the organ donor waiting list but no donor could be found in time. At Addenbrooke’s and Papworth hospitals in my constituency, we have European and worldwide expertise in lung and heart transplants. Let our surgeons do their work. Let our patients be treated. This is the gift of life.

Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I can only agree with the previous speaker. I am also very grateful that this report was adopted today with a large majority. When we hear that 56 000 Europeans are currently waiting for a matching organ in order to be able to have a reasonable or a high quality of life, or even simply to survive, it is clear that we urgently need to harmonise and improve the standards and to make it possible for recipients to access organs from throughout Europe.

Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I, too, was in favour of adopting this document, because it is certainly a step in the right direction. However, while I agree with these principles, and that we are going to be concerned about the quality of donors and organs, I want to say clearly that this is only the first step in the right direction. If we want to bring about a fundamental increase in organ donations, the Union needs a significantly broader campaign, and measures of a prophylactic and informative nature. If this is not followed by promoting donation, it seems to me we will simply stop half-way.

Calendar of part-sessions of the European Parliament – 2011

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, I would like to compliment you for the manner in which you handled this difficult topic here today, for explaining with courtesy the presidency’s interpretation and for sticking to your guns. If you hadn’t done so, it would probably be the case that we would be still here. I’m not saying I agree with you, but I am not qualified enough to give an opinion so I took your opinion as gospel. Secondly, I think the point made by Mr Salatto is valid, that we do need to have quicker and more accessible routes in and out of Strasbourg for the benefit of Members and others. Also I would like to compliment the quaestors, including my own compatriot, Jim Higgins, and others who are working hard to get Frankfurt-Hahn designated the same as Frankfurt airport and Strasbourg, from the point of view of transportation. Finally, I would like to say, regarding the accommodation charges here in Strasbourg, it would be helpful if they were the same for the weeks that we are sitting in Parliament as the weeks when we are not sitting. All this would make Strasbourg more attractive because it is a beautiful city. I understand why we are here, and once we are here, we are very happy.

Report: Miroslav Mikolášik (A7-0106/2010)

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the transplantation of human organs. Many people die every day because they suffer from organ failure and because organs are unavailable. The EU can help patients waiting for organs across Europe and, as a consequence, save lives. What we need is a well-coordinated system of organ donation and transplantation. I would like to stress once again a very important point, which is a political point: namely, the principle of voluntary and paid donation for human body parts. Reports from the World Health Organisation and the Council of Europe say that in several countries in the world, people are given a great deal of money to donate 42 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

an organ. There are even reports that people are deliberately killed to get their organs: for example, practitioners of Falun Gong in China. We are also aware of cases in some countries where the medical risk for the donor is high and the transplantation is often done under very bad medical conditions. So, finally, I would like to thank those who initiated the resolution we adopted today, and especially our rapporteur, Mr Mikolášik.

Resolution: Food additives other than colours and sweeteners (bovine or porcine thrombin) (B7-0264/2010)

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, I and the other Swedish Conservatives have voted against the proposal to ban thrombin. The Commission proposal calls for clear labelling of meat that has been stuck together in this way and states that it should not be permitted in restaurants and large-scale catering establishments as it is difficult, in places like this, to provide customers with clear information. We must defuse the debate about meat glues. Thrombin is naturally present in all meat. To avoid thrombin, it would be necessary to stop eating meat completely. The Commission’s experts state that thrombin is not hazardous to health, and this opinion is scientifically based. The important thing is that food is safe and that consumers are not deceived. Packaging must include accurate information about thrombin and the labelling must be clear. Why should we ban thrombin? To do so would be to open Pandora’s box. Is it really the job of politicians to manage our food? Where will it end? There are no grounds here for limiting consumers’ freedom and their right to freedom of choice. When it comes to scaremongering politics about food that is not dangerous or unhealthy, I say ‘that is enough!’ Do not resort to a ban – tighten up the rules on labelling instead.

Renate Sommer (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, adopting the resolution banning thrombin in foodstuffs today simply means giving in to public opinion. It is pure populism. We are not fulfilling our responsibilities if we do not follow the scientific evidence. What is the evidence? What is thrombin? Thrombin is a natural enzyme. It forms part of the blood and therefore of meat. All of us have a lot of thrombin in our bodies. If we ban it as a food additive, can we continue to exist or do we have to gradually dispose of ourselves as hazardous waste? Of course, we must prevent consumers from being misled by products which look like and are designed to look like other products. We can do this by using labelling in line with the new Regulation on the labelling of foodstuffs. We will be voting on the first reading of this regulation in June. We have a number of rules that prevent misleading advertising and we also have additional labelling for special products. The Commission has proposed exactly the same solution for labelling products in which thrombin is used as a glue. I would like to point out that there is a large number of similar enzymes which are not banned and are still used.

Anja Weisgerber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, consumer protection is a very, very important matter for me and therefore I am against consumers being misled or deceived in any way. This is why I am fighting for better labelling of food imitations in the Regulation on the labelling of foodstuffs, for example. I am calling on the Council to follow this approach, which is also supported by the Commission. Today, we had to vote on glued meat. Glued meat is meat which is glued together and sold as a high-quality product. In my opinion, this should not be happening, in particular, when consumers are not aware of what is going on. The decision today was not an easy one for me. The Commission has proposed comprehensive labelling rules, but consumers may still be misled, because it is difficult to prove that a product contains thrombin. This means that it may be used but not indicated on the label. Therefore, I think a labelling requirement is not sufficient in this case. I have now voted in favour of the resolution and of a ban on thrombin.

Report: Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (A7-0144/2010)

Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Over the past eight years, the post-communist dictatorship in Hungary has systematically trodden underfoot the rights of Hungarians. Among other things, it has unlawfully disbanded or had disbanded nearly every single street demonstration. With the help of nearly 100 excellent lawyers and solicitors from the National Legal Defence Service, the majority of cases have already succeeded in 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 43

obtaining legal redress before the Hungarian courts, but there have been cases, such as the now famous Bukta case, which had to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The European Union is now scheming to dismantle, under the guise of accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the smoothly functioning ‘Strasbourg’ system. I call upon every single Hungarian and European human rights organisation to scrutinise this process and protest against things such as the Atondo report that has been adopted today, which, as I say, undermines and dismantles the European human rights protection system. It is Hungary’s historic responsibility to see that under the Hungarian Presidency, we do not speed up but rather prevent this dangerous process.

Resolution: Food additives other than colours and sweeteners (bovine or porcine thrombin) (B7-0264/2010)

Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) This topic is actually quite sensitive and has been the cause of much debate in the European Parliament and, of course, in society at large. I still think that banning some products or additives is not a solution and perhaps we have to agree with the argument that it is the consumer who has the right to choose, having full information, what he wants to buy and what he wants to consume. On the other hand, controlling the process would be rather difficult. In this day and age, the age of public awareness, with a lot of accessible information, we have yet to formulate wordings, unambiguous of course, that are acceptable to society, so that when people buy one product or another, they can obtain appropriate information and can understand what the product’s ingredients are. Therefore, I feel there need to be more consultations with society, its education and perhaps additional consultations with scientists.

Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the citizens of Europe are right. They like honest foods and they like honest politicians. I respect public opinion of this kind. We cannot simply ignore public opinion and we cannot simply dismiss it as populism. That is not the case. We must take notice of what our citizens are saying to us. If our constituents and our citizens are of the opinion that real meat must be real meat and that it must not be made of pieces of meat glued together, then we must make sure that it is not possible for meat to be processed in this way. This is why I have voted against allowing thrombin to be used as a food glue.

Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I have also voted in favour of the resolution banning the use of thrombin as a food additive, because the Commissioner’s arguments did not convince me. We do not want glued meat in Europe. Even if thrombin is an enzyme which is not harmful to health, by using it to glue together scraps of meat to make one large compressed piece of meat, the risk of bacterial infections must be significantly increased. On the other hand, the decision made today was clearly for the benefit of the consumers of Europe and in opposition to the purely financial interests of the industry. Consumers who want a steak must be given a steak and not a piece of meat that has been glued together. This means that we must call on the Commission not to authorise the use of thrombin.

Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the current debate about so-called glued ham shows that some manufacturers do not deal honestly with consumers. I would like all food to be labelled in such a way that it is not possible to mislead consumers. If this enzyme is used, consumers must be able to identify its presence. This is the basis for effective and fair consumer protection. Our job is to ensure that mature consumers have sufficient information to make decisions in their own interests. One final remark about glued ham. The discussion with consumers about whether or not they want it has not yet taken place. However, it is important that consumers at least know what they are actually eating.

Report: Andres Perello Rodriguez (A7-0103/2010)

Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) I welcome the action plan, and I therefore voted in favour of it. This is a step in the right direction, and in order to solve this problem, we must all work together. Measures at European Union level will help us to enhance the efforts of the Member States to ensure the quality and safety of organ donation and transplants, to deal better with problems resulting from the lack of organs and, at the same time, to make the system of transplants more effective. The action plan which has been approved will give the Member States the opportunity to use the ten priority measures set out by us as a basis for putting their national action plans together in a better way. We are obliged, within the scope of our competency, to give help towards high-level health protection across the entire European Union. 44 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Report: Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (A7-0144/2010)

Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, acceding to the European Convention undoubtedly represents progress in the process of political integration of the European Union, whose system of protection for fundamental rights is supplemented and strengthened by the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in its primary law. We consider it enormously important and politically significant that Parliament has been granted the right to appoint and send a certain number of representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe during the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Let us remember that promoting the respect of human rights is one of the fundamental values of the European Union enshrined in a founding treaty. I would also like to underscore how important the Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights are in outlining a new legal and regulatory framework that lays down guiding principles in the areas of civil liberties, justice and internal affairs, above all, in light of the new forms of integration and harmonisation implemented with the enactment of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of the Stockholm Programme. It will also provide an additional legal instrument which makes it possible to present a claim before the European Court of Human Rights against an action or a failure to act by a European institution or a Member State in the context of the implementation of European law.

Lastly, it is significant that Article 1 of the European Convention will extend protection not only to citizens of the European Union and other persons within its territory, but also to persons who fall within its jurisdiction, even if they are outside the territory.

Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of the European Union acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights because, as clearly summed up by the Atondo report, it represents progress in the process of European integration. This means a step towards political union and a strong sign of the coherence between the Union and countries of the Council of Europe and its policy on human rights which will strengthen the credibility of Europe in non-European countries. Lastly, it represents a clear desire to harmonise the issue of human rights and fundamental freedoms at a legislative and court level. Thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union is an international entity with its own legal personality for the first time. I hope that signing the convention is only one of the first steps towards the affirmation of the European Union as a single body at the level of major international negotiations.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I am somewhat more reserved on this issue than the Members who have just spoken. Indeed, on the face of it, the idea of European law being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is quite attractive. It was rather alarming that national laws could be, as it were, censured by that Court. However, the way in which national jurisdictions implement these laws means that European law falls outside their scope, all the more so as this European law, in my country, France, for example, takes precedence, under Article 55 of our constitution, over French domestic law. One might wonder, however, if this procedure will not result in a certain kind of overlap. Indeed, on the one hand, European law is rarely directly applicable within Member States; it first has to be transposed into domestic legislation by means of secondary legislation. On the other hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg has shown itself to be keen to protect fundamental rights. It has also assimilated this legislation as arising from the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The fear is that we could end up with rather protracted proceedings, particularly if, as some people are demanding, a preliminary question procedure is instituted. This is why we would have preferred a distinction to have been made between compliance with the rules and participation in the appeals procedure. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 45

Resolution: Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (B7-0265/2010)

Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, at a time when such tragic events are occurring in Thailand, we cannot fail to appreciate the need for major crimes committed against civilian populations to be referred to the courts. However, past experience is less encouraging than was indicated yesterday by several Members during the debate. At the first International Criminal Court, those who, without any military objective in mind, decided to use napalm to burn the civilian populations in the city of Dresden; those who decided to use atomic radiation to burn the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and those who decided to kill the imprisoned Polish officers by shooting them in the back of the neck were the judges, when they really should have been included among the accused. The track record of the former International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, particularly in the Milosevic and Šešelj cases, is not very satisfactory either. With regard to the creation of a trust fund, if Member States are required to make a contribution, does this mean that Europe will compensate the victims of genocides that take place outside its territory? There are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people who fall into that category. I fear that we are getting mixed up in something rather complicated. The idea of ultimately pursuing the defeated parties, in spite of the assurances that they are sometimes given, in order to reach a peace agreement would be to risk indefinitely prolonging conflicts; this is the basis for our reservations about this report.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for the resolution on the Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that will begin at the end of this month in Kampala, Uganda. In 1998, 138 countries agreed to set up the International Criminal Court and adopted the Rome Statute on the basis of which this court has now been operating for 7 years, since 2003. The time has come to review the Rome Statute, in particular, the so-called ‘temporary provisions’ on which we were unable to agree in 2002. All EU Member States have ratified the Rome Statute. However, some of our partners, like the United States, Russia and China, have not joined the International Criminal Court in its work. With its resolution today, the European Parliament again calls on these countries to ratify the Rome Statute and cooperate with the International Criminal Court. In the 21st century, people responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should expect not only moral condemnation from the international community but legal sanctions. These crimes cannot be committed with impunity. Written explanations of vote

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee (Rule 124) – Request for consultation of the Committee of the Regions – Citizens’ Initiative (Rule 125)

Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As well as speeding up decision-making mechanisms, the Treaty of Lisbon is contributing to the fight against the democratic deficit, strengthening the roles of national parliaments and the European Parliament, and stressing the exercise of European citizenship. The introduction of the legislative petition, or the ‘right to citizens’ initiative’, as it has been named, is of particular importance. This new device allows a group of not less than one million citizens of a significant number of Member States to request a legislative initiative from the Commission on the areas in which the Union has jurisdiction. The Treaty of Lisbon also makes clear the importance of consultations and dialogue with other institutions and bodies, with civil society, and with social partners, amongst others. I believe that Europe must be the citizens’ Europe, and this can only happen if we make it more democratic and transparent. In this context, I agree that the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions should be sought.

Recommendation for second reading: Claude Moraes (A7-0117/2010)

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It must seem that I am repeating what I expressed yesterday in relation to Mr Tavares’ report. However, the refugee problem is a European problem and it cannot be left to the national governments to manage, also in light of the geographic and economic differences. Therefore, I am in favour of creating a fund at a European level. The creation of such a fund must serve two purposes: it must support the refugees who arrive in our countries, frequently on our coasts, searching for help, as well as support the states which receive the greatest numbers of these desperate individuals due to their geographic location. 46 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

In fact, the problem is, and must be, a European problem, and it cannot be left to the management of certain states. I hope that the fund is only the beginning of a path which approaches this entire issue from a more European perspective and in a spirit of solidarity.

Recommendation for second reading: Anni Podimata (A7-0128/2010)

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The proposal for a directive on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products is part, along with the two proposals on the energy performance of buildings and the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency, of the Energy Efficiency Package tabled by the Commission in November 2008. We voted for it because we achieved, through the agreement signed between Parliament, the Council and Commission, the introduction of an improved labelling system. Labels will contain more energy consumption information for domestic appliances and energy-related products. In future, this labelling will also be applied to energy consuming products intended for industrial and commercial use, which was not possible until now. Last but not least, any kind of future advertising promoting the price or energy efficiency of categories of products will also have to indicate their energy class. Providing accurate, relevant and comparable information on the energy consumption of energy-related products will allow consumers in future to make correct, effective choices, thereby reducing both their energy consumption and household expenditure.

John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – The Maltese Government is against the Recommendation for second reading relating to labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products. The reason given is that the nationalist government disagrees with an explanation statement in the report, in particular, with the following phrase: ‘Construction products with significant impact on the consumption of energy shall also be included in the priority list.’ It is inconceivable that the government does not agree to this recommendation on this basis. It could have agreed with the recommendation and made it clear that it had a reservation in relation to construction products which have a significant impact on the consumption of energy. It is useless for the government to appear to be in favour of energy efficiency when the potential savings could be achieved through the labelling of some of these products given that buildings account for 40% of total energy consumption in the European Union.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this important report. The Energy Labelling Directive has a crucial role to play in the achievement of the EU energy efficiency target of 20% by 2020. In that context, it holds a key role regarding the fight against climate change, the transition of the EU to an efficient, sustainable and competitive economy, and the strengthening of Europe’s energy security. Our aim is to pave the way towards a win-win situation, both for the market and consumers, by guaranteeing every consumer access to proper information and full awareness about the impact of his or her choices. In that framework, the agreement reached on the Energy Labelling Directive brings important added value. I welcome the position fought for by the European Parliament to maintain the model of an A-G scale which, according to a survey, is the most convenient and easiest for consumers to understand. There is an obligation to include reference to the energy label in all advertisements of energy-related products, where price- or energy-related information is disclosed.

Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I am pleased that the new legislation on the energy efficiency of products has finally been approved, following a lengthy tug of war between the European Parliament and the Council, and that I had the honour of being the shadow rapporteur for it on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. The benefit is an expansion of Class A, allowing distinctions to be drawn among the constantly increasing group of energy-saving appliances while, at the same time, motivating producers to make appliances that are as energy-saving as possible. It is also important that there has been no expansion in the number of classes indicating the energy consumption of individual products, as this preserves the clarity of the whole concept. The fact that there are seven levels in total enables consumers to make effective decisions when selecting goods on the market, thereby helping to reduce energy costs through their behaviour. As far as new features are concerned, involving the obligation to indicate the energy classes of products in advertising materials, I consider it a success that this obligation has been restricted to advertisements providing 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 47

information on price or information connected with energy consumption. Fortunately, the view prevailed that the regulation of advertising is acceptable only in case of need, and only to the extent necessary.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation because it effectively contributes to helping European consumers choose products that use less energy or which indirectly lead to less energy being used. By adopting this recommendation, the European Parliament is playing a part in moving closer to the realisation of the EU’s objective of a 20% improvement in its energy efficiency by 2020. It is a balanced text that ensures a situation that is beneficial to the market and consumers.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This initiative, like the one that we voted on yesterday regarding the energy efficiency of buildings, is part of a legislative package on energy efficiency that was presented by the Commission in November 2008 and has been the subject of ample debate in Parliament, the Commission and the Council; agreement is now, at last, being reached on the final text. As well as having positive consequences for the environment, for the European objective of reducing emissions and for the creation of an economy that is sustainable in energy terms, this initiative also has the benefit of making consumers central to the decision. With the correct markings and labels, consumers will know exactly what they are getting, and will be able to make their choice on the basis of criteria such as energy efficiency and the lowest environmental cost.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The directive on energy labelling guarantees that consumers will receive adequate information thanks to the compulsory inclusion of the energy label on advertising. In the context of European efforts at achieving energy efficiency and the reduction of energy consumption levels, along with combating climate change, it is vital to mobilise the public for this cause. This can only be achieved if consumers are given clear and effective information about energy consumption on products that have been bought or are for sale. In this way, all members of the European public will become involved in combating climate change. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that consumers are able to consciously make more environmentally friendly choices. As this directive now ensures, levels of energy consumption caused by products are assessed against universal criteria and parameters, which allow them to be compared in a way that can be trusted. This will also lead to an increase in confidence in technical assessment and the information content on labels. This directive therefore has an important role in consolidating the 2020 strategy and, in particular, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Following this vote, products that consume energy – whether for domestic, commercial or industrial purposes – must start displaying the new energy efficiency label, in order to better inform consumers. There is provision in the directive adopted today by the European Parliament for new types of energy efficiency classification to be added, and it is also applicable to products that consume energy in an indirect way, for example, windows. Some of the details are debatable, for example, that the format of the label will be based on the a classification between A and G – like that already used for refrigerators – with the possible addition of the classifications A+, A++ and A+++: in principle, the total number of classes must be limited to seven. Nevertheless, the directive seems to have the right objective. All advertising for products related to energy or their respective prices must include a reference to the energy efficiency classification. The information provided must guide consumers towards choosing products that use less energy or indirectly lead to less energy being used. Therefore, in future, any advertising of the price or energy efficiency of refrigerators, washing machines or cookers must indicate the product’s energy class.

Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Much is said about the rights of consumers to know about the food, domestic equipment or home fittings which they buy. We want to know where they come from and how they were made, and the nutritional values of food. At a time of climate change, we all want to protect the environment and prevent abnormal weather, and this is why, when choosing food and everyday products, we are guided by ecological principles. It is important, therefore, that consumers are aware of how much energy is used by their equipment, and so I think they have the right for that information to be on the labels. Putting this information on product labels also shows the high quality of the product. It can then be a tool to protect the European market from cheap imitations of equipment from outside the European Union.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report. It acknowledges that the market is incapable of ensuring rational energy use. This is a definite concession that echoes our arguments, which 48 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

I welcome. I also welcome the stated desire for top-down harmonisation of energy saving labelling. However, it is regrettable that total ecological footprint labelling for products is not proposed anywhere, when we really should implement it as quickly as possible.

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is continuing to look determinedly for the best ways of ensuring excellence in energy efficiency, so as to succeed in improving its efficiency by 20% by 2020. This new labelling is very pertinent to consumers because it allows them access to better information so that they can make fully informed choices and recognise their impact in matters concerning energy efficiency. This means raising consumers’ awareness of the energy-related consequences of their choice whenever they look to buy any consumer item which has a bearing on energy efficiency. The approval of this directive is especially important in increasing this awareness. That is why I voted as I did.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) If the energy consumption label is introduced, then provided that it can be easily understood, it will soon become clear whether or not it will really be accepted by consumers. Public awareness has changed in this area and consumers are paying greater attention to energy efficiency classes, in particular, in the case of electrical appliances. Of course, the public procurement process should set a good example in this respect. However, the Member States must not be told that they can only buy products with the highest performance levels which belong to the highest energy efficiency class. Particularly at a time when everyone will have to make savings, the purchase price will increasingly be the deciding factor. The choices available in the public procurement process are not specified clearly enough, which is why I have abstained.

Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the resolution on the labelling of products using electricity and the provision of basic information for consumers. We talk about citizens’ rights very often in Parliament – about the right to choose, the right to obtain accurate and correct information. In my opinion, that is particularly important in all areas of life. In this case, the question is related to the electricity used and its efficiency. People actually want to save energy, and mostly do this for two reasons, economic and environmental. Today, with advances in technology, when residents have the opportunity to choose electrical appliances according to their energy efficiency, the labelling that we agreed on will also help consumers make a conscious choice and contribute to energy saving (hence, citizens would choose more economical devices) and the preservation of the environment. I have no doubt that when Europeans see the amount of energy consumed, they will take advantage of the opportunity to choose more efficient and environmentally friendly products and equipment. Once more, I welcome the position of the European Parliament on this issue and I hope that such decisions will become a real stimulus and opportunity to realise our commitments to reduce energy consumption by 2020.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The recast of the Energy Labelling Directive has the objective of extending the scope of labelling information to include all products that impact on energy consumption, and not just household appliances. The directive is part of the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan and it also envisages initiatives for incentives and public tenders. It will establish the fulcrum of an integrated and sustainable policy from an environmental standpoint. One of the most controversial points concerns which type of scale to use in order to avoid causing consumer confusion: it was decided to maintain the A-G closed scale layout after the European Parliament adopted a resolution in this regard. Energy efficiency ratings will also be displayed on all advertising containing information on energy consumption or which relates to product prices. For the reasons I have explained, I agree with the stance taken by Mrs Podimata and I support the report.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Energy Labelling Directive has a crucial role to play in the achievement of the EU energy efficiency target of 20% by 2020. It provides an important added value for both the market and consumers. In essence, the mandatory mention of the energy label in advertisements will put an end to misinformation of end users, giving them all the information they need to make fully informed choices.

At the same time, due to Parliament’s strong insistence, the introduction of an open scale layout was avoided, and maintaining the model of an A-G scale, which has a well proven value for consumers so far, was guaranteed. Moreover, the addition of a general review clause allows for a thorough re-examination in the light of technical evolution and consumer understanding of the label no later than 2014. This is one more safeguard that the consumer friendly scale as decided so far will remain unchanged at least until the review takes place. I therefore repeat with conviction that I fully support the directive. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 49

Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report since, by including all energy-related products, the amendment to the Energy Labelling Directive will help achieve a EUR 4 million reduction in the transposition costs for each implementation measure updated and produced from scratch (if regulations/decisions are going to be used instead of directives). It will also produce additional reductions

amounting to approximately 78 Mt of CO2 emissions. In future, energy efficiency labelling will also be applied to energy consuming products intended for industrial and commercial use, such as cold storage rooms, retail display cabinets, industrial cooking appliances, vending machines (selling sandwiches, snacks, coffee, etc.), industrial motors, energy-related products, including construction products which do not consume energy but ‘have a significant direct or indirect impact’ on energy saving, such as windows and door frames. One important factor in ensuring the proper application of this directive is guaranteeing every citizen access to correct information and making consumers aware of the impact of the choices they make. Providing accurate, relevant and comparable information on the specific energy consumption of energy-related products will help end users make a decision based on energy-saving potential in order to reduce energy bills in the long term.

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) I have voted in favour of the Podimata report because I believe that Parliament and especially the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) have managed to make extremely important advances with respect to a crucial directive in order to achieve the energy efficiency goal that we have set ourselves. Not only have we managed to maintain the A-G scale, which is known and accepted by European consumers, but we have also ensured that it is now obligatory to refer to the energy label of the domestic appliance as long as information on the price appears in its promotional or advertising material. Another noteworthy aspect introduced by Parliament is the obligation on the Commission to draw up a priority list of products related to energy, including some building products that are liable to be subject to measures in the future. Lastly, given the leadership role that must be taken by the public sector, I feel it is essential for administrations to acquire products that belong to the highest energy efficiency class in public tenders.

Report: Vladimír Maňka (A7-0158/2010)

Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Maňka’s report proposes several amendments to the European Parliament’s 2010 budget. I voted for this report and, in particular, for its provisions that follow on from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. These include the EUR 1 500 per month increase in Members’ assistance expenses. This increase is designed to enable Members to meet their new responsibilities arising from the Treaty of Lisbon, which considerably extends the scope of Parliament, thereby increasing its influence on EU decision making. Parliament needs to increase its expertise in legislative issues in order to match the Commission and the Member States. We represent European citizens and we need appropriate resources if we wish to defend their interests. I therefore supported this report.

Göran Färm (S&D), in writing. – (SV) I believe that those committees that will have a heavier workload as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon need to be reinforced. This justifies an increase in the number of staff for Parliament’s and the groups’ secretariats in these committees. However, I do not share the view that we MEPs need more staff. I would have liked to have seen Parliament’s resources being enhanced first and foremost by means of redistribution and measures to improve efficiency, so that the total budget is not increased. In my capacity as group leader for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament in the Committee on Budgets, I also took this line in the negotiations with Parliament’s Presidency. In the end, we reached a compromise to the effect that the proposal will now be partly funded through savings of EUR 4.4 million. I still believe that further savings should have been included in the proposal but, as I played an active role in the negotiations, I have chosen to support the compromise achieved.

Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will probably cause a significant rise in Parliament’s workload. In particular, this will lead to more extensive use of the ordinary legislative procedure, which will affect around 95% of legislation passed. Additional budgetary and human resources will allow Parliament to fulfil its new role as colegislator on an equal footing with the Council.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I supported the Maňka Report on the European Parliament amending budget while conscious of the sensitivity of increasing budgets at a time when citizens are being asked to take pay cuts and jobs are being lost. The work in the European Parliament has undoubtedly increased 50 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

because of the Treaty of Lisbon. I intend to use the additional assistance allowance to provide opportunities to young students who are applying in large numbers to my office for work. This will provide them with remuneration for their work and valuable work experience, which I hope will assist them in their future careers. However, I believe that the Parliament needs to review our entire working methods and staffing with a view to improving our effectiveness and efficiency.

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament new responsibilities. This situation means additional administrative work, with the result that Members need qualified staff to act as advisors. This new situation leads to two problems: increased costs arising from the need for more assistants, and additional space required in order for them to carry out their duties in good working conditions. This situation leads to increased costs. That is difficult to explain during this time of crisis, but if Parliament’s work is to be excellent, it needs to have the necessary financial and human resources. That is why I voted as I did.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. Though it may seem like demagogy or another caste privilege, in this case it is not. The budget amendments are important and essential for the proper management of the life and activity of Parliament. In our role as Members of the European Parliament, following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, we are called upon to undertake an important and conspicuous task. For that reason, we need collaborators and experts who are able to support us in our jobs on a daily basis. To do that, resources are needed. On behalf of myself and, I hope, my fellow Members, these resources will translate into even more effective, efficient and focused work.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I have signed and voted in favour of the Amendment rejecting the tranche, together with 16 other MEPs from my group. The reason is that I think it is of utmost importance to show that there is a substantial group of MEPs that do not agree with the increase of the assistance allowance in these times of economic crisis. At the final vote, however, I voted in favour of the Maňka report, amending Parliament’s budget for 2010.

Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted against the report on the supplementary budget for 2010. To increase MEPs’ secretarial allowance by EUR 1 500 per month in order to deal with the increased workloads resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is not tenable. For one thing, you cannot employ highly-trained experts for EUR 1 500 per month. Secondly, there is no room for new staff in Parliament’s working premises. Thirdly, a proportion of the budget funds have been taken out of the reserve specifically for building investments. Fourthly, for the 2011 budget, Category 5, the rapporteur, Mrs Trüppel, stated that secretarial allowances cannot be guaranteed in future until a proper evaluation of their benefits has been carried out. I regard this increase as an unjustified supplement for the already high secretarial allowances, and this at a time when the unemployed, single women, pensioners and other socially vulnerable groups are forced to make sacrifices to rescue the floundering euro project.

Report: Ryszard Czarnecki (A7-0096/2010)

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the name of transparency – which the citizens require – and thoroughness, I do not believe that the Council is free of its obligation to be publicly accountable for the funds made available to them. That is why I agree with the rapporteur’s decision to postpone the decision on discharging the Council’s accounts until the requested additional information has been submitted.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of postponing the decision on releasing the implementation of the EU general budget for the year 2008 in the interests of transparency and rigour, not only in terms of implementing the budget, but also the complete supervision of the use of all the EU’s financial resources. This will afford the Council the opportunity to obtain all the explanations and information that are needed to secure a decision endorsed by Parliament. This is absolutely vital to the credibility of the European institutions and public confidence in those in power. Moreover, basic respect for the policies and guidelines set out by the democratic bodies and those legally empowered to do so is at issue here.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The procedure of discharging the budget is important and the legislative and supervisory activities of Parliament hinge upon it. There is no need for me to reiterate the supervisory power that Parliament has acquired over the years, thanks not least to the budget procedure, on the basis of which it has managed to turn the mandatory reporting of 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 51

European institutions into a serious and important matter. Moreover, it is also fundamental in light of our citizens’ expectations. In a moment of crisis such as the current one, European citizens are called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices and we must carry out careful and accurate supervision of bureaucratic or actual management expenses. For the reasons I have stated, I commend the rapporteur and express my agreement.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of this report because I agree with the fact that we need to postpone the discharge decision until October.

Konrad Szymański (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted against granting discharge in respect of the Council’s budget for 2008 because the Council’s financial documentation was received in Parliament too late. The European Parliament’s supervision of the Council’s finances is far from being transparent.

Report: Miroslav Mikolášik (A7-0106/2010)

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The last few years have seen a steady, rapid rise in the need for organ transplants within the European Union. Although the organ shortage remains the biggest challenge facing us at the moment, there are far more difficulties related to the different transplant systems which are used in Member States. Back in 2008, the European Parliament called on the European Commission, via the resolution adopted in April, to draft a directive setting out the legal framework for guaranteeing the quality and safety of organ donations within the European Union. The Commission subsequently tabled a proposal for a directive, which was debated in the European Parliament, featuring the following three objectives: guaranteeing quality and safety for patients across the EU, providing protection for donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States. We voted in favour of the compromise reached between Parliament, the Council and Commission as we need common quality and safety standards at EU level for the procurement, transport and use of human organs. This is a measure which would facilitate organ exchanges, thereby benefiting the thousands of patients in Europe who require this kind of treatment every year.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I support this report on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. With the growing demand for transplantations in the European Union and the imbalance between patients waiting for a transplantation and the number of organs donated, we must aim to avoid the commercialisation of donation and end the illegal trade in organs. Therefore, we must apply strict legislation on living donors, ensure the transparency of organ waiting lists, lay down strict confidentiality rules in order to protect the personal data of donors and those waiting for organs and define the responsibility of doctors. Once common quality and safety standards have been adopted, opportunities would be created for cross border exchanges of organs and this may increase the number of transplantations performed.

Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over the last five decades, the transplanting of organs has become an effective practice at global level, which has contributed to improving the quality of life and increasing the life expectancies of sufferers. This directive establishes rules that seek to guarantee high standards of quality and safety for organs of human origin to be transplanted into human bodies in order to ensure a high level of protection of human health. The directive introduces quality national programmes in which standards and practices for transplantation processes in the Member States are defined. It also sets out in more detail the procurement process and issues connected with the information system. The traceability and protection of donors and recipients also deserve special attention. I voted for this report because of its three main objectives: guaranteeing quality and safety for patients at Union level, ensuring the protection of donors, and facilitating cooperation between Member States. Nevertheless, I would stress that organ transplantation programmes must comply with the principle of voluntary and free donation that is already enshrined in previous legislation on substances of human origin, and that they may not be sold in any way.

Gerard Batten, John Bufton, David Campbell Bannerman and Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. – UKIP believes that ongoing development and improvement in the present international network of facilities and agencies for organ exchange will not be facilitated by the EU’s attempts to invade and regulate this network. On the contrary, organ donation in the few countries where there are many donors is likely to 52 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

decrease if demand for organs from the many countries where there are few donors becomes EU-mandatory. In the latter countries, moreover, the resulting relative abundance of foreign organs is likely to reduce organ donation there also. Consequently, UKIP members voted against this report.

Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the draft directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. The directive covers every stage in the chain, from donation to transplantation, and provides for cooperation between Member States. An effective transplantation system is not solely based on donors’ support; it also depends on the correct use of information and on the quality of the network by which this information is shared. I therefore supported the idea of creating a European database recording information on the organs available, and a pan-European certification system guaranteeing that the human organs and tissues available have been obtained legally. Indeed, in order to ensure equal access to available organs, organs must only be donated on a voluntary basis, without any payments being made. However, the principle of not paying for organs will not prevent live donors from being compensated, provided that such compensation is strictly limited to covering the costs and loss of income resulting from the donation. Such a transparent, safe and efficient donation system is the only way to combat organ trafficking.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the proposal for a directive for the following reasons: 1. Given the increase in the demand for organs for transplant and the limited supply, which often forces patients to look for solutions to their problem beyond national borders, the adoption at Community level of a common framework of quality and safety standards and the creation of a network of cooperation and mutual information is absolutely necessary in order to improve protection for public health and services to patients. 2. National provisions governing the procedure for providing consent to organ donation, the selection of which remains within the jurisdiction of the Member States, are not affected in any way. On the contrary, the proposal for a directive supplements the current legal framework of each Member State of the EU with specific quality and safety standards throughout the transplantation procedure and, at the same time, safeguards the absence of any form of speculation and maintains the anonymity and security of both the donor’s and the recipient’s personal data. 3. Cases of organ smuggling are minimised and the confidence of potential donors is strengthened, with the ultimate aim of increasing the number of donors. 4. Sanctions are imposed by the Member States in the event of infringement of legislation relating to the identity of donors or recipients.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation because it contributes to reducing operation waiting lists for European sufferers. It is unacceptable that, on average, 12 people awaiting a transplant die every day. This directive will make it easier to donate and transplant organs, and to exchange them between EU Member States, benefiting thousands of ill Europeans.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The scarcity of organs for transplantation has been feeding a terrible market which affects, above all, developing countries, but which has also hit deprived people in Eastern Europe. I share the concern about the difficulty of combating this brutal trade and the terrible consequences for those who are deprived, forcibly or not, of their organs: savage drops in quality of life, chronic illnesses and, in many cases, death. The adoption of common rules puts the European Union on a level footing in terms of requirements and responsibilities, in stark contrast with the sombre situation that I have described. Patients and donors will have the conditions, the monitoring and the protection that those involved in the trafficking networks lack, and the Member States will start to be able to cooperate effectively. I agree with the rapporteur that donation must be altruistic, voluntary and free, and that the donor must only be compensated for any expenses or inconvenience incurred by the donation. I believe that my colleague, Mr Mikolášik, has proposed some good alterations that improve the basic text; they must be a result of his medical training and of his following this subject since the last parliamentary session.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I warmly welcome this proposal and its three principal objectives: guaranteeing quality and security for patients at Union level, ensuring the protection of donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States. In general in the EU, there is a broad social consensus on the donation of organs for transplantation. However, due to differences of culture and tradition, and also in the system of organisation, there are different approaches to this issue within the Member States. I would stress that although the directive is aimed at maintaining or attempting to achieve harmonisation between quality and security measures, it should not create an extra administrative burden for Member States. Rather, it should have a sufficient margin of flexibility for it not to jeopardise good practice already in force. The proposal for a directive establishes common, binding standards of quality and safety for organs of human 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 53

origin to be transplanted with the aim of guaranteeing a high level of protection for health throughout the EU. I endorse the Commission’s view that, in principle, organ transplantation programmes must comply with the principle of voluntary and free donation. Organ donation must always be free and protected from any potential commercialisation.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Organ transplants are an important means of rehabilitation for patients suffering a multitude of illnesses that cause fatal problems with certain organs. The number of transplants in the European Union has increased, saving and prolonging many lives. However, there are still long waiting lists for transplants. Our vote in favour expresses our agreement with the improvements that the report is attempting to introduce to the current situation. As well as affecting quality and safety, and the establishment of procedures necessary for procurement and transport, these improvements relate to the protection of donors and recipients, with due consideration being given to ethical principles and the principle of non-remuneration. The report also tackles the worrying issue of human organ trafficking in a way that seems appropriate to us.

