22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1

WEDNESDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2010

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK President

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

3. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (16 September 2010) (debate)

President. – The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission: Conclusions of the European Council meeting (16 September 2010). Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – Mr President, the European Council meeting of 16 September was convened primarily in order to focus on the Union’s external relations. We also had a short scheduled discussion during lunch about the task force on economic governance, and an unscheduled discussion about the Roma situation. Allow me to address each of these in turn. First, regarding foreign affairs. When I took office eight months ago, while visiting our capitals, I noticed a degree of frustration following the Copenhagen Summit. There was a perception that the European Union was sidelined. Our economic outlook was not good, whereas other economies in the world were growing rapidly. Moreover, we started to realise how the economic strength of emerging countries is being transformed into real political power. The G20, although created at the instigation of the European Union, is also a sign of this trend, as is the debate about representation in the International Monetary Fund. This affects us: new players do not always share our interests and our world views. The Lisbon Treaty requires the European Council to define the Union’s strategic interests and give strategic direction to the work of other institutions. I am glad the Heads of State or Government all agreed to take this up and deepen their involvement in the Union’s foreign policy. They want more ownership by the European Council. They want to assume their responsibilities as members of this Union institution. What did we discuss? Well, it seemed urgent to me to address our strategic partnerships first. The issue was to link general objectives to concrete means, to make progress on the ground. We therefore briefly talked about how to make the best use of the Lisbon Treaty, with the new External Action Service. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament for its work in securing agreement on this. How can we make sure that what is done in Brussels and in the capitals is going in the same direction? How can we coordinate better between the different actors in Brussels? How can we bring together the different aspects of our relationship with partners – for instance, during summits – in areas such as the economy, climate, values and security? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How do we deal with our partners, one to one? We set priorities on a number of pressing matters. Our key messages for summits with third countries have to be underpinned by some specific negotiations and trade-offs. I retain from the discussion in the European Council the following other points: 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

First, this is the beginning of a process. Second, our key messages should be mandated by the European Council, prepared and implemented by the Foreign Affairs Council, the Commission and the High Representative, just as we are already preparing the G20 meetings in the European Council. My third point is that, with our partners, ‘reciprocity’ is a key word. We can also speak about ‘identifying mutual interests’. The general feeling is that this is not the case yet. We all insist on deliverables and leverage. We must turn objectives into concrete results. We have strategic partners but we need more strategy. We have developed ideas on how to position ourselves vis-à-vis China and where to fine-tune them further. Thanks to the European Council discussion, when the President of the Commission and I meet the Chinese Prime Minister in Brussels two weeks from now, we will not speak just for ‘Brussels’. We can also speak on behalf of the 27. We touched upon other upcoming meetings as well: the G20 summit in Seoul and the EU-US summit, both to take place in November, both crucial for global economic prospects. We will further prepare these meetings at the European Council of 28 and 29 October. The French President, as incoming chair, outlined some of his ideas for the G20 in 2011. He received our full support for creating a new dynamic for the G8/G20, underlining that they should become a process, not just an event. On the Middle East: the success of the Middle East peace negotiations is of strategic interest for the European Union. We adopted a specific declaration on this issue in line with our common position of December 2009. We are involved in the process via the Quartet. Our neighbourhood, for instance, the Western Balkans and their European perspective, and the Eastern Partnership, are of the highest importance. Our reputation in the world starts with stability on our own continent. If we want to be a global player, we have to be a regional player. From now on, we will discuss foreign policy in the European Council in this spirit. We can only be credible and strong if we are united. We showed our unity in the position of the 27 on additional sanctions on Iran, which was not self-evident, and in the very important UN resolution on the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo, extremely important for the Western Balkans. Besides discussing strategy and our overall approach, we also reached a conclusion on two specific issues: South Korea and Pakistan. We thereby showed immediately that the European Union can deliver on issues of huge strategic interest. The free trade agreement with South Korea is an issue of great external importance. It concerns a vital relationship with our eighth largest trading partner and, beyond that, with the whole of the Asian economy. It has been close to agreement for three years and we are delivering it now. It will save European exporters EUR 1.6 billion in costs annually, so this is good news for our export industries and therefore for jobs and growth in Europe. On Pakistan, we want to give maximum support to this country after it was so severely struck by devastating floods. More aid and more trade; we want Pakistan to recover now and to develop economically. We will grant significantly increased market access. Catherine Ashton helped us to reach agreement on this important declaration. Second point: the task force. During the European Council lunch, we talked about the economy, the basis to gain political clout. In the first half of the year, the European Council 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3