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This aim of this directive is clear enough: we need more organs for patients and greater cooperation between Member States on this matter and on combating organ trafficking. Hence, one of the foundations of this new legislation provides for the designation of a new authority in every Member State to be responsible for compliance with the standards of quality and security of organs. These authorities will be responsible for ensuring the quality and the safety of the organs ‘throughout the entire chain, from donation to transplant, as well as in evaluating the quality and safety during the recovery and subsequent monitoring of the respective patient’. The new directive also requires that the health professionals involved in all stages of the chain, from the donation to the transplantation or removal of the organ, are properly qualified. Specific training programmes should thus be developed for these professionals. For all these reasons, we voted for this proposal. That is why I voted as I did.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Organ transplants can save lives, but only when a healthy organ from a matching donor is transplanted. Unfortunately, errors have occurred repeatedly in the past and this makes it even more important to impose quality and safety standards in this area. It is also worth discussing the fact that Muslims are often happy to accept organ donations, but are not generally prepared to donate organs because of their religion. I hope that the report will contribute to improving quality and safety standards, which is why I have voted in favour of it.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my vote in favour of Mr Mikolášik’s report. The growing need for available transplant organs in a context of cross-border exchange and of significant differences among the transplant systems adopted by the various Member States requires cooperation and common regulations regarding the quality and safety of the organs to be strengthened. The proposal for a directive aims to reach those objectives by focusing on increasing the number of transplants and raising the quality standards in donation, procurement, control, preservation, transportation and transplant processes. Furthermore, by underlining the principle of voluntary donation as against the trade or trafficking of organs, it aims to guarantee the rights of donors and patients. Though recognising the need to harmonise quality and safety measures, the rapporteur stresses that the directive must not create an additional administrative burden for Member States and must leave enough flexibility without jeopardising current good practices.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Transplantation is one of the medical specialities to have made the greatest advances over recent decades, having achieved considerable success and been crucial in saving human lives. Paradoxically, it is the success of transplantation that, alongside other factors, has led to a growing number of candidates for organ transplants, resulting in long waiting lists. It has also led to the human drama associated with the death of approximately 12 patients per day in the EU because they have not been able to receive the organ that they need in order to survive. One of the ways of minimising this problem is exchange between EU Member States, ensuring greater compatibility between donor and recipient in a shorter space of time, and with a higher level of organ acceptance. This exchange, however, requires quality and safety standards across the board, as set out in the present directive by Parliament and the Council. The Mikolášik report on safety and quality standards for organs intended for transplantation thus makes an important contribution towards minimising organ shortage and towards basic protection of the health of the recipient and the living donor. Therefore, we are pleased to welcome it.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Organ transplants are, without a doubt, one of the most positive aspects of progress in the health field but, at the same time, they open up a whole series of problems in terms 54 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

of donors’ and patients’ rights which must be dealt with from the ethical, social, legal and economic points of view. It is a question of setting a positive process in motion to address the major imbalance between the need and the numbers of organs available, without compromising the principle of free, voluntary donation in order to prevent all forms of commercialisation and illegal trafficking and whilst guaranteeing the quality and safety of organs for transplantation with measures that ensure both confidentiality and traceability. The adoption of common quality standards is definitely a step forward that should be welcomed as part of a framework in which the World Health Organisation may make a further contribution. However, in setting up a European database, it is important that we take care not to introduce an unnecessarily rigid framework or create additional red tape that would hamper the current perfectly proper and efficient process.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I have supported the report lead by our colleague Mikolášik on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation as one very urgent measure to improve the life expectation of more than 60 000 people in Europe waiting for a transplant. I hope this will make the possibility of getting an organ easier and safer.

Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted in favour of the report, even though there is a need, concurrently with the desired effort to unify safety and quality requirements for human organs designated for transplant, to focus, in particular, on increasing donor numbers in the various Member States, taking account of the different national traditions of health systems. It is therefore necessary to assess this area rigorously from the perspective of the subsidiarity principle.

Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. – I was pleased to support this report in its vote through Parliament. Within the South-East of England, many families are victims of the harsh reality of a poor supply of organs necessary for transplantation. This report assists in creating an EU cross-border standard which could provide for an improved supply into and across the EU so that such families of individuals needing organs can be more easily met with the hope of relieving their conditions.

Konrad Szymański (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on standards of safety in organ donation because the report includes the principle of non-commercialisation.

Calendar of part-sessions of the European Parliament - 2011

Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has adopted the calendar of plenary sessions for 2011. It is regrettable that EUR 200 million per annum of the taxpayer’s money continues to be spent on holding 12 sessions in Strasbourg every year. The hypocrisy is reaching the point of not even complying with the provisions of the treaties, as compliance would involve one session per month; in other words, including August. The city of Strasbourg’s legitimate aspirations could be satisfied with the permanent establishment here of one or two European Union agencies. As for the ‘circus’, it should obviously stop! Furthermore, it makes no sense at all for the European Parliament to meet 48 days of the year in a city that does not have direct air links with virtually any of the Member States’ capitals. Moreover, those that do exist have commercial timetables, which are totally incompatible with parliamentary activity. It is easy to see that the Heads of State or Government who make these decisions travel by private aeroplane and do not lose dozens or hundreds of hours per year getting to Strasbourg.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against the proposal made by some Members to divide a session into two parts, but still to hold it during one week. Apart from the fact that this does not make much sense, the additional travel to and from the session would give rise to unnecessary costs and waste valuable working time.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I enthusiastically supported the amendment proposing to reduce the two September part-sessions to one. I am a big supporter of the idea of reducing the two EP seats to one, based in Brussels. Thus, I support any initiative willing to get rid of the Strasbourg seat.

Resolution: Food additives other than colours and sweeteners (bovine or porcine thrombin) (B7-0264/2010)

Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Issues relating to the diet and health of citizens are extremely sensitive and must be considered carefully and objectively. This is very much the case with the debate on the authorisation of food additives such as thrombin. Thrombin is a product obtained from animal (cow or pig) 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 55

plasma and blood, the cicatrising characteristics of which are used by the agri-foodstuffs industry to reconstitute meat from a collection of pieces. This additive fulfils the four criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 permitting authorisation: food additives must be safe when used (confirmed by the EFSA in its opinion of 2005); there must be a technological need for their use (very useful as a stabiliser); their use must not mislead the consumer (use limited to pre-packaged and, hence, labelled, products); they must be of benefit to the consumer (end product is stabilised). In addition, the overwhelming majority of Member States are calling for thrombin to be authorised. Therefore, since this additive does not pose any risk to health and has a genuine role to play in food preparation, there was no reason to oppose its authorisation.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution which aims to limit the use in food products of food additives that are dangerous to health, in order to protect the health of consumers. Legislation currently in force in the European Union provides that food additives may be used if they benefit the consumer. As the benefit of thrombin (‘meat glue’) for consumers has not been proven and the process of binding together many separate pieces of meat significantly increases the risk of it being infected by bacteria, I did not support the proposal to allow this food additive to be used in bovine and pork products. In addition, we must strive to prevent such products processed with ‘meat glue’ from finding their way into public establishments serving food.

Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for a resolution calling for thrombin not to be used in meat. Thrombin is used as a ‘glue’ in reconstituted meat. It poses a health risk because the process of bonding together various scraps of meat significantly increases the surface area of the foodstuff, which might have been contaminated by bacteria. In addition, reconstituted meat could mislead consumers seeking to buy meat.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution because it does not allow the use of foods containing additives and enzymes, such as thrombin, which are dangerous and compromise the quality of food and consumer safety. The guarantees given by the Commission are not only unconvincing and inadequate but they also increase my concerns. Furthermore, the Commission, and the Commissioner himself, have not demonstrated the necessary awareness, as their recent decision on licensing modified potato crops also demonstrated.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The motion for a resolution expresses some reservations regarding the use of an enzyme preparation based on thrombin with fibrinogen as a food additive for reconstituting food, which seem pertinent to us. The Commission’s proposals do not fully deal with these reservations. Doubts persist about the possibility of using unpacked reconstituted products, compromising the information necessary for the consumer, as well as about the effectiveness of banning the use of these products in restaurants and other public establishments that serve food. The Commission itself recognises that using this food additive could mislead the consumer as to the state of the final food. The proposed solution to the above problem of labelling could not be enough, on its own, to deal with this problem. Doubts also persist about the process of binding foods (for example, cold bonding without the addition of salt and without any subsequent heating process) and the safety of the final product. We therefore deem this resolution worthy of our support.

Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I very much regret the adoption of this resolution relating to the banning of porcine and bovine thrombin. The text has no valid scientific basis. Indeed, this food additive, which is derived from animal plasma and blood and used in pre-packed products to bind together separate pieces of meat, meets all the health and safety criteria laid down by the European Food Safety Authority. It is authorised in France and used in black pudding, for example. It is therefore important that we take our decisions on the basis of data provided by the scientific community, not by the media. Let us not lapse into an emotional debate! What is more, the labelling requirements for products containing this additive are said to have been tightened up. The word ‘thrombin’ and the phrase ‘reconstituted meat’ have seemingly been clearly shown. It has therefore never been a question of misleading consumers who have, by all accounts, been better informed.

Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Food safety and the health of European citizens are at stake. This issue has been raised within Parliament with the case of thrombin, which is a food additive used to ‘glue’ pieces of meat together, and whose final appearance could easily mislead the consumer. The agri-foodstuff industries were already pleased to see how widespread the use of this substance had become, and for good reason, because it enabled them to get rid of their meat waste and sell poor quality pieces cheaply. Although 56 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that thrombin is harmless, I am still very sceptical about these results. It is time to show the Commission that food safety and health are major concerns for the European Parliament. I therefore welcome this vote rejecting this enzyme.

Christa Klaß (PPE), in writing. – (DE) We cannot allow the consumer to be misled by the food additive thrombin. Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 regulates the conditions for food additives throughout the EU and we are now looking to include new substances in it. The key thing here is the safety of substances. In order to meet consumer demand for food which looks attractive, the food industry has created substances which are added just for the sake of better appearance. One such substance is thrombin, which is obtained from edible parts of animals and which is not harmful to health. Its role is to combine individual pieces of meat together into a single meat product. Although not in itself a health hazard, parading individual pieces of glued together meat as a single piece of ham does constitute consumer fraud. Although such products cannot therefore be banned on health grounds, they must be labelled very clearly and unambiguously by indicating not just the name of the product but also its effect and a clear designation of the processed product. A piece of meat glued together with thrombin should never be allowed to go on sale as ham. Instead, it must be clearly labelled as ‘combined meat parts treated with thrombin’. I will vote in favour of the approval of this substance only if we impose a clear labelling requirement.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Today, Parliament voted to block the authorisation of thrombin for use as a food additive. We do not yet know the implications of this decision, which is based on an emotional reaction to reconstituted meat and not on a scientific assessment of the actual enzyme. The Commission outlined with clarity that EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has said there are no safety issues involved. The Commission proposal would allow for the product to only be used in pre-packaged, clearly labelled combined meat products with the name of the enzyme, thrombin – a blood-derived product – in the list of ingredients. Thrombin is currently in use. After today, it will not be permitted. Is it wise for this Parliament to start telling people what to eat, rather than providing them with information of what they are eating? There is a difference.

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposal which suggests that thrombin from cattle and/or swine should be included on the list of food additives approved in the EU does not give us any guarantee that this substance has a clear benefit for consumers, and ultimately this may mislead consumers. In addition, the whole process of linking different pieces of meat greatly increases the surface that can be infected by pathogenic bacteria. That is why I voted as I did.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) When we consider, in particular, the increasing levels of allergy and food intolerance and the fact that knowledge is constantly being developed in this area, it is imperative that we regulate additives. Precisely because of past scandals, it is very important that we prevent any possibility of the consumer being misled. More research into the safety and tolerability of some additives, such as aspartame, would be desirable, but that was not the subject of this resolution. I voted in favour of it, nonetheless.

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against the resolution, given that thrombin is an additive which cannot be regarded as a cause for concern in terms of food safety. Meat which includes thrombin among its ingredients could be sold only with a label stating ‘combined meat parts’, while all the ingredients could be specified on a label, in compliance with legal provisions. This would allow citizens to make an enlightened choice, which means that we cannot mislead anyone. The use of thrombin could enable many citizens to purchase food products at much more affordable prices.

Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I oppose the use of thrombin to glue together different pieces of meat which are mostly of poor quality. Consumers are generally unaware of what is happening and are being deceived. On the other hand, the process does not result in any demonstrable benefits for consumers. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this report, which aims to restrict these practices.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution, because I agree that the use of food additives must be moderate – it is only justifiable when it gives consumers an added benefit. However, I do not think that thrombin ‘meat glue’ complies with this requirement. If the use of ‘meat glue’ became very widespread, it would be difficult for consumers to differentiate between real meat and pieces of meat that 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 57

have been glued together. As mentioned in the report, that increases the risk of meat infection. Thrombins would only be of benefit to producers, who would be able to bring to market pieces of meat that would otherwise be of no use to anyone. In all other industries, the European Union is trying to combat fabrications and forgeries. I do not think that the food industry should be an exception.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Consumer protection is one of the European Parliament’s key tasks and European consumers are often unaware of the nature of the products they are about to buy and the additives they contain. Clear, accurate labelling is obviously important. However, in our capacity as legislators, we need to ban certain harmful products. Whilst the draft Commission directive would not permit the use of thrombin as a food additive in meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, there is, however, a clear risk that meat containing thrombin would find its way into meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, given the higher prices that can be obtained for pieces of meat served as a single meat product. The labelling conditions contained in the draft Commission directive would fail to guard against the creation of a false or misleading impression to consumers as to the existence of a single-meat product, and therefore there is a risk that consumers would be misled and prevented from making an informed choice in relation to the consumption of meat products containing thrombin. I therefore agree with the opinion expressed in the resolution.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I am very pleased with today’s vote banning thrombin. This is a victory for consumers. The problem with thrombin is not the risk it poses, although there are indeed health issues involved, but its misleading nature. If not forewarned, it is impossible to distinguish with the naked eye between a piece of meat and another piece of meat that has been bound together with thrombin. This is highly deceptive. Using thrombin amounts to placing on the market a sort of prefabricated, artificial meat. I cannot quite see how this benefits consumers. Yet thrombin is used in some Member States without consumers being informed. The attempts to deceive consumers and to try to hide the truth must stop. That is not the way for manufacturers to restore consumer confidence.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I fully support this resolution and the efforts to prevent the authorisation of thrombin or ‘meat glue’. It is misleading for consumers because they assume they are buying a single piece of meat, but in fact, they are buying many pieces which have been artificially stuck together. Industry has argued that use of this substance enables them to create cheap meat for people who cannot afford more expensive products, but the fact is that it enables industry to sell smaller pieces of meat for more money, not less. And there is a health issue here too – many small pieces of meat glued together have a much larger surface area than a single, larger piece, which significantly increases the area on which pathogenic bacteria can thrive. Misleading the consumer is contrary to EU law, and there are potentially serious health implications of using this substance in this way. This is why I voted in favour of this resolution.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption, by a ‘very close margin’ (370 votes, when we needed 369), of this resolution, which protects consumers from the use of thrombin as a ‘meat glue’, as a food additive used to glue pieces of meat together to form a single meat-based product. Its use is clearly potentially misleading for consumers, in terms of the quality of the product they are buying. Therefore, it was my duty and that of my fellow MEPs to strongly oppose the Commission’s desire to allow the agri-food industry to use a new food additive of which the sole purpose is ultimately to generate further profits, with a concomitant disregard for the protection of the rights of consumers, one of which is to receive accurate information about the food which they choose to consume.

Report: Andres Perello Rodriguez (A7-0103/2010)

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In 2008, the European Commission presented an Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015), with the aim of strengthening cooperation between Member States in the area of organ donation through the exchange of good practice. The actions stipulated in this plan complement the European legal framework set out in the Commission’s proposal for a directive on organ donation and transplantation. Although there are significant differences between Member 58 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

States in terms of practices and results at the moment, the exchange of information and good practices will help countries where there is a low availability of organs to improve the level of availability. The other actions stipulated in the plan are aimed at improving the quality and safety of organ transplantation, creating a register for evaluating post-transplant results and setting up an organ exchange system for particular cases, such as children or adults with special requirements. I voted, along with my other fellow MEPs, to support such a plan which will facilitate cooperation between Member States as well as combat illegal organ trafficking.

Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Organ transplantation has proved to be indispensable in treating certain illnesses and provides the possibility of saving lives, offers a better quality of life for patients, and has the best cost/benefit ratio when compared with other replacement therapies. Nonetheless, there are several issues of concern as regards this therapy, not least the risk of transmission of diseases, the limited availability of organs, and organ trafficking. There is currently no database covering the whole of the European Union which contains information about organs intended for donation and transplantation or on living or deceased donors, nor a pan-European certification system which provides proof that human organs and tissues have been legally obtained. I voted for this report, because I welcomed the Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015), which was adopted by the Commission in December 2008, and which sets out a cooperative approach between Member States in the form of a set of priority actions based on the identification and development of common objectives and the evaluation of donation and transplantation activities through agreed indicators that might help to identify benchmarks and best practices.

Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Every day, 12 people die in Europe because they have not received a transplant in time, and 60 000 people are currently waiting for a transplant. However, no organ exchange network has yet been set up at the EU 27 level. Although a directive will soon see the light of day, I voted with the other Members for a resolution which sets out the direction to be taken by Parliament on this issue. There are three particularly sensitive issues: cross-border exchange of available organs; information for citizens; and the identification of potential donors. The resolution suggests, for example, that citizens ought to be able to use the Internet to declare themselves ‘willing donors’.

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) An organ transplant is the last chance of life for thousands of people every day. In Romania, 13 people on the transplant waiting list die every day due to the lack of donors. Romania is faced with a tragic situation at a time when there is one donor per million inhabitants. The Romanian Parliament has tried to introduce the concept of presumed consent, but public debate has blocked this step being taken every time. The measures taken by the Commission and European Parliament only serve to bring some order and make recommendations in a system which is important in terms of saving as many lives as possible. Funding the medical system does not come cheap. Removing organs and carrying out the transplant, along with post-transplant care, are expensive medical procedures, but every Member State must make efforts to encourage this type of medical procedure. In fact, Spain provides a good model because it has successfully achieved the highest number of donors in the European Union. There is no need to reinvent the wheel as long as we have, right in our midst, a successful model. In these circumstances, measures such as promotion through this directive, cooperation between Member States and organ exchange, all tightly regulated by quality and safety standards, give us encouragement.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The figures speak for themselves. Approximately 60 000 patients are on a waiting list for a transplant in the Member States of the EU. Every day, 12 of them die. The availability of organs differs considerably from one Member State to another: from 33.8 dead donors in Spain to 1 dead donor in Romania per one million people. The divide between the supply and demand of organs is exploited by criminal gangs, who have turned it into a profitable business. The Commission’s action plan on organ donation and transplantation has added value, because the proposed strengthening of cooperation between the Member States will increase the availability of organs, improve the efficacy and accessibility of transplant systems, improve the quality and safety of organs, and promote exchanges of best practices. I voted in favour of the Perello report because it proposes a package of priority actions which maximise the percentage of donations by donors, introduce the concept of transplant coordinators in all hospitals in which 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 59

organs may be donated, target public awareness, improved knowledge and skills on the part of health professionals and patient support groups and the introduction of registers to facilitate the evaluation of post-transplantation results.

Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The number of organ donations and transplantations is increasing every year in Europe, thus enabling thousands of lives to be saved. However, a large number of obstacles still need to be removed because there are still not enough organs to meet demand. Every day, 12 patients die in the EU due to a lack of compatible donors. Organ donation varies considerably from one Member State to another; there are, for example, 34.6 donations per million inhabitants in Spain, compared with 0.5 in Romania. What is more, organs are rarely exchanged between Member States. Parliament’s vote is the first step towards a European network to meet the requirement for swift, flexible and safe transplantations on the model of Eurotransplant (Austria, Benelux, Croatia, Germany, Netherlands and Slovenia) and Scandiatransplant (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland). The EU is also going to extend the use of the donor card which, although supported by 81% of Europe’s citizens, is held by only 12% of them. The Member States must ensure that no payment is made for donations and must guarantee their traceability and confidentiality, in particular, to combat transnational trafficking of organs.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The discrepancy in the percentage of organ donors in the various countries of Europe seems to suggest that the systems in some Member States are more effective than in others. These systems must, therefore, be studied and, potentially, adopted by those that are shown to be less successful. In an area that is closely tied to the health and lives of the public, in addition to adopting best practices, it is clearly becoming necessary to optimise resources and make collective use of the European scale of organ availability. It makes no sense for someone to die because there is no organ available in their country, when it may exist and be available elsewhere. I support the idea that anyone who encourages or promotes so-called ‘transplant tourism’ must be punished, as must recourse to organ trafficking networks. Punishments must be particularly severe for health professionals or insurance companies. I would stress the need for effective monitoring both of recipients, and of altruistic and voluntary donors, to whom the public cannot fail to owe a debt of gratitude.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Currently, there are 56 000 patients in the EU waiting for a suitable organ donor, and every day, 12 people die waiting for a solid organ transplant. Organ transplantation represents the only therapeutic alternative for patients in the final stage of liver, heart and lung failure. There is, however, a considerable discrepancy between the number of patients waiting for a transplant and the number of patients who actually receive one. This discrepancy is the result of a shortage of organs for transplantation in comparison to need. The inclusion of more patients on waiting lists coupled with the minimal increase in the number of patients receiving transplants is reflected in the longer waiting time. This time is expensive and can have a negative impact on patient survival rate and the rate of success for implants. The Commission’s proposal to draw up a European plan of action on donation and transplantation for the 2009-2015 period sets out an approach for cooperation between the Member States, formed around a set of priority actions, and is based on the identification and development of common objectives, the establishment of consensual, quantitative and qualitative reference indicators and parameters, regular reporting and identifying best practice.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The transplantation of organs can deliver many years of full and healthy life for people who would otherwise frequently need intensive care, or would simply not survive. The number of transplants in the European Union has increased, saving and prolonging many lives. However, there are still long waiting lists for transplants. There are currently 56 000 patients waiting for a suitable organ donor in the European Union, and it is estimated that every day, 12 people die while waiting for a solid organ transplant. The number of deceased organ donors, on its own, is not enough and the number of live donors fails to satisfy requirements. Furthermore, there are wide variations between Member States in deceased organ donation rates and, at present, there is neither a database covering the whole of the European Union which contains information about organs intended for donation and transplantation or on living or deceased donors, nor a certification system which provides proof that human organs and tissues have been legally obtained. It is in this context that the report under discussion suggests steps that we consider important for strengthening cooperation between the Member States in this area, from which all of them could benefit.

Nick Griffin (NI), in writing. – A permanent shortage of organs for transplantation hampers the wonderful efforts of health care professionals to help patients. It is also a sad fact that there is a shortage of donors, and 60 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

that this drives some vile criminal activities. To seek to address these problems by creating an EU-wide database is, however, a mistake. It is naive to place hopes in a database covering the whole of the EU, with all its different languages and IT systems, when the failed attempt to produce a Health Service database for the UK alone has wasted billions of pounds. Health services across Europe are unable even to fund basics, and face savage cuts as ordinary citizens pay for the bust of globalism. This being so, far more can be done to encourage organ donations by investing in education programmes at national levels, than by diverting funds to pay for well-intentioned bureaucratic meddling. Additionally, there are tight time constraints on organ viability. Thus, an EU-wide network would be of use to very few patients. Proposals to set one up are another pretty-sounding excuse for the further advance of an agenda that has nothing to do with patients’ welfare and everything to do with federalist dogma.

Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Several thousand people die each year in Europe because they have been unable to receive a transplantation in time. The need to implement EU-wide measures to facilitate intra-Community exchanges of human organs for transplantation, through improved quality and safety standards in this area, was therefore becoming an increasingly urgent issue. This is why I voted for this directive, which aims to protect live donors and the individuals who benefit from their donations, and safeguards basic ethical principles, such as anonymity, volunteering and the inalienable character of the human body, which must not be a source of profit. The idea of establishing a network of competent authorities in the Member States also seems to me to be particularly positive, as does the idea of online registration in national or European registers. Of course, every possible precaution must be taken to ensure that these measures work properly.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the Action plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation for 2009-2015. The technical progress achieved in the area of organ transplantation is a huge source of hope for all those individuals for whom transplantation remains the only possible treatment. The main challenge today is the shortage of organ donors, which is evident from the long waiting lists for transplantation. To meet this challenge, it is essential that measures are adopted to identify potential donors, and a great deal of progress can be made to boost the numbers of organs donated in Europe. As the rapporteur emphasises, the appointment of a key organ donation person in hospitals is probably the key factor in improving arrangements in this area. Increased cooperation between Member States will ensure better exchange of information and good practice aimed at increasing the numbers of donors. For example, enabling citizens to add their names to a donor register when they apply for a passport or a driving licence is one initiative which should be considered by Member States and which I, and most of my fellow Members, regard as positive.

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We approved this new directive for various reasons, but especially because we believe that this is a plan that will be crucial in saving many lives within the EU. Twelve patients die every day and 60 000 are waiting for a compatible donor for organ transplants within the EU. Transplantation has increased continuously over the last two decades and it is the only available treatment for cases of terminal deficiency in organs such as the liver, lungs and heart. Mortality rates among people waiting for a heart, liver or lung transplant are between 15% and 30%, so patients who need an organ transplant will have to wait less time for that operation, thanks to this new directive. That is why I voted as I did.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The three key objectives in the area of organ donation and transplantation are ensuring quality and safety for patients at EU level, ensuring protection of donors and facilitating cooperation between Member States. A European approach to the issue is important, considering, among other things, the mobility of patients within the European Union. Generally, in the European Union there is a broad societal consensus on organ donation for the purpose of transplantation. However, due to different cultural, traditional or organisational system backgrounds, there are differences between Member States in approach to this issue.

Some countries have a high rate of donations, whilst the donation culture still needs to be developed in others. Sharing of best practices, models and expertise across the European Union could prove very useful in increasing organ donation rates. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 61

Cooperation should be fostered in order to identify successful elements of different transplantation systems and promote these on the European level, thus leading to the improvements in provision of high quality and safety of organ donation and transplantation. I therefore voted in favour.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The present report establishes a set of actions that are aimed at promoting cooperation between the Member States in the field of transplantation in order to contribute to the increase in transplants, the reduction of waiting lists and a consequent reduction in the number of patients who die while waiting for an organ. At the same time, the action plan also establishes common quality and safety standards for the Member States, which not only contribute to the protection of patients but also facilitate cooperation between countries. The creation of national and EU records of the processes involved in transplantation (avoiding discrimination, monitoring the results, etc.) also stands out. This will lead to greater and more thorough awareness of the current situation in Europe, as well as reducing opportunities for organ trafficking. The report supports the action plan and underlines the necessity and urgency for the courses of action that it points out, taking a firm stance against all forms of trading in organs that currently take place in different parts of the world. I believe that this report is an important addition to the Commission’s output and a valuable contribution to an acute human cause within the context of health care provided to the European public.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) I would like to congratulate Mr Perello Rodriguez of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe on the report on which we have just voted. The action plan should mean that the 60 000 people who are currently hoping to receive an organ will see their life expectancy considerably increased. It is also important to highlight the leading position held by the Spanish health system as regards this issue. This has been acknowledged by all the rapporteurs and groups.

Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted in favour of the report, although I think there is primarily a need to focus, in particular, on boosting donor numbers in the various Member States, taking account of the different national traditions of health systems. It is therefore necessary to assess this area rigorously from the perspective of the subsidiarity principle.

Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the statistics speak for themselves. According to this report, there are currently 56 000 patients in the European Union waiting for a suitable organ donor. Every day, 12 people die waiting for an organ transplant. Sadly, many people are simply dying because of the great shortage of organ donors and insufficient cross-border coordination. This sensitive issue is linked to various legal and cultural aspects. However, matters are complicated still further by the EU Member States’ different national policies and fundamentally different organ donation rates. It would be possible to ease some of these shortages through an EU database and certification system, which would provide information about the availability of organs and would guarantee their quality and legality. It is also important to mobilise and inform society. Many EU citizens are not fundamentally against donation, but are afraid of adding their names to the register. Therefore, donation should be as accessible as possible – promotion may often be effective. For example, I welcome forms which would give citizens the opportunity to add their name directly to the organ donor register when they apply for a driving licence. The shortage of organs for transplantation is also a powerful stimulus for the trade in organs and people. The EU should establish better donation and transplantation coordination because, as we can see, the poorest regions of Europe are becoming fertile ground for the illegal trade in organs.

Report: Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (A7-0144/2010)

Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the EU must accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and I welcome this. To render this accession effective, the unanimous agreement of the Members of the Council and approval by the European Parliament are required. For my part, I fully support this accession, which will supplement the European system for the protection of fundamental rights.

Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the EU must accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This accession is not merely symbolic; it enables the protection of the fundamental rights of EU citizens to be improved. It will also have the effect of making the decisions taken and the actions implemented under the Common Foreign and Security Policy subject to the European Convention, even though they are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 62 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Treaty of Lisbon lays down the legal basis for EU accession to the ECHR – the most important instrument for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, the core of Europe. EU accession to the Convention will further strengthen the EU’s system for the protection of fundamental rights. I agree with this proposal, since it is an historic opportunity making it possible to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms for EU citizens and Member States on the same basis. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will be given jurisdiction to examine whether the legislation of EU institutions, bodies and agencies, including rulings of the European Court of Justice, are in compliance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is very important that people will have a new opportunity to defend their rights. Once they have exhausted all national remedies, they will be able to bring actions to the European Court of Human Rights on violations by the EU of fundamental human rights, encouraging the development of a more harmonious case-law system in the area of human rights. The uniform and full application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at EU level is equally essential to ensure the Union’s credibility. As accession to the convention will have a huge legal influence on the creation of a harmonious system for the protection of human rights, I call on the Commission and the Member States to consider the opportunity to develop guidelines with clear explanations of all the implications of accession, the impact on human rights and the envisaged procedure for submitting complaints.

Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the body of values and principles that mark us out as human and the basis of our coexistence; they are universal, indivisible and interdependent. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon represents an important step in human rights terms, not just because it makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding, but also because by giving the European Union legal personality, it enables the EU to accede to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This accession is of the greatest significance at both political and legal levels in the creation of a true area of human rights. As regards action on the part of the Union, to which substantial powers have been transferred by the Member States, this makes it possible to guarantee protection for the public similar to that already enjoyed as regards the Member States. European institutions are obliged to comply with it, not least during the process of drawing up and adopting draft legislation. On the other hand, legislative and case-law harmonisation between the EU and the ECHR in the field of human rights must contribute to creating an integral system in which the European human rights courts (the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights) must operate in synchrony, with a relationship that is not a hierarchical connection but rather one of specialisation.

Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report on the EU’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as provided by the Lisbon Treaty. Now, the Union’s institutions will fall within the scope of this fundamental rights protection system. EU accession to the ECHR improves the Union’s standing when calling on third countries to abide by its human rights standards and extends to people in the EU the same level of protection against Union action that they enjoy with regard to Member State action. Despite the fact that the EU will not join the Council of Europe (CoE), accession to the convention should entail the right to nominate candidates for the post of judge, and allow for European Parliament representation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE when this body elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Further to this progress, the Commission should be mandated to negotiate accession to the protocols supplementing the ECHR which concern rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The next logical step, also in harmony with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is the accession of the EU institutions to the European Social Charter.

Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) The protection of fundamental human rights must remain a national competence because interpretations vary from one country to another and from one culture to another. This is particularly the case with the concepts of discrimination, secularism and the very definition of human life (from conception to its natural end). The Court of Justice of the European Union – an institution of which the decisions are becoming increasingly political – will endeavour to dismantle a little more the national constitutional systems and the foundations of European civilisation. Apart from being useless and a waste of resources, the EU’s accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will lead to confusion and unresolvable legal conflicts with the Strasbourg Court. For reasons of logic, I oppose this new consequence of the legal personality of the EU, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 63

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a strong message that enhances the credibility of the Union in the eyes of third countries which it regularly calls upon to respect the ECHR.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a result of the process that began in Maastricht, in the sense that it gave the European Community legal personality and culminated in the Treaty of Lisbon. The adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, initially with a reduced scope and later on extended by being integrated into the treaty, constituted an important stage in this process. The European Union is now participating more intimately in a continent-wide human rights area. I welcome this development. I hope that solutions can be found to the various legal, technical and institutional issues that are arising at the moment, and that these solutions will be based on the principle of subsidiarity, on voluntary cooperation between the Member States, and on respect for their sovereignty and national legal systems, and on the rule of law.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this report, which contributes to the EU’s commitment to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This commitment is a step forward in the process of European integration and another step towards political unity. Moreover, since the EU system for the protection of fundamental human rights is consolidated and strengthened by incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into its primary law, the EU’s adhesion to the ECHR will constitute a strong message in terms of coherence between the EU and the countries that belong to the Council of Europe and its pan-European regime in matters relating to human rights. This adhesion will further increase the EU’s credibility in the eyes of the third countries which it regularly urges to respect the ECHR as part of their bilateral relations. With regard to the activities of the EU, this adhesion also guarantees the public protection similar to that which they already enjoy in their relations with all Member States.

Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report in order to give the green light to the negotiations on the accession of the EU, as a legal personality in its own right, to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. This accession will actually provide citizens with a new means of recourse: they will now be able to refer a case to the European Court of Human Rights if their fundamental rights are infringed by an EU Institution or a Member State on account of an action or failure to act on their part. We must also insist that the EU accedes to the additional protocols of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to the revised EU Social Charter, because the EU must also make progress on these fronts.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes it compulsory for the European Union to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I support this measure as it will enhance the EU’s credibility in the eyes of its citizens by guaranteeing respect for rights. Accession to the convention will provide citizens with protection against the actions of the EU and its institutions, just like the protection they enjoy at the moment against the actions of Member States. At the same time, we will also achieve closer cooperation between the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and national courts.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the separation of Church and State are in line with the secular tradition of the French Republic. The rulings supporting the ban on a female teacher wearing the veil in the classroom and opposing crucifixes in schools testify to this. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union proposes restricting civil liberties only if the values enshrined in the EU’s fundamental texts require it. The fact is, those texts never once mention the compulsory separation of Church and State or the secular nature of institutions. The European Union is therefore incapable of guaranteeing the freedom of conscience of Europeans.

Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) One of the foundations of the European Union at its inception was respect for human rights – a value which remains permanently at the centre of the EU’s interests. EU law bears witness to this, but so do constitutional provisions of each of the Member States. Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a significant step towards stronger protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. This decision makes the EU part of the international system of protection of rights, thanks 64 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

to which it has strengthened its credibility in the eyes of third countries, and also of its own citizens. The convention, while not altering the institutional construction of the EU, does, however, add another court, the European Court of Human Rights, which will keep watch over the way in which the Union fulfils its obligations in relation to the provisions of the ECHR. In view of the fact that the report on the institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms presents provisions which are in accordance with the above remarks, I decided to vote for its adoption.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The importance of the EU acceding to the ECHR is linked both with its symbolic and political credibility and with the fact that the EU and its institutions will be under stricter obligation to uphold individuals’ fundamental rights. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon provides the legal basis for starting negotiations regarding the EU’s accession to the ECHR. I support the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, one vital preliminary matter is the observance of certain guarantees that the agreement on the European Union’s accession to the ECHR should contain, especially with regard to preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and EU law. Accession must not interfere with the Union’s competences, nor with the obligation of Member States not to submit disputes that fall within the scope of EU law to external dispute resolution systems. It is therefore important to safeguard the prerogatives of the Court of Justice wherever the Strasbourg Court is called upon to rule on the compatibility of a Union act with fundamental rights before the Court of Justice has had the opportunity to do so.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which will be beneficial for Europe’s citizens as it will provide us with a new court that is not part of the European Union, and will ensure that the rights of European citizens are always upheld by the European Union and the Member States. In keeping with the principles of democracy, the European Union and the Member States must always have the right to defend themselves. Therefore, I believe it is vital that each country that accedes to the convention should have a judge who will explain the background to each case, just as I feel it is important that the European Parliament should have an informal body in order to coordinate information sharing between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is also important, moreover, that Parliament should be consulted and involved in the negotiating process.

Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted for the resolution because I take the view that the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) would be a good step forward in creating legal certainty and consistency. In recent decades, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted a raft of decisions which make the defence of the fundamental rights of European citizens concrete. Acceding to the convention as the European Union would also contribute to the Union’s credibility in the eyes of third countries.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) I am delighted with the adoption of the report drawn up by my fellow Member, Mr Jáuregui, on the signing up of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I am concerned that some Europhobe Members persist in denying the need for this measure, whereas I believe that signing up to this convention implies a greater guarantee of protection for human rights, also within the EU.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was already advocated in the Treaty on European Union; the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon made it obligatory. Accession will strengthen protection of human rights in Europe and submit the Union’s legal system to external legal control. This will ensure harmony of case-law between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights, and will grant the European public protection from the action of European institutions, under terms similar to those that already exist with regard to the Member States.