had to involve itself in pressing economic issues. Our economies are in better shape now, but the work is not over yet. During the lunch, I briefed my colleagues on the progress in the task force on economic governance. I did it yesterday here in the Parliament. All Heads of State or Government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. We have a large consensus on some of the most important issues, like the macro-economic surveillance framework. This will monitor and correct imbalances, risks of bubbles, and divergences in competitiveness. There is also agreement on strengthening national fiscal frameworks, on enshrining European budget rules in national legislation and on the principle of what has been called the European Semester. We also made progress on sanctions, even if more work is needed. As I explained in detail to a meeting with seven of your committee chairs and the leaders of your groups yesterday, this amounts to a strengthening of the economic pillar of our Economic and Monetary Union. Although some have claimed that our work on this is slow, we have in fact covered an enormous amount of ground in a very short time. Compared to negotiations establishing the Stability and Growth Pact in 1997 and its revision in 2005, we are proceeding very quickly, despite the complexity of the issues. I will submit a draft of the global report to the task force on 27 September. We will finalise the discussions in the middle of October so that the European Council can reach a conclusion at its meeting of 28 and 29 October. The Commission intends to present legislative proposals by the end of September in line with its right of initiative – proposals which will, of course, come before your Parliament for consideration and adoption under the legislative procedures. Those proposals by the Commission may positively contribute to keeping the momentum. This spring, we won the battle of the euro. I am confident that next month, we will draw the final right lessons from this crisis. Third topic: the Roma. During lunch, we discussed a topic that interests you particularly. Around the table there was consensus on five points, which was not interpreted as a formal Council conclusion. One, a Member State has the right and the duty to take action to uphold the rule of law within its territory. Two, the Commission has the right, and indeed the duty, to ensure compliance with Union law by Member States and has the right, and indeed the duty, to conduct investigations. Three, we took note of the declaration that the Commission President made on the eve of the European Council. Four, respect is the essential rule in relations between the Member States and the Commission. Five, in a future meeting of the European Council, we will discuss the issue of integration of the Roma. The prohibition of all forms of discrimination based on nationality or ethnicity is the founding principle of the European Union. Respect for human dignity is one of our core values. Meetings of the European Council should not be considered as summits but as regular – even routine – meetings of a Union institution. Indeed, allow me to emphasise, at this time of renewed debate in your Parliament about the Community method, that the European Council is an institution of our Union, not another summit in the manner of the G8 and the G20. It is embedded in the institutional framework of the Union but it brings to the Union inputs from the highest political level in the Member States and it gives the Member 4 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