It should be noted that accession does not grant the EU membership of the Council of Europe, or call into question the autonomy of Union law, since the CJEU remains the only authority adjudicating on issues relating to the validity and interpretation of Union law. I would also stress the importance given to the possibility that the Union should be able to submit candidates and choose a judge to represent it, and the need that is mentioned for Parliament to be kept duly informed about accession negotiations and for a 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 65

mechanism for exchanging information between the parliamentary assemblies of both institutions to be established in the future.

Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I support the report, most of all because it extends the system of protection of human rights in the European Union and gives it greater credibility in the eyes of its citizens. When it is not possible to appeal at national or EU level, when a petitioner is refused permission to institute proceedings, or when an action cannot be brought against an EU institution – these are situations in which the added value will be apparent. Therefore, let us continue the fight to strengthen the system of protection of human rights in the EU.

Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, as you are aware, respect for human rights is a fundamental value of the European Union which is anchored in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There is no doubt that, if everything is done properly, EU accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) could be an historic opportunity to strengthen the human rights situation in the EU and all of Europe. This could be our chance to guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms of EU citizens. EU accession to the ECHR would give Europe an excellent opportunity to act as a moral lighthouse, to be an example. This event would not only enhance the EU’s credibility, in terms of relations with non-EU Member States, but would also improve public opinion about EU structures. However, this would only happen if we use all our joint efforts to eliminate double standards in our political programme and legal system. Unfortunately, as shown by events in recent years, accusations often have a purely political overtone. Courts both in my country and in the rest of Europe are still very often susceptible to political manipulation. Unless that changes, very promising events like EU accession to the ECHR will simply be a waste of time. Therefore I support wholeheartedly accession to the ECHR, provided this really will defend fundamental human rights and freedoms and, most importantly, within the EU itself.

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – I am supportive of the ECHR while recognising that judicial interpretations of certain provisions of the convention have created obstacles to the deportation of terrorist suspects. This needs to change. Notwithstanding any statements of respect for the position of Member States in relation to ECHR, EU accession to the convention will complicate and possibly hinder the freedom of Member States to derogate from or individually interpret aspects of the ECHR. Politically, I fundamentally object to the driving motive of EU accession to ECHR as ‘a move forward in the process of European integration [involving] one further step towards political union’. This misconceived aspiration is further underlined in the statement that EU accession constitutes ‘an accession of a non-State Party to a legal instrument created for States’. For all these reasons, I voted against the resolution.

Resolution: Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (B7-0265/2010)

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The organisation of the International Criminal Court conference in Uganda is an important sign of this international institution’s acceptance across the continent of Africa, especially as the Court’s initial investigations, after it was established in 2002, were launched here. No one can deny the importance of such an international court which investigates serious cases involving breaches of human rights, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Consequently, it is important that an ever-increasing number of states acknowledge the authority of the International Criminal Court and that the signatories of the Rome Statute ratify the agreement as a matter of urgency. The notion of setting up an international court for investigating crimes against humanity emerged as far back as 1919, during the Paris Peace conference. It has taken 83 years to reach an international agreement and set up the ICC. At the moment, states which have ratified the ICC’s Rome Statute must also regulate the Court’s right to investigate crimes of aggression. Furthermore, signatory states must harmonise their national legislation with the provisions of the Rome Statute, in keeping with the commitment they have made.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has been a firm advocate of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and all its Member States are sharing in its accession to this important court. I hope that the State Parties are able to live up to their responsibilities and that the result of the Kampala conference is an ICC that is better able to face up to the challenges of our times, that receives adequate cooperation from national legal systems, and that is granted sufficient means to effectively exercise its authority; the grave seriousness of the crimes on which its activities will focus, for the most part, demand it. 66 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which promotes universality and upholds the integrity of the Rome Statute with a view to protecting and consolidating the independence, legitimacy and effectiveness of the international judicial process. The proof of this is that the EU is systematically promoting the inclusion of a clause relating to the ICC in negotiating mandates and agreements with third countries. The EU has already provided over EUR 40 million over ten years under the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy for projects aimed at supporting the ICC and international criminal justice. The Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the ICC in Kampala, Uganda, represents a unique opportunity for the State Parties, the non-State Parties, civil society and other interested parties alike to strongly reiterate their commitment to justice and responsibility. There are 111 State Parties to the ICC, with some regions under-represented, such as the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. I hope that the Member States will participate in this conference by providing representation at the highest level and publicly reaffirming their commitment to the ICC.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I note with satisfaction that the resolution proposed by Parliament on the review of the Rome Statute requires the crime of aggression to be officially included as a war crime and that no jurisdictional filter will be necessary to determine whether such a crime has been committed. Yet how can this new legislation be implemented if the main states that have committed crimes of aggression since the coming into force of the Rome Statute in 2002 (the United States and Israel) are not required to ratify it? How can it be rendered effective if these states are not urged to cease pressurising the states that are party to the International Criminal Court into guaranteeing the immunity of their nationals? It is also regrettable that a Parliament which professes to be in the vanguard of the fight against climate change is not proposing to include ecological crimes as crimes against humanity, as was proposed at the Cochabamba Summit. The most serious crimes against humanity must be punished. The International Criminal Court could be a useful tool in this area. It is just a question of actually giving it the resources. As this is not happening, I am abstaining.

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I feel bound to express my agreement with the motion for a resolution on the Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda. Europe itself sprang from the need to put an end to the expressions of racial hatred that reached a peak in the atrocities of the Second World War. The European Union has always been consistent in seeking to strengthen cooperation between states in order to prove and prosecute crimes against humanity. It is right that eight years after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, states should reaffirm their strong commitment to building on peace, stability and the rule of law. In particular, states should commit to policies aimed at collaborating with the International Criminal Court and protecting the victims of violence. In many cases in practice, victims encounter major difficulties in accessing information about the court and fail in their attempts to have their rights protected.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I enthusiastically voted in favour of the resolution and I am especially glad that the oral amendment by my colleague had been adopted, i.e. to include ‘indigenous people’ in the list of groups that need special attention.

Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I welcome the motion for a resolution on the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Kampala, Uganda, as it contains very crucial and important points and requests regarding the ratification and the implementation of the ICC. Therefore, I voted in favour. But I want to express my deep concerns about certain phrases in the resolution, which refer positively to the ‘Stockholm Programme’, the ‘EIDHR’ and to the European Union as a ‘Global Player’. In this matter, the ‘Stockholm Programme’ and the ‘EIDHR’ might have had a positive impact, but in many other areas, these two programmes/instruments are not used in a democratic and transparent manner. The European Union has indeed been acting as a ‘Global Player’ but, in my view, not at all in a positive way towards a more fair and solidary world order.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.25 and resumed at 15.00) 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 67

IN THE CHAIR: MR BUZEK President

9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

10. Implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development - Delivering a single market to consumers and citizens - Long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy - Contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives (debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following: – the report by Mr van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union [2009/2243(INI)] (A7-0138/2010), – the report by Mr Grech, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens [2010/2011(INI)] (A7-0132/2010), – the report by Mr Hoang Ngoc, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy [COM(2009/0545 - 2010/2038 (INI))] (A7-0147/2010), and – the report by Mr Cortés Lastra, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives [2009/2235(INI)] (A7-0129/2010).

Lambert van Nistelrooij, rapporteur. – (NL) This is indeed a very coherent package. Following this morning’s debate on the support package and on tighter, sounder financial and economic governance, we are now discussing a number of underlying dossiers that are important as regards the commitment required in connection with the EU 2020 strategy. Parliament wishes to expressly steer these proposals by the Commission and, particularly, the Council; it is unacceptable for the Council to take decisions in June without us having expressly reached agreement on a number of underlying matters. We are talking about the direction, and also about implementation in the near future. Take, for example, the flagship projects that will also require our joint support before long. It is really important, therefore, that we invest enough time in this now. Well, then, both the Cortés Lastra report and my report on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development concern policy synergy with a view to increasing output, or results, for Europe. The beauty of it is that we can do better; indeed we must do better. Our activities are rather fragmented in various fields – if we look at developments in the world, competition and the kind of things we want to tackle. To summarise: things must be made smarter, greener, more sustainable and more inclusive. The reports tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs also concern governance and ensuring sufficient financial resources, including for education. In short, it is my hope that, this afternoon, we shall lay clear foundations for this resolution. I do not know whether a vote will be held tomorrow, whether a consensus will be achieved on governance. In any case, however, I anticipate that Parliament will be able to adopt a final position on the EU 2020 strategy in June. Returning to my report: it is an implementation report. We have taken a proper look at how things work in the fields of research and development, regional policy and small and medium-sized enterprises, and I wish to thank my fellow Members, including those from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – the committee with joint responsibility in accordance with Article 50 – for helping us achieve a good result. What have we laid down? 68 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

1. In Europe, we have first-class research. Yet what is lagging behind is the utilisation of this research. Knowledge is free; it travels around the world, and cannot be kept to oneself. Although we are very good at investing in research, we are lagging behind in the utilisation of this research, in bringing innovation to the market and, subsequently, keeping high-quality production in this part of the world. 2. My report notes that we are currently spending one quarter of regional funds on research infrastructure and innovation. That is a substantial change, a prioritisation that has been working in the current period thanks to Commission initiatives. Earmarking is among the instruments that have been effective and have also definitely influenced the agenda in the regions, towns and cities. It leads to a better profile in the knowledge-based economy into which we are evolving, and to greater specialisation. 3. In my report, together with my fellow Members, I have made a series of proposals for improvements throughout the research/innovation/production chain with a view to greater effectiveness. We must also realise the importance of the territorial dimension laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. We need to focus on a number of areas in order to achieve a large-scale effect; we need the courage to specialise production in a region – incidentally, the principle of specialisation is an old one in the European Union – provided that good links exist for transmitting that knowledge (broadband or traditional infrastructure). If the Union invests money, there should also be cooperation between the ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Liem Hoang Ngoc, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the own-initiative report on which we are voting this week is of particular symbolic importance at a time when the markets are unable to assess the risks associated with the economic situation in the euro area. Having demanded severe budget adjustment policies, they now doubt the capacity of Member Sates to kick-start their growth and, hence, to obtain the tax revenue necessary to pay the interest on their debt. Unfortunately, no risk assessment can be carried out in the deeply uncertain context in which the global economy now finds itself. Such an assessment is all the more important in the European Union, where the production capacity utilisation rate is at an all-time low. Instead of investing, companies are mothballing machines because, despite the initial signs of recovery at the end of 2009, demand is lacking. Growth would even end up going into reverse if restrictive measures were to nip the recovery in the bud. The first aim of our report was precisely to determine the optimum time for launching policies for emerging from the crisis. We proposed maintaining the support measures until the normal production capacity utilisation rate was restored. We therefore suggested ratifying the principle of anti-cyclical budgetary policies, which were successfully established during the first phase of the crisis in 2008 and 2009, and which are in line with the spirit of the reform of the 2005 Stability Pact. These policies entail using automatic stabilisers, in other words, in earmarking surpluses from the primary budget for debt repayment at the top of the cycle, and in allowing Member States to borrow the resources necessary for stimulus packages at the bottom of the cycle. We are currently at the bottom of the cycle. Interest rates are definitely under pressure and are threatening the sustainability of the debt. This being the case, the European Central Bank was right to announce that it would buy back some debt to enable Member States to diversify their sources of finance. Nevertheless, in addition to the fact that this concept of sustainability has never been defined in the economic literature, can the risk premiums demanded by the markets be deemed justifiable? No, if we consider that risk in the mortgage derivatives market, just as in the public-debt market, is impossible to assess. This is why, in our report, we proposed that particular attention be paid to the structural deficit indicator rather than the focus being … (The President cut off the speaker) This is why, in our report, we proposed that particular attention be paid to the structural deficit indicator rather than the focus being on the current account deficit, the scale of which is due to the deterioration in the actual budget deficit. This is the result of the crisis, which has weakened growth and concomitant tax revenue. This revenue has also been adversely affected by the lowering of taxes, which did not have the expected impact on supply. Our report seeks to offer three recommendations combined with some operational indicators. The first is to maintain support measures until the recovery has been consolidated. The second is to monitor the structural deficits, which are still close to equilibrium, despite the deterioration in actual budget deficits, in order to 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 69

send a reassuring signal to the markets as to the state of public finances. The third is to assess the efficiency of tax expenditure and, in particular, of certain tax reductions which are related to the fall in tax revenue. Unfortunately, for the liberals and the conservatives in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, common sense counts for little; the impact of the crisis counts for little; and the fact that the massive debt is also due to the bank bail-out plans counts for little. Only their blind faith in the efficiency of the financial markets counts; only dogmatic compliance with a manifestly out-of-date Stability Pact counts. They do not see any need to create the tools required for economic governance, which is essential in order to strengthen the Union. It is a case of putting Europe on a starvation diet and doggedly trying to meet the criteria in the pact without any guarantee of success and at the risk of destroying the recovery, and too bad for social cohesion. That is the position that they have defended in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Since that vote, the economic health of Europe has deteriorated further. The European Central Bank and the Commission have finally come up with monetary and budgetary instruments which should enable us to improve economic governance in the euro area. However, the markets have fallen once again, unsettled as they are by the austerity plans. The Ecofin Council had to start all over again on Monday. Against this background, the amendments which we are tabling are, all in all, very moderate; and we are tabling some new ones too. They argue for flexible implementation of the Stability Pact, so that an unwelcome austerity cure can be avoided. They advocate a public credit rating agency to shield Member States from the diktat of the markets. These are the signals that Parliament must send out. Mr Karas, the time for ideological knee-jerk reactions has passed, as has the time for short-term national electoral moves. Europe needs policies which are motivated by a real desire to strengthen the Union. If you and your group are not up to this task, if you are no longer capable of representing the general interest, you can be sure that our citizens will be able to draw their own conclusions, for the future of the euro area is now at stake.

Ricardo Cortés Lastra, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and their assistants, the Secretariat of the Committee on Regional Development for their contributions, as well as the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy and the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the trade unions and the European regional networks and associations for their cooperation. I had meetings with several regional associations and institutions while preparing this report, especially the Committee of the Regions, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, the Assembly of European Regions, the European Regions Research and Innovation Network, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy and its Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. I would like to thank all of them for their availability and interesting contributions. Having changed the title, which now includes the reference to the Europe 2020 strategy, the main aim of the report is to defend Cohesion policy as a strong, well-financed policy, and one that is present in all European Union regions, as well as its key role in the Europe 2020 strategy. The report was approved practically unanimously by the Committee on Regional Development: 40 votes in favour, 1 abstention and 1 vote against. The first part of the report makes a brief analysis of the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the Lisbon Strategy and points to the limitations of the involvement of regional and local authorities, of the social, economic and civil society actors in the Lisbon Strategy, which made its adoption, communication and effectiveness difficult. The report also calls for the need for assessments, not only of the actual expenditure, but of the real impact as well. The second part deals with recommendations for the future Europe 2020 strategy and highlights the importance of the regions, multi-level governance and the principle of partnership, basic pillars of the Cohesion policy that must be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy as a prior and necessary condition for its successful implementation. Moreover, it is essential that the participation of the social and economic actors, as well as those of civil society in general, be strengthened in order to avoid the strategy becoming disconnected from and discredited by its key stakeholders. 70 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

This part underlines the key role of education, training, research and innovation, the importance of facilitating the establishment of the so-called knowledge triangle, and the need to support small and medium-sized enterprises, which quite often play a pioneering role in innovation. However, at the same time, we should not overlook the specific needs of the regions and social groups with the most difficulties. Thus, a certain flexibility should be allowed for. Specifically, in order to foster the leverage effect of investment in research and development, in education and in training, we defend the need to increase the synergies between the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the National Reform Programmes, as well as greater coordination and coherence between the different European, national and regional policies linked to strategy objectives. The European Investment Bank plays, and must continue to play, an important role by means of the financial engineering, cooperation and support instruments in supporting the regions and small and medium-sized enterprises. However, in order to facilitate its task, and that of all the beneficiaries, advances need to be made towards greater simplification. In conclusion, the report defends a solid and well-financed Cohesion policy for the future, one that is present in all European regions and which has a key role to play in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Louis Grech, rapporteur. – (MT) Mr President, in essence, my report is concerned with the protection of the Single Market from a micro perspective, to regard the market as a single project and to take the 2012 framework, the 2020 strategy and the recent financial crisis into consideration.

Strategies and courses of action that are intended to breathe new life into the European Single Market and the European Market ought to be based on a pragmatic, extensive and comprehensive agreement which is inclusive of all Member States and which focuses primarily on the priorities that the Member States are truly willing to take on. Europe needs to develop 2020 strategies enabling the market to be the leading agent in economic regeneration while, at the same time, generating acceptance by the citizens by protecting their interests, by the consumers by defending their rights, and by small and medium enterprises by providing them with the right incentives. My report proposes a series of strategic legislative and non-legislative initiatives, geared towards the rehabilitation of the European Single Market. These initiatives reach their pinnacle in the creation of the Single Market Act, which combines immediate action (2012) together with the long term vision of the 2020 strategy. I have also put forward specific non-legislative proposals on the drawing up of the citizens’ charter which lays down their rights and what they are entitled to. It is also encouraging that I received positive reactions from Commissioner Barnier and Commissioner Dalli regarding my proposal on the top 20 frustrations as expressed by European citizens, on the creation of a collective remedy mechanism and on a communication strategy specifically targeted at every day problems experienced by our citizens. We need to adopt a truly new political line of thought that is based upon consumer protection and the social dimension, which will serve to draw up the laws and tasks to be undertaken by the European Union. Only in this way can we achieve a truly social market economy as is stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. Unfortunately, in the past years, the Single Market has not managed to convince our citizens that it represents their interests and aspirations. What is even more alarming is that our citizens and consumers are experiencing an increasing sense of uncertainty and lack of faith in the Market. We need to come to terms with the fact that the traditional definition of the Single Market as something solely tied to the economic dimension needs to be revamped. We need to come up with a new common line which is holistic and which fully integrates the sentiments of our citizens, consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. This can be done by offering them a leading part in the re-launch of the European Single Market. Every effort that is wasted by trying to explain away the Single Market in a dogmatic fashion will be underestimating the challenges, inconsistencies, interests, differing beliefs and perplexities that we must face up to.

The Single Market integration process is not an irreversible one. Its current situation needs to be challenged. The European Single Market is in danger of becoming extremely weak and therefore irrelevant due to the protectionist attitudes that the crisis brought along with it. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 71

The Single Market is not an end in itself but an instrument that has to contribute in a significant manner to a better quality of life for all European citizens so that, as Evelyne Gebhardt said, ‘the Single Market works for the citizens and not against them.’ So as to guarantee a viable and strong Single Market, we need to reconcile what Mario Monti referred to in his analytical and stimulating report as the tensions between market integration and social objectives. In the final analysis, the predominant system is one that succeeds in striking a balance between a vibrant and competitive economy that incentivises innovation and job creation and which provides consumer protection as well as social and environmental safeguards required by our citizens. All this needs to be achieved within a spirit of compromise and solidarity. Finally Mr President, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and coordinators for their contributions.

Pervenche Berès, author. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I do nonetheless wonder for a moment about our programming and our ability to organise our debates. I am very happy to share this debate with all these European Parliament initiatives, but I do feel as though I am in a melting pot which I am not sure offers an exact definition of the European Parliament’s vision for the EU 2020 strategy. Perhaps I am being too demanding, though. On the other hand, I hope that you share my concern, Mr President, because, on behalf of this House, you raised an extremely important question with President Van Rompuy, on 10 May, which relates to the following. With regard to the adoption of the employment guidelines, this year – dare I say it, as an exceptional measure – as part of a special partnership between the Commission and the European Parliament, and in a spirit of good cooperation with the Council, bearing in mind the somewhat revised timetable – the employment guidelines are normally published at the end of the previous year; this year, they were published in April and, even though they commit us to a long cycle for the years to come, we will have to deliberate them before the spring European Council – you kindly supported, on behalf of us all, the request we sent to President Van Rompuy calling for the European Council to grant the European Parliament the right to exercise its powers under the Treaty of Lisbon itself. Clearly, neither the Commission nor the Council has any intention of considering this request and they therefore consciously intend to violate the treaty. I think that the authorities in this House will have to shoulder their responsibilities and learn lessons from this. As regards the challenge of these employment guidelines, which will be a factor in the implementation of the 2020 strategy, we must draw the attention of the authorities to their importance at a time when 17% of Europeans are living below the poverty line – I would point out that these figures are taken from 2007, that is to say, from even before the start of the crisis – and when 23 million of our fellow citizens are going to end up unemployed. There is currently great concern within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs about two issues. Firstly, about the poverty reduction target, which I think was the initiative of Commissioner Andor; this target was included in the 2020 strategy, and we welcome that. We do not understand how this issue can be the subject of discussions, hesitations and the calling into question of the Union’s competences within the Council, when the treaty clearly indicates that this is an area in which the EU also has responsibilities. Then, the other issue relates to the relationship and consistency between the various policies, because the Commission clearly tells us that it has fundamentally changed things in this 2020 strategy, since it has reduced the number of targets. I believe that fundamental change must be about much more than simply reducing the number of targets. However, what we are convinced about is that the 2020 strategy must take account of the reality of the situation in the EU. The reality is that those who are currently suffering the most as a result of the crisis, those who will be hardest hit, are the ones who actually create the EU’s wealth. The fact is, we are seeing debates starting up here and there which are liable to go against Europeans’ very interests, because they would lead to a reduction in investment just when it is needed the most, in other words, in our long-term capital: education, training and health. This is why, faced with this challenge, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the authorities to be aware of how public investment might be reduced in these fields, at the very time when weak growth 72 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

and reduced private investment cannot take up the slack and, therefore, ensure the recovery of public finances in the short term. This is a crucially important timetabling issue, and we cannot but regret that the Ministers for Economic and Monetary Affairs were able to argue for a withdrawal of non-conventional employment support and unemployment reduction measures, when the Ministers for Social Affairs had not been consulted in what we know is a tragic employment and social affairs situation in our European Union.

Mary Honeyball, author. – Mr President, the EU 2020 strategy proposes action to enhance the performance of education systems, reinforce the attractiveness of Europe’s higher education, open up more mobility and training programmes for young people, modernise labour markets, boost labour mobility and develop skills and competences to increase labour market participation. This has been endorsed by the Spring Council, which stated that key objectives requiring action at EU level included better conditions for research and development, improved education levels, a reduction in early school leavers and increased participation of youth, older workers and low-skilled workers in the labour market. However, the global economic crisis has led to budget cuts in the education sector in Member States across the European Union. For instance, Latvia is suffering a deep economic crisis and it has faced severe budget cuts in the country’s 34 higher education institutions with a threatened 50% cutback to the higher-education budget. Irish universities face a 6% cut, and Britain is not exempt from this because in England, the Higher Education Funding Council reckons there may be a cut of up to EUR 500 million from higher education.

This is not all doom and gloom. Some Member States, such as France, have been doing well, but the problem is that there is a divergent level of funding across Member States. In order for the EU 2020 strategy to work, we need a strong, coordinated approach. I am therefore asking for the Commission to explain, firstly, how it intends to ensure that Member States make good on their commitments to the educational goals in the 2020 strategy by ensuring that this area receives sufficient support and funding and is not forgotten amid the rush to balance the books in the light of the economic crisis and, secondly, how it intends to secure extra budgetary means for these important EU-level strategies and programmes.

Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission, and of President Barroso, I should like to make a few comments about the 2020 strategy and echo the very interesting reports from Mr Grech and Mr Hoang Ngoc; next, my colleagues and friends, Commissioners Hahn and Andor, will speak in turn – in this debate in which we are participating – on the other oral questions which affect other sectors: cohesion, employment, the social dimension, research and development. On behalf of all three of us, please allow me to thank all the rapporteurs and Parliament for this initiative, which is being taken at an extremely serious and challenging time for all of us, at a time of economic crisis, with the recent difficulties of the euro, which clearly highlight the interdependency of all our Member States and the need to coordinate our countries’ economic policies. This is the time to respond and to act and, as far as possible, together, in this context of uncertainty and crisis. The decisions taken over the last few days are – we think – very important. I will not go back over the long debate which was held this morning with my colleague, Commissioner Rehn. It is obvious that we have to put in place instruments for improved coordination of our economic policies, and we think that this Europe 2020 strategy may be the first instrument of a new, strengthened and coordinated economic policy. In its proposal concerning this strategy, the Commission had already emphasised, at the beginning of March, the need to stabilise our public finances. The euro crisis which we have just been through proves to us just how relevant this position still is. Like my colleague, Commissioner Rehn, I have taken note of the proposals in Mr Hoang Ngoc’s report on these issues. Moving on, there is, ladies and gentlemen, a second preliminary requirement for the success of 2020, which is putting our economy, our economies on a sound or improved footing. I am, of course, thinking about the need to supervise and regulate the financial market, so that it serves the real economy and not the other way around. I promise you that the Commission will keep to its roadmap in these areas. Within the next year, we will have put all the necessary legislative proposals on the table, so that we can formalise the commitments we 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 73

made together at the G20 on four major issues: transparency, responsibility, supervision and crisis prevention. With regard to several of these issues, which have already been considered in the legislative debate, I truly hope that Parliament and the Council will be able to rapidly overcome their differences with regard to the texts under discussion. I am thinking about the ‘financial supervision’ package and the hedge funds document. We must restore confidence. We must also utilise every single resource to free up the growth potential of our economy. This work clearly comprises many aspects. The debate, this afternoon’s debate in fact, demonstrates this: the relaunch of the internal market, regional policy for all the regions, including the most distant ones, such as the outermost regions, cohesion, economic governance, the viability of public finances, employment, education and research. When we talk about Europe 2020, what are we talking about? I think that this 2020 strategy must enable us to have a better perspective on the economic policies of our Member States, in order to avoid certain imbalances or even certain instances of competition in the future. These imbalances have been very obvious in the current crisis but, at the same time as urgently addressing this crisis, we must work on the economy in the medium and long terms. This is why, on the basis of the Commission proposals, the European Council adopted five common objectives: an employment rate of 75%, 3% of GDP invested in research and development, as well as a restriction on leaving school too early, increasing the number of people with a university diploma to 40%, and the 20-20-20 targets in the field of energy and climate change. Finally, there is also the promotion of social inclusion by combating poverty. Quantified indicators for education and social inclusion will have to be set at the June European Council. Work on these two objectives is in progress in various forums of the Council. It is very important to clearly understand that the 2020 strategy is not merely a vision. It is, above all, a concrete programme of reforms to be implemented, and that is why we are proposing seven flagship initiatives as part of this strategy. In addition to these flagship initiatives, European instruments, in particular the single market, financial levers and foreign policy instruments will also be mobilised to eliminate certain obstacles. I should also like to commend the Monti report presented a few days ago, and I wish to pay homage to the intelligent work of Mr Grech, who is giving a humanist and more concrete dimension to the internal market, as I myself should like to do. There are also certain requirements where implementation is concerned. Therefore, more efficient governance mechanisms have been proposed, which require the involvement of the Member States, as well as the Commission, at every level of the monitoring process. Europe 2020 also means adopting reforms to be implemented within the Member States themselves. The latter will have to submit national reform programmes between now and the end of the year in a coordinated fashion, with a stability and convergence programme, while also showing respect for the Stability and Growth Pact. Mr Hoang Ngoc, I should like, if I may, to point out that this pact has been supported for about 10 years now by both left- and right-wing governments. Finally, the Commission is calling on the European Parliament to do what it does so well and play a still greater role in this new strategy. During a crisis, we wish to send out clear messages to the Member States. This is the purpose of the integrated guidelines proposed by the Commission. These will only be adopted once you have tabled your opinions. However, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation, we must implement this strategy. We must aim for a political agreement at the European Council meeting in June. Let us be clear, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen: in the rest of the world, socio-economic strategies are already being implemented for the medium term. Europe cannot be left behind. To conclude, the European Parliament is playing its role, and we thank it for doing so, for mobilising the citizens, in particular, via the national parliaments; I was very impressed by the initiative taken by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and its Chair, Malcolm Harbour, on the Services Directive, which brought together national parliaments and the European Parliament. There are other examples, and this is a very important undertaking. To conclude, I should like to confirm that the Commission will do as you wish and play its role in a purposeful manner so as to implement this strategy and to build, with you, this new, higher quality, more sustainable and fairer growth, which the citizens expect.

Ivaylo Kalfin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (BG) Mr President, Commissioners, if we were discussing the Europe 2020 strategy without the economic crisis having occurred, everything would be fine. The problem is that in the current crisis and after what has happened, the Europe 2020 strategy is not ambitious and dynamic enough. 74 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

The problem which all the questions asked in recent weeks have been about is whether there is a sufficient degree of coordination, as was the case even up to now in European policies, for the European Union to make progress. From what we see, this coordination is good at a time of growth, but during a crisis it is not up to requirements. Alternatively, many more functions need to be transferred, not only coordination, but also decision making at European level so that Europe can set itself much more ambitious tasks and play a much more leading role in this coordination. This is the fundamental question to be answered. If we fail to do so, we will not be able to set out the 2020 programme properly either. I think that in the coming weeks, we ought to focus mainly on this issue.

Othmar Karas, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to see Mr Hahn, Commissioner for Regional Policy, and Mr Barnier, Commissioner for the Internal Market, sitting side by side because it is essential that we do not play off regional policy against the internal market. Instead, we should ensure that the one complements the other and that both of them are strong so that we can achieve the objectives of Europe 2020. Europe 2020 must begin here and now and should not be just a catalogue of objectives. Europe 2020 is a project for growth and employment and we need concrete projects, we need the instruments, we need the procedure, we need mechanisms for sanctions, so that this can be successfully implemented. I am convinced that we will only be able to implement Europe 2020 if we are ready, if Europe is ready to think of the EU in terms of the United States of Europe! To think in those terms and with each of us making a contribution to the whole.

Europe 2020 means the willingness to bring about a political union. That presupposes reinforcing and expanding the monetary union, reinforcing and expanding the internal market, unfettering it and calling on people to use the opportunity that is Europe, to use Europe and break through borders. We have to create an economic union which is part of a political union, as well as a social union. None of these things are ready and there is a great deal that has not even been addressed. Europe 2020 is a community Union, not a nationalist or obstructive Europe. We therefore need a financial review, an EU impact assessment, implementation of the Small Business Act and, obviously, very specific European projects for growth and employment and the expansion of the freedoms of education, science, research and innovation in Europe. (The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Karas if the United States of Europe to which he referred in his speech is going to take place with the consent of the peoples of Europe or without the consent of the peoples of Europe.

Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, each one of us who represents the citizens of Europe and is constantly in contact with them has one objective: working with the citizens of Europe in order to further develop Europe and make it more competitive and to achieve growth and employment for the benefit of Europe’s citizens. Unless we take action together to become stronger and if each person looks after their own interests, this Community will not be reinforced, but weakened, in these times of increasing globalisation. The citizens are our most important allies in achieving our joint objectives.

Marita Ulvskog, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, the Europe that we are taking decisions about today is also the one that decides how Europe will look in 2020. The decisions that we are refusing to take today will lead to new crises. The decisions that we take today must be long-term decisions. It is a serious problem that so many of the decisions continue to be short-sighted and governed by a right-wing philosophy where economies in crisis are put on a starvation diet. It is also a serious problem that we are discussing Greek pensions instead of the behaviour of the big bankers and of the players in the property and financial markets. We need to correct this situation or else the Europe that we will see in 2020 will perhaps be in a worse crisis than the one we are in at present.

I call on the Commission to make a serious effort to bring about a change of course so that we abandon our blind faith in market solutions, we regulate the markets and we make major investments in those things that are for the good of everyone. This may mean the transport system, it may mean energy supplies, it may mean other important solutions where the Member States cannot stand alone but where the EU and the Commission must act. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 75

I also hope that the Commission is ready to table proposals that show that we take the transition to a sustainable society seriously. We will, in other words, restructure our industry so that it is competitive and can create new jobs. We cannot do this by convincing ourselves that we can keep following the same old tracks. This also requires investment, but it may make an impact on the current figure of 28 million registered unemployed. I also call on the Commission to show the workers of the EU the respect that will be required in this economic crisis in order to bring them with us to build a stronger and better society. For us to be able to master this crisis, we need trade union rights and we need Europe’s workers to be made into stakeholders.

Lena Ek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I used to say that we had a triple crisis in Europe with financial markets, jobs and climate. But now, sadly, we have a quadruple crisis if we add the state budget crisis. It has made it painfully clear that the European Union is in dire need of vision. European integration has, until now, focused on creating new projects without making sure that they work properly. I believe that the time has now come for us to deal with our problems and instead work hard to deepen the existing institutions. The mistakes that have been made can be corrected and the Union can still work for – and with – its citizens. Europe needs a forward-looking Union. For me, the direction is clear: I want a Europe which is open, inclusive and green. The flagship proposals in the Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy are important tools to create that Europe, provided that we can make them come true. And here I have some question marks. Firstly, the overarching goal of the strategy is to create a more dynamic and competitive economy. In some countries, the participation of women in the labour market is as low as 40%, and this is shameful. A gender-equal labour market is a precondition for boosting jobs and for tackling the demographic challenges. I hope that the Council and Commission really take seriously the fact that the Council’s conclusions have included gender equality for a couple of months. An inclusive society needs more jobs. Unemployment is the main reason why poverty exists. Youth unemployment in Spain, at 44%, is devastating. We have endless opportunities to create green jobs, but our policies must be aimed in the same direction. An energy-efficient Europe is also a driving force of innovation, and the energy equivalent of fast trains, supergrids and high-tech smart grids is needed to improve Europe’s competitiveness. I must commend the Liberal Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, on being the first to really outline a clear flagship proposal on the digital agenda, and I am looking forward to having the same kind of in-depth material on the rest of the flagship platforms before June, so that we can also cooperate in the decision making. But, Mr Commissioner, we have the EU strategy pointing in one direction, and your budget proposal is, to be truthful, pointing in another direction. As well as regional funds, social funds and the agricultural fund, we have to streamline and have coherence in our common tools. We need transparency, and we need the same kind of statistics and we need sticks and carrots for Member States, not only to sign up to promises, but also to keep them. This is important for the European citizens and for us in Parliament. We need to strengthen the Growth and Stability Pact, and we fully support the package of Commissioner Olli Rehn. To re-establish trust, as you mentioned, Commissioner, we need the indicators on the rest of the flagship proposals. That would re-establish our trust in you as a Commission, and maybe, if we can cooperate on decision making, citizens’ trust in us.

Pascal Canfin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barnier, in your speech you mentioned Mr Monti’s report, which was submitted to you a few days ago. There is a very interesting aspect in Mr Monti’s report, and that is the emphasis it places on the pressing need for us to move on to the next stage of fiscal cooperation. It clearly explains that the Stability and Growth Pact criteria do need to be applied, but that if they are applied solely to expenditure, through cuts in expenditure, this will almost certainly lead to a recession. It is therefore crucial to use both pillars and, in particular, the fiscal pillar, to enable the Member States to collect a number of additional receipts from the economic activities and economic operators whose tax burden has been repeatedly reduced over the last few years: the profits from companies, capital, and financial transactions. To do this, we absolutely must have European coordination. This is the conclusion reached in Mr Monti’s report, which was submitted two days ago. However, there is no mention whatsoever of this issue in the EU 2020 strategy presented by the Commission. There is no mention whatsoever of this issue in Mr Rehn’s communication published a few days ago. This is one of the major pillars, one of the fundamental added 76 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

values which the Commission can provide at the present time. Do this, and this will establish the link – Mrs Berès was just saying that this debate is a bit like a melting pot; fiscal coordination will help establish the link between the EU 2020 strategy, the report on the governance of the euro area, on the single market, and employment and education issues. We are well aware that, if we abide by the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact – which, incidentally, is vital – but do so only by cutting expenditure, then we are on course for social regression and economic recession. Therefore, my question is very clear: Mr Barnier, as a representative of the Commission, what are you going to place on the table over the coming weeks? How are you going to convince your colleagues – assuming that you are already convinced yourself – of the need for an action plan, for a fiscal coordination plan so that Member States are able once more to raise new revenues on the basis of a number of agreements? What are your proposals? You are not entitled to stay silent. The Commission has a right to initiate legislation, but, today, on these issues, that right has become a duty.

Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, first of all, on behalf of my Group, I particularly wanted to welcome all the reports, but especially the report from Mr Grech, for which I was the shadow rapporteur in the committee. I want to refer to some points on that in a moment but I just want to support what Mrs Berès said about the wide-ranging nature of the debate this afternoon. But, on the other hand, it is rather an unfocused debate. There are some really important contributions from many colleagues but, frankly, and I say this to the Commission and Commissioner Barnier, this also reflects the nature of the EU 2020 document. It has lots of great ideas but it is very unfocused and it is also very underdeveloped at this stage. He talked about the seven flagship initiatives. Well, we do not know the details of those yet. So the first point I make is, please, can we ensure that the Council does not adopt in detail this proposal at its next meeting in June, because it is not ready to be adopted? We need to spend more time on it together to work through the details. My second point is that I think we need to make the relaunch of the single market an eighth flagship initiative. That will not be overcomplicating things because it ought to be the number one initiative. Colleagues, you heard from Mr Grech that the potential is there to create jobs, to encourage more innovation and to move towards a more sustainable economy but we need to get the support of citizens and consumers for this proposal. It was like the question addressed to Mr Karas just now by the Earl of Dartmouth. Citizens need to buy into that process, but it is there for them to do. They will get the benefits. We have this instrument of huge potential and, particularly with public budgets still amounting to 16% of the European economy, why are we not using our public procurement budgets to drive innovation, to buy those new technologies, to encourage SMEs to take those up? It is the biggest single underdeveloped policy that we have. We heard from Mr Barnier and Mr Grech today, and we made a contribution with Mr Monti’s report. We have the instruments, but we need to carry them out.

Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, we are in the middle of the most fundamental crisis the European Union has witnessed in its history and yet almost all decisions on the strategic direction are taken at government level. The European Parliament has been allowed to sit on the sidelines but no more than that. Time and again, the entire debate today has circled around specific issues concerning the Europe 2020 strategy for employment and growth, which gives the false impression that we are talking about the future of Europe and the course of its further development. We might be able to ask oral questions about the political relevance of the EU 2020 strategy in the context of the current economic and financial crisis, but we are not allowed to bring our demands to bear on this strategy and change it, make up for shortfalls or, perhaps, even change the priorities. Instead of being involved in this strategic cross-roads, what we have experienced on almost every single point that we have debated here in this House in recent months is getting caught up in the power play between the institutions in spite of, or perhaps even because of, the Treaty of Lisbon. This has mainly been to the detriment of the European Parliament. Both the EU 2020 strategy and, for example, the integrated employment guidelines, which the Chair of the Employment Committee has spoken about, regard Parliament as a body that is merely to be informed or consulted. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 77

Also, all the individual reports tabled here today far from present an overall view of the demands or the positions of the European Parliament regarding the European strategy. We want to introduce a whole raft of specific changes. In the last parliamentary term, the European Parliament put specific demands to the Council and Member States concerning the fight against poverty, the introduction of minimum income benefits and an EU-wide poverty-proof minimum wage. None of that has been incorporated into the strategy. On the contrary: there is even the risk that objectives, such as the fight against poverty and the reduction of poverty by 25%, may even disappear from the current strategy text because they do not accord with the skill and the interests of the Member States or the governments. Even the EU’s employment record over the past ten years has clearly shown that atypical and precarious jobs, in particular, have risen to 60%. However, the huge rise in atypical jobs should lead us to set up a model in the strategy and in the guidelines which is directed at secure and poverty-proof jobs. Now, that is a fundamental demand which we are dealing with here. However, as long as the European Union, the institutions and their specific policies do not send out signals to those who are marginalised, who live in poverty or who have no work, or to young people who have no future prospects, we will not be able to win these groups over to the idea that a common European Union is a future-proof project. That is a democratic deficit which the current EU 2020 strategy does nothing to address and we should be fighting it together with our citizens.

Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) The problems experienced by Greece and the euro area make for a serious situation, which calls for a structural approach. The proposed EU 2020 strategy aiming to contribute to economic growth and employment seeks to provide this. The strategy rightly covers healthy public finances. However, the initiative will be useful only if two conditions are met. Firstly, the functioning of the Stability and Growth Pact needs to be strengthened so that this kind of situation does not recur. It is not just a matter of structures and rules, then, but of mentality. The crucial point is that Member States meet their budgetary commitments, as I pointed out during a conference in Athens last week. It is to be welcomed that Member States are to call each other to account more intensively in a Council context regarding the structural reforms needed to put their public finances back in order. As far as I am concerned, strengthening of economic coordination ought to cover this. The second condition I wish to draw attention to is the undesirability of the European Union turning its attention to the policy fields of social affairs, employment and social cohesion. Objectives in those fields cannot be enforced at European level; and rightly so. We saw in the case of the Lisbon Strategy that such an approach does not work. Here, too, it is true that it is in restraint that the master is revealed; the European master.

Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Today, we are discussing Europe’s economy from a long-term perspective, and how to achieve sustainable economic growth. When Europe discusses this, I do not sleep as easily, as Europe has not proposed a great deal up to now. I would remind the House of the Lisbon Strategy, in which Europe agreed to become the most competitive economy in the world. That proved to be a complete failure, of course. All that this European Union has done is to increase bureaucracy, create unnecessary rules – particularly in my country, the Netherlands – and bring tax increases, mass immigration, crime and a lack of security. Moreover, let us now take a look at the list of countries wanting to join the EU, with whom we sit round the table every day: Albania, Bosnia, Turkey – all poor countries, Muslim countries, and corrupt and criminal to boot – and Iceland – a bankrupt state. In addition, every day in this Chamber we hear members of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, and even the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, say that we need a green economy, that we must provide billions of euro in subsidies for wind turbines and green electricity, even though our industry is becoming increasingly less competitive in relation to China, the United States and India. Are you surprised that our economy is stagnating? There is only one recipe for an economically strong Europe, and that is less bureaucracy and fewer officials in Brussels, and also less bureaucracy in the Member States; tax cuts instead of tax increases; and putting a stop to mass immigration. Greece clearly must be 78 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

expelled from the euro area. Let us hold up a mirror to ourselves for once and look at the MEPs here: what have you done in recent years to hold Greece to its commitments under the Stability and Growth Pact? I already know your answer: absolutely nothing. You have all been asleep here while countries such as Greece, which have received billions from Europe each year, have squandered that money and let the government grow out of hand. If Europe does not succeed in this, I predict that my country, the Netherlands – and also Germany – will leave the euro area.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, the financial support package that was presented almost two weeks ago was a necessity, but not a solution to the problems that Europe is facing. Now there is a need for action, for decisions and for restored confidence in public finances. I would say that we need to discuss the 2020 strategy, but we need even more a 2010 strategy, describing the action that needs to be taken now in order to restore growth, reduce deficits and create optimism. But there will be none of the growth which is needed without restored confidence in public finances. On this point, the Socialists are failing. They are defending the same policies that led to the deficits and the crisis of Greece, Spain and Portugal and other countries. The rapporteur, Mr Hoang Ngoc, is saying that we should prolong those policies and that we should wait before reducing the deficits. Mrs Ulvskog from Sweden proposes increased spending. The Socialists have become a threat to prosperity, recovery and the new jobs that Europe needs. I can assure you that, where Socialists fail, we in the EPP will stand up for the action needing to be taken – reduced deficits, restored confidence and the reforms for growth and new jobs. That is what Europe will need, and we will stand there and take the tough decisions and take the responsibilities where others fail.

Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I have to take a few seconds to ask that the speaker before me go to Greece and ask there who is responsible for the problems workers are experiencing at present. They are not waiting on the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). No, Sir. They are hoping for a real political change, such as that which can be brought about by the 2020 strategy. If our analysis is faulty, our solutions will likewise be faulty. The analysis we need to make is that Europe is suffering greatly from greed, from a lack of regulation, from a lack of economic governance, from an insufficiently educated and cohesive population, from a lack of social justice, from low economic growth, from low employment growth and from having enormous groups of poorly skilled people outside the job market. Mr President, the effort over the next ten years must be aimed at increasing the amount of people that work and ensuring that people are much better prepared, in educational terms, to win the productivity battle. Europe will not gain in competitiveness without winning the productivity battle. We will not gain a place in the world by lowering salaries, by destroying social standards, but rather by increasing our level of knowledge, by raising the level of solidarity and social cohesion in our society. These are our strong points. We must turn Europe into a genuinely united continent, with a clear project, clear objectives, with an economic governance that not only enables us to respond to the emergencies of today, but also to the challenges of tomorrow. These are our hopes. These are the hopes that have been forged by a sizeable majority of the Members on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, leaving aside the siren calls of those who want to return the ‘every man for himself’ idea, thus destroying solidarity with all. That is, Mr President, what we hope: that the 2020 strategy will get through to all European citizens, who are asking us for more jobs, more high-quality employment and for economic governance and tax consolidation. Tax consolidation is fine, but there must also be social and economic consolidation, otherwise we will not achieve anything.

Michael Theurer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, as we have heard, the financial markets need to be packaged in a new regulatory framework so that in future, we can avoid the excesses that have led to the crisis. However, if we highlight the underlying causes of the indebtedness of governments, then it becomes clear that, here in Parliament, we talk too much about public debt and too little about how we can achieve prosperity and growth. What determines our growth? Our growth and prosperity depend on people in the European Union developing products and generating new ideas that can also be sold on the global market. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 79

It is therefore right that one chapter in the EU 2020 strategy is Innovation Union. We need to focus on inventions and on how we can reinforce research and development. With that, it is important that we enhance the synergies of research funding and regional development policy. A great deal more could be done in those areas. Together with the Liberals and the German Free Democratic Party (FDP), I would argue that we focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. We should see to it that we, as the EU, spend our funding so that SMEs really get access to that funding and so that there is a technology transfer between universities and colleges and SMEs. We should encourage people to take their destinies into their own hands through personal responsibility and self-initiative. Governments cannot create jobs; they need to be created in the economy itself.

Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that you have recognised that the transition to a green economic development must begin now, because climate change will put the EU’s economic successes at risk. However, what is missing in the Europe 2020 strategy is a link between environmental change in the economy and a green employment strategy. There are studies which have shown that 8 million new jobs can be created through the energy transition alone. In the Europe 2020 strategy, we therefore need an initiative for green jobs. This initiative must be reflected in specific measures and integrated guidelines. Therefore, we need stable legal and political frameworks, so that investors really do invest in green jobs. That equally includes establishing links between research and development and the economy, the promotion of innovation clusters and also the opportunity to promote such clusters in disadvantaged regions. That is what the van Nistelrooij report states and I endorse it. Although I do not endorse those who would seek to impose demands on regions from above as regards the earmarking programme, the impetus stemming from this report and from the proposals made are nevertheless heading in the right direction and will contribute to the creation of green jobs. However, in the employment strategy, we must focus equally on shaping the course of transformation towards a green economy, on carrying the workers with us and preparing them for the transition. I address those words to Commissioner Andor. Fundamentally, the structure of the employment policy guidelines presented is right and balanced. Of particular importance is the fact that education has been emphasised as an independent area of focus. This area offers great opportunities for breaking the cycle of poverty. It forms a cornerstone for a green employment strategy and is thereby key to the success of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, we also to need to improve the guidelines. The employment guidelines have a key role to play and that is to enable us to really exploit the potential of green jobs.

Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) Very different conclusions can be drawn from Europe’s slow economic growth and the collapse caused by the crisis. One can certainly agree with those in this House who are calling for a reduction of the concession, administrative and information burdens which are generated not only by the Member States, but also by the European Union and by this Parliament. However, there is the risk of applying a treatment which is much worse than the disease. One such measure which would be harmful for European growth would be increasing the role of the European Union in the area of tax cooperation and coordination, and the tax harmonisation which would follow. Tax competition, like every kind of competition, is good for the citizens and the markets. It creates the chance for a better result, and is an important factor in our competitiveness at global level. Therefore, common freedoms and a common market, and not extending Union competences, should be the central principle of the Union’s economic policy.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, we would like to say in this debate that it is time to stop playing word games and talk about the real problems that the majority of women and men are experiencing in our countries; about suffering; about the more than 85 million people living in poverty in a European Union which is one of the richest parts of the world and in which scandalous profits continue to be made without any measures being taken to check them. We want to talk about the lack of job security and poor pay faced by workers; about the young people and women who cannot find work; about the 23 million unemployed. We want to talk about the elderly people who are being denied a decent retirement and the children whose futures are being mortgaged.

Let us be clear: what is being proposed in the Europe 2020 strategy is the same path as was there at the start of the crisis. The European Commission did not want to analyse the causes of the current situation or make anything of the consequences of the cornerstones of the policies that it followed in applying the Lisbon Strategy: the liberalisation of economic sectors, including financial services, and the labour flexibility that it called flexicurity. 80 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

What they are now aiming for is to open the way for greater concentration of wealth using various directives that will facilitate the privatisation of strategic sectors of the economy, and attacks on public services that interest economic groups in areas of health, social security, and education; anything that could turn a profit. They prefer to hide the fact that only a break from these policies will allow a change of course and that only this can bring social progress. Nevertheless, we insist on this break and say that it is time to drop the Stability Pact and replace it with a programme of social development and progress. This programme must prioritise production, quality public services, the creation of jobs with rights, salaries, decent pensions and retirement conditions, social inclusion, and fair wealth division and distribution. These priorities will require true economic and social cohesion, with the clear reinforcement of the Union budget, solidarity, public policies, and the control of the essential sectors of the economy by the state. We are certain that the workers and the people will continue to fight for this, for example, in Greece tomorrow or on 29 May in Portugal; we here salute their struggle.

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Mr President, doubtless the 2020 strategy says lots of interesting things, but, under enlargement, by 2020, five new countries will have joined the EU and more likely eight. Already in the EU of 2010, 12 countries are net contributors to the EU. The other 15 Member States are subsidised. None of the new countries are likely to be contributors. In 2020, therefore, there are likely to be no less than 23 countries being subsidised. By 2020, therefore, the EU will have become, in practice, a transfer union, which transfers money from 12 contributing countries to 23 subsidised countries. Unfortunately and unfairly, the UK taxpayer is caught up in this. The comparatively impoverished UK is the second largest contributor to the EU budget. At the last provincial elections in Germany, the voters of North Rhine-Westphalia said ‘no’ to their coalition and were also saying ‘no’ to the transfer union. Voters in other contributing countries will also say ‘no’ in the next 10 years. By 2020, the gap will be unbridgeable. It is not in the UK’s national interest for there to be economic chaos across the channel but, unless enlargement stops forthwith, economic chaos is what there will be. The 2020 strategy, therefore, misses the point.

Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, I respectfully wish to ask whether you do not think that there is something incredibly bizarre in what is going on here. For an extremely important debate on the financial and economic crisis that is the cause of tragedy among many millions of Europeans, only some 40 people are present. We urge European economic operators and citizens to save energy while, for the past three days, but this is also true at every plenary sitting, we can see, if the cameras show it, the waste of energy in lighting a chamber the size of a stadium where no more than 40 people are present except at voting time. In the 27 interpreters’ booths, there are 27x3, which makes 81 highly qualified simultaneous interpreters, translating for us. For 40 MEPs, that makes two interpreters per person. Do we not think that it is time to look in the mirror and stop urging pensioners, fire-fighters, nurses and teachers to keep tightening their belts?

Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) In times of crisis, when the integrity of the European Union is under threat, we should, in supporting economic growth, pay particular attention to the cohesion of the Union. We still do not know if the crisis will act to deepen the differences between different regions of Europe. Historical differences in the level of development of regions may grow, and we may also witness the appearance of new differentiating factors. In this situation, what is particularly needed are mechanisms which reduce differences between regions, and continuation of strong regional policy is the way to achieve this objective. It would be unwise, in this situation, to give up this policy and reduce significantly the financing available to local and regional authorities, for this would pose a serious threat to the stimulation of economic growth, but would also be a threat to European unity as such. Both the Europe 2020 strategy and Cohesion policy aim to achieve the same goal. They have a crucial effect on economic revival and huge significance for European solidarity policy. However, what is needed is better coordination between them. Creating new and separate thematic funds to respond to new challenges would be a waste of time and money, and would also delay realisation of the 2020 strategy and condemn it to the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon. We must ensure the financing of key infrastructure projects and reject the renationalisation of regional policy. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 81

At the moment, we often hear of strong pressure from governments of certain Member States and also from the European Commission to cut or reduce expenditure on regional policy. However, the message of the European Parliament in the report, of which I was shadow rapporteur, is clear. We need stronger, not weaker, Cohesion policy. We need true European solidarity.

Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – (EN) Mr President, Mr Grech, I would like to congratulate you on the truly excellent report which you have tabled before us here and which provides us with a basis from which to move forward. Thank you also for using a phrase which I myself use all the time, namely that the economy is there for the people and not the other way around. That is precisely what the policy of the European Union should be based on. In your report, you also quite rightly point out that an adequate assessment of the social, consumer-related, environmental and economic impacts of the internal market, and the decisions we make in the internal market, are of particular importance. That is precisely what has been missing so far or what has not been made sufficiently visible to our citizens. It is a very important approach to point out the actual humanist and holistic elements of our policy, even when it comes to the internal market. In your report, you also state one thing which is particularly important for us Social Democrats, and that is that social policy should be considered as a core of internal market policy and that protecting services of a general economic interest is of particular importance. In addition, you call for the development of a strategy for improved communication of the social advantages of the internal market. If we consider just these few points, we realise that we could achieve a great deal if only the European Commission gave us its backing. I also very much hope that the Commission will genuinely take the opportunity presented by the Grech report to put the progress of EU citizens centre stage. I make that plea very strongly and, as we know, Mr Barnier has already agreed to do so. If we approach the internal market from that angle, the policy of the European Union will meet with greater acceptance and we will be able to look towards a better future.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT Vice-President

Robert Rochefort (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, in this debate on the 2020 strategy, I should also like to take advantage of Mr Grech’s very interesting report to tell you that I am convinced that consumers must not be left out of this future strategy. When I look at the Commission’s text on the 2020 strategy, I note that virtually no mention is made of consumers. In the current crisis, you must remember that, while investment is, of course, the key variable, consumption in our various countries represents between 60 and 70% of our GDP. I would therefore like us to move further in this direction in the 2020 strategy. I would love to see Europe pioneer a different type of consumption, one that is based on the knowledge triangle, on sustainable development, a Europe that is capable of developing production conditions and products which are of interest to consumers, which are created with them, a Europe which is focused on quality and no longer on quantity for quantity’s sake. I would love to see a kind of enhanced competition which does not encourage ‘discounting for discounting’s sake’ but which serves to ensure greater consumer satisfaction. Commissioner, my question is therefore very simple. Are you going to suggest to President Barroso and within the College of Commissioners that a group be formed to work in this field, so that consumers are no longer considered as adjustment variables, as passive individuals, but rather as active participants who are on your side, on our side, so that we can build this future society that we so desperately need?

Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, I would like to take some time to talk about the social and employment aspects of EU 2020 and the Commission’s efforts in this connection. I am sure it is no secret that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance would have liked to have seen a much more ambitious 2020 plan than is currently on the table, with a genuine desire to define how Europe is to support itself in future and with a desire to set high social and employment targets. However, right now we have a situation in which the Member States had no intention of developing the plan that the Commission put forward. Instead they are moving backwards. Firstly, with regard to combating poverty: many Member States have questioned whether the EU actually has the competence to combat poverty and to set specific poverty targets. To this, I would simply say that 82 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

there is a legal basis for this in numerous places in the new Treaty of Lisbon, for example, in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 9 and 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore simply a matter of getting started. Secondly, other Member States, including my own, Denmark, have criticised the definition of poverty. Of course we need to come up with a good definition. However, these arguments cannot hide the fact that this is about one thing: whether we actually want to combat poverty in Europe. That is what the real debate is about. Do we want to reduce the number of poor people in Europe, which currently stands at 84 million? Do we want to reduce the number of poor workers, of which there are nearly 17 million? Do we not only want everyone to have jobs, but to also have good and proper jobs? Do we want young people to have access to the labour market? Yes, of course we do, and that is precisely why we need specific objectives with regard to social matters and in the area of employment. Europe is currently in the midst of an economic crisis, but we must not allow it to give us a mental block and make us afraid to set ambitious targets in these areas. If we do not have the courage to do this now, it will undermine the economic situation in Europe, as well as our social cohesion. Therefore, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would say to you that it is the political will that will be crucial. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will take the lead and urge those Member States that are hesitating to instead commit to a social Europe in 2020. I hope that, as Commissioners, you are prepared to do this.

Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) We have spent the entire day discussing a desirable strategic focus for the European Union. In my opinion, however, we should first have put the question of desirable future development to our citizens and to those it concerns most closely, in other words, mayors and local councillors. In this regard, it is a great disappointment to me that the role of local authorities is not sufficiently reflected in the EU 2020 strategy. The strategy correctly mentions the need for greater links to regional and local partners, but it is not clear how the principle of partnership should be applied in practice. Moreover, the consultation process is voluntary, so it is not in any way binding on the decision making of the Member States. I can confirm this with one concrete example. When the Federation of Municipalities of the Czech Republic raised comments on the position of our government towards the EU 2020 strategy, not only were these comments not incorporated, but the Federation did not even receive a proper response on how the comments were handled. If we want to avoid repeating the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, we must not continue to ignore the voice of local authorities, who form part of public administration in all of the Member States and whose role is key to the fulfilment of any European policy. On the contrary, mandatory consultation with the actors ‘below’ would contribute vital findings on the correct, efficient and effective implementation of adopted measures. I would therefore like to call on the Commission to monitor thoroughly the method of linking local authorities in to the whole process.

Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the current Lisbon Strategy has simply been renamed Europe 2020 strategy. In essence, the Commission’s proposals as a whole do not overturn the current objectives, and not only were these objectives not attained, but progress over the last ten years has shown that the standard of living of the citizens of the European Union has slipped. Despite this, the proposals tabled by the Commission do not include sufficiently social criteria. We therefore ask: what measure does the Commission propose in order to prevent unaccountability of the market, redundancies at will and the extension of insecurity to labour? Does the involvement of the International Monetary Fund not mean more onerous terms for the Member States and people? In our opinion, if the Stability Pact is not replaced by a pact to achieve social objectives, the noose around the people’s neck will tighten still more and greater sacrifices will be needed.

Timo Soini (EFD). – (FI) Mr President, when I was studying at the University of Helsinki in the 1980s, the Soviet Union was still going strong. When there were problems there, they called for more socialism. Now I am the middleaged father of a family here in the European Union, and when there are problems here, we call for greater integration. This philosophy is astonishingly similar and the outcome, too, will be the same: it will not work.

Let us build on a foundation of nation states. For that, we have to bake our bread before we distribute it, as we say in Finland. Let us create jobs and the right conditions. That will be the source of our strength. That is how we will make progress. We have a shortage of employers – not a shortage of employees, but of employers, who can provide people with work. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 83

Small enterprises are crucial. We should postpone the debate on the owner drivers’ working time directive until the next partsession. That is a typical example of a situation where we should be speaking up for independent entrepreneurs, who create jobs, who do good and who employ people. There is a danger now, however, that we will lose jobs on account of administrative decisions. I really love Europe, even if I do not love the European Union.

Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in the year of the World Cup, the ladies and gentlemen of the Council could learn a lesson from football and that is that it is not possible to have a good game of football if you have got a referee overseeing each player. However, conducting a game without rules, without a referee and without penalising fouls, now that would end in chaos. That is precisely the state of affairs right now! It is high time that the Europe 2020 strategy put a stop to hedge fund speculators. Those who have made a nice living from speculation and exorbitant interest rates for years should now make a contribution. Not small savers, but companies with their high speculative profits should be asked to foot the bill. Nor should the Cohesion policy ignore the euro crisis. Apart from the current rescue package, Greece has benefited disproportionately in the past from agricultural and regional funding. Without the necessary structural changes, this money has clearly seeped away and, despite years of funding, the country has been brought to the brink of ruin. I do not see why we should leave the money tap on in such a situation. Why do we not listen to Commissioner Rehn who has made the rather reasonable proposal that we cut funding? Finally, we cannot allow the EU to degenerate into a union of transfers. A centrally planned economy, which is what some of you would like to see, has not proved its worth yet, even if it comes from Brussels.

What is needed then? A self-responsible budgetary policy, and if it does not work, courageous and effective sanction mechanisms. All of that should be included in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the economic and financial situation in Europe fully justifies the drastic measures which have been taken, in particular, to stabilise the euro area and to avoid the undermining of our single currency. The urgency of the situation justifies the practical approach adopted. However, when it comes to implementing the adopted measures, it should be ensured that Parliament is involved, within the scope of its powers, and can exert its democratic control in appropriate conditions. Indeed, we must ensure that our fellow citizens do not lose confidence, and can regain confidence, in the political institutions. Without such confidence, no structural reform or acceptance of the necessary austerity measures will be possible. Faced with the financial crisis, Europe has not been inactive. We do not say this often enough. In 2009, we drew up and adopted regulations on the credit rating agencies, the implementing provisions of which will be published very shortly by the Commission. Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted a few days ago for the package on the supervision of financial activities. Last Monday, the same committee adopted the report on regulation of hedge fund managers by a large majority. Trialogues have been initiated to seek an agreement with the Council. This agreement must be obtained rapidly, so that our institutions retain their credibility. Our fellow citizens often ask us: ‘What is Europe doing?’ We must meet their expectations. In this regard, I should like to congratulate you, Commissioner, on your determination, and to encourage you to continue with the work programme which you have set out, in accordance with the undertakings made at your hearing. Your ambitious but essential timetable has our support. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with you so that the necessary regulation of financial services takes place. This is not a question of bullying the finance sector, but of establishing the rules to ensure that an activity which should be regulated is regulated, and of making transactions more secure and transparent.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, two great tasks face Europe today: designing a new strategy, which we are currently debating and which I feel is taking shape nicely. However, Europe is at a turning point if it does not find a new modus operandi. The events of the past weeks with regard to the Greek crisis – and here I would disagree with Mr Gauzès, since unfortunately, the European Union and the Member States, and especially Mrs Merkel, have been late in responding to this situation – mean that Europe is at a turning point. This is an extraordinarily dangerous turning point, one that will determine whether we will move in the direction of renationalisation, national withdrawal and egoism, or in the direction of communitarianism. If we do not move towards communitarianism, the programme 84 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

outlined by Mr Barnier will not be implemented and is worthless. It is very important that we do not forget, when setting out new objectives, about our previous policy, the Cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy or, if I look at Commissioner Andor, about renewing the European social model. We are at a turning point, fellow Members. The past few weeks have proven this to be the case: the previous model does not work and the current model does not work properly. I am in favour of the Commission monitoring national budgets before they are submitted to the Member States’ parliaments.

Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, my contribution concerns Mr Hoang Ngoc’s report on sustainable finances within the public sector. It has been a very interesting report to work on. The situation was – and the rapporteur’s speech made this clear, too – that, from an ideological point of view, we had quite differing views on this question. In this connection, it is important to remember what has happened in Europe in recent weeks, where we have an economic crisis, the like of which we have seldom seen before. The crisis is largely due to a failure on the part of Member States to look after their own finances and to keep their own house in order. It was therefore perhaps a little surprising that we had such major ideological differences about whether it was actually judicious to borrow and spend as much money as many countries have done in recent years. As I say, there were quite major differences on these issues, something that we have also seen in the Chamber. Fortunately, a very broad majority in the committee was also of the opinion that there was a need for tougher measures to remedy the situation we find ourselves in. The Commission has brought forward very good proposals in recent weeks. A start has finally now been made on taking decisions that will actually lead to us getting order back into Europe’s economy. That is exactly what we need.

That is why the discussions in the committee were exciting, to say the least. It is important to remember that we are not only dealing with our current borrowing, but also with future challenges such as Europe’s demographics, its ageing population and so on. This was an important report, and I think we made positive amendments to it. I am convinced that the decision this House reaches will be a sound one.

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – (NL) The present discussion on this crisis has mainly covered budgetary discipline; and rightly so, as it is important. It is not the whole story, though. Let us also keep this crisis in the right perspective, which is that we are actually still talking about a banking crisis. For many years, the banks made money out of thin air using opaque structures and, in 2008, this bubble burst. Countries then transformed that private debt into public debt, and this is the problem Greece is having to contend with now: an unbearable level of public debt. In the light of this, when we discuss a 2020 strategy, we must also look at the role of the banks. The Commission has a total lack of ambition in this regard. Hardly a word has been said about the banks. What this crisis has shown is that a clear distinction must be made between savings banks and investment banks. Where is the Commission’s ambition when it comes to plans for tackling this? That was my first point. However, we must also look at the economy of the future. The economy of the future will make efficient use of its natural resources. Here, too, the Commission has too little ambition. Either its objectives are too vague or its targets too low; for example, a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is woefully inadequate to promote green innovation. How are companies to get the message that they should invest in green technology? We feel the Commission’s plans should cover this, too. Finally, with regard to our own budget, this, too, must be in line with our own strategy. This means that the Structural Funds must ultimately be used to promote new green technology. At the moment, we are mainly subsidising more greenhouse gas emissions. Where is the money for innovation, and where are the appropriations for sustainable agriculture in the agricultural budget? We need the Commission to be specific and ambitious rather than producing vague plans; these are not the way to solve this crisis.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the central component of EU 2020 should not be stabilisation funds and bailouts. It should be a new strategy that all of our countries should want to follow to re-launch and re-energise the internal market of the EU. We need to be looking at how to change our economies so that they are fit for those challenges. The only way forward is to look at new industries via research, development and innovation. The EU should be encouraging a new economic dynamism in the European research area, creating networks for excellence, research clusters for integrated projects based on innovation in new products and services, looking at new processes and technologies and new business concepts. We should be looking at existing successful projects and using EU links to find best practice. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 85

In my own constituency, I visited Glyndŵr University, which has fostered direct links with hi-tech firms in North Wales, achieving a 90% graduate placement, even last year. It has not just improved the job prospects of the young people who attend, but it has revitalised an entire region of North Wales. Instead of looking at the billion-dollar projects and silver-bullet solutions, we need to get back to the nuts and bolts of what makes a successful economy. South Wales has five significant pharmaceutical development companies with world-class technology. With a little EU assistance, this hi-tech company cluster could be elevated to being a world-class centre, lifting an entire economy that currently qualifies for cohesion funds into a brighter future. We need solutions to work effectively for our citizens.

Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you will not admit it, but the reality is blatantly obvious: the idea or, at least, the myth of a liberal Europe has run out of steam. How can anyone continue to believe in a deepening of its federal dimension when it is getting ready to fleece the most indebted countries to help out the financial markets? Yet liberal Europe’s project and activities have also run out of steam, and spectacularly so. With the successive crises, the last of which was the deepest of all, public debt has exploded. Worse still, however, the credibility of the euro area has gone up in smoke. The situation calls for real solidarity. However, the Treaty of Maastricht rules out any solidarity between countries in the euro area. This is the ultimate European paradox. The end of the line for Europe is also apparent in the negotiations at the WTO and in the story regularly sold to us claiming that the EU will protect us from globalisation. Far from being our shield and protection, EU directives have frequently stolen a march on the WTO. In fact, we are now hugely vulnerable as a result of the EU, and we are now paying the price with the deindustrialisation process and the various forms of relocation. For the sake of the peoples, EU policy must be urgently refocused.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 308 billion is the total amount of the funds earmarked for implementing Cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013. To date, Europe has spent, and judging by the results, wasted, some of these priority funds established by Lisbon. For EU 2020 to be a success and for the mountains of cash that remain to be spent to be used to stimulate economic growth and support competition, two types of intervention are needed: simplification and review. Simplification will be a key to disentangling access to these resources from paralysing red tape: regions, citizens and businesses want to be able to act more freely to unlock their potential. As for review, this is urgently needed in order to change the criteria defining how the funds are allocated, by rethinking the general spirit underlying Cohesion policy. Now as never before, our Cohesion policy needs to be able to prove its strength as a multilevel governance tool, by giving a genuine voice to the problems that affect our territory and, in Brussels, formulating its long-awaited response regarding the future of our social and economic model. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the duty of anybody that, like the European Union, is responsible for handling these kinds of sums, to impose stringent supervision of the projects that are supported and to vigorously combat waste. This is the only way in which the EU 2020 strategy will succeed in not being a bad copy of a bad original.

Regina Bastos (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, we are facing accelerating global change that has devastating consequences for our economic, political and social systems and, therefore, for all our citizens. We are currently witnessing an unprecedented weakening of the capacity of states to respond. The European Union must, therefore, identify common causes and allies, and act in a clear and united way on the world stage. Extraordinary situations require clear joint action. If we do not take the necessary strong measures and collective responsibility, Europe will be consigned to marginalisation and impoverishment. Only a strong Europe that respects collective rules will be able to give an adequate response to the new era. Weakened and indebted states do not have the capacity to protect their citizens. We therefore need to be able to win back the public trust, win the battles on stability, budgetary rigour, job creation, the stability of the monetary union, globalisation, strategic choices. We must do this or risk compromising our future. The future is won by committing to social cohesion, ensuring peace, constructing a new model based on the values of liberty, social justice and responsibility. So, the 2020 strategy and the integrated Europe 2020 guidelines constitute essential elements of a new cycle of growth and employment in Europe. 86 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

In order to correctly implement this and carry it out, clear quantifiable objectives must be set out for employment, education and poverty reduction. It is also essential that everything be done to facilitate the Member States’ transposition of their national objectives if the strategy is to be successful and correctly implemented.

Constanze Angela Krehl (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, the current Cohesion policy started life with the title of the Lisbon Strategy. However, I firmly believe that the Cohesion policy can, and will, make an enormous contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy, not just because we command a considerable budget in comparison with other European policies but, above all, because the Cohesion policy allows us to have sustainable development in our regions and ensures good monitoring of the restructuring processes and challenges in our regions. However, there is one core issue here that I would like to clarify once again, and that goes for our group as well: our Cohesion policy can only work if economic development is considered to be equally as important as social development and providing training for workers. In principle, we need to take joint responsibility for the funds that are available to us. It is a bit like hardware and software – one cannot work without the other.

Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Cortés Lastra for his efforts in drafting his report. This report emphasises yet again the important contribution made by the Cohesion policy in achieving the EU 2020 strategy objectives. We must therefore ensure that the Cohesion policy’s regional focus is recognised as part of this strategy.

We are all aware that the strategy’s effective implementation will depend hugely on the way it is devised. As a result, I believe that local and regional authorities must be involved even in the drafting phase in order to guarantee that really effective results will be achieved later on. At the same time, better governance at a number of levels guarantees the effective implementation of the Cohesion policy at national, regional and local level. As beneficiaries of these policies, I believe that Member States must maintain the key role which they have in the decision-making process regarding the Cohesion policy within the Council. Finally, I wish to welcome the acknowledgement given to the role of the Structural Funds in achieving the strategy’s objectives. However, I want to draw your attention to the fact, once again, that we must avoid the pitfall of using these funds in future as a means for punishing Member States. I believe that such a measure would run completely contrary to the Cohesion policy’s real objectives.

François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, the key word in this 2020 strategy is growth. It does not matter whether we choose to call it intelligent, sustainable or inclusive, we are now in the grip of a crisis in Europe that will not come to an end tomorrow. The quantified targets for this 2020 strategy – increasing the employment rate, reducing the poverty rate, and so on – are just pious hopes, because they use the same model as the Lisbon Strategy, which failed. Europe is faced with a crisis which requires a much more visionary and political project, one with new ideas, which are completely lacking in this 2020 strategy. I should like to highlight one such idea. Should we not, at long last, set a target for enhancing Europe’s cultural diversity, a founding value of the EU, which could provide the raw material, unequalled on any other continent, for the economic development of our Europe, through the use of intangible assets, such as the economy of culture, and of tangible assets, such as our regional specialities? What is more, a strategic vision is being developed that is almost entirely focused on the Member States. Yet these States, with their borders, traditional ways of thinking and centralised administrations, continue to preserve Europe in aspic. A greater regional dimension is required in the EU’s future strategy. Macro-regional strategies which reorganise land use policies around the continent’s life-sustaining natural basins, which are also its cultural and historic centres – the Baltic Sea, the Western Mediterranean, the Danube, the Alps, the Atlantic Arc, and so on – must also be encouraged. This approach is gradually being adopted, for example, in the Baltic Sea, but it has not been taken up in the 2020 strategy, and therefore could very well be nipped in the bud when the funds for its implementation need to be released. The 2020 strategy being presented to us is therefore, in our view, characterised by a highly conventional and technocratic approach; it lacks political vision. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 87

Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) The EU 2020 strategy is a document intended to establish the direction of the Union’s development over the next decade. However, if this document is not to share the fate of the Lisbon Strategy, it has to be more realistic and closer to the ambitions of Member States. With this in mind, we should appreciate the amendments adopted by Parliament to the Commission’s proposal which, in particular, concern strengthening the common market, reducing protectionism, continuing Cohesion policy and supporting agriculture. However, and this still needs to be stressed, there is a need to conduct climate policy more fairly, in other words, in a way which does not, by its excessive burdens, mean the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will always be the poor relatives of the European Union. Finally, I would like to point out that the central concept of European Union strategy is innovation, but we should remember to continue Cohesion policy and support for agriculture, because it is this which makes it possible for the poorer regions to bridge the gap in development.

Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, an industrial policy that focuses exclusively on companies operating internationally and using advanced technologies is not the best route to success. We must not forget the whole small and medium enterprise sector, including both small-scale manufacturers and retailers. Innovation policy should be aimed at them also. In particular, this strategy should guarantee conditions that place small and medium-sized enterprises on an equal footing with their competitors outside the EU by adopting safeguard clauses and strong, effective measures to combat the extremely serious problem of counterfeiting, including through effective trade defence instruments. It is important that governance of the Europe 2020 strategy should not rest in the hands of the Commission alone, but should be carried out at different levels, including the national and macro-regional levels. We need to start formulating a policy and strategy that focus on the local level and the reality of manufacturing on the ground, and I would like to stress here the need for attention to be paid to the manufacturing situation in Padania. In other words, we are asking for more attention to be paid to the actual manufacturing situation on the ground, focusing, in particular, on the SME structure, as I said, which is the backbone of manufacturing in every country in Europe and is therefore where the real hope for the future of manufacturing and development of the European Union lies.