States a sense of ownership and participation in the Union and reinforces their commitment to its success. It comprises not only the Heads of State or Government but also the President of the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. It is often attended by the President of the European Central Bank. Since the Lisbon Treaty, it is being chaired by someone who is not simultaneously representing one of the Member States but who must work both inside the European Council and in close cooperation with the other institutions to find agreements in the general European interest. That is why I am investing time and energy in maintaining regular contacts with the Presidents of other institutions, not least the President of the Commission, the rotating Council Presidency, the Central Bank, the Euro Group and, of course, yourself, Mr President, along with leaders of the political groups and chairs of the parliamentary committees, well beyond what is provided for in the treaty. We do indeed work in the general European interest. The efforts made by all European institutions over the last months have started to produce results. Our economies are recovering at an unexpected pace. Confidence is coming back, slowly but surely. I thank the European Parliament for its cooperation in restoring confidence through the legislation on financial surveillance. Many Member States are engaged in reform programmes. I pay tribute to those national governments who are taking courageous measures in very difficult political circumstances. In most of our Member States, the crisis is not over, in particular, not on the employment front, although there is improvement. We are in better shape now than before the summer. A lot of work remains to be done. Dear colleagues, we will do it. (Applause) Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, Parliament has always been very clear that one of the main goals of the Lisbon Treaty is to make the EU stronger on the international stage, and the Commission shares this goal to the full. Maximising the EU’s voice is good for Europe and, I believe, it is also good for the world. It allows us to promote our interests, to uphold our values and to make our contribution to worldwide efforts to address common challenges, from climate change to security, and from a shortage of resources to pulling out of the economic crisis. We have opportunities and we have responsibilities, and the Lisbon Treaty has given us the tools to secure our goals in both. As we all know, this is work in progress; at home, we need to learn how to use the Lisbon structures to the best effect. With our partners, we need to show that the EU is a convincing interlocutor. This does not happen overnight, but last week’s European Council was an important stepping stone towards that objective. In the nine months since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, we have made important progress. Baroness Ashton is now established as a voice for Europe in the global arena and, with the support of this Parliament, I believe we will soon have the European External Action Service up and running. The EU institutions have gradually taken over the functions of the rotating Presidency for representation and coordination. The European Council identified the next steps, both on procedure and on substance. In particular, there was recognition that the EU had to do more to achieve a more consistent and coherent policy towards strategic partners. It may start looking specifically at China. It was very important that the European Council will come back to the task of building a 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 5

common approach on a regular basis. We all know some of the problems faced: that the lack-of-privatisation, Christmas-tree approach suggests to our partners that we cannot really agree on what we really want and that the discordant messages between the EU and the Member States undermine the message.

We need to reach a position in which, when President Van Rompuy and President Barroso speak for the EU at the summits, they do so with the authority which comes from a genuine consensus – a combined commitment of the EU and the Member States – to a shared agenda. So the Commission believes that it was an important first step to recognise the need to identify specific interests in our relations with each of our strategic partners and, now, to know how to deliver the same, consistent message to our partners worldwide. We need to start applying this spirit to the key summits this autumn, with China, India, Russia and the United States, as well as for the G20, the Asia-Europe meeting and the EU-Africa summit. All these events need the democratic dimension brought by the interest of this Parliament. Trade was recognised as a key issue. It was a powerful symbol that, in the margins of the European Council, agreement was finalised on the EU’s far-reaching free trade agreement with Korea. This shows what is possible: an agreement which was not easy but which holds out the prospect of huge commercial benefits. It was also agreed that we should find ways, through trade, to help Pakistan. We are already doing a lot in terms of humanitarian aid and development aid, which will be crucial for the reconstruction of this country. But it is also right to say that we should help the long-term prospects of the Pakistan economy through trade measures, and the Commission will be making specific proposals next month. The forthcoming French Presidency of the G20 and G8 was also identified as a particularly good opportunity to ensure that European objectives were prominent. The Commission is committed to using this as an important platform for the EU for the coming year. I also want to say a few words on two other subjects. On economic governance: the work of the task force chaired by President Van Rompuy and the preparation of detailed proposals by the Commission mean that we have come a long way since May. The Commission will put proposals on the table next week. Now is the right time for us to launch the codecision phase to start detailed examination of legislative proposals with a view to having the new system in place by the middle of next year. I know that Parliament is fully conscious of the desirability to start quickly on your examination of these proposals. The package will have three objectives. First, to reinforce Member States’ compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. Second, to broaden economic surveillance to tackle imbalances; and third, to make economic surveillance work better through incentives for compliance and financial sanctions which are progressive, fairly applied and applied early enough to work effectively. These add up to a major reinforcement of the credibility of our economic governance of the euro area in particular. This agenda will be deepened still further when the Task Force makes its final report to the European Council next month. Finally, the issue of the Roma. I simply want to make one point: the Commission has the responsibility here as the guardian of the treaties. We are quite clear about our responsibilities. We will not compromise on respect for Community law and we will defend our European values in full. We have been working to determine whether EU law on free 6 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