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, well, our aim was to become ‘the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world’, but that did not happen. The challenges facing Europe over the next few years are enormous. The problems that we are currently seeing in Greece, and will perhaps also see in a number of other countries before too long, are the result of two things: the lack of competitiveness in Europe and the fact that Europeans have been living beyond our means, in other words, we have spent more money than we have earned and we have spent more money than is supported by our productivity. Many economists like to make economics more complicated than it is, but the explanation is quite simple: the markets have simply lost their belief that Europe’s debt-ridden countries can compete and live up to their own responsibilities – that is the reason for all this. Europe’s major problem, as I said, is a lack of competitiveness, and this is the problem that the 2020 strategy is intended to tackle. We must increase our competitiveness in relation to other countries and the Member States must put their economies in order while, at the same time, investing in the future. Indeed, it may be necessary to make cuts in what we call welfare services in order to use the money for education and research. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of Europe’s economy. We therefore need to take them seriously in this strategy. They lack capital and they are finding it difficult to borrow money. We need to do something about this. Many small and medium-sized enterprises are excluded from public invitations to tender, both in the Member States and, in particular, when it comes to EU tenders, where large undertakings are given priority. Finally, I would like to say that administrative burdens are also something that we have to struggle with all the time. The administrative rules that we lay down are, of course, a greater burden for small enterprises, which have very few employees. Finally, we must help small and medium-sized enterprises to enter the export markets.

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are all running a serious risk of focusing purely on the crisis. After the action that has been taken in setting 88 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

up the fund to defend the euro in order to help those countries in difficulties and to stop speculation, discussions in this House have focused heavily on the subjects of renewal and stability, neglecting everything else. These are subjects for the Member States. We have focused our attention so narrowly that the issues of the finance and banking system and the related problems of oversight and regulation have been put to one side and almost forgotten. However, I firmly believe that a sense of perspective is needed in our formulation of policy. It is not by accident that the pact was called the ‘Stability and Growth Pact’. An even more accurate title would have been the ‘Stability for Growth Pact’. We need to start talking about growth and development again. This is the best way to stop speculation and to give genuine investors confidence instead. Without proposals relating to growth – I am thinking about the fiscal uniformity that Mr Monti has been talking about; investment resources; making eurobonds available and cohesion instruments, as cohesion is a very important factor for competitiveness – it will be hard to create this positive climate, particularly at the moment.

Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, recent times have shown us the importance of healthy government finances. It is therefore curious, to say the least, for the rapporteur, Mr Hoang Ngoc, to want to tone down – and even remove – strict requirements for the Stability and Growth Pact to be followed. The truth is, on the contrary, that it is essential for the EU now to focus on getting its run-away debt under control. Otherwise, the future could be even more terrifying. I was a member of the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag, during the 1990s and I was on the Finances Committee when our public finances collapsed. I am not particularly proud of this, but it is true: for a period, we had interest rates of 500%! They were heading towards 2 000%, which meant we were well on the way to banana republic status, but even the 500% rates were not enough – our currency crashed and George Soros won. Hard times lay ahead for the Swedish people, but, Mr Hoang Ngoc, we learnt one thing, and that was to keep our finances in order. The same applies to Europe – good order provides stability and growth.

Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Europe still faces a multi-dimensional crisis today, which is hitting employment and low incomes particularly hard. When the European Union started, poverty only existed where there was no work. Today, 9.6% of Europeans are unemployed and 8% of workers are living on incomes below the poverty line. What are the prospects for 2020? This combination of unemployment and poverty is exacerbated by the pressure created by the ease with which redundancies can be made. At European level, there is no protection against redundancy and national legislation is being watered down, as in Greece. All this is happening in the Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. We therefore need a minimum framework of disincentives for redundancy. Proposals have been made. The starting point is to recognise mass redundancies by companies which report a profit in the same country as an abusive practice. The logical consequence is for them to be excluded from European subsidies and to be subject to higher taxes and fines and to have to refund financing. The question is: is the corporate responsibility of companies included in their obligation to function as part of society or do they consider it acceptable to behave as competitors of the workers?

Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome many of the aims of the EU 2020 strategy: the focus on growth led by innovative businesses, on sustainable growth and on achieving high employment. However, to achieve this, the EU must not just talk the talk: we need to walk the walk. For example, when undertaking the essential reforms of financial services, we must remember that innovative businesses and those employers need access to capital in global markets. Our Member States also need to access those global capital markets and, whilst all eyes are focused on the European Stabilisation Fund, and whether it has achieved any current reduction in the immediate volatility, fundamentally, long-term confidence will only be achieved if, as well as this ambitious growth, our deficits are brought under control and public finances themselves are seen to be sustainable.

Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that today’s debate has shown and proved that Parliament can and should make a significant contribution to the development of the strategy. Because of my remit, I would like to thank Mr van Nistelrooij and Mr Cortés Lastra, in particular, for their reports. I thank also all those who have been intensively involved in this work because they will have a major say in the shaping of regional policy and because both reports have shown how important it is to consider 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 89

all regions in Europe and that regional policy can and must be a policy for all regions, and that in future, it should be. Both reports ultimately stress the positive impact of this measure. I would like to thank Mr Cortés Lastra, in particular, for this significant contribution and for pointing out what the Lisbon Strategy ultimately did deliver, despite all the criticism. It was, after all, not just the idea, but the subsequent implementation of the concept of earmarking that has made a significant impact here, especially in the fields of innovation and research. Mrs Schroeder might consider this a bitter pill, but obviously you need to set a target. However, the regions that have local structures and individual project developers have had, and will have in future, the possibility of carrying out individual projects and achieving objectives under one general umbrella. Of course, we need points of emphasis and we need to set priorities, and that is the idea behind earmarking. However, we can achieve a great deal by using a bottom-up and a top-down approach at the same time. In addition, the strategic report I recently presented on the reports of the 27 Member States concerning the state of implementation hitherto of the current programming period shows how sustainable and sensible earmarking actually has been, because EUR 63 billion of the EUR 93 billion allocated so far has been spent on Lisbon objectives, that is, for research, innovation, investment in training and, finally, on transport and infrastructure, in the broadest sense of those terms, as well. Regional policy – and this was shown very clearly by the van Nistelrooij report – is a driving force behind innovation which is able to move things forward and to make and keep European society more globally competitive. It has been demonstrated that out of the more than 450 operational programmes, only 246 are focusing on research and innovation. This quite clearly shows that points of emphasis, such as research and development, are necessary and that that must remain the case. For this reason, it was obvious in the current programming period that we should allocate just EUR 86 billion for this area, which is three times more than in the 2000-2006 period. However, we need to ensure better coordination of course, especially in the areas of research and innovation. There is no conflict between excellence, on the one hand, and a broad geographic spread, on the other. It must be our objective to promote brain circulation, not brain drain from some or many regions into a few. On the contrary, we need to ensure circulation of knowledge and of the people involved, particularly when it comes to research, innovation and development. One of the major objectives should be, especially if we consider the next programming period, making a transition from a merely performance-based approach, which is to say, proper financial management, to a stronger result-targeted approach and perspective. That must be one of EU 2020’s major steps forward in comparison with Lisbon, one which really enables us to break down European objectives into national, regional and, ultimately, local objectives and thereby make the strategies tangible, visible and comprehensible. One final comment: my understanding of regional policy is that it is investment policy, and by that I mean investment in all regions. Finally, all regions can benefit from successful investments made in individual regions because, we have to keep remembering that two thirds of the European exports of each individual Member State are destined for the European Union, to the 26 other countries. That means that if these countries are doing well, the 27th Member State will do well too. That must be one of our objectives. If today we also talk about how to tackle the crisis, then restructuring the budget cannot be our only concern, because growth constitutes a very important factor as well. That alone will provide our successful exit from the crisis in the long term and regional policy can make a significant contribution to that.

László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, there are five plus two questions put forward concerning economic governance and Europe 2020. I will do my best to answer in five minutes, and in order to do that, I will use English as opposed to my native language. Honourable Members, the first question is on how the Commission intends to strengthen the monitoring of the broad economic policy guidelines and how the Commission intends to ensure an active role of the national parliaments and the European Parliament in the multilateral surveillance process.

In reply to this first question, I would like to refer to the Commission communication on Europe 2020, in which the Commission proposes that the European Parliament should play an important role, not only in its capacity as a colegislator, but also as a driving force for mobilising citizens and the national parliaments. The Commission also emphasises the importance of establishing a permanent dialogue between various 90 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

levels of government, including national, regional and local authorities and national parliaments, as well as social partners and representatives of civil society. The second question concerns the Stability and Growth Pact and the additional instruments the Commission may foresee to complement this pact. Here, I would like to refer to our communication on reinforcing economic policy coordination, which we adopted last week. In this communication the Commission set out proposals on reinforcing compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact and deeper fiscal policy coordination. Specifically, the Commission intends to make budgetary surveillance and policy coordination more forward-looking. In the euro area in particular, a more far-reaching approach to the assessment of budgetary policies seems justified, including a more pervasive review of the weaknesses of national budgetary plans ahead of their adoption. Furthermore, in order to provide the right incentives for Member States to tackle fiscal imbalances, the functioning of the excessive deficit procedure could be improved by speeding up the individual procedures, in particular, with regard to Member States in repeated breach of the pact. The Commission also proposes to reinforce the macro-economic prevention framework for euro area Member States by establishing a permanent crisis resolution framework. Under the proposed mechanism, the EU would be able to issue debt to finance emergency loans to a euro area member in distress. The third question concerns the differences between two Commission papers: on the one hand, the communication on public finances in the EMU 2006 of June 2006 and, on the other hand, the 2008 EMU 10 report. The policy recommendations that we made in 2006 focused on the changes brought about by the reform of the Pact in 2005. The 2008 EMU 10 report is consistent with what was written at the time, for instance, on the relevance of long-term sustainability, on the need to set incentives in good times and on the positive role of national fiscal frameworks. At the same time, the lessons of more than 10 years of EMU and the recent impact of the crisis call for an updated but still consistent assessment. Last week’s communication on reinforcing economic policy coordination focuses on making the pact more rigorous with regard to both its preventive and corrective arm. It also makes detailed proposals against the background of the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty. We propose reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact framework, both in its preventive and corrective dimensions; broadening the surveillance of macro-economic imbalances and competitiveness trends within the euro area; introducing a ‘European semester’ to strengthen ex ante integrated economic policy coordination; and, finally, working towards a robust and permanent crisis resolution mechanism for euro area Member States in fiscal distress. The fourth question refers to the task force established by the European Council in March 2010 in order to improve economic governance in the Union. The Commission will cooperate constructively in the interest of the Union and in full respect of its right of initiative. Last week’s communication already constitutes a significant contribution to the task force. The European Parliament, in this context, is obviously a very important stakeholder in the EU economic governance reform. Through its work and reports in the relevant committees – economic crisis committees in particular – Parliament is already providing valuable contributions to the deliberations of the task force. The fifth and final question is about the trust that needs to be rebuilt in European banks and financial markets and in the European project in general. I will just sum this up very quickly, because it is a broad subject. I think there are three important issues to be underlined here: first, the importance of financial regulation to create a much safer financial system; second, to make the fiscal stability rules very clear, transparent and understandable for all; and, third, to restore the growth potential of Europe. That is why Europe 2020 plays an important role in this context as well. So these elements, in my view, are equally important in restoring trust in the European project. This leads me to the two questions on the Europe 2020 strategy. In line with the conclusions of the Spring European Council, in particular, as regards the headline targets for the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission has started working with the Member States on setting national targets to underpin the headline targets. To facilitate this work, the Employment Committee Indicators Group has produced two alternative technical approaches that show what each Member State would need to do to ensure the EU meets the 75% target in terms of employment levels.

During the last week of April and the first week of May, the Commission and the Presidency held a round of bilateral discussions to exchange initial ideas on potential national targets for the strategy. These discussions were very fruitful and allowed us to gain a first idea of where Member States stand and to understand the very peculiar economic circumstances that are a feature of each Member State. The bilateral meetings showed that most Member States strongly supported the headline targets and were ready to set ambitious national 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 91

targets to meet the headline targets set by the Spring Council. Basing itself on the overall outcome of these meetings, the Commission will compile the results, which will then serve as an input for the various Council configurations in May and June. If there are discrepancies between the EU target and the sum of the national targets, we intend to continue the discussion with the Member States to see how national or EU-level action could bring the EU closer to the targets. The European Council has said that it will review the headline target in June on the basis of further work. There is particular interest in an explanation on the poverty target, if you will allow me. The Spring Council asked the Commission to help the Member States to identify suitable indicators underpinning the EU headline target for social inclusion, in particular, through poverty reduction. After hearing the concerns of the various Member States, the Commission has presented a possible compromise proposal. The proposal is based on three main EU poverty indicators, namely: at risk of poverty; material deprivation; and the number of jobless households. Together, they reflect the multifaceted nature of poverty and the range of situations in the Member States. While a number of delegations have expressed support for the Commission proposal within the Social Protection Committee, some insist on including a labour market dimension in the EU target set. The Commission is actively exploring the possible solutions. On governance, I wish to reassure you that we set great store by your role in the new strategy and by your input. President Barroso has made it clear that involving Parliament more closely in Europe 2020 is one of his main concerns for his second term. We are doing our best to make sure that Parliament has enough time to come to an opinion this year. I am personally fully committed to helping you in the process in every possible way. We need to have all the main EU institutions on board if the political ownership needed is to be there and the strategy is to succeed. Concerning education and training, which is the subject of the second question on Europe 2020, I would just like to say the following. As early as the crisis recovery plan of November 2008, the Commission called on Member States to retain investment in education and training, and we will maintain this focus. In general, Member States have responded positively to the call to target the recovery measures at smart investment in resources of future growth. Many governments have neither reduced student support nor scaled back enrolment. On the contrary, many recovery packages have included measures to support wider participation in education, particularly in higher education. In spite of the crisis, education budgets announced for 2010 have remained constant or increased in many Member States. However, we do see signs of planned decreases in the education budgets of other countries. We should bear in mind that some governments had already planned – and in some cases executed – general cuts in public budgets before the onset of the crisis. Many such cuts would affect education. Other Member States are exploring ways to diversify the sources of funding. The Commission will continue to watch this issue carefully. In some countries, financial constraints will only appear now. We will monitor general state budgets as well as the efficiency of investment. At European level and within the existing multiannual financial framework, the Commission intends to prioritise action supporting the Europe 2020 objectives. Boosting economic recovery, investing in Europe’s youth and building tomorrow’s infrastructure are the priorities of the 2011 draft budget that the Commission recently adopted. Support for the ‘Youth on the Move’ flagship initiative means strengthening the ‘lifelong learning’ and ‘youth in action’ programmes as well as the ‘Marie Curie’ and ‘Erasmus for Entrepreneurs’ actions. Let us not forget that we also intervene in this area through the Structural Funds. The European Social Fund, with a budget of EUR 76 billion over the 2007-2013 period, helps young people move from education to the world of work. It also helps people to return to education to renew and expand their skills. Around one third of the beneficiaries of the European Social Fund are young people. The Fund also allocates EUR 8.3 billion, which represents roughly 11% of its overall budget, to the reform of Member States’ education and training systems. All of this demonstrates that the Europe 2020 strategy reinforces the concept of the knowledge-based economy and that education and training are at the heart of this. We will make sure that we have the resources to reach our targets.

David Casa (PPE). – (MT) It is worrying that the economic crisis is going to give rise to long-term repercussions. As the population age increases, so will the Member States’ challenge in guaranteeing sustainability in the area of social welfare. While I can understand that public spending needs to be diversified in order for Europe to fulfil its 2020 vision, I also believe that this spending needs to form part of national 92 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

fiscal policy. The drop in birth rates and an ever-increasing ageing population call for a change in policy if we are to guarantee fiscal sustainability. In addition, the rise in pension demands and medical assistance must be kept in mind. With regard to demographic change patterns, the European Union needs a motivational strategy for senior citizens in order to keep them in employment for a longer period of time. It is essential that we consider such strategies in light of the specific requirements among the various Member States. We cannot employ a one-size-fits-all policy. Each case merits individual attention. Consequently, it is fundamental that there are more employed persons on the labour market, and that we increase opportunities for high level employment. This will not only reduce the dependency on social services but will also ensure a higher number of contributors to these schemes. On the subject of jobs and training, it is essential that the European Union focuses on active and inclusive employment, that is to say, exploiting the full potential of all those who can work, especially women, to promote the integration of those most alienated by the world of work and to supply them with all the necessary tools to help them succeed. Mr Commissioner, after having been in our respective posts for some weeks now, it is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work so that these objectives are reached, which will increase employment within the European Union.

Ole Christensen (S&D). – (DA) Mr President, every day, thousands of jobs are lost in Europe, and the Europe 2020 strategy is intended to be the EU’s answer to future challenges in this regard and to how we can maintain and strengthen our competitiveness so that we can create growth and more jobs. We need to choose the route we are going to take: whether we will compete on the basis of low wages and poor working conditions or whether we will compete on the basis of knowledge and skills, quality green jobs and decent conditions in the labour market. In this regard, it is a little worrying to see the Commission’s unbalanced focus on flexibility in the flexicurity model. That will not achieve anything. People need to be safe and secure in order to be flexible. There needs to be some form of support that people can live on if they lose their jobs. Further training needs to be provided so that people can move around the labour market to the best job opportunities. Investments are needed in the Member States, but they must be investments that pay off in the long term. The Commission must do more to address social dumping. Anyone moving from one country to another for a job should work under the conditions applicable in their new country. The Commission must ensure that everyone is covered by the rules on migrant workers – by the rules applying at EU level – and the rules of the internal market must not take precedence over the rules governing workers’ rights.

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I would just like to say that the debate this afternoon reflects Parliament’s willingness, indeed insistence, on being fully engaged in this process. Given my limited time, I would just like to make three brief points. I support Commissioner Rehn’s statement – and indeed Commissioner Andor’s statement today – in regard to the scrutiny of Member State’s budgets. At one point, it looked like the eurozone and the EU might not make it to 2020 as an entity. So to ensure that not only do we survive but thrive, it is crucial that Member States deliver on commitments and promises already made. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted has always been a useless exercise. Secondly, for the past 18 months, Member States and the EU have focused almost exclusively on the stabilisation of financial institutions. In fact, we have been consumed by it. While this is important, very many citizens have lost trust and are now feeling abandoned. They are looking for support from Member States and they are looking to the EU to put in place a framework that is conducive to job creation, to entrepreneurship and to the support of SMEs, but crucially, that framework must link growth in the economy with the creation of decent jobs and an improvement in the well-being of all citizens, especially those below the poverty line. Finally, there is a major crisis in youth unemployment. A Commission document issued yesterday confirmed that youth unemployment in the EU stands at 20%, which is twice that forecast for overall unemployment. This crisis is every bit as real and as immediate as the economic crisis and, while I heard the Commissioner’s comments on youth initiatives and I welcome them, there must be real coordination between, and strong influence on, Member States to translate those initiatives into concrete jobs.

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) The 2020 strategy contains ambitious objectives with which it is difficult to argue, but the objectives are defined as if the European Union were already wealthy, free from worries and thinking only about building a successful future. Meanwhile, we know there are many things 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 93

to worry about and, above all, there are many differences between the level of development of the rich and poor countries and regions of Europe. I note with astonishment that among the priorities of the strategy, there is no place for the development of agriculture, while we know, after all, that by 2050, the world has to increase its production of food by 70%, because there are more and more people in the world, and less and less land is being used for agricultural production. It is difficult to understand why the development of agriculture is not being treated as a priority in the strategy. Agriculture means food security, agriculture means ecological security, and these things are so important for us and for future generations. I cannot imagine a responsible development strategy for the European Union which does not include concern for the development of European agriculture.

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, before speaking about the 2020 strategy, an answer is needed, I believe, to certain points made earlier by one or two members about the position of the Greek centre-right party on the support mechanism for the Greek economy. We need to clarify certain points. Our party has never opposed the European support mechanism for Greece. Our party simply had a perception of the measures that should have been applied. The measures which are now being applied will certainly cause a deep recession and stagflation and the government decided on these measures itself, without any prior information or agreement with the other political parties in Greece and Greek society. The majority in government refused any prior agreement which might have resulted in broad and necessary political and social assent. I repeat, the New Democracy party did not oppose the European support mechanism of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. We respect our partners’ every last euro and we thank them for their support. That is why we responsibly supported a different, more effective policy mix. We support the need for strict financial discipline and a growth policy, so that Greece can break out of the vicious circle of deep recession and galloping inflation, with disastrous consequences for Greek society and the economy and, ultimately, a negative impact on Europe. As regards our debate on the economic crisis and the 2020 strategy, I believe that the time has come for specific acts and tangible results. Enough talk. That is the point of my speech. Keep it simple. The euro is an historic success of European integration and we should defend and rescue it. That is why we need strong financial and economic governance because, without this 2020 strategy, it is at risk of failure and of following the precedent set by the Lisbon Strategy. (The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr Koumoutsakos, you do have some cheek! I have just heard you talk about the Greek Government and how it did not bother to consult you, the various parties or civil society before implementing the measures. Although, I must say that the current Greek Government is not in any way responsible for the situation. It is a victim of speculators, who I will be criticising in a few moments, when I speak. Yet it is also my duty to highlight the responsibility of the previous government, which massaged the figures over many years, and the fact that your party was in power for at least two parliamentary terms. I therefore think that responsibility rests more with Greece and that political responsibility rests with your party. Do you have a reply to this question, Mr Koumoutsakos?

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Sir, your speech is the result of poor information. The previous Greek Government took over an economy deeply in debt, very deeply in debt, an economy on rotten foundations, and these problems, chronic problems, deeply rooted over 30 years, were highlighted and dramatised by the huge international economic crisis. Of course, mistakes were made by the previous government, but much bigger mistakes have been made, either due to weakness or due to a lack of courage, by the present government, which was at least five months late taking the measures needed to contain the situation, and thus the deficit crisis, which exists in every country, as you know full well, became a borrowing crisis. That is how we arrived at today’s drastic situation. This is the answer which I am giving you with a view to our engaging in self-criticism; but this is where the ancient saying ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ applies.

Edward Scicluna (S&D). – (MT) Mr President, never more than today has the importance of long-term sustainability of public finances been pushed to the forefront in such a dramatic manner. It is easy and natural to say ‘we warned you not to let your deficits and debts spiral out of control’ and we have every reason to. 94 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

However, now that many Member States of the European Union, including those in the euro area, have come to this unsustainable situation, we cannot simply reverse the situation and try to do so in as short a time as possible while ignoring the serious economic environment we find ourselves in. This is not an appeal to postpone our actions in the field of public finances. I am not implying anything of the sort. However, to demand the implementation of austerity programmes unscrupulously within European Union countries would mean condemning the entire European region to a long period of slow economic growth, if not worse. We cannot afford to curb demand, even in countries which boast surpluses, both on an internal and external level, and which have the means to spend more and not less. We must help the weaker European Union countries to stimulate their economies through exports and therefore help to stimulate job growth prospects. Let us not be dogmatic. This situation requires that we act intelligently. It also necessitates an element of flexibility in many sectors, not least in economic policy.

Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – Mr President, we have quite rightly heard a lot about economic recovery in the Commission’s proposal for the EU 2020 strategy but not enough, in my opinion, about poverty, and that is why I was delighted that you mentioned poverty reduction in your speech. We have to remember that the most vulnerable in society suffer in any economic recession more than anyone else, and that is why we have to put in place mechanisms to protect them. For instance, I would like to see a target of a 25% reduction of EU citizens living in poverty, as well as ensuring that those who are currently excluded from the labour market can gain access to good-quality work, and that, at the same time, we have targets to eradicate undeclared work.

We must also make sure that Member States invest in social security and social protection systems as well as guaranteeing access to rights, resources and universal services. I would also like to see an EU-wide target to end street homelessness by 2015 by Member States, and to develop integrated homelessness strategies. In all these areas, not only should Parliament be consulted more – and I was pleased that you did mention that – but NGOs working in the field as well. As far as the open method of coordination is concerned in the social field, it needs to be strengthened. We all know it has not worked as well as it could have done, but I believe it can work well in the future if the right mechanisms are put into place – but only if those mechanisms are put into place.

Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) The strategy is being adopted at the worst possible moment, when industrial production in Europe has fallen to the level of the 1990s and the gross domestic product of the European Union fell last year by 4%. However, it is not the timing which is worst here. The worst thing is that as many as four of the five priorities which have been presented to us as the main draught horses of European development are hard to treat as European measures, specifically employment, research and development, education and combating poverty. Basically, there is nothing supranational about these issues. They are matters for which individual countries are responsible. It can be said that only climate policy is an area in which we can take a certain amount of action at European level. The others, quite frankly, are matters for individual Member States.

Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, the 2020 strategy ought to incorporate opinions on the economic crisis and propose a new form of governance rather than try to mend the current failing system. First of all, let us get rid of some false ideas, particularly those concerning Greece. This is not a Greek crisis. Greece and its population are the victims today of a predatory economic and financial system, a system which has seen the G20 countries fork out, all in all, several thousands of billions of dollars in a few days in order to save the banks, but which leaves Greece in agony for several months. International summits are now ignored; what will be, will be. Finally, finance was going to be regulated and Europe had its endless discussions, but the vultures have not gone away. So now what is everybody saying? That the market must be reassured. Who is the market, though? Speculators, whom we must appease as if they were demigods and to whom we must make offerings so that we can beg them for mercy.

How much longer do people have to endure this cynical approach? How much longer do we have to live under the illusion of a market which gives financiers more than they deserve but which impoverishes the people? We cannot allow the terrorism of financial markets to bring whole countries to their knees. A counterfeiter runs a huge risk because he is attacking an element of a State’s sovereignty: its currency. However, when a trader speculates on a country’s debt, he does not risk a thing. When will the white-collar 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 95

criminals of high finance be properly punished? Speculators who greedily feed off the public should be outlawed; the casino banks that gamble with the lives and futures of citizens should be abolished; and the EU should be required to properly supervise financial markets, rather than attack public services. Ladies and gentlemen, to finish, I think that they have been playing this joke on us long enough. We can hold an extraordinary summit every Friday and release billions, but if we do not tackle the roots of the wrongdoing, one of these Fridays, we will end up announcing that the EU is bankrupt.

Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova (ALDE). – (BG) Mr President, the European Cohesion policy has demonstrated its vital role over the years and has become a key policy for the Community. It provides European citizens with a visible, quantifiable indicator of solidarity. Its role is also recognised through its inclusion among the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon. All of this earns its rightful place in the Europe 2020 strategy. In the draft strategy, this policy was not given its necessary place. This is why I highly rate the report on including the Cohesion policy among the objectives to be achieved by the Treaty of Lisbon and the 2020 strategy, which provides invaluable guidelines. We also need a strong Cohesion policy at the moment when the economic crisis is reducing the number of jobs and weakening our competitiveness and in the future too, so that we can confirm the European Union as being a strong global player. Reliable benchmarks are needed for indicating the effectiveness and efficiency of the resources invested in this policy. As it states in the report, an assessment is required of the impact of the Cohesion policy’s expenditure on regional development, based on specific indicators. In order to determine evaluation indicators, the Commission should consider and propose a clear definition of the concept of ‘territorial cohesion’ because this is precisely what appears in the Treaty of Lisbon. Objective, precise evaluation criteria can only be established after considering the definition of the actual concept. This will provide a concrete basis for the policy, as well as for institutions and citizens.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PITTELLA Vice-President

Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the rapporteurs for their outstanding work and to thank the Commissioners for their significant, valuable reflections. A few years ago, a good friend and mentor told me that throughout life, you will always come up against situations where you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. In my view, the EU 2020 strategy is, at the moment, still much more a part of the problem than of the solution. I believe that it is our shared responsibility to make this strategy much more a part of the solution. Allow me to stop for a moment and ask you kindly to consider that the strategy’s very name is problematic. In the vast majority of the European Union’s languages, the name EU 2020 strategy has no meaning whatsoever. It is hard to imagine that a community of more than 500 million citizens could identify with a strategy, based on a notion providing a recipe for resolving the problems in their personal lives whose name is so intangible and distant from the realities of their personal lives. This name may be very meaningful when discussed by marketing specialists. However, we are not talking about marketing specialists here, but about ordinary Europeans. There is another wise Hungarian saying: he who grabs a lot takes little. In my judgment, the strategy – which is still part of the problem – grabs a lot and takes little. The best thing would perhaps be for it to deal with the most important question. In this regard, let me point out that, in my view, what we need to do is to strengthen regional development. Strengthening regional development involves investment, growth and job creation, and I think that the most serious problem facing people today is that they need jobs and more jobs. These are the points I wish to offer for your consideration.

Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the launch of the European Union 2020 strategy effectively marks the end of the previous Lisbon Strategy phase and it will have to tackle the negative structural effects that the financial, economic and social crisis has produced and is continuing to produce. I believe that if the 2020 strategy is to be effective, it must focus on two key aspects, the first being a system for evaluating progress which factors in the use of the carrot and stick mechanism; the second being a vigorous policy of investing in infrastructure, in addition, of course, to tools for regulating the financial system and policies aimed at restoring social dialogue and cohesion. 96 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Infrastructures are the cornerstone of the relaunch of innovation policy in industry, SMEs, manufacturing consortiums or research institutes and in the relationship between these and universities and local institutions. The van Nistelrooij report should therefore be warmly welcomed since, in addition to providing an in-depth picture of the work that has been done to date in the Member States, it starts to deal with the question of criteria for harmonisation of financial instruments and operational plans aimed at innovation. The harmonisation of rules, procedures and administrative practices for the management of EU projects and the simplification and streamlining of procedures are the solutions that the stakeholders on the ground and citizens have been asking us for for a long time. I believe that on this point, Europe can and must do much to promote growth, development and employment.

Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, as we seek to solve the financial and economic crisis, I would like to point out an essential deficit: that of knowledge. I regret to say that Europe is becoming a more stupid continent every day, even though knowledge is our most fruitful and rich resource. Investing in it bears no risk. The young generation of Europeans pays the price of the crisis, however, as youth unemployment grows and education and innovation budgets are frozen or cut. We have to cut budgets, but let us do so with a 21st century attitude, because where is half of the EU budget going now? To agriculture! It should go to the young generation, and their development. Not just a traditional education but one that focuses on e-skills and entrepreneurship for example. We know that the higher one’s education is, the lower the chances of losing a job. Yet Member States are not meeting the necessary commitment in fostering an ambitious knowledge economy. Europe thus punishes the next generation of Europeans by not allowing them to develop their talents and ambitions to their full capacity, and it allows China, India and the United States to become more attractive places for talent, research, creativity and innovation. Short-term measures will have a high long-term cost. Entrepreneurship, excellence and a sustainable future of the European economy can only be fostered if we are willing to invest in knowledge, because whoever thinks knowledge is expensive does not know what stupidity costs. Today, Commissioner Kroes presented her vision for Europe’s digital agenda, one of the EU 2020 flagship programmes. It is an ambitious yet concrete strategy which seeks to make Europe’s digital market stronger in a global economy as well as connecting many Europeans to an open Internet. I believe we need to take more smart decisions now and make sure the current crisis does not become a mortgage to the youth and the young generation charging an interest that they can never pay back. Does the Commission support a coordinated approach, moving away from the intergovernmental procedure in decision making and giving a stronger role to the Commission and Parliament to ensure that Member States fulfil their commitments?

Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy did not have any sustainable success. Why not? Member States, social partners and large parts of civil society were too little involved and so they had no sense of shared responsibility. The EU 2020 strategy can be different. It could be a success, Commissioner, if it also deals with those who are excluded, who are losing out and who often do not have a lobby. In the EU, not even two thirds of those who are capable of work are in work. Only just under a half of all older workers have a job. Eighty million Europeans are insufficiently qualified and have increasingly fewer opportunities in the labour market. This is a situation we cannot accept. However, a genuine future strategy needs a social orientation. Qualitative growth in the economy and employment on the one hand must be reconciled with social equality and with sustainability. Commissioner Andor, we are both working on that. What does this mean in concrete terms? The social security systems of Member States must be adapted to democratic change. Through exchange of best practice throughout Europe, we could make our contribution to that and we could learn from and with each other. The European Social Fund – one of your hobby horses – must be adapted to the new challenges, so that we can be even more efficient on the ground. The European Globalisation Fund is so constructed that those at risk of unemployment are able to find their feet. Our society must be integrative and integrate young people, for example, through appropriate education and training, so that they can develop professionally and personally. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 97

Despite all the necessary consolidation of national budgets – which is exactly what we are going through and debated this morning – there is one thing we must not seek to save money on: investment in our citizens – in economic, sustainable and social terms. The EU 2020 strategy will rise and fall with these three pillars.

Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Mann, I hope you are in regular contact with your Chancellor, if you see things in the same way that I do. The EU 2020 strategy is a real opportunity to make Europe more social and we need that opportunity at this very moment when many hostile words are directed at Europe and when it has distanced itself from the people. We absolutely need to offer something positive to our citizens that will offset that situation. When it comes to growth and employment, we should stop putting people’s interests behind those of business. Indeed, that must be the key objective of the EU 2020 strategy because Europe needs social progress. I already pointed that out last Monday at the committee debate on employment policy guidelines: we must not lose sight of the goal of full employment, but we cannot have full employment at all costs because we need good jobs. We always say we need jobs, but what matters to me is that these jobs are good, that there is social security, that people do not have to receive subsidies and that they can actually make a living from these jobs. The ever more precarious nature of working life, the increasing income inequality and also growing poverty – which many speakers have talked about today – must finally be brought to an end with the EU 2020 strategy. We need a more active labour market policy and one which covers many areas. Finally, people expect more specific answers, very specific answers, in fact, and not an umpteenth strategy!

Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) The economic crisis which has hit our continent has focused our attention – and rightly so – on rescuing the economies of Member States and building a common European mechanism to give protection against economic collapse. It is understandable that, today, the attention of Europeans is focused on increasing the speed of development and on job creation, but we cannot, when building a strategy for the European Union, restrict ourselves for many years just to economic debate. The European Union must not behave as if it were only an efficient businessman who is building the economic success of his firm. The Europe 2020 strategy should contain significant reference to the role of culture in achieving the social and economic objectives which have been set. After all, these priorities are going to influence distribution of the future budget, so we should maintain the possibility of financing such areas as development of cultural infrastructure and protection of cultural heritage as part of the European Regional Development Fund. In the European Union’s 2020 strategy, we should emphasise the significant influence of culture on social and economic development in the Union, for after all, it is intellectual capital and the creative industries which have brought Europe renown. It is this sector in which we can build competitiveness in relation to other parts of the world. Creativity requires stimulation and development from the earliest years of life. Only then will we be able to count on its turning to a significant degree into innovation, including in fields of modern technology, in the European Union. Culture must not be neglected in European policy. We must not dismiss all proposals to increase its role in European Union policy simply by saying that it is a competence of the Member States. Europe, today, is proud of projects such as the European Capital of Culture, but this is a project which was created by European cities, and it is these cities which bear the main burden of this spectacular programme. I expect, therefore, greater determination from the European Commission to ensure that the final version of the 2020 strategy includes culture.

Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 10 years since the introduction of the Lisbon Strategy and on the eve of the Europe 2020 strategy, in the middle of a full economic, social and employment crisis, we know that we cannot come out of this crisis, nor lay the foundations for new and sustainable growth and a new social cohesion, as you have said, unless we strengthen the mechanisms and instruments that the European Union has at its disposal to sustain investment in the knowledge triangle: education, training and research.

Just now, Commissioner, you confirmed that as regards this objective, some European governments are performing well, others a little less so. In order not to fall within the limits revealed by the Lisbon Strategy, I believe that in this area, the Commission has to strengthen the open method of coordination with Member States, provide incentives and penalties in the European Social Fund and monitor the results. 98 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

I do not consider it to be consistent for governments, as the Italian Government has done, to cut EUR 8 billion in three years from education and the universities, without reinvesting the savings in these areas, especially as we have a 19% early school leaving rate and 25% youth unemployment. In conclusion, do you not consider it opportune to strengthen the legal powers in Directive 2005/36/EC to facilitate the mutual recognition of professional qualifications among Member States? According to Professor Monti’s report, currently, less than 3% of European workers in fact work in another Member State, and one of the reasons seems to be precisely this difficult issue of mutual recognition of qualifications.

Amalia Sartori (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too have an observation to make on what happened in the last decade, 2000-2010, as far as Lisbon is concerned. It is true that many of us, given also what happened until 2008-2009, viewed the results obtained with less than complete satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the case that that decade gave rise to hopes and aspirations, and that much was done to achieve the objectives that had been set, particularly in the area of employment. Today, we find ourselves at the beginning of a new, more problematic, more difficult decade, and as regards the proposals that have been presented to us so far, I partly agree with them, although when reading them thoroughly, I still see too many shortcomings. I would dwell at length on what are the guiding principles of this proposal, but I shall limit myself to considering growth and employment. More jobs, more economic growth: this is the target that we must set ourselves, taking into account that we do so in a situation of excessive levels of public debt, of low structural growth, and of high rates of unemployment. Hence, the targets that we set ourselves are too ambitious and, at times, too inflexible. So, perhaps with a little less ambition and a little more flexibility, the growth and employment targets will be achievable.

Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, while Commissioner Reding confirmed, and President Barroso reconfirmed in his letter today, that the Women’s Charter commits the Commission to promoting and ensuring gender equality and women’s rights in all policy fields, I am disappointed that this has not been put into practice for the EU 2020 strategy. Should we not be more ambitious than we were for the Lisbon Strategy? Ignoring 52% of the available skills, knowledge and workforce of Europe for any sector or any level would be a serious loss. If Europe wants to exploit all its potential and get out of the crisis, we need to ensure that the women’s employment rate is raised to at least 70% – to be shown through specific gender statistics. We also need specific targets so that we can measure the commitment of each Member State to gender equality, and make improvements thereto. How? We need to decrease the gender pay gap by 10% in each Member State. We need to revalue the predominantly female health sector by increasing wages and improving conditions, as well as the availability of the services, as it is an increasingly important sector for our ageing society. We need to increase the numbers of women in decision-making bodies such as managerial and executive board positions based on a Norwegian 40% quota model. We need to increase the possibilities available for women in research and development and innovation, and train them in new green jobs. Member States cannot neglect to expand, improve and implement the Barcelona targets in all Member States. We need the true commitment of the European Union and all Member States by involving all people when working towards a smart, green progressive society. I am convinced that our Commissioner, Mr Andor, is going to do it.

Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Discussion about the Europe 2020 strategy must take account of the experience of the previous strategy. We all know the failures of that strategy were caused, firstly, by basing the strategy on the responsibility of individual Member States in the open method of coordination, and the successes came, among other things, from ‘Lisbonisation’ or the inclusion of certain of the Lisbon objectives in Cohesion policy.

In relation to this, we have to ask how to approach the new strategy. It now seems absolutely crucial, firstly, to show clearly that we are dealing with ‘treaty’ policies, which are not policies prepared for the purposes of a strategy, but operate over a longer time scale, such as Cohesion policy. This means we need to use individual policies to put the strategy into effect, but the strategy, as previous experience shows, will only be successful if individual policies are integrated with each other. All measures which separate individual policies, split up 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 99

funds and divide roles will end in the same failure as the last strategy. Therefore, we need to combine, integrate and produce actions associated with synergy.

Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, the indebtedness of national economies and an ageing population together constitute a real time bomb for Europe. We know that, for example, the incidence of agerelated illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, will double over the next ten years. That will mean a huge burden on national economies. We should not, however, make a mystery out of debt. As I recall, Ceaucşescu’s Romania was a country without debt, as is North Korea. There is also ‘smart productive debt’ – intelligent debt if that debt is invested in people. In this respect, the elimination of poverty, for example, is a very lucrative investment for society, as is reducing youth unemployment. What I am quite rightly afraid of at present, while the Member States start to reduce their deficits, is where the cuts are to be made. Will they be in education, the employment of older people, the employment of the disabled, or what? That will not be smart or intelligent. That is why this EU 2020 strategy is a very important document, and I am one of those who say more Europe and not less Europe. More Europe means something like root canal treatment: Member States will be obliged to accomplish the targets that are set out in this EU 2020 strategy.

Angelika Niebler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Europe 2020 strategy – to be honest, I do not feel like discussing the Europe 2020 strategy at all. Ten years ago, we adopted a strategy, the Lisbon Strategy. When you now look back at this past decade, the results are limited, if I may put it in those modest terms.

I think that we should currently be focusing on what really matters to people at home in our Member States, rather than making the same mistake again. They are wondering whether we will be able to ensure the stability of our currency. Will there be inflation? What lessons do we need to learn from the developments over the last two years, from the financial and economic crisis, and now from the currency crisis? Are we really taking to task the players in the financial markets who have contributed to the crisis? I would emphatically call on the Commission, first and foremost, to take steps to ensure rapid financial market regulation and progress in Europe in order to prevent, as has been the case in recent years, money being sent around the globe five times in the same day and many people making a profit on this while losses are being nationalised. I would ask the Commission to demand that Member States exercise strict budgetary discipline and implement appropriate rules. I would also ask for the earliest possible tightening of the Stability and Growth Pact. This is where we should be focusing our efforts. I urge the Commission to take requisite measures, but not as before, off its own bat or by discussing them thoroughly with Member States. Instead, it should finally take Parliament seriously as an equal legislator alongside the 27 Members States.

Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) I agree with the previous speaker; the Stability Pact needs to be applied. However, a number of other things need to be applied before the Stability Pact. The decision makers in the European Union need to have quick reflexes, to act when needed, because if Mrs Merkel had decided in time and if the European Union had taken the measures it needed to take, we would have saved a lot of money for the citizens of Europe. In order for the European Union to be strong economically and to count globally, it needs its citizens. The citizens must be healthy and educated and must have work. The European Union needs to bear this in mind when planning for 2020, when planning for the single market. The single market must be centred on the citizen and must be a single market with a human face.

Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I have a dog at home. Recently, my dog took a sausage from the table and ate it. The question is — who is to blame for the fact that the dog ate the sausage? Is the dog to blame, for doing what is natural to it? Or rather, am I to blame for not clearing away the sausage and putting it back in the refrigerator after I had finished my meal? On the global financial markets, the value of the euro keeps falling every day. Who is to blame for this? Many fellow Members say that the speculators are to blame, that the market is to blame, for attacking the euro and depreciating its value. Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you the suggestion that, perhaps, the market is not to blame. Rather, it is the market that has pinpointed the underlying fault, the underlying cause. The underlying cause for our difficulties today is quite simple — European countries have been living beyond their means far too long, spending vastly more than they are able to earn. The markets react to this in the same way that 100 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

my dog reacted to the smell of the sausage that I had left on the table. A year and a half ago, Latvia experienced a crisis similar to the crisis that we are now experiencing in the rest of Europe; namely, the financial markets attacked our currency and had lost all confidence in it. Instead of complaining about this situation, we corrected our fundamental indicators, we repaired and collected our public finances. In my view, if we wish the Europe 2020 strategy to be meaningful, we must have as our first and most important priority the necessity for European countries to control their public spending, for their income to match their outgoings. This would restore confidence, ease the crisis and restore calm to the financial markets. Thank you.

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D). – Mr President, today we are discussing, among others, two excellent reports by Ricardo Cortés Lastra and Lambert van Nistelrooij. These both demonstrate in a clear fashion the important contribution of Cohesion policy in achieving the goals of competitiveness and employment and the significant role in promoting innovation and growth that the knowledge economy plays. The EU 2020 strategy is, on several counts, similar to the Lisbon Strategy, but tries to improve on focusing on and narrowing down the objectives. There is, however, one area – a quite significant one – that still remains unclear, namely the delivery mechanism. It is left to the Member States and peer review supported by monitoring by the Commission. It seems to me that we have not learned our lesson from the experience of the weak delivery of the Lisbon Strategy. I urge the Commission to come up with proposals which will ensure a stronger delivery mechanism for the EU 2020 strategy to make sure that all its targets will be met with action and not just words.

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) The Lisbon Strategy set high targets, but Europe did not manage to implement them. We are moving towards a new strategy for the next decade, to be true, and in an exceptionally difficult and unfortunate environment. We all agree that the priority and the emphasis on the development triangle ‘education, research, innovation’ is the best investment if we are to get out of the crisis and it allows us to be optimistic about the future of Europe. It is important to emphasise that this strategy must be implemented in an environment of solidarity, in an environment of close cooperation between the Member States. At this point, I would clarify, for the avoidance of all misunderstanding, that the support mechanism for Greece, despite any delays, demonstrates this solidarity and you should be in no doubt as to the fact that we recognise it. In the New Democracy, in our centre-right party in Greece, we made it clear that we respect the money of the other European peoples being put into the support mechanism. However, together with the sacrifices required, and which must be divided fairly, and on this point we were critical of certain measures, together with the spending cuts required in order to reduce the debt and to reduce the deficit, growth initiatives which will take the country out of recession are also needed, initiatives which we have not seen to date. That is the only way we, too, in Greece shall be able to approach the ambitious targets of the 2020 strategy, which is the only way we shall come out of the crisis stronger. (The speaker agreed to reply IN DUE COURSE to a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, I have seen for myself how important Cohesion policy is for Wales and I, therefore, welcome the Lastra report on Cohesion policy and Europe 2020. There are many projects right across Wales that are benefiting individuals and communities. So, I have no doubt that structural funds can help deliver the 2020 goals. However, I would like to make the following points. The 2020 strategy, the fifth cohesion report and the budget must all be aligned. In future, structural funds should be properly financed, the structural funds should not be renationalised and the transitional status should be made available to those regions that fall out of convergent status. If we can achieve all these things, I certainly believe that the Cohesion policy can help us deliver 2020. It would also make the EU 2020 strategy relevant to individuals and citizens right across Europe.

Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) I should like to take this opportunity, following the position taken by my close fellow Greek member, Mr Papanikolaou, from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), to make the following clarification, which I consider extremely important in these times of crisis, especially for Greece: Greece is not taking money from other nations. The Member States of the European Union borrow at a lower rate of interest and lend, give money to the mechanism and, via it to Greece, at a higher rate of interest. We are not taking money from other nations. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 101

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) You are absolutely right Mrs Rapti. Of course, Greece’s borrowing requirements would be smaller and Greece would be able to raise money more easily on the markets, had there not been such a delay, six months now, on the part of the present Greek Government.

Thomas Ulmer (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Niebler has already said a great deal that very much concerns me too. I am greatly concerned about our future together in the EU. I cannot just move on to the agenda without mentioning the crisis. One of our major objectives, the euro and its high monetary stability, is at risk of total collapse. Prosperity and jobs are not feasible without a secure monetary value. We are talking about Europe 2020, but we do not even know what Europe will look like in 2011. We are debating meat glued together with thrombin and we are debating driving times for self-employed drivers, as if the major problems of the Union will solve themselves. We need to send out strong and rapid signals about regulating, organising and improving the deficits in both state budgets and in the banking sector. Let me give you a couple of examples: we need clear definitions and harsh penalties for deficit offenders, such as withdrawing funding. We need clear rules for banks, such as banning credit default swaps or requirements for insurance and depositing these against corresponding nominal values. Let me also add a sentence from a famous German mayor who was chair of the German Association of Cities and Towns for many years: He who does not spend money he does not have is a long way from being a saver!

Kerstin Westphal (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to come back to the report by Mr Cortés Lastra, which I think is a very good report. Indeed, the Cohesion policy is actually the best instrument for mobilising investment in growth and employment. However, I would like to highlight again the importance of towns and cities here, because they will play a key role in achieving the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. Four out of five Europeans live in urban areas. Towns and cities are the driving force of economic growth in Europe. At the same time, they are experiencing many problems particularly acutely. Key words here are social integration, the environment and transport, for example, but also demographic change. Therefore, towns and cities have a particular role when it comes to actually improving the living conditions of citizens. In addition, Europe’s towns and cities are key players in the fields of innovation, research and education, and therefore play a fundamental role in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the EU 2020 strategy. All of this should be taken into account during the implementation of these strategies and during the shaping of the future course of the Cohesion policy.

Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the last two years have left millions of unemployed people in their wake, have been the cause of further national debt that will remain for many years still, and have put renewed pressure on and new tears in our social cohesion. We must react in a timely and incisive manner, and, in order to avoid making the errors of judgment that the Lisbon Strategy succumbed to, Europe 2020 must be extremely realistic in its objectives and balanced in the goals it sets itself. Three of these seem to me, Commissioner, to be priorities. The first is certainly a stable currency and stable national budgets, which, however, must not be divorced from development and economic growth. We need investment in research and innovation to make our industries ever more competitive and our products of the highest quality. We must support SMEs and new industries, such as IT and sustainable energy and, of course, our infrastructure. Let us raise the overall level of education, yes, but chiefly we must mould training to the needs of the labour market and production. It is a paradox that businesses are still demanding specialisms that the market is in no position to offer. It is clear that every target should be related to the national context, but within the framework of a broader European strategy. I shall conclude by saying that the Greek crisis and the economic and employment crisis in the whole of Europe testify to the fact that in order to safeguard social cohesion, development and stable national budgets, we need strong and solid economic governance at the European level, to enable European institutions, including Parliament, to take effective and preventive action.

Damien Abad (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed on the major objectives of the EU 2020 strategy and, if we are all agreed on its objectives, we should now provide ourselves with the means to implement them. These means include, for example, the establishment of an EU economic government. 102 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

In order for these fine words and major objectives to become realities and this time avoid what I would call a kind of collective disenchantment with the Lisbon Strategy, it is essential that we provide ourselves with the resources necessary to take action. This is also why I fully support the Commission’s proposal to have the national budgets inspected in advance by the EU, with the proviso, however, that the national parliaments and the European Parliament are involved in these inspection arrangements. However, I should like to speak in more detail about the crisis and young people. I think that young people have been the main victims of this crisis, and that we must take advantage of the opportunity provided to us to put young people back at the heart of this Europe 2020 strategy. Firstly, the EU 2020 strategy must be an inclusive strategy. Mobility, which is the concrete expression of the concept of free movement within the EU, must become a real possibility for all young people, not only for young students. That is why I hope the Commission will support my proposal for an extension to the European mobility programmes for young apprentices. Furthermore, I also believe that this strategy must promote the upskilling of young people so as to eliminate the curse of unemployment among the young, because we all know that the transition from a learning environment to a first job is one of the major challenges faced by young people. The way to make progress in this area is to enhance their skills, for example, by channelling EU funds more effectively towards policies for young people. Finally, all young Europeans need to be given mobility opportunities and upskilled because what we need, above all else, is an innovative young generation. It is young people who, today, will create the growth and innovation of tomorrow. This is why I do not want young people to be left out of this Europe 2020 strategy.

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, we approved the Lisbon Agenda with its very ambitious objectives in 2000. Some of these have been met, but a lot of them have not. There is no doubt that the regional funds contributed to the Lisbon Strategy. Ten years on, we find ourselves shaken by the worst economic crisis we can remember. I believe that this crisis has served to enable us to identify, in this new Europe 2020 strategy, where we went wrong, as well as enable us to improve so as to achieve better results. Firstly, we have learned that coordination between all governance levels is essential, as is clearly stated in Mr Cortés Lastra’s report. We have also learned that the contribution of regional funds is essential to meeting the objectives we are proposing. We believe that the combination of specific actions at all levels – European Union, national, regional and local authorities – is an absolute necessity. If we work together, we will be much stronger. It is also important that a Cohesion policy covering economic, social and territorial aspects be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy. I would also like to make an observation as regards the Cohesion policy issue here, namely that the bureaucratic procedures should be much more flexible and efficient. Furthermore, in the disability sector, that difference will have to be taken into account in some way. Finally, I would like to underline the important role to be played by European regions and towns and cities, and especially, the need to pay more attention to those areas with special needs, such as mountain areas, coastal areas and islands. In short, if we want to be successful, we have to be able to count on the European regions, the towns and the cities and on a reformed Cohesion policy in line with the new situation.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Europe 2020 must be a Europe for its citizens and meet their needs. This is the approach which I consider must form the basis of this strategy. It is important that, within the new European framework, we continue with the course of action promoting development and the objectives already set, which must be monitored for tangible results so as to achieve a positive impact. I am referring here specifically to investments in any kind of infrastructure, enabling us to become much more competitive from an economic perspective. We need to continue to pursue economic, social and territorial cohesion policies in order to narrow the disparities between regions and establish a platform for balanced economic development, as is also stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 103

Europe 2020 must be a Europe of global action which can be achieved if the European Union has a common level of development which enhances the ability of local and regional players to respond to the global challenges. Europe 2020 is a Europe where regions develop according to their specific potential and use the regional aspect of research, development and innovation for promoting economic development and increasing employment.

Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, when we talk about Europe 2020, then we are, first and foremost, talking about the future of our continent: Where do we want to go? What sort of life will our citizens be able to live here? What we need to do first, in my view, is to analyse the actual situation so that we can find the right tools to achieve these objectives. It is also important to make a distinction between cause and effect. What really are the major issues we face today? I think one of them is certainly the ageing of our European societies. So far, we have unfortunately failed to make Europe attractive enough for people to even start families and have children. That means that we will face a major pressure on public budgets in future, because our pension systems are at risk of being underfunded. Secondly, we already have high government deficits. According to Keynes’s classical teaching, we have spent a lot of money in this crisis. Now it is time to save. However, that also means of course that our currency will come under pressure. We can see signs of that in the current Greek crisis and, here, we are all facing the problem of actually having failed to make our economy competitive enough to generate economic growth so that we are able to address these high government deficits. Here in Europe, we have rules governing these areas, like the Stability and Growth Pact, but unfortunately, no one is sticking to them. This is one of the main problems. We are creating new rules, but I think that it would sometimes be much better to apply our existing rules so they can really achieve their full effect. I therefore urge the Commission, in particular, to create a climate of stringency, so that we can achieve these agreed objectives.

Sabine Verheyen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pick up on what Mr Seeber has already said. If we really want to successfully carry off the objectives of the 2020 agenda, we first need to attend to the job in hand. We need strong financial market regulation, regulation that really will be better at supervising and regulating future conduct in these areas. However, we must also put our own houses in order, and that means ensuring that we have better controls in place for how effectively money from relevant structural funds is spent and in what ways we should support further development. We also need to involve local and regional authorities more in our structures and planning because, ultimately, they are the ones who have to implement tasks on the ground, and make it clear which tasks need to be fulfilled if we are to achieve the objectives we have quite rightly set for ourselves. However, setting objectives without robustly and consistently addressing the status quo and the tasks to be completed and without analysing what needs to be done now makes little sense in my view. As Mr Ulmer said earlier on, we have moved on to the agenda and we are debating the day-to-day business of this House, food safety and so on, without really being aware of what priority issues we need to resolve. That has to be our starting point. We first need to focus on bringing our financial situation under control and ensuring that everyone adheres to these rules. We must also ensure that Parliament and, in particular, the Commission apply the control mechanisms that have been available to them in the past more stringently in the future and we must have a greater say in what is happening in some Member States.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I am proud to say a few words in relation to this debate about the 2020 strategy and here are the points I would like to make. I must say it is disappointing and sometimes depressing to hear speaker after speaker here in Strasbourg and in Brussels talk about the failure of the Lisbon Strategy. It was not all a failure and if it were, I do not think 67% of the Irish people would have voted in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon last October. There have been many benefits for all to see, in particular at regional level, as the Commissioner pointed out. However, there are a number of areas which I would be concerned about. Firstly, where does the six-month rotating presidency fit into this? I see each country coming in here outlining their priorities for the six months rather than where they fit into the overall targets set down annually for 104 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

the 10 years. I think that is a very important point; no football team changes its manager every six months for him to come in with a different set of priorities which you cannot achieve in a short period of time. Secondly, I welcome the instruments which have been brought in to make Member States stand up to their responsibilities, and pay for their failures if they do not do so. ‘Softly, softly’ will not do anymore. If you are part of a team, and you play badly, you are either dropped or told to up your game. We have to up our game. Finally, I want to say that I also welcome the suggestion to empower the regions and the cities as part of this process.

Sophie Auconie (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 9 May, the EU, at the behest of the Ministers for the Economy and Finance, gave a firm response to the financial markets. Although the European Parliament is subject to longer parliamentary procedures, it must not be condemned to inaction. I think that this House, and we, its Members, have three essential roles to play. First of all, we must throw all our weight behind governments and the Commission in the initiatives they have taken recently. Secondly, we must immediately set to work to find the solutions that will enable us, in the medium and long terms, to emerge from the crisis and encourage a growth model that is truly dynamic and supports the real economy. That is the entire challenge of the EU 2020 strategy and of the priority objectives which we will earmark for the EU Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020. Mrs Bowles, I should like to say to you that, if the Lisbon Strategy is, to some degree, a failure, it is because it was designed several years ago when the economic situation was different from what it is today. Therefore, those who condemn this strategy do so because it is inflexible and inappropriate for the current situation. This is the problem with strategies. Therefore, this 2020 strategy will be all the stronger if it can be adapted to prevailing circumstances. Finally – and this is the most important issue to my mind – we must explain at a local level what is happening at EU level and obtain the public’s approval. European citizens woke up on Monday, 10 May to a new Europe. They had not caused this metamorphosis. No one can assess its long-term consequences at this stage. This metamorphosis will not bear fruit if it is not rooted in democracy. We were united in diversity; now we must be united in adversity. (Applause)

Antonio Cancian (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened a great deal today and it has been quite useful, but I also have to draw your attention to a matter that I consider to be important. We shall not succeed, in my opinion, by locating all this strategy in the context of a market that is today out of joint, subject to continuous speculation, and in deep crisis. As we discuss Europe 2020, we need to bear a situation of this type in mind. I would divide the discussion into two parts: first, the market must serve the real economy, and not vice versa; second, I believe that Europe must be the locomotive for this economy. As far as the first part is concerned, it has been much discussed, and it is high time that we set up a hedge against this market, so that we do not have to depend on anyone at all, but what is important is the locomotive, and for the locomotive to pull, we also need the means. Let us have the courage to change this budget, let us have the courage to take responsibility for setting up a significant fund to serve as a financial hedge, but especially one that can get the TEN-T, TEN-E and E-TEN networks going. This is the locomotive that we must bring into play, and to pull the real economy, we also need the private sector, through the PPP mechanism. That is the task, Commissioner, which we must tackle immediately, because the crisis is not over, the crisis is with us, and we must make this strong push right now.

Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, a debate on the Europe 2020 strategy naturally leads to acceptance of better coordination of the various national policies, more Europe, and acceptance of the path of structural reforms to attain growth for our economy. However, in order for us to reach 2020, we will have to get through 2010 and, on that subject, I would like to call attention to the balance needed between budgetary consolidation policies and the need to avoid falling back into recession. I am a Portuguese national and at this very moment, the proposal that is being made is to increase taxes. Fundamentally, the path that the Member States should choose is that of seriously reducing public spending: 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 105

having tax systems that are competitive and making structural reforms so that we can achieve the necessary growth. As well as the long and medium terms, we must think about the short term and start encouraging the existence of creative companies right now. We must make a commitment to universities and to research and development, because that is very clear now. In order for use to reach 2020, we will have to make it through 2010 in one piece. I would like to leave this worry behind now. It is clear that we have a Stability Pact, but there is also a Growth Pact, and the key word for our economies in the near future is growth.

Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the future 2020 strategy must enable the European Union to correct the shortcomings detected in the Lisbon Strategy if we really want to create a competitive economic space, and one that is economically, socially and territorially cohesive. In spite of the fact that the postulates of the by now outdated Lisbon Strategy are still valid, I would like to point out that one of the reasons why it lost force was because of its highly complex structure, particularly its lack of clarity in defining the responsibilities and tasks incumbent upon the European Union and other levels of government, particularly those of a regional and local nature. Regions and local authorities must be included in the design and implementation of policies if we want the 2020 strategy to bear any fruit in the medium term. Our regions and cities are key agents in the development and implementation of a great deal of EU public investment related to growth and employment. The allocation of regional policy resources thus becomes a key factor in terms of meeting the European objectives that we are defining. I would like to point out that the resources invested from 2000 to 2006 by way of the European Regional Development Fund have enabled the creation of 1 400 000 jobs in the European Union, as well as the building of over 2 000 km of motorways. I would like to finish by pointing out once more the value of the European regional policy with respect to strategic goals such as growth and employment. Economic, social and territorial cohesion represents a basic objective guaranteed by the treaties.

Joachim Zeller (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to extend a special greeting to the visitors to our Parliament who have followed this debate about one of the key issues for the European Union over the next ten years more attentively and in greater numbers than many of our Members. We are conducting this debate in much too technocratic a way. I grew up in a country where society was organised according to multiannual plans. This country, the German Democratic Republic, no longer exists. That is why I still have a certain scepticism for programmes which jumble together strategies, desired objectives and planned economy codes, which stretch over a lengthy period of time and which pass on the implementation to others. No matter what decisions we make for the European Union in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is Member States, national governments and parliaments and regional and local authorities that will have to shoulder the implementation. The disquiet with such procedures is very much in evidence. A top-down Europe cannot work. The united Europe can only work if we continue to build it jointly with national and regional institutions and with citizens. The Commission has abandoned the Lisbon Strategy too fast, without carrying out a thorough analysis of why the objectives of this strategy were not achieved. Therefore, it is probably no coincidence that, today in Parliament, the reports and questions were lumped together under the title of ‘EU 2020’, although every one of them deserves a separate debate. They contain at least two points on which European policy has been successful so far: creation of the internal market and the cohesion and structural policies. However, the EU 2020 strategy indicates that the Cohesion policy will only have a supporting role in the attainment of its objectives. Now, that is a contradiction. We do not need more planned economy in the European Union; others have failed on that front before.

Before we then confront Member States with a list of planned economy codes, which nobody at present knows how they are supposed to be achieved, and bearing in mind the uncertainties and turbulence in the economic and financial markets now and in the past few years and their impact on jobs and the social situation in Member States, what we need is an in-depth debate about where the European Union has been successful, 106 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

where we can achieve common goals, for example, a pact with the EU’s regions, and how we can create more community without infringing the subsidiarity principle. If we did so, this debate could and would culminate in an overall strategy. However, this debate – as we have seen from the example today – has only just begun, and we in the European Union should be the ones to lead it.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS Vice-President

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Commissioner, I think that the guiding principle of any plan or strategy for European development must be to build a Europe that acts as a truly unified region in the service of European citizens. We have said a great deal about the economic and social dimensions of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, the European Union today is much more than that. The EU is not just a community of interests but one of values; that is what gives it its economic strength and political clout. If, by the end of the decade, we truly wish to create a more successful and competitive Europe, we need to pay serious attention to ensuring that our common values receive due respect, are strengthened and implemented. We also need to focus on closer harmonisation of Member States’ education policies, the reduction of regional inequalities and the continuation of the enlargement process, as well as on the protection of fundamental rights and minority rights, to mention but a few policies that are based on European values. Economic growth and the improvement of citizens’ living conditions are unthinkable without such values-based policies.

Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the 2020 strategy is comprehensive and covers many issues, as demonstrated by this afternoon’s debate. I should just like to emphasise two particular aspects. Firstly, with regard to the social dimension of this strategy, I fully support Mrs Berès in her questioning of the Commission, in particular, concerning the setting of quantified poverty reduction targets in this strategy, which, for me, is a sine qua non. Also, the principle of an EU-wide minimum income to meet these objectives seems to me to be an obvious need, and must be implemented in practice. Secondly, the coherence between the EU budget and this strategy. Neither the Council nor the Commission has given any indication so far as to whether it wishes to review our multiannual financial framework for the current period, even though it has revealed its limitations. However, if we do not adapt it in accordance with the new challenges in the strategy, we are collectively running a great risk. Neither the EU budget, which is too restricted, nor the national public budgets, will be able to start making the investments needed to support the various flagship initiatives in the 2020 strategy.

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, on page 7 of the Europe 2020 document, it says: ‘Europe has many strengths: we can count on the talent and creativity of our people’. It does not, of course, say that other people are less talented or creative – that would be terribly unkind and almost certainly unfair – but it certainly singles out the population of Europe for special praise. Elsewhere, it bemoans the fact that Europe has an ageing population. This, of course, is attributable mainly to sharply falling birth rates, though the document does not say so. Perhaps nation states should encourage, as far as states can, a rise in the birth rates of their populations. This would certainly redress the population balance. Furthermore it might even produce at least a proportionate increase in those talented and creative people who are so necessary for economic and cultural development. I do hope I am not tainting the Commission document by linking its parts with reasoned argument, but I have kept within my time limit!

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) The Europe 2020 strategy cannot do as much as we are saying, here, today. It is not possible to do so much for just under 1% of GDP, because that is the value of the European Union budget. Let us show what we can do, by creating appropriate and modern legislation, and let us show the purposes to which funds will be assigned from the European Union budget. Let us say clearly: there is not enough realism in our expectations of the Europe 2020 strategy, there are too many things to be done and too much hope being created, and the role of Member States has not been defined. A rise in employment, reduction in poverty, education and, above all, economic growth are the big tasks and the main priorities which should be put into effect in the present situation, when we are in a crisis and should take action to revive the economy – because this is the number one problem in the Europe 2020 strategy: resuscitating the economy today. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 107

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) The EU’s Cohesion policy has helped, and still helps, generate synergy with the research and innovation policies. It has also placed the focus on the role of territorial cohesion. I believe that the regions should specialise in smart and green developments and define for themselves a set of innovation priorities based on the EU’s objectives and their needs, and channel Community resources into these priorities which have been identified. At the same time, they must promote models of success as part of the triangle of knowledge and the relations between businesses, research centres, universities and public authorities, especially those established via public-private partnerships. I also believe that the exchange of knowledge within regional groups can be facilitated by the Structural Funds as well because European policies are consistently targeted at sustainable development, offering tangible results at regional level. All these elements form the concrete bond for achieving territorial cohesion within the European Union.

Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) I wish to congratulate today’s rapporteurs, especially Mr van Nistelrooij, for the excellent report that was presented. Research and development will provide us with the solutions to be taken into account in future in tackling successfully the major challenges we are facing, whether it involves the severe economic crisis or achieving the 2020 strategy’s long-term objectives. With the impetus provided by the Cohesion policy, whose aim is to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and develop a knowledge-based economy, research and development must be approached from two directions. Based on a top-down approach, research and innovation will be the main areas for identifying solutions aimed at overcoming the problems which we are facing and for boosting economic growth and sustainable development. It is just as important for innovation to come out of the laboratories and research centres and be pitched at a level which suits European citizens’ needs as appropriately as possible. We must encourage local and regional economies to improve their ability to innovate and to identify themselves the most effective solutions as part of a bottom-up approach, thereby utilising regional and local potential.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The European Union is facing an economic, financial and social crisis at present. The policy of deindustrialisation pursued in recent years has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, the relocation of European industry to third countries and to a 10% unemployment rate, which is even 20% among young people, thereby jeopardising the EU’s competitiveness. I believe that the European Union needs to make huge investments in the transport and energy infrastructure, in agriculture, health, education and research but, above all, in sustainable economic development. The development of industrial production and, by extension, the creation of jobs in the EU requires investment in modernising European companies so that these developments can lead to greener production. In the next 10 years, energy efficiency must be our top priority. On top of this, the EU population is ageing and the birth rate is falling, while the high unemployment rate is affecting the sustainability of the pension systems. I believe that the time has come for the European Union to defend its fundamental principles and assets, and the biggest asset which the EU has is its 500 million European citizens.

Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the Europe 2020 strategy and its key priorities. There is a lesson to be learned from the Greek crisis: we need to act instead of reacting. A coordinated and monitored budgetary policy and supervision and regulation of the financial market are indispensable. For the sake of our citizens, we need to pay attention to investment in growth and employment, in order to reduce unemployment and to create and secure jobs. That also means strengthening the education sector and investing in education, research and innovation as cornerstones of a sustainable social market economy, and of a sustainable and more environmentally conscious economy.

Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) The 2020 strategy and the Lisbon Strategy have something in common: a belief that the economy must be managed. The Commission’s recipe of ‘competition or crisis’ unfortunately remains unchanged. The 2020 strategy states that easy access to credit and short-term thinking resulted in the behaviour which led to unsupported growth and major imbalances. However, further on in the text of the strategy, it states that the Commission will seek to improve access to capital and to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access finance. This has again sanctioned greater access to credit, which will again lead to speculation and unsupported growth. 108 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

In 1991, the Malaysian premier of the time announced the Vision 2020 project, or Vavasan 2020 in Malaysian. According to this, Malaysia was to catch up with Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan by 2020. Ladies and gentlemen, planned economies do not work, as all of our colleagues from the new Member States, including the Commissioner, can confirm.

László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, this discussion today on the Europe 2020 strategy has been extremely interesting and useful for us, the Commission, as was this morning’s discussion on economic governance. I would like to thank you for this opportunity and for all the messages you sent on this strategy. On behalf of the European Commission, I am particularly grateful to Mr van Nistelrooij, Mr Grech, Mr Cortés Lastra and Mr Hoang Ngoc for their reports. I am prepared to continue a discussion on various details and even nuances concerning the Europe 2020 strategy. However, at this time, let me concentrate my answers on some of the key aspects of the discussion with a few concluding remarks. First of all, I would like to stress once again the importance of the strong involvement of the European Parliament in the various upcoming steps linked to the Europe 2020 strategy: first of all, the opinion of the European Parliament on the integrated guidelines; secondly, at a later stage, the role of the EP as colegislator on various proposals to be made under the flagship initiatives; and not forgetting, thirdly, the next multiannual financial framework to make sure the future EU budgets better reflect the priorities set for the European Union through the Europe 2020 strategy. Let me also be very clear about the objectives of the strategy. It has a dual objective. First and foremost, it is an essential pillar of the response of the Union to the current crisis. It is an essential tool for strengthening coordination of economic policy inside the EU-27 and, of course, within the euro area. But besides this short-term objective, this new strategy is about equipping Europe with a strategy – actually, as Michel Barnier outlined in his opening statement, a programme for action – to enable the European Union to exit the economic crisis by restoring economic growth and making sure this growth translates into more and better jobs. But we must aim for a different kind of job creation than in the past – a more sustainable one, not only in ecological terms but also economically, socially and financially sustainable. It is about restoring a competitive European Union capable of ensuring the sustainability of its unique social model – a competitive EU that is a global leader in terms of tackling climate change, an EU that invests more in its people through more and better education and, finally, an EU that strengthens social cohesion by combating poverty. Of course, as outlined in the Commission’s conclusions during this morning’s debate, this return to strong growth is only possible if we make sure that in the coming years, our Member States undertake the necessary fiscal consolidation, taking account of their respective starting points, not undermining a fragile recovery, and looking at the expenditure side at the same time as the revenue side. These are all very important elements. I would like to stress once again the importance and the complexity of the fiscal problems that are currently on the agenda, but I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that this financial and economic crisis is much more complex than just speaking about budget deficits. At the root of the crisis, you will find a fundamental malfunctioning of the financial sector, starting with the banking sector, the correction of which is also essential if we want to start a sustainable recovery from this situation. We also have to address other causes of the recent recession – like the lack of an industrial policy and, to some extent, the lack of a complete success of our previous strategies – to achieve a knowledge-based economic growth and spread this growth to every region, every corner of the European Union. That is why we have to reinforce our efforts in terms of economic governance, reinforce our efforts for financial regulation, and also achieve better economic, social and territorial cohesion. Altogether, I strongly believe that there is no alternative for Europe but to launch this strategy and to launch it very quickly. If Europe does not restore its growth path, it will decline economically and will therefore also decline politically. While we are discussing this new strategy, most of our main trading partners have not only already put in place 10-year long-term social economic development strategies but they are already implementing them. But, if there is one lesson to be learned from the current economic crisis and from its predecessor, the Lisbon Strategy – and I agree with Mr Kelly that often this Lisbon Strategy is exposed to too harsh a criticism – it is that delivery of reforms is key for success. It is therefore urgent to launch Europe 2020 at the June European 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 109

Council and make sure that both the EU and its Member States start the implementation immediately thereafter. At this point, I would also like to thank the Spanish Presidency for the efforts it made in bringing together the Member States and for supporting this strategy in recent months and, no doubt, in the coming weeks. There can be no delay, considering the current economic situation and the crisis we are currently going through. We owe it to the citizens to provide them with solutions to exit the current crisis and enhance the coordination of economic policies, while, at the same time, preparing a return to smart, sustainable and inclusive economic growth. By acting together in a coordinated way, we will have the necessary weight to be successful on the global stage as well. The Commission counts on Parliament’s support in making sure the Europe 2020 strategy can be launched rapidly and successfully.

Lambert van Nistelrooij, rapporteur. – (NL) Following the debate, I should like to express my thanks for your support for my report. I wish to make a couple more comments; to raise a few points about social and economic governance in the short term. The financial side has attracted sufficient attention and has been made a major priority. We have also been able to discuss the medium term this afternoon and make several comments on this. We shall be including everything in a Parliament resolution that we shall be discussing in this Chamber before the June summit. I wish to make two more comments: one about governance. It has been asked whose strategy this actually is. One of Lisbon’s faults was that the decentralised parties – the municipalities, the regions, our partners – were not sufficiently involved in the process. Therefore, I propose a territorial pact with the regions, towns and cities, in addition to the agreement in the Council with the Member States and the Commission. Otherwise, this will happen again, and we shall be talking about, rather than to, the regions, our partners. If these things do not reach citizens this time, I know one thing for sure, and that is that one can deck out large flagships, but they will soon be more flag than ship. Participation in the Lisbon Strategy and the EU 2020 strategy should be made more exciting. Indeed, this is possible, by saying when it comes to providing subsidies, providing encouragement, that those who stick their necks out, who also provide financing, can participate. The whole thing is far too flat. Therefore, I invite the Commission to enter into a territorial pact with the regions, towns and cities. Finally, integrated policy, particularly across sectors, is crucial; the fragmentation of all kinds of new financing structures does no good and will not help us achieve this agenda. My report concerns synergy between research, development, innovation, production and employment in Europe. We must fight against fragmentation, and so I urge Commissioner Andor to keep the European Social Fund intact in the regulations, and not to split it up as is sometimes suggested in this House.