movement and on anti-discrimination has been respected and are now in the phase of legal analysis. Very soon, this analysis will be looked at by the College itself. However, we must not forget what is a very important – I would say an essential – part of this discussion: the alleviation of the plight of the Roma and their better integration. Therefore, at the same time, we are looking at how to follow up on our April proposals to use EU funds to give real help to the integration of the Roma. We have set up a task force to look at how we can take tangible steps to support inclusion. The task force meets for the first time this morning and will present its first findings by the end of this year. I know Parliament will want to be kept informed about progress on a regular basis, and the Commission will do this. To conclude, Mr President, this European Council discussed how we can reinforce our capacity to act externally and internally and to deliver better results for EU citizens. On all these subjects, the Union’s institutions and instruments have been shown to be working as the treaty intends. The Commission looks forward to cooperating with this Parliament, deepening this work, and assuring the effective delivery of our policies. Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr Buzek, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council has discussed the Union’s relations with its global partners and economic governance. Above all, however, public opinion has been interested in the debate on the Roma. I want to repeat the position of my group on this point. First, each Member State must respect European law, and the European Commission, the guardian of the treaties, must make sure of this in the most impartial way possible. All the Member States of the Union are equal before the law. That is Europe’s strength. In these conditions, we respect the decision of the Commission to ask for clarifications from France on the measures that it has taken, and we do not doubt that France will respond with the greatest care. Second, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) regrets the linguistic gaps that have emerged because of this affair, and hopes that, on such an emblematic subject, the values of responsibility and solidarity that are conveyed by the European Union, as well as impartiality and mutual respect, will continue to be the code of conduct in relations between the Member States and the European institutions. Finally, my group once again calls for European solutions – Community solutions – to be defined and implemented in order to integrate all the minorities in Europe, because, as we well know, the current crisis has revealed a deep unrest in relations between these minorities and the populations in their host countries. Ladies and gentlemen, while all of our fellow citizens must be able to enjoy their rights, they must also observe their obligations. Yes, the movement of people is a right, and this Parliament has argued for it too much to give any of it away today. On the other hand, respecting the law, integrating into your host country, registering your children in school, making sure they attend, and respecting the welfare of others are also obligations from which nothing, absolutely nothing, must be taken away. That is the issue, and that is the position of the PPE Group, a position which is founded on principles and values, and which goes beyond the partisan criticism which, I have to say, some have indulged in these last few days. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 7