Louis Grech, rapporteur. – (MT) In the little time I have available, I would like to reply to a few of my fellow Members’ comments on my report. I agree with Malcolm Harbour in that there does not seem to be much willingness to consider the Single Market as being the fundamental tool in the 2020 strategy – which is still not properly defined and developed. This is a real shame, considering that a Single Market that embraces a wider and more holistic perspective can be among the top – if not the top – initiatives to provide European citizens with a better quality of life within the Union’s strategy. Evelyne Gebhardt is also right in saying that today, it is clear that the Single Market, within the scope of the 2020 strategy, requires new momentum that calls for strong leadership on the part of all the Union’s institutions, especially from the Commission’s side, so that the Single Market can once again restore confidence and trust in our citizens. To conclude, Madam President, we need to ensure that the new 2020 agenda does not become over-ambitious and over-burdened, since this will lead to an agenda full of priorities where nothing gets implemented, as happened the last time round.

Liem Hoang Ngoc, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two taboos have been broken in recent weeks. Firstly, the ECB can now monetise sovereign debts. Secondly, EU expenditure can now be financed by borrowing and, in particular, when the stabilisation and support funds are created. 110 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

There is a third taboo, which unfortunately has not been broken, and it is the Stability and Growth Pact, which some Members of this House are dogmatically demanding be strengthened. Commissioners, we socialists are in favour of federalism. We are in favour of the coordination of budget policies. However, if the coordination of budget policies means overriding national parliaments so as to put their citizens on a starvation diet, then I fear that that might be a fine EU idea which will itself end up starving to death. This is the real threat which we are all facing at the moment. Commissioners, the austerity plans in Greece, Spain, Portugal and France do not have any chance of succeeding. I ask you to acknowledge this.

Ricardo Cortés Lastra, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members for their contributions and the climate of constructive criticism that has prevailed during the course of this important debate. This report on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to Lisbon and Europe 2020 strategy objectives represents one of the key contributions of the European Parliament to the future Europe 2020 strategy for growth and employment, one of the priorities of the Spanish Presidency. The report highlights job creation, the fostering of a sustainable economy, education and training to promote development, employment and competitiveness, as well as the key role of investment in research and development, bearing in mind the need to adopt specific measures for regions with natural handicaps. However, it will not be possible to implement the Europe 2020 strategy successfully without the participation and full approval of regional and local authorities, as well as that of civil society. Regions not only contribute to project cofinancing, but are also capable of gauging the needs of citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises better due to their proximity, as well as being in a position to establish a direct link with universities and innovation centres, thus promoting the knowledge triangle. In this context, Cohesion policy is not merely a source of stable financial allocations, but also represents a powerful tool in the economic development of all European regions. Its objectives of eliminating existing inequalities between regions and of introducing economic, social and territorial cohesion, along with its basic principles of an integrated focus, multi-level governance and genuine collaboration, are all essential elements to the success of the Europe 2020 strategy.

President. – The item is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 20 May 2010). Written statements (Rule 149)

Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) The EU 2020 strategy’s principles are vital for boosting the European economy’s competitiveness. Structural reforms are the key to exiting the crisis we are in. The solutions deployed so far for exiting the crisis have not been targeting the causes which have put us in this situation. The causes of the crisis can only be eliminated through structural reforms. We must focus more attention on our economies’ innovative ability because this is where the key to EU competitiveness will lie in the coming period. We need to adopt a coordinated approach for using funds earmarked for innovation and regional development. Innovation must feature as part of regional development. Innovation was an objective in the Lisbon Strategy but, unfortunately, it only remained a principle on paper. There were very wide variations in the progress made by Member States and the overall objective was not achieved. This is the reason why I am urging all Member States to show some responsibility and abide by the commitments which they also take on. The Commission should also play a more active role in coordinating the implementation of this strategy in order to prevent it from failing as disastrously as the Lisbon Strategy.

Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU 2020 strategy proposed by the European Commission to stimulate growth and employment in the EU emphasises research and innovation. Various instruments are already providing a great deal of support to projects being carried out in these fields: the Structural Funds, the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme. These various programmes provide finance to the tune of EUR 86 billion for the period 2007-2013. The EU 2020 strategy also emphasises the interdependence of the various EU policies. For efficiency purposes, it is therefore essential to establish synergies between the various instruments. This being the case, I welcome the importance given by the rapporteur to the role which 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 111

a strong, properly financed regional policy can play in the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy objectives. I also agree with the rapporteur that potential beneficiaries are not always fully aware of the possibilities that exist for establishing synergies in the area of funding. I therefore think it crucial to improve communication, for example, on the model of the Practical Guide to EU Funding Opportunities for Research and Development.

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the context of discussions on the effective use of all funds earmarked by the European Union for research and innovation, we have to raise the problem of appropriate promotion for innovative solutions which arise in individual Member States. It often happens that as a result of the poor flow of information, investment is made in research projects which have already been carried out by scientists in one of the Member States. This is a waste of EU money, which we cannot allow in a time of economic crisis. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on improving communication and supporting the purchase by the European Union of existing new technologies, which will also allow additional financial support for innovative businesses. It is also important to finance soft projects such as training and the dissemination of knowledge about the significance of innovation for economic growth, better informing of local entities about the programmes which are available, and also flexibility in defining the conditions for granting support, so that countries which currently have a low level of innovation can, by development of the sector concerned, contribute to creation of the competitive advantage of the European Union on a global scale. It is also essential to create incentives to investment in local research centres. Small and medium-sized enterprises cannot afford to do this, while large, international firms do not want to use them, which deepens the disproportions in the level of innovation between the Member States of the European Union.

11. University Business Dialogue (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Pál Schmitt, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on university-business dialogue: a new partnership for the modernisation of Europe’s universities (COM(2009)0158 – 2009/2099(INI)) (A7-0108/2010).

Marco Scurria, deputising for the rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking in place of our rapporteur, Mr Schmitt, who – as announced by President Buzek at the beginning of the session – has tendered his resignation from the European Parliament in order to take up duties in his own country, and to whom I send my regards and my best wishes, because he has done a great job. This report is the result of his intentions, and it was carried in our Committee on Culture and Education by an overwhelming majority, with just a single vote against, for which I should like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have contributed to this report, both on my behalf and on behalf of Mr Schmitt. Before leaving for Strasbourg, on Monday I went to Rome to visit a private training centre that is achieving superb results, because it has succeeded in placing the vast majority of young people that it trains over the course of time. When I spoke to the director of this centre, he said to me: ‘Please help us, you in Europe too, to follow this course, to add weight to training that moves in this direction, which enables so many young people to find work; help us also to modernise the relationship between universities and business.’ The thrust of this report lies precisely here: today, 20% of young Europeans are out of work, of whom about 30% are graduates; a percentage that is so high that we are forced to ask ourselves very seriously about how we should approach the issue of training young people for entry into the world of work in these times, in this Europe, in this globalised world. We have then, in this report, wished to address directly the issue of how to improve the link between universities and business, highlighting certain key points: first, by giving priority to one of the strong points available to the European Union, namely the ability of its citizens to adapt to the constantly changing circumstances of the labour market; the fact that there is no longer any such thing as a ‘job for life’, and that these days, training and retraining is essential. The first point then is lifelong learning; the second, which, in our view, is of fundamental importance, is that of mobility. These days it is important, as we highlight in this report, to emphasise that mobility between countries and between universities and business is a key to achieving greater cooperation between the two worlds, and we encourage not only the extension and expansion of individual mobility schemes such as Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs and Erasmus for Apprentices, but also the organisation of postgraduate 112 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

European Masters of Excellence programmes, in cooperation with different universities and with the active participation of businesses. Furthermore, more entrepreneurial universities should be encouraged. Such a result can be achieved, for example, through the introduction of a system of knowledge vouchers such as that currently in use in a number of Member States, enabling SMEs, in particular, to improve their research capacity without compromising the independence, autonomy and public character of universities. The third key point is that of research, namely, we see greater researcher mobility – in both the short and long term, across nations and between academia and business – as imperative in enhancing knowledge transfer. Finally, the possibility of extending the good practices in this area that exist in so many countries. I shall conclude, Madam President, by illustrating, in relation to this report and the outstanding work done by the committee, how convinced we are that Europe will not win the battle against China or other developing nations by means of low wages, but by having highly qualified professionals and highly competitive businesses, and in this process, it is of maximum importance that universities and businesses realise how they are interdependent, and that the authorities at all levels contribute to developing more efficient methods of cooperation.

Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, this report is the answer to our communication on the dialogue between universities and business. I wish to thank all those who have contributed to it, in particular, members of the Committee on Culture and Education and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. I would especially like to thank Mr Schmitt, the outgoing Member, who was rapporteur.

Cooperation between universities and business is one option – no, it is more than that, it is indispensable. The only question is what form it should take so that it is appropriate for both sides. Better, more intensive cooperation encourages the exchange and dissemination of knowledge, both in business and in academia. Contact with real problems and solutions through adapted curricula and internships enriches students’ learning experience and prepares them for their future careers. Regular and long-term cooperation creates confidence and it can lead to ambitious partnerships and cooperation projects, which bring benefits for business and universities alike in terms of research, development and practice. New trends in the labour market and new technologies are changing the demands on graduates and will continue to do so in the decades ahead. In order that the quality of life in Europe can be maintained and improved, workers must be able continuously to update their knowledge and skills, and this is going to be all the more necessary if we take into account Europe’s demographic development in these years ahead. We need an open, flexible and dynamic dialogue between everyone involved. For this reason, the European Commission has launched the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue. The forum offers all of its participants a platform for discussion and exchange of best practice and mutual learning. The European Commission has a moderating role here, helping to remove barriers between these two worlds. So far, the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue has met three times in Brussels and held a number of thematic forums on topics such as curriculum development, entrepreneurship, lifelong learning, knowledge transfer, university management, mobility, new skills for new jobs and cooperation between universities and business in the current crisis. In collaboration with the European Training Foundation (ETF), a thematic forum devoted to third countries was held in the premises of the European Parliament in December 2009. This was followed up in March 2010 by a thematic forum which explored the possibility of expanding the forum’s sphere of action to cooperation between schools and business. Very recently, on 4 and 5 May, the most recent EU Forum for University Business Dialogue was held in Brussels with the following priorities: cooperation between universities and small and medium-sized enterprises, cooperation between universities and business on innovation, cooperation between universities and business on the quality of education. These issues were also addressed in your report. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mrs Pack for her participation in the opening meeting of this event. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 113

We very much appreciate the positive response to our communication which is reflected in your report today. We need more cooperation between stakeholders, based on mutual trust, respect and transparency. We are therefore not just promoting economic growth, but also generating social benefits in the widest sense of the word, by helping people to make their way successfully through a rapidly changing world of society and work.

Georgios Papanikolaou, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Madam President, I should like to start by wishing Mr Schmitt, who has left the European Parliament, every success in his new position. It was a pleasure to work with him, at least for the period that I have been in Parliament. The development triptych of education, research and innovation, as we stressed earlier for the 2020 strategy, is crucial to the future of Europe. However, if we are to achieve these objectives, it is true that we also need to recognise the difficulties which our young people are encountering nowadays in the process of transition from study to professional life, which is also being prolonged by the crisis. We also all recognise that, in numerous Member States, the education system has weak points, both in terms of standards and in training pupils and students. Training, let us be in no doubt, cannot be examined separately from the contemporary requirements of the labour market and, on this point, we need to make use of every means at our disposal to help young people. Mr Scurria referred earlier to mobility. I would add new technologies and, of course, apart from lifelong learning and formal education, by which I mean universities, we also have non-formal education and informal education, which also give young people skills. Education and work are interwoven concepts. Consequently, we need to pursue and strengthen dialogue between education systems and work providers. We all say that our young people need to be equipped with qualifications and skills and we also all know full well that, today, young people with no skills have fewer opportunities. What sort of skills? Skills which the labour market needs, skills which will encourage innovative ideas and initiatives. There is no time to lose, unemployment is rising and we all have a duty to engage in this dialogue and to integrate this cooperation as quickly as possible.

Mitro Repo, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too congratulate Mr Schmitt on his appointment as Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament. Clearly, European universities must be developed continuously for us to be able to respond to new social challenges and ever-increasing international competition. We simply cannot afford to remain where we are. High levels of skills and expertise and the knowledgebased economy are, and must be, the foundation of European society now and in the future. In this sense, it is important that more attention is paid to the dialogue between our universities and business, and that we try to eliminate the bottlenecks that hamper cooperation. These include the problems connected with intellectual property rights and innovation. In Finland, we have an excellent example of cooperation between business and universities, the Aalto University, named after the famous Finnish architect, Alvar Aalto. It is a multidisciplinary university which represents a merger of three highly respected universities: the Helsinki School of Economics, the University of Art and Design Helsinki, and the Helsinki University of Technology. Economics, aesthetics and technology are in symbiosis with one another. The interdisciplinary approach, especially the new platforms – design, media and surface factor – allow academic teams to carry out research and students to work closely with companies and organisations. First-rate, new research data is transferred directly to education, meaning that the students can avail themselves directly of the latest information needed in the employment market. We must, however, carefully consider how and on what terms we want to improve cooperation between companies and universities. It is crucially important that we adhere to the principle of the independence of universities and the tradition of free research in all circumstances. Ultimately, the danger is the privatisation of the university sector, but is this the direction we in Europe want to go in?

The basis of an independent university system is adequate public funding. Making universities dependent on private funding is worrying, because it allows the transfer of power from the university community to those providing the finance. That is why special attention needs to be paid to the administration systems of universities. 114 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Morten Løkkegaard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I would like to thank the various rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation. As shadow rapporteur on this matter for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am very pleased with the report. We have managed to agree on a report containing recommendations for improving cooperation between universities and business – a report that, above all, contains very specific initiatives for modernising universities. Europe’s universities, as we all know, limp behind the world’s elite, a fact which also has major consequences for Europe’s competitiveness. It is therefore not surprising that education, research and innovation have been given high priority in both the Commission’s work programme and the Europe 2020 strategy. Of course, I hope that the majority will be in favour of following this upgrading of the priority status of this policy with an increase in funding, too. We are currently in a situation where we need to think outside the conventional framework of our education systems and we can start by breaking down the walls between universities and the area that benefits from the universities’ output, namely business. We are focusing on two things, in particular, and I will say a few words about these. Firstly, I would like to mention the modernisation of the curriculum. It is important for there to be greater focus on interdisciplinarity and development of the skills that are actually demanded by the business world. University courses must reflect, to a greater extent, the requirements of the labour market and they must be set up with that in mind, for example, in the form of more business-relevant curricula, which, in turn, the business community should actively help to keep up-to-date. The second thing I would like to mention is mobility. It is important to reduce the gap between universities and business and for there to be people who bridge this gap. Work placements are a good example of how university students can gain practical experience and then subsequently bring that experience into their studies. At the same time, these students are better prepared to enter the labour market after their courses. Practical placements should definitely be supported and promoted in Europe. Research can also build bridges between universities and business. I have talked before about a personal hobbyhorse of mine, namely the Danish business PhD scheme, whereby an employee in an undertaking in Denmark can gain a PhD at a Danish university with the help of a public grant. In fact, I held an evening of debate in Brussels on 3 February 2010 in Parliament with broad participation from both the business world and universities, and the view that evening was pretty clear: an EU business PhD scheme would be a most useful tool for promoting specialised business-relevant research, as well as competitiveness, in European business, thereby creating more jobs and economic growth. It thus received absolutely unequivocal support from both parties. Moreover, it is a most effective method of bringing business experience and practical knowledge into universities and thereby making the teaching more focused on skills and knowledge that are relevant to the demands of the labour market. The scheme could be integrated into the existing Marie Curie programme, possibly within the Industrial Academic Partnership programme, and would help to strengthen the pursuit of the goals of the Bologna process. I am pleased that, tomorrow, we will be able to adopt a report that contains a recommendation to establish just such a scheme.

Malika Benarab-Attou, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight the value of this report in opening up the debate, within our Parliament, on the position and role of universities in Europe. These universities must, in fact, be encouraged to participate in European integration from the inside rather than to contemplate it from the outside. Over the course of European history, universities have always been places where meetings are held, knowledge is exchanged, thought is developed and training is delivered in the various disciplines. Today, the effects of the crisis and of unemployment must not result in universities restricting their role as providers of professionals who are immediately ready to work because, in our changing societies, the ability to change jobs is becoming vital. On the contrary, universities, as places of higher education and training, must also enable learners to become critical, analytical thinkers, because this will enable them to understand the world in which we live and to use their professional skills wisely. European universities must create the conditions for lifelong learning, contribute to the enrichment of intellectual life and play a central role in the knowledge-based society of today’s digital age.

Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Education is definitely our priority objective, but what sort of education? In one issue of The Economist magazine, a study was published according to which 80% of the skills and expertise considered key by managers of large enterprises are not taught at all at universities. The result of this is terrible unemployment figures for university graduates. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 115

We can perhaps all agree that the solution is to develop links between businesses and universities. This has been pointed out repeatedly in various documents, including the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. The key issue, however, is how to achieve these links. In my view, the correct way would be to incorporate work experience stints lasting several months, not only for students but also for professors, as integral components of the lifelong learning process. There is a need not only for students but also for teachers to maintain regular contact with the real world. The cofinancing of such work experience stints should become an integral component of university budgets. For businesses, this process means investing considerable effort and often considerable costs as well.

Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, please forgive me, but I am going to have to destroy the wonderful unanimity which is prevailing in this Chamber. The resolution which is being put to us today relates to the challenges in the relations between universities and business in connection with the implementation of the notorious Bologna process. An enormous amount of work has been done in the two committees that examined this text, and numerous improvements have been made to the original text to take account of the real challenges in this area. We are all trying to understand the aspirations of our young people. We are all concerned to provide young people with the best tools to help them find a job. The unemployment rate among young people is, in fact, unacceptable. Yet does this mean that, as certain paragraphs in the resolution indicate, we should consider universities merely as machines capable of meeting the needs of companies and the world of business, to the exclusion of all else? We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left Group do not think so.

No, the wealth of our universities also lies in producing an increasing number of students with rich and diversified intellectual knowledge, not in simply ensuring that they acquire work-related skills. That is the real key to lifelong mobility. In many EU countries, there is a growing lack of understanding among those in the university world. We in the GUE/NGL Group think that we should listen to them. We are asking for a comprehensive report on the Bologna process to be drafted. We will not be voting for this resolution, which invites universities to merely meet the needs of business, ignoring the other stakeholders in economic and social life, which is not limited solely to businesses.

Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, why does this report seek more international cooperation at university level? Universities have shared information with each other for centuries, before the EU existed. The Renaissance, spanning the 14th to 17th centuries, was a surge in intellectual development spreading from Florence right across Europe through the universities. The arts, music, literature and the sciences became vibrant and spawned countless works which enrich us still today. So what of modernisation? Do you look for the technological developments of the future? If so, the scene today is just as promising. Universities elsewhere may be overtaking us, but they owe their beginnings to European universities. This tide of higher education often returns home. The universities of Britain take postgraduate students from across the world, pursuing their studies further and sharing their information, not least with commerce and industry. But we do not need to politicise higher education through programmes such as the Bologna and the Erasmus processes. We do not need programmes on multiculturalism or multilingualism or any other ‘-ism’, that will happen anyway as students from around the world meet and mix on campus. If you wish to serve the modern and future worlds, see that universities are funded properly, encourage those students who wish to study abroad, then simply leave them all alone to get on with it.

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Madam President, as we know, the interlinking of business and universities has been a reality for some time. This situation has led to the current mindless ‘one solution fits all’ approach whereby partly privatised universities are acting as controlling enterprises with the supposed aim of planning educational output. Believing that such a partnership will contribute to modernisation all of a sudden only serves to show how lazy and uncreative our education policy debate is.

We are living in a time of technical revolution. Digital systems are changing us, they are changing the way we act and think, our cognitive skills and, ultimately, our brains. What we need therefore is a revolution in research and teaching that will adapt to this situation. In such a time of change, continuing to preach the dependence of universities on this subsystem of our society as a step towards modernisation, despite the 116 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

fact that such an interlinking has not led to any significant improvements in the past ten years, also ignores the importance of teaching and research for society as a whole. What we really need in this time of change are scientific curiosity and creativity, but these arise from the possibility of free thinking and from not yielding to pressure, and that includes to the demands of the business world. A young mind, a young brain with potential must be able to move freely. What you have presented here in your report is the exact opposite. This report reflects outdated and failed thinking. The entire report is uncreative and I would even dare to say useless. It is clumsy phrases chained together across many pages to hide the fact that it lacks substance. In the Austrian education system, you would be given a straight fail for this report.

Doris Pack (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to say to Mr Ehrenhauser that he should pay a visit to our universities and see for himself how creative they are and also that no student is in a position of dependence just because he or she might have been granted a bursary from business. That also applies to Mr Repo and Mrs Vergiat. We should focus on making sure that cooperation between education and business takes into account small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular. We also need to ensure that SMEs are given better, faster and less bureaucratic treatment in the context of research programmes. That is important and has also been stated in this report, Mr Ehrenhauser. If you had read that, you would have realised this is something totally new.

Therefore, what we need in this area is enhanced cooperation when it comes to universities and SMEs. We need this cooperation at local, national and international level. If business and universities cooperate, we cannot assume that one will necessarily learn from the other, because one is training those whom the other might someday employ in their company. In this respect, we should ensure that money can flow from business to universities, because public authorities have less and less money and cannot afford to make additional resources available in these areas. I am grateful to every business entrepreneur and to small, medium-sized and large businesses that provide money for education because what they are doing, ultimately, is educating the next generation which will further promote economic growth. We must support universities. We need to ensure closer cooperation between public institutions and the private sector and provide scope for private innovation funds. This report therefore strikes precisely the right chord. Obviously, we also need people to be trained by those who know what it means to have an entrepreneurial spirit and who know what it means to be a manager. We must ensure that teachers and students are equipped with the right box of tools and that we encourage business to participate in actively developing teaching materials for entrepreneurship. The comments made by Mr Repo and Mr Ehrenhauser are not in line with the facts and I would like to object to the report being called stupid and dull. No, it is good. I wish to thank Mr Pál Schmitt, who is presently speaker of the Hungarian Parliament.

Mary Honeyball (S&D). – Madam President, most of us here are agreed that we should be supporting our universities and supporting our young people. Although I believe – as I think most of us do – that universities are, and should be, autonomous, of course, they also live in the real world and need to take account of what happens in the real world, not least because their students will be leaving them to get jobs in the real world. I think that is really what we are talking about. We are talking about how the universities can maintain their academic excellence, yet prepare their students for work. That is why this dialogue – the contact between universities and the business sector – is so very important, why we have spent such a long time working it through and why Mr Schmitt spent such a long time writing this report. What we need is a real dialogue between employers, and employers at all levels, I think. I agree that SMEs are important but I think we are also looking at talking to large corporations and also to the public sector, to government employers at national, regional and at local level, the health sector and really all those who employ people, because it is in that way that we will make sure that we get the level of graduate unemployment down and we give our young people a chance. Within this, it is very important that we maintain adequate levels of state funding for universities – something which I know in some Member States is becoming more and more of an issue. Unless we get that money 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 117

and unless universities are properly and adequately funded, we will not have balanced courses, we will not have balanced discipline and we will not be able to give our students the chances that they need. So, I urge everyone to support this important report and to vote for it so that we can go forward and have a bright future for universities, for students and for employers.

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Firstly, I would like to express my thanks for the recognition given to my amendment, which invites countries from outside the European Union to the forum for dialogue to which Mr Oettinger referred. This will allow us to benefit from the experience of American universities, which, in my opinion, are the best universities in the world, and it would be good if our universities could benefit from them and, at the same time, share our experience with other countries, such as the countries of the Former Soviet Union. However, what seems to me, here, to be the most important aspect is to emphasise that in this dialogue between the worlds of business and universities, we should not forget that the university – a school of higher education – is an independent, autonomous institution whose objective is the search for truth – a disinterested search for truth. This is how universities arose in Italy, Germany, France and Poland, and I think we should not forget that this goal should also guide universities today, while cooperation with business should not hinder or restrict that noble work of searching for truth – the disinterested search for truth.

Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, universities are the backbone of Europe; they are probably our best creation. There was Europe in the 12th century universities of Bologna, Coimbra, Oxford and the Sorbonne long before there was political Europe. However, the world of business and business management that we know today is 30 or 40 years old: it dates from since the War. This is one of the few times that a left-leaning Member will ask you a conservative question, so make the most of it. Do we really want to dedicate ourselves to a centuries-old European creation or to a business ideology that is a few decades old? Dedicating ourselves to the world of business, as we have been doing in recent decades, is dedicating ourselves inevitably to the short term, and that is what this is about. Training plastics engineers now to be unemployed in three years time, to then train a type of financial manager who will be unemployed after four years; I want to ask the European countries of Portugal and Estonia a question. What would you prefer? Would you prefer your children to have an education that follows the short-term dictates of the market, or would you prefer that they have the most solid and broadest education possible as has always been the case in European universities? Would you prefer their education to enable them to be in the labour market now, or for the next few decades and the rest of their lives? I leave you with that question.

Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) First, I would like to congratulate our fellow Member, the author of this report, on his election to the new and important role of speaker of the Hungarian Parliament. I would also like to take this opportunity to express the hope that Pál Schmitt, through his wisdom, broad political outlook, and calm and prudent speeches in this role, will help to make a lasting improvement in Hungary’s coexistence with her neighbours. I would now like to turn to the new partnership for modernising universities. In my opinion, the key statement in the entire text is expressed in the introduction to item 2 of the draft opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, where it is written, and I quote, ‘that the challenges mentioned in the Commission’s notification are not new and so far, there has not been a successful response to them.’ To put it more simply, the Commission has produced a vision, repeating and issuing challenges, possibly in the hope that this will achieve something, but there has unfortunately been no significant improvement in this area so far. Perhaps it would therefore be wiser, Commissioner, to conduct a thorough analysis as soon as possible into the reasons why the previous challenges did not produce the desired result, and then to come up with a pragmatic definition of new and genuinely effective measures for achieving real cooperation of a high standard between universities and manufacturing companies.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, Pádraig Ó Conaire once wrote a book entitled ‘M’Asal Beag Dubh’ [My Small Black Donkey] in which he said that the donkey was standing ‘with his back to the wind, ignoring life while life ignored him’. That description could apply, with respect, to university professors in the past as well, as they lived in their ivory towers immune from the world and the world immune from them, but, thankfully, that now has all changed, and changed utterly. In recent times, I have seen three great examples of that. 118 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Firstly, in my own town of Tralee, the Institute was awarded the European Entrepreneurial Region of the Year Award for their work in business and in entrepreneurial establishment. Secondly, in my conversations and meetings with the new professor and President of University College Cork, I have learned that they are really getting engaged with the business community and vice versa. Most encouraging of all is that we were in Santiago a few weeks ago and the university there had developed a fantastic model of involvement with the business community and had even created its own bank to encourage start-up companies who often cannot get funding to get the companies going. We at European Union level can do a lot in encouraging them, creating the opportunities for development, and also establishing the coordination of research that can be eventually turned into the knowledge economy and the smart jobs we are talking about.

Nessa Childers (S&D). – Madam President, academics are, by nature, an argumentative group, so as a former university lecturer and course director, it has been with great interest that I followed a very public debate in Ireland between academics over the future direction of Irish universities. Where these academics converge is in the agreement that universities remain one of Europe’s great innovations and that their continued success is essential to the future social, political and economic success of the European Union. However, economic success must not be confused with social development, in society as in university; and so this crossroads we have come to in third-level education, with traditional student-based learning in one direction, and the demands of modern business-driven economies in the other, must be navigated with the greatest of care. Profit growth and modern development are integral elements of today’s universities, but, with many faculties unrelated to business and profit-driven professions – and I am thinking of arts and the humanities in particular – it is important that, in order to retain a balance between both economic and intellectual success, modern universities retain some essential academic links with their more financially naive past.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Unfortunately, education curricula place too much emphasis on theory, which means that students encounter problems when they enter the labour market. Their education must be provided more on the basis of a practical perspective and dealing with real problems encountered in the economic environment. This is why I believe that relations between the academic and business worlds need to be strengthened. In addition, universities need to be more receptive to the business world so that they can better adapt their education offering to the labour market’s demands. This will enable students to acquire the qualifications and develop the skills required by employers. A number of Member States, such as France, Germany, Italy, the UK or Spain, have been developing partnerships between universities and the business world for a number of years. In Romania last year, a project was launched with European Union funding, which involved 20 faculties receiving new curricula adapted to the labour market’s current requirements. One of the project’s major benefits is that it cuts unemployment by improving the quality of the educational offering and reduces the number of graduates with degrees which cannot be adapted to the labour market. These partnerships must not be confined just to within individual Member States. In the current situation, I support the promotion and extension of the Erasmus programmes for young entrepreneurs and for trainees.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) I wish to begin by congratulating Pál Schmitt for the coherent and relevant report on the current situation in higher education. We have a major problem, which is that, at the moment, we are turning out unemployed people in every one of the European Union’s 27 Member States rather than young people who are completely geared up for the labour market. There is a huge chasm between what young people are learning at school and what employers require on the labour market. This problem is exacerbated even further as we are currently in an economic and financial crisis, where there is also an obvious jobs crisis. The European Union has been a player on the global market for very many years, with an economy based, in particular, on knowledge and innovation. If we actually want to have an economy based on knowledge and innovation, we must progress beyond the discussion stage and support more investment and 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 119

public-private partnerships and encourage partnerships between universities and the business world so that discoveries which are made and the results of scientific research in universities can be utilised in the real economy. I, too, was in Santiago de Compostela with Seán Kelly where we visited the local university. I can tell you that we saw a very clear model for funding start-ups and small firms launched by students where the university provides credit to students without any guarantees. The products successfully developed by the students at the university have an immediate practical use in the local economy. This is a model which we need to promote and replicate across the EU.

Piotr Borys (PPE). – (PL) This report is related to the important objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. I will remind you all that over a 10-year period, the number of people with higher education is to rise by 10% – from 30% to 40% – and spending by Member States on research and development is to rise to 3%. It is mainly the universities which will benefit from this money and carry out the research. We should, therefore, thoroughly investigate the systems which have been the most successful in other parts of the world. I am talking about American methods related to partnership between business and university, and how to adapt all the results of scientific research to the market, so that what are often wonderful scientific achievements are not left on the shelf but are put to practical use, which means in business. Another matter is the need for the effective introduction of a system of education grants and attracting businesses into the system. Doctoral programmes should be strongly supported, using the European Social Fund and programmes which are already in existence, such as the Marie Curie programme. How can clear schemes of public partnership be created, mainly as part of technology parks and enterprise incubators? How can we get involved with small and medium-sized enterprises, and also get students involved with SMEs? All these things are very important. I think it is important not to invest exclusively in the area of technology, either, which is an important area. We should also invest in a system for arts and humanities, which should also have an area of cooperation with public bodies and with business. A final remark: today, China has as many students as there are in the whole of the European Union. Therefore, talking about achieving common objectives is our common task, and I think the participation of business in the dialogue will be an effective way of beating competition from around the world.

Teresa Riera Madurell, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy would like to express our support for the work of the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue. We believe it to be a good instrument with which to strengthen such important relations as those between the public and private sectors. We are convinced that in times of economic crisis, when young people have greater problems in finding a job and companies are facing greater competitive pressure, this collaboration represents an added economic and social value that affords it even greater priority. It is a dialogue and cooperation that must flow in both directions, from supply and from demand, and must extend to national and regional levels in order to identify the best practices, the best policies and the best instruments. We agree that fostering personnel mobility between research centres and companies, promoting private sector investment in R&D, and ensuring that universities provide the job market with well prepared personnel, are all essential actions. The European Union is already taking important steps in this direction, such as support for technological platforms, for joint technological initiatives and any public-private partnership formula, as well as for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, given that these are extremely interesting initiatives on the right track, and ones that we must continue to encourage. Lastly, Madam President, those of us on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work and on his appointment.

Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) The Forum for University Business Dialogue which has been opened by the Commission strengthens cooperation between universities and businesses so that universities can be helped to initiate partnerships by making use of their scientific and technological 120 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

knowledge. This is a good idea if we want to make the European economy dynamic and truly competitive. I would like, however, to point out several flaws in the Commission’s proposal. Some of the recommendations are too general and leave too much open to interpretation, such as the term ‘university’ in relation to all institutions of tertiary education, irrespective of their status. There are no research instruments for determining shortages of qualifications in the labour market. Neither is there mention of any kind of system for education and training which would allow those shortages to be reduced. With regard to the lifelong learning programme, it does not take account of the particular situation of people who do not possess a university education. In summary, the chosen course of strengthening cooperation between universities and businesses does appear to answer the current needs of the market. The most important roles, however, fall to the Member States, which have to ensure effective implementation of the proposals if we want to achieve the intended plans. (Applause)

Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following the first review of the Lisbon Strategy, the European Union is already looking towards the next 10 years. Among the priorities of Europe 2020, that of smart growth based on both the knowledge economy and on innovation stands out. The key for proceeding in this direction is integrating the systems of secondary and tertiary education with the labour market. The course to follow entails renewed attention to the world of work together with the learning of personal skills, or rather the so-called ‘knowledge triangle’. Europe can therefore secure its relevance in the international arena if, in science and innovation, it acts in a more unified manner and involves everyone in a position to determine both growth and development. In this context, systems of appraising universities in order to establish and measure efficiency and quality standards are more than opportune. It is therefore time to move towards that new dimension of European unity known as the ‘fifth freedom’, or the free movement of knowledge and talent. To this end, there must be a European proposal to simplify the work of young researchers via organic links with business in order to meet their development needs. In order to attain these objectives, there must be greater investment in programmes such as Erasmus. By so doing, study beyond national borders with guaranteed academic recognition for students will be encouraged.

Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) At a time when we need new instruments to kick-start economic growth, I believe that it is important for us to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with easier access to research and development. Many of these companies suffer due to their difficulty in accessing funding, which means that they are unable to design and develop new products or redesign existing products, thereby encountering a loss of competitiveness. What would be desirable is for universities, especially those receiving public funding, to be more receptive to the needs of the SME sector. Cutting red tape combined with an increase in public funding for research and development programmes which can generate technologies or products that can be transferred to SMEs could facilitate access to funding for these programmes under the Structural Funds. Universities can also contribute to training the SMEs’ staff as part of the lifelong learning process. The launch of a single European network of business and innovation centres is encouraging. I, too, wish to congratulate the rapporteur.

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). – (RO) We must ask ourselves what direction we want our education and research systems to go in. There is a huge amount of talk about the knowledge-based society, but I wonder whether this concept has not just become a sound bite which goes down well in the media. I think that there is too little talk about skills in this context and too much about accumulating knowledge. If you carry out a survey among students, you will see that writing essays has become a practice involving the use of a few platitudes to fill up the space requested by teachers. There are some who will need to get involved in an economic environment where the recipes for success are no longer guaranteed. I think that the business world will not be alone in facing a radical overhaul as a result of the economic and financial crisis. This will apply to universities too, which will have to undergo certain transformations so that they can adapt to an environment in constant flux, requiring the acquisition of skills and not just knowledge. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 121

Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) I wish to congratulate Pál Schmitt on two counts: on his new post and for his well-structured, comprehensive report, which will definitely enhance the effectiveness of relations between the business and academic worlds in Europe. At a time when all the strategies we have adopted are stipulating the need to have well-educated citizens, with skills which are compatible with the demands of the labour market, I feel that a specific measure aimed at improving the interconnection between both areas is welcome. I think that a change in attitude is required across the EU, along with a business environment which will help the university curriculum to adapt, just like in North America, through launching and funding specific courses. This will help familiarise students with the rigorous requirements of entrepreneurship and will also make European higher education more attractive globally. The practical impact must be to offer society added value and provide knowledge and results from the cooperation between universities and companies, thereby generating economic growth and, by extension, a better living for our citizens.

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Madam President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak again briefly. It would appear that my fellow Member does not know the difference between training and education. In times when technology is taking away most of our work, it is increasingly important that universities educate citizens into mature and analytical people. That is just what we need. We therefore need people who are capable of asking searching questions about social processes. After all, business does not set itself such an objective. Business wants to train people and is entitled to do that, that is all well and good. However, that is only a requirement from one subsystem of our society and it does not represent what we need in a society as a whole. Let me make another brief comment: we need scientific creativity and scientific curiosity. I do not accept the view, and I certainly do not believe, that business is able to buy the curiosity and the creativity that we so desperately need through their financial input. No!

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Research, scientific progress and educating students are the main roles of universities. The priorities of the Lisbon Strategy are, put briefly, a knowledge-based economy, innovation and scientific research. Even if we do not find the results of the strategy satisfying, the objectives set in the strategy are still relevant. What ways are there to put into effect these principles and objectives? Firstly, cooperation between universities, the economy and specific businesses, and the financing of scientific research and work experience by business. Secondly, exchanges of students and researchers between the universities of different countries, and increasing the funds available for their support. Thirdly, financing by businesses of student work experience placements and scientific research which they have ordered. Fourthly: mobility of staff is important in order to be able to make full use of educated people. Fifthly: development of research and development centres in the area of the economy. Finally, I would like to say that the best investment is an investment in the education of the young generation, and I mean lifelong education.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) I partially agree with the rapporteur. I wish to say that in order to achieve the EU 2020 strategy objectives, we need knowledge and innovation. We are not talking about purchasing knowledge, but about investing in an education system which is adapted to market requirements. At the moment, universities in the European Union offer researchers and students less attractive conditions than the colleges in the United States. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of money. As was also emphasised by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, Europeans are competing against each other to attract the best footballers. However, they are losing their researchers to the Americans. It is therefore absolutely necessary to revamp Europe’s universities so that they can play a decisive role in society and in an economy based on knowledge and innovation. One solution to assuage the discontent of employers, who believe that university education does not take into account the requirements of the labour market and does not prepare students to face the current climate, is for university programmes to offer students opportunities to carry out practical work placements in SMEs.

Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for a lively debate and for your many proposals and ideas. I believe that there is broad agreement in this House that the dialogue between universities and the working world and business can be beneficial for 122 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

everyone involved, for the universities themselves, researchers, lecturers, students, businesses and for society as a whole. In my opinion, this is not a case of ‘whether’ but ‘how’, that is, how we can develop dialogue and cooperation. This is about knowledge transfer, about dialogue and information exchange during education and lifelong learning, it is about cooperation in basic research and about fostering a more practical approach alongside the theoretical one in education through insight into business value creation and manufacturing. Business does not have a supplanting role here, but a complementary one, and the crucial point is that research will remain free just as teaching will. It will make its own decision in this regard; it will not be forced into this by politicians. We need a win-win situation, that is, one in which science and teaching institutions, on the one hand, and research and business, on the other, will say ‘yes’ to this partnership. Freedom of research and teaching does not mean floating in a vacuum, but being involved in society and the world of employment. For that reason, I believe that this report is a good stock-take and it makes it clear what route we need to take in order to reinforce our universities and strengthen the competitiveness of European business and technology. With our forum, we want to make a small contribution, offer a platform and consider how our forum’s activities can be supplemented. The report provides a good basis for that and is a good source of reference, and for that I am very grateful.

Marco Scurria, deputising for the rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish again to thank the Commission for its communication, which we have adopted for the most part.

I should just like to dwell on a perhaps critical aspect that has emerged in this debate, because someone emphasised how fundamental the independence of universities, freedom of research and public financing are. We are all agreed on this, and that is why I fail to understand these critical remarks, because it is enough to read the report, where, in the very first paragraphs, we have written very clearly and stress that the intellectual and financial independence of higher education institutions vis-à-vis business must be maintained and no relations of dependency on business must arise on the part of higher education. It also emphasises that universities should, in all circumstances, maintain the autonomy to decide over their curricula and governance structures. This dispels any problems or doubts whatsoever in this area, which is why I do not understand what these problems could be, unless it is a question of old-fashioned ideological exploitation. Let us accordingly really give some thought to this, since this report sets out the conditions for effectively improving the lot of our young people and our students, because there is truly no one who wants to leave hundreds of thousands of youngsters in the hands of who knows what business purposes but, on the contrary, only wants hundreds of thousands of students to have the opportunity of studying, training and working in the society that awaits them.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vice-President

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 20 May, at 12.00. Written statements (Rule 149)

Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Mr President, European graduates must have the experience and the high-quality skills required to take advantage of good career opportunities, to be competitive in the world market and to encourage entrepreneurship in Europe. When building a knowledge-based economy, dialogue and the relationship it promotes between business, research and education is very important. Although the Member States are responsible for providing education, there are major advantages in establishing cross-border links and in promoting enhanced cooperation between the European business community and European universities. I strongly support the rapporteur’s efforts to seek undertakings and commitments between universities and businesses, and I agree that this dialogue should focus not only on scientific and technological matters but on all areas of education. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 123

European graduates must have strong skills that are suitable for employment and they must have easy access to highly important programmes such as Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs and for Apprentices. Education and training courses must be restructured to recognise the needs of the workforce and of the knowledge-based economy.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In recent months, research has been undertaken in my country of Lithuania on adapting institutions of higher education to the new needs of the labour market and the creation of opportunities for graduates to find employment as soon as they have completed their higher education. Sadly, the research showed that many universities prepare specialists that the market already has in abundance. In other words, universities do not always take market needs into account and the ones worst affected by this are the young people who have just finished their studies. Therefore, I completely agree with the initiative to provide for a specific strategy or system in future into which we would pour a lot of effort and commitment to strengthen the links between universities and business at local, regional, national, and international level. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the shortage of jobs and difficult working conditions have an impact on the life of every individual, and young people in this situation are particularly vulnerable. I would also like to underline that due to the dynamic market, the fast-changing working environment and the ever-increasing development of new technologies, institutions of higher education also have to adapt to the new changes – they must improve and reform curricula in order to ensure a high level of education and solve the question of graduate employment. The input of universities alone is not enough; business and government must also contribute to this process.

Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The dialogue between the academic community and business, which is intended to modernise universities in Europe, should take account of their present condition, which is adapted to the Bologna process, and should also take account of the economic challenges related to innovation. The Bologna process enables a significant amount of flexibility in educating specialists who, as technical students at first degree level, prepare for a profession in a practical way. At masters level, they can approach interdisciplinary knowledge about the economy in a developing world with flexibility, while at doctoral level, they provide innovative solutions. Universities which educate in a conservative way release into the market specialists who are not useful to an innovative economy. Therefore, study programmes should be constantly corrected and agreed on with respect to the needs of different branches of the economy. Bringing the work of universities closer to the needs of industry is helped by lectures on enterprise and the issue of intellectual property. It is beneficial if undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral dissertations relate thematically to the requirements of the economy or arise directly in response to its needs. This is the best pretext for conducting dialogue between the two communities – science and business. It would be possible to influence the probability of innovative success to an even greater extent if the practical part of these dissertations was carried out directly in the place where they might one day be put to use. An important element of the cooperation of universities with the economy is student work placements, which currently are not organised very willingly because of the costs. Furthermore, universities should offer postgraduate courses for people in industry which would cover the latest achievements in science and technology.

Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are tired of hearing young Europeans say, ‘They would have hired me if I had experience, but no one will give me the chance to gain any.’ The current economic crisis has hit them particularly hard, and they already had trouble entering the labour market and building a sustainable future for themselves prior to the crisis. Unemployment among the under-25 age group has reached 21.4% in the EU: double that of the population average. The data is not encouraging: unemployment rates seem set to rise, and we are concerned that, by the age of 30, young people with an outstanding education are not yet able to enjoy the economic autonomy necessary to form a family, to be independent, to invest in their future; namely, to show what they are worth and grow as people. We want a European Union based on the central role of the individual. Our young people must be able to rely on a strong, continuing link between the training that they receive at university and a labour market which can offer them employment possibilities consistent with what they learned during their studies. We are calling for coordination between universities and businesses, a review of European programmes aimed at young people and systems of allowances and incentives for the businesses which hire them, together with greater emphasis on information technology, so that policies for young people can be included in all areas of political decision and debate.

Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The EU set itself the objective of becoming the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economic power by 2010. The quickly changing employment situation, the knowledge-based economy and ever accelerating technological development are issues which European 124 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

higher education and scientific activity currently have to deal with. At the same time, the economic crisis engulfing Europe, which has affected European competitiveness and brought about extensive changes in the financial and economic markets, has caused the bankruptcy of whole branches of manufacturing and the loss of many jobs, among other things. All of this makes it more difficult to achieve the objectives set out by the EU. In the present situation, I think it is important to have more dialogue between universities and entrepreneurs, because improved cooperation will provide greater opportunities for mutual benefit, which later would not just stimulate economic growth but would also be beneficial in a wider social sense, supporting the continuous improvement of a society based on action. I think that the Member States must also concentrate a lot more on encouraging people to adapt constantly to the changing job market – which is of prime importance for the European Union, especially during the present economic slump – by promoting lifelong learning. Supplementary training and retraining in all stages of life is essential for increasing Europe’s competitiveness, for economic growth and for fostering jobs. Also taking into account the demographic changes taking place in the EU, I think that in the coming years, the Member States must raise the levels of investment in people, giving priority to the EU’s most important resource – its people.

Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As Mr Schmitt’s excellent report highlights, university-business partnerships are one of the major components of the success of our educational model. Even though much progress has already been made as a result of the Bologna process and of programmes such as the Leonardo programme for work experience placements, there is still work to be done. Too many universities are still worrying about their academic independence and focusing too much on knowledge at the expense of skills. Too many companies believe universities are impervious to the needs of the workplace. The fact is, skills and knowledge are closely connected and completely interdependent. Companies may be of huge assistance to universities when it comes to providing finance, making syllabuses more vocational, and adapting programmes, if, at the same time, universities maintain their autonomy and their quality standards. The EU must help simplify the legal frameworks that facilitate these partnerships and encourage the mobility of teachers and young entrepreneurs. However, above all, it is up to the Member States to adapt their legislation, as France did in 2007 with its law on the autonomy of universities. We are not talking here about ‘marketing’ knowledge, as some people are claiming, but about creating a real dialogue which enables the needs of each individual to be identified and adapted.

12. Community financial assistance with respect to the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria – ‘Kozloduy Programme’ (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Harms, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on Community financial assistance with respect to the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria – ‘Kozloduy Programme’ (COM(2009)0581 - C7-0289/2009 - 2009/0172(NLE)) (A7-0142/2010).

Rebecca Harms, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Commission and my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for exciting and interesting debates on nuclear waste management. We did not always agree, but one thing on which we did agree is that we should provide joint European support to Bulgaria for meeting the costs of decommissioning the four reactor units in Kozloduy. At this point, I would like to strongly re-emphasise that in 2006, Bulgaria received EUR 340 million, in the 2007-2008 period, EUR 253 million, and in 2009, EUR 89.5 million. In tomorrow’s vote, we will be deciding on further solidarity contributions amounting to some EUR 300 million. This contribution is being granted because, when negotiating accession to the European Union, the Bulgarian Government agreed to decommission these reactors as a result of the security deficiencies of the Kozloduy plants. In my report, I have sought to bring about a change to the final tranche of this payment that we are now deciding (I assume this is the final tranche). I propose that the money which is no longer directly being spent on decommissioning and waste management, that is, waste strategies for temporary storage, in Kozloduy, and we are talking about some EUR 120 million, at least be partly invested in the planning and preparation of the final disposal solution for highly radioactive waste in Bulgaria. In other words, I propose that we set up a fund for this task which Bulgaria has not addressed at all to date. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 125

While I have not been successful in rallying the majority in the committees behind this idea, I do think that this is an important matter. I have submitted amendments again for two things to be retained in the compromise solution that is being negotiated by the committees for tomorrow’s vote. First of all, as regards decommissioning, waste management and final disposal, which also includes temporary storage, I would ask that the Commission very closely monitor the exact cost of what is happening in Kozloduy and how much money we will actually need to ensure decommissioning, waste management and final disposal are carried out thoroughly and according to high safety standards. The second thing I would like us to ensure is that the money which is now being sent to Bulgaria is not used for investment in coal or lignite. That has not been ruled out in the current draft of the report adopted by the committee. For the rest, I am pleased that this report will usher in a lively political debate, as it were, with Commissioner Oettinger about the final disposal of nuclear waste in general and one that will hopefully move things forward. The directive has been announced and I eagerly await it.

Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, on the third evening of this plenary session there is another energy-related subject on the agenda. This evening, it concerns extending the financial assistance provided by the EU for decommissioning the reactor units at the Kozloduy power plant in Bulgaria. This is a sensitive and important subject. As a result, I very much welcome the constructive working atmosphere and I would like to thank you for that. The subject has been discussed with Mrs Harms, the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and the relevant committees in a very businesslike manner. I am also pleased that the report largely follows the Commission’s views and supports our proposal. Firstly, I would like to mention your support for providing initial financing of EUR 300 million from the European budget, in line with EU interests, and therefore for maintaining safety levels in the nuclear industry. Secondly, I would like to add that the additional aid should be directed at decommissioning and that the amount required, which at present is EUR 180 million, is reasonable. My third point is that, as a result of insufficient financial reserves in the Republic of Bulgaria for historical reasons, the European funding is helping to ensure high levels of safety during the decommissioning work in order to protect people and the environment. As far as the current amendments are concerned, I would like to emphasise that the majority of the proposed amendments will be accepted by the Commission. Unfortunately, I cannot go into all of them due to a lack of time. I would like to explain the Commission’s view on two subjects which are very important to us and which are addressed directly in the report, both in the amendments and in Mrs Harms’ explanatory statement. I am referring firstly to the continuation of financial support for measures in the energy sector. In addition to the specific wishes of the Bulgarian Government, several other arguments can be used to justify the necessity of further financial support for measures in the energy sector. These include, on the one hand, equal treatment with Lithuania and Slovakia, where corresponding measures funded by the EU will be under way until 2013 and, on the other, other measures to create replacement capacity, including further investments in energy efficiency. There are huge potential energy savings to be made in Bulgaria’s existing coal-fired power stations. Following the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors, the focus of generating capacity in Bulgaria has changed. As a result, the Bulgarian power grid is faced with extensive challenges, which can be overcome with additional aid, in order to stabilise and safeguard the electricity network. The Commission therefore feels that it is appropriate to continue to guarantee support for measures in the energy sector, including measures relating to the network infrastructure. I would now like to look at the subject of support for the development of a geological final disposal solution for irradiated fuel elements. The Commission supports the rapporteur’s view with regard to the need to develop a solution for the secure final disposal of irradiated fuel elements. However, the development of a solution of this kind cannot be included in the financial aid provided in the Kozloduy Programme for the following reasons: It would distort competition, because all the Member States with a nuclear energy programme are required to develop a solution of this kind. Although the final disposal of irradiated fuel elements is part of nuclear 126 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

waste management, it is outside the scope of the decommissioning process and is not relevant to it. What is needed is a secure temporary storage solution for irradiated fuel elements, which will be covered by the current financial support. The development of a final storage solution, which we believe to be the next logical step, is nevertheless not a consequence of the closure and decommissioning of the four reactor units at Kozloduy. However, I must emphasise that the Commission, as has already been mentioned, will tackle the subject of final storage and produce a proposal this year for the management of radioactive waste, which will also include the development of secure final storage solutions for irradiated fuel elements. I am relying on you to make constructive proposals and I am also looking forward to an exciting debate. Finally, I would like to summarise the situation as follows. The Commission welcomes the fact that it has Parliament’s agreement to support Bulgaria over the next four years with the sum of EUR 300 million. We also welcome the fact that we can continue to focus on providing support for safe dismantling measures. In addition, we are pleased that Parliament believes that projects in the energy sector deserve our support. I see the agreement on further financing and its implementation as a sign of the European Union’s solidarity with Bulgaria and as an important contribution to nuclear safety in Europe and beyond. Thank you for your attention.

Antonyia Parvanova, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I would like to express my support for the European Commission’s approach to this proposal and report, as was voted on in committee.

I am extremely pleased to see that the line which I defended in my draft report has been presented in the final text and that the European Parliament can now give a clear go-ahead to extending financial assistance from the Community for decommissioning Units 1-4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. Bulgaria has shown a conscientious attitude in its use of the funds for decommissioning the plant by 2009. The EU’s assistance needs to be extended to guarantee safe and timely completion of the decommissioning operations, which have been carried out with the utmost transparency and protection for the environment. The extension of the financial assistance to fund measures aimed at mitigating the consequences of early decommissioning of the four reactors is especially important, taking into account the impact on and consequences for the environment, consumer energy prices and energy supply security in the region. Certain attempts were made to exert pressure on this dossier for political and ideological reasons. However, we must bear in mind the ultimate objectives of this programme, namely, guaranteed safe decommissioning and fair compensation for Bulgaria, support for the efforts made towards devising a more sustainable energy policy and a demonstration of transparency when managing projects and resources. I would like to say to Mrs Harms that the issue of the final disposal of radioactive waste is very serious. Particular attention must be focused on this, but it is not an issue which only Bulgaria will face. It is a general challenge as a result of which we need to have a strategy and programme specifically devised for the whole of Europe. I would also like to assure you, Mrs Harms, that Bulgaria does not intend to use these funds for further development of heating plants powered by lignite. You should rest assured that we are intending to meet all our requirements and fall completely into line with European legislation and state-of-the-art technologies in Europe. Bulgaria is a highly responsible country and will always endeavour to be a good and decent partner.

President. – I would like to take this opportunity to ask you all to try and speak more slowly, because our esteemed interpreters are constantly sending me SOS messages telling me that they are unable to follow us when we speak very fast. The problem is, therefore, that the only Members listening to you are those who can do so in the original language. Consequently, I would ask you to make an effort to slow down. Otherwise, interpretation will be impossible.

Vladimir Urutchev, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the negotiations on accession to the European Union, Bulgaria agreed, under pressure from certain political forces, to close four of the units at its Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, and fulfilled this commitment exactly within the envisaged timeframes. For its part, the European Union granted financial assistance as part of the Accession Treaty, restricted to the 2007-2009 period only, with the aim of supporting decommissioning and dealing with the consequences of closing the units early. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 127

The European Union also gave political guarantees for continuing to provide Community support for the 2010-2013 period. This would mean giving the same treatment to our country, at least during the periods of financial support, as to Lithuania and Slovakia, which are also committed to dismantling their nuclear capacity early. This is why, at my country’s specific insistence and in keeping with the principles of solidarity and equality of Member States, the European Commission drafted the current proposal. The amount of the additional funding cannot compensate in any way for the losses the country has suffered running into billions of euro due to the premature dismantling of the units. At the same time, this assistance is absolutely necessary for implementing the further process of decommissioning for which the majority of the total is intended to be used. No less important for the country is the funding earmarked for measures aimed at modernising the energy sector, reducing harmful emissions, and at improving energy efficiency and savings. This report, which was approved by a huge majority in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, reflects these needs completely. This is why we find unacceptable new attempts being made through new amendments being tabled during the plenary session to push through texts against coal plants or to present the direct disposal of the spent nuclear fuel as a foregone conclusion. This issue will be a topic of discussion in the European Union from now on. On this basis, I suggest that we support the proposal from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and reject the five new amendments from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

Ivaylo Kalfin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by thanking the Commission and Commissioner Oettinger personally for the extremely skilful job they have done in producing the document which he is submitting. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Harms, for the efforts she has invested in discussing this document to ensure that it contains topics which are very important to Europe’s citizens. The fundamental purpose of the document is to support Bulgaria’s efforts in decommissioning four of the six units at its nuclear power plant. I will not comment on how justified this decision was, but once it is incorporated in the Accession Treaty, this obligation must be fulfilled by the Bulgarian authorities. They are, in fact, taking all the necessary action in this respect. At the same time, the early closure of such a huge facility, provided for in the economic calculations, entails a huge direct and indirect cost. Part of this cost is being compensated by the European Union. This decision being tabled today will enable the European Union to put its approach to Bulgaria on the same footing as the approach adopted for two other countries, new European Union Member States, which have assumed and are fulfilling the same commitments. It is very important to adhere to the same approach because it is our duty to maintain the coherence of the European Union’s policy. Sixty per cent of the resources allocated will be used directly for decommissioning the facilities at the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, while the remaining 40% will be used for improving energy efficiency and cutting carbon dioxide emissions in Bulgaria. I would like to draw particular attention to some very appropriate points which were raised during the discussion in the committees by the rapporteur, Mrs Harms, and which were discussed very widely. The first matter concerns the fate of the waste from the spent nuclear fuel and irradiated elements. This issue was also mentioned today by Commissioner Oettinger. This is an extremely vital matter on which we are expecting the European Commission to table an individual directive in the autumn. The European Parliament will then have the opportunity to discuss this matter in depth, which, I am sure, is important to many European citizens. As a result of this, I do not think that Parliament’s decision on the issue which we are discussing about compensation for Kozloduy needs to prejudge our debate in the autumn. In addition, I fully agree with the Commission’s argument that if a precedent is created once for funding such a programme, it will then pose a threat to the whole European Union budget. Naturally, this does not waive or reduce in any way the responsibility of the governments in the countries which have such facilities to find a definitive solution to the issue of spent nuclear fuel. The second matter concerns the use of the resources. There is no doubt that the resources received from the European Union must not be used to finance projects which increase carbon dioxide emissions. Incidentally, 128 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

based on the experience so far in both Bulgaria and the other two countries receiving such resources, there is no indication of any such abuses. However, what I think we need to see in this text is a coherent European policy and the adoption of the same approach to all. It is of paramount importance to European citizens that these resources are used for their intended purpose transparently and effectively. The resources allocated by the European Union to Bulgaria go into a special fund which also includes sums from other donors. Based on programmes approved beforehand and under the control of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the resources from this fund, along with appropriate national funding, are allocated to the relevant projects. The European Court of Auditors will carry out an audit very soon of these funds, including those in Bulgaria. I believe that the European Parliament will also monitor closely in future how these resources are used.

Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as rapporteur on investments in energy infrastructure and shadow rapporteur on security of gas supply, I am very sensitive to issues of energy security. I think Europe has a key role to play in this field. As a Romanian MEP, I have even more interest in this particular issue of the Kozloduy nuclear plant. Being on the border of my country, it has long been a matter of preoccupation in Romania for obvious environmental reasons. The Kozloduy power plant is situated four kilometres from the River Danube and 150 kilometres from Bucharest. According to international experts, the plant does not have any protective cover and there are major risks of radioactive leakages into the soil and the water table.

I believe Europe has a responsibility to help and facilitate its decommissioning, and we have to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to this project, as this is crucial to keep safety up to high standards, to ensure the necessary expertise and implement international best practices. Decommissioning and dismantling should be done according to very strict rules and standards, otherwise it could pose a security threat to the whole region. This is why I fully support this proposal and our commitment to allocate an additional EUR 300 million to this project. Let me also remind you that the European Parliament took a strong stance a few months ago on this dossier, allocating the first EUR 75 million in the 2010 budget. Nevertheless, I think we should be intransigent regarding transparency in the use of European funds. So far, the Commission has been quite dissatisfied with the information on decommissioning received from Bulgaria. The monitoring of the funds needs to be strict. This is why I believe that the European Commission should first perform a specific evaluation to assess the strengths and weaknesses of past projects in order to improve funds programming together with the EBRD for the next funding period 2010-2013. We have tabled several amendments requiring the Bulgarian authorities to present a proper national strategy outlining long-term objectives in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors as a prerequisite to the EUR 120 million envelope. (The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I have a very brief, specific question. As the lady has raised questions about safety, I would like her to give me an answer to the following: is she aware that, prior to decommissioning of the four small units of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, they were declared as being the safest reactors in the European Union by the European Atomic Energy Community?

Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, what can I say? Are we all nuts? Or can anyone else see any reason in it? I think a lot of people have decided to do it one way, and we should follow, and we all support the view that it should be done thus. No further comment.

Michail Tremopoulos, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (EL) Mr President, we must bear in mind in today’s debate that, over the last ten years, the European Union gave Bulgaria EUR 550 million to close the four units in the Kozloduy complex. Today, it is giving it another EUR 300 million, making a total of EUR 850 million, not counting the huge sums given for modifications and safety improvements. In other words, we have paid more or less in gold for this nuclear complex and, for some people, it was the golden goose. Nonetheless, the Commission continues to indirectly fund the nuclear lobby. We are calling for an end to this bartering with the Bulgarian Government. We are calling for Parliament to safeguard, together with the Commission, the safe and effective management of nuclear waste and not to 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 129

consider it as part of the withdrawal programme. As the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, we are calling for the remaining 40% of the EUR 300 million for the nuclear reactor withdrawal programme to be channelled by the Bulgarian Government to the management of radioactive waste and not to the development of environment-killing uranium- and coal-fired power plants. Of course, I hope that anyone thinking of strengthening the nuclear lobby with new constructions has learned a lesson from the recent agreement between Turkey and Russia to build a nuclear plant in Αkkuyu, an earthquake area where the anti-nuclear movement has prevented its construction …… (The President cut off the speaker)

President. – Mr Tremopoulos, your time is up. However, Mrs Parvanova has raised the blue card to ask you a question. Will you allow your fellow Member to ask you a question? Mrs Parvanova, can you please pose your question as briefly as possible?

Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – (BG) Mr President, the word ‘blackmail’ was used here, and a short time ago, my colleague, Mrs Vălean, mentioned that Bulgaria had misused the funds and had not used them prudently from the earlier tranche, which was used for the appropriate purpose as compensation. I have one question to ask, which I would like the Commission’s representative here and the Commission to corroborate: have there been warnings about this or not?

President. – No, I am sorry, Mrs Parvanova. This does not comply with the Rules of Procedure. The procedure involves posing a question to the speaker who is speaking at the time. That question is therefore rejected as is the possibility of a reply.

Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I fought hard to prevent the premature closure of Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy. Their closure several years ahead of time was not necessary; it was certainly not on safety grounds. The effect, as predicted, has been increased use of environmentally unfriendly lignite-fuelled power stations, an increase in electricity prices and a cut in Bulgaria’s electricity exports: in other words, both economic and environmental damage. We are now paying for mistaken judgments within the European Union institutions. It is only right, therefore, that Bulgaria should be treated at least as well by the European Union as other countries that have had to close prematurely their ageing nuclear facilities, and I am glad that the Commission recognises this. A lot of money, of course, is involved in this decommissioning process. It is vitally important that these funds are properly and efficiently spent and accounted for. I hope the Commission can give us assurances on this. It is also important to address the issue of compensating for and replacing lost energy capacity. Bulgaria will need assistance in creating sustainable new capacity that ensures security of supply and diversification, so that Bulgaria is not reliant on the goodwill of one foreign power.

Miloslav Ransdorf, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) I would like to say that the ‘Kozloduy Programme’ must not only focus on financing the transfer of irradiated materials, increasing energy efficiency in Bulgaria and financing alternative energy sources. In my opinion, this programme must also be viewed as a contribution to the economic and social stability of the Balkans. This is because the Balkan states as a whole – including Bulgaria – are a vulnerable part of the European Union, as the current economic crisis has shown us. I take the view that Article 30 of the Accession Treaty is a framework which must not be breached, as legal consultations with the people from the European Commission have demonstrated. Even if this Accession Treaty or arrangement was used up in 2009, a new arrangement must carry on in the spirit of continuity which is set out in Article 30.

Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, we are discussing here this evening the compensation which Bulgaria should receive for closing the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. This compensation is right, fair and timely because experts reckoned that the losses suffered by Bulgaria as a result of the closure of units 1-4 were much higher than all the compensation paid to it so far. However, the following question remains to be answered here: why did we need to get to this point at all and why, as I mentioned a short time ago, did the safest units in Europe, declared as such not by anyone, but by the most prestigious agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, need to be closed? I am also amazed 130 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

here at the madness of how this report on compensation has ended up in the hands of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance who started and ended their speeches with how Kozloduy must be destroyed, much like Cato the Elder used to say the same about Carthage. At this point, I would like to address Mr Tremopoulos, who, if I may say, is hardly in a position to speak like this, because it is precisely his country which has just recently received a much bigger amount than Bulgaria is claiming at the moment, due to its blackmail. He should therefore not be so insistent in stating what Bulgaria should and should not receive. We can now see some amendments tabled by the Greens, which have one aim only. This is why the Greens have a problem at the moment. Indeed, the problem they have is that they have contributed to the rise in carbon dioxide emissions with the closure of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. Now with these changes, which they want even more blatantly to use to take money from Bulgaria and reallocate it to another area, they actually want to cover up their own guilt. This is why they cannot explain to their voters why they, as European Union citizens, have to pay to have more carbon dioxide emissions in the EU. In this case, the Greens are adopting positions which are diametrically opposed to their views. There is also an amendment which states that Kozloduy should serve as an example. However, the only thing which Kozloduy was an example of is how old reactors can be safe and operate perfectly well. The only thing it can serve as an example of from now on is as a warning: a warning of how, thanks to political folly, a wonderful, efficient and successful industrial sector in a country can be destroyed.

President. – The truth is, Mr Stoyanov, that you are hovering on the edge of the improper, the inappropriate, in terms of parliamentary language. I have not cut you off because I wish to show our generosity, particularly that of our colleagues from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, who I understand to have been attacked in your speech. I wanted to demonstrate the fact that we are capable of listening. I must say to you, however, that your speech seemed entirely improper to me. Should this happen again, I will cut you off because that is a road down which we do not want to go.

Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – (RO) I would like to thank the Commission because, while we are all preoccupied at the moment by the crisis, the Commission is still concerned about the other existing problems as well. I think that Bulgaria is fully entitled to receive the money it was promised for dismantling this nuclear power plant. I am an advocate of electricity generated by nuclear power plants and I do not believe that Europe will be able to achieve the specified targets for clean energy without building nuclear power plants. However, I firmly believe that every country is entitled to build nuclear power plants, except that I think that we in the European Union have a collective responsibility and a sense of solidarity with regard to the technologies chosen in the construction of these nuclear power plants. I think that, in this instance, the European Commission will have to adopt a completely stringent approach in evaluating these projects for new nuclear power plants.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D). – (LT) I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Rebecca Harms, for her excellent work. I agree with the document under discussion and the proposal that EUR 300 million in aid should be granted to Bulgaria for the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant over a period of 3 years, while of course strengthening monitoring of how the funds received are spent. It could be said that this is a show of equal solidarity, as other new Member States – Lithuania and Slovakia – are in a similar situation and have received such financial support. Units 1 to 4 of the nuclear power plant have been out of operation for some time and it is logical that they should be decommissioned. That will reduce the risk to the environment and will help us take better advantage of workers’ knowledge and professional experience. When shutting down part of the power plant, its staff will face new challenges. From our experience in Lithuania, I can say that unforeseen problems arise that are difficult to incorporate into the time schedules. True, the biggest portion of the funds should be allocated to the decommissioning of the units, and there is the unavoidable question of storage equipment. However, it is just as important to consider people. I hope that when using the aid provided by the European Union, the Bulgarian Government will help workers and the community revolving around the power plant to adapt to the changed conditions, and it is very important to help them retrain and use their expertise in other spheres, to promote the creation of new sustainable jobs and switch to the new energy saving environment. 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 131

Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) The shutdown of four units of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant has no doubt caused a very large deficit in Bulgaria’s energy system. It has a significant effect on security of supply

in the region and must lead to an increase in CO2 emissions, which should be important, at least to some Members in this Chamber. In spite of this, it is being proposed, in particular in the amendments, that we turn our backs on the energy problems of one of the Member States. This goes against the principle of solidarity, which should govern energy policy. It also creates the impression of discrimination against nuclear energy by Parliament, which goes against the principle giving Member States complete freedom in their choice of sources of energy.

Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) The way in which the issue of closing down and then decommissioning the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant will be resolved is not relevant, except in terms of the way Bulgaria itself resolves this issue. However, as has already been said in this Chamber, the decommissioning process also affects neighbouring countries and may provide a precedent for other countries with similar units approaching the end of their maximum operational life. I am not going to hide the fact either, as has already been said, that the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant has been a permanent source of concern for Romanian citizens, especially following the Chernobyl accident. This is why it would be important for the decommissioning process to be accompanied by a public information campaign targeted at all the stakeholders who are entitled to know about the stages involved in this process, the timetable, the potential risks of each stage, the way in which fissile material and hazardous waste are protected, as well as about the ecological reconstruction of the Kozloduy area. I wish to stress the importance we need to attach to the processing of radioactive waste. This is why the funds allocated to Bulgaria for this purpose must be provided at regular intervals without any interruptions. I am mentioning this point because, although the costs seem large enough, they are only estimates as there has been no precedent on the scale of decommissioning a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. I wish to end by saying, on a hopeful note, that, with sufficient funding and meticulous planning and subject to the supervision of all the bodies with the necessary powers in this area, the decommissioning process will provide an example of a good use of European funds.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) When they joined the European Union, some Central and Eastern European countries made commitments in the accession treaties, commitments which were difficult both politically and economically, to decommission nuclear power plants and ensure the safe handling of nuclear waste. They are countries dependent on nuclear energy and they inherited nuclear power plants that do not comply with the EU safety standards and requirements in force today and, of course, would be unable to raise the funds required to decommission the plants themselves. There are strict requirements in force in the European Union regulating decommissioning and the carrying out of safety works, and the financial and economic crisis is making it difficult for those Member States decommissioning nuclear power plants to carry out decommissioning and fuel disposal work appropriately and on time. The Community’s concern over the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in non-EU Member States is perfectly understandable, as it may also threaten our future generations. Therefore, I welcome the Commission’s decision to allocate additional support to Bulgaria from the European Union budget, since it is clear that without the Community’s support, just like Lithuania, it would be impossible to ensure the implementation of decommissioning measures to the requisite extent, the Community’s common security policy or measures needed to keep European citizens safe and protect the environment.

Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for the open debate on this sensitive subject. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the Commission very much welcomes the overall positive approach of the report and the fact that Parliament agrees with the Commission that Bulgaria should receive further support amounting to EUR 300 million up until 2013. The Commission is also pleased that we can continue to focus on providing support for safe dismantling measures and that Parliament believes that projects in the energy sector deserve our support. We can confirm, as we have done in the past, that the funds will be used for the intended purpose and we plan to put reliable controls in place. We take note of your proposals and amendments. I am sure that the Council will take into account Parliament’s opinions wherever they can help to improve the clarity of the regulation’s objectives. 132 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19-05-2010

Your agreement on further financing for the dismantling work is a sign of the European Union’s solidarity with Bulgaria. Safety is the highest priority during the process of dismantling nuclear power stations and this is emphasised in the statement. I would like to thank you once again for your work and also Mrs Harms for this report.

Rebecca Harms, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, at the end of this debate, I would once again like to say that the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria has been based on international expertise. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected these reactors, which have the same design as those in Chernobyl, and saw no possibility of converting them to meet the safety standards which applied in the old European Union. It was an intelligent decision which justifies the fact that we have shown our solidarity with Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria and, following tomorrow’s decision, have treated them equally with regard to the costs of decommissioning. Secondly, I would like to point out once again that none of these countries and no other countries in Western Europe or elsewhere in the world have yet found a reliable solution to the problem of the final storage of highly radioactive waste. This is a task which still faces us, although many countries have now invested billions in this area and have been looking for a reliable solution for 30 years. This is a debate with which those people in particular who are in favour of the high-risk technology of nuclear power need to concern themselves, because, as things stand today, the storage of nuclear waste, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of Europe’s citizens, represents such a large and unresolved risk that it is a strong argument against continuing to make use of nuclear power. We will be discussing this with Mr Oettinger in future. Thank you for your attention.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 20 May, at 12.00. Written statements (Rule 149)

Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) In 1999, the European Commission, acting on behalf of the European Union, obliged Bulgaria to close four of its six nuclear power plants as a precondition for its accession negotiations. The Commission had been saying for some time that the units in question were eligible for financial improvements. Under the agreement, two units were closed in 2002, and the other two in 2006. After considerable sums of investment and a number of independent surveys, the units were found to meet all the safety criteria and, according to the Council’s Atomic Questions Group, no additional monitoring was needed. Bulgaria had become a net exporter of electricity to all its neighbouring countries and sometimes accounted for 100% of the region’s electricity deficit. The remaining units, however, were closed under the agreement, the region suffered power cuts and the substitute plants resulted in an increase in greenhouse gases. I myself put a question to the Commission and the Council, basing it on Mr Van Orden’s report on the application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union, and its paragraph 33. In it, the European Parliament asked the Council to view the closure dates more flexibly until new generation could be built that would not increase emissions, which would not be before 2011. The answer was no, however, and instead, the EU showed its solidarity with Bulgaria in the form of considerable sums in financial assistance. That is why it is only right to continue providing finance for longer than was planned, because the loss of electricity generation capacity, not to speak of the other strains on the region, have been economically and socially serious for Bulgaria. In all honesty, though, we have to ask whether this massive financial investment could have been avoided if the Commission and the Council had reconsidered its inflexible and questionable conditions.

Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) During the accession negotiations in 2005, Bulgaria agreed to shut down reactor units 1-4 at the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant and then to decommission them. Originally, the EU intended to provide financial support for the decommissioning process until 2009. Now the financial aid has been extended until the end of 2013 and a total of EUR 300 million will be made available. Of course, it is necessary to give Bulgaria support during the decommissioning of Kozloduy and to help with the accompanying financial and environmental problems, such as safely disposing of radioactive waste, promoting renewable energy resources and retraining employees. However, the financial aid must involve a detailed breakdown of the different plans, strict financial controls and regular monitoring of the use of the funding. The money must not be used through the back door to provide financial support for the second Bulgarian nuclear power plant in Belene. Bulgaria is currently looking for European investors for Belene and the option of using the decommissioning money for this purpose is a very timely one. We must prevent this from 19-05-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 133

happening. Careful reporting and thorough on-site investigations by the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors are therefore essential.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The EU is dependent on energy imports for 53% of its requirements. To reduce their energy dependency, some Member States have adopted ambitious strategies for using nuclear power and energy from renewable sources. Nuclear power accounts for 28% of the total energy consumed in the EU, while it is the largest source of energy in Belgium, France, Lithuania, Slovakia and Sweden. Nuclear power production does not generate carbon dioxide emissions, not to mention that monthly household energy bills are lower in Member States where nuclear power is used. However, the EU imposes extremely rigorous requirements governing the safe operation of nuclear power plants and the handling of nuclear waste. Stringent measures and high standards with regard to the safety of nuclear power plants and close cooperation between local, regional, national and European authorities provide the conditions for the safe use of nuclear power in the EU. The regulation proposed by the Commission guarantees fair treatment for Bulgaria by granting it financial assistance until 2013 for decommissioning its nuclear power plants, which were measures stipulated by the accession treaties. Nuclear decommissioning requires long-term financial planning, which continues until the site has been completely reclaimed and all the radioactive waste and spent fuel have been dealt with safely.

13. Implementing measures (Rule 88)

14. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

15. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 21.20)