I have two minutes left to address two subjects – crucial ones, however – which were discussed at the European Council last Friday: our place in the world and economic governance. On the first point, how can we accept any longer the fact that, although Europe is one of the principal global powers, perhaps the most respected in its approach to human rights and multilateralism, it no longer holds any weight on the global stage? I repeat: we are the biggest donors to Palestine, but we are not at the negotiating table. Mr Van Rompuy, we have to make sure that this changes. The Council’s conclusions contain some interesting avenues of exploration, but, as we know, we need a real review of our modus operandi in order to make the quantum leap expected. I am thinking here of the political will to exert influence as a single force, rather than as an aggregation of 27 contradictory diplomacies. That is, the Community method; and on this, Mr Van Rompuy, we are counting on you. This is not a bad word; it is a way of making the European Union powerful and recognised in the world. I am thinking here of our human resources, which must be rationalised, and the external service is a first step in the right direction. Finally, I am thinking of our financial resources, particularly in the areas of security and defence, which must be better spent, and this requires us to make greater efforts to pool resources. We are far from achieving that – very far. I would encourage the Member States, in the coming months, to implement at least some of the objectives contained in these conclusions. On economic governance, finally, my group is in favour of the initial action taken by the Van Rompuy task force and, in particular, the rigorous application of the rules of the Stability Pact along with the deterrent of sanctions. We must learn the lessons from the financial crisis and from the illusions we deluded ourselves with by dividing up financial governance and economic and social governance. The two have to be linked. Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, I listened carefully to your speech, a summary of which could be ‘everything is fine’. There are no problems in the Council. I admit that you were there and I was not. You witnessed the discussion at close hand and I did not. Nevertheless, I had a somewhat different perception of the European Council to the one you have presented here. I believe that what we witnessed was – at least in two cases – the rebellion of the Heads of Government against the European reality. The four freedoms that have been guaranteed since Maastricht are the free movement of services, capital, goods and people. I have the impression that, in the European Union, we need to attach the same level of importance at least to the free movement of people as we do to the free movement of capital. I sometimes also wish that capital could be dealt with with the same level of intensity as the free movement of people is dealt with in Europe. (Applause) However, what we are actually seeing – and you hinted at this, although you did not say it explicitly – is that in this post-Lisbon process in which we currently find ourselves, the institutions are fighting for their positions of power. What we are seeing in the Council is the new institution represented by you, as the European Council consisting of the Heads of State or Government has only existed as an institution since Lisbon. This new institution is trying to secure its position of power. That is not dishonourable; all institutions do the same, but in association with what is happening in the European Council, there is a huge 8 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

risk that, in the post-Lisbon process, the competences that have been transferred to the EU, the competences that are bestowed upon the Community institutions in the treaty, will be made subject to the approval of the European Council – in my last speech here, I described this as a type of directorial government. That is precisely the wrong way to go about it. You cannot, on the one hand – as you have done – proclaim that we need joint European statements, joint European action and a European united front, for example, in international policy, international diplomacy and international trade, while, on the other, saying: but only when it suits me in terms of my national interests. If it does not fit in with the national interests, if it is not appropriate in terms of domestic policy, then we do not want it. However, that is exactly what is happening right now in the European Union, and, I might add, it is not specific to one particular government. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has most of the governments; the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament also has governments. All the governments respond in the same way. It is not an ideological response, but an institutional one. This institutional danger spells danger for Europe as a whole. The task of the European Parliament – and this is therefore an appeal to all groups – is to say, with a large majority, that we want what Mr Daul described as the Community method, which is nothing other than the transposition and implementation of joint competences for solving problems, to be applied in a concerted manner at European level. Can anyone here imagine us still being able to solve any sort of monetary policy problem at national level? The answer is ‘no’. Could any climate challenges be solved at national level? No. Could a global trade policy problem be dealt with by an individual Member State alone? Of course, we can have talks with China as the EU – as the EU with a population of 500 million and the force of 27 combined national economies. That is one option. We could also divide ourselves into smaller units with the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta all acting separately. That is also possible. I do not think that China would be very impressed by that if you went there, Mr Van Rompuy. We therefore need the Community method, and, in my opinion, it is the task of this Parliament to ensure that this Community method is applied. The Commission has shown for the first time in the form of Mr Barroso’s statement in connection with the Roma issue that it is prepared to fight. We will, and indeed must, solve the problem of the Roma. This Parliament will solve it just as we have all said here: human dignity is inviolable. That also applies to complicated minorities. Therefore, we will not let up on the issue of the Roma. However, our next challenges are coming from somewhere completely different – the Financial Perspective – and I can tell you now that, in this regard, the renationalisation strategy will be met with broad resistance from the whole of the European Parliament. (Applause) (The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8)) Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Mr President, my question to Mr Schulz is very simple: how can the ideas and views of citizens in our Member States at domestic level be completely neglected? In his view, how is it in line with the fundamental ideas of democracy that decisions at EU level, typically by non-elected individuals, can prevail over the will of the citizens? That is a very simple question, I think. Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, every state based on the rule of law is obliged to ensure that the law falling within its sphere 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 9

of competence is enforced. I therefore agree one hundred percent with people who say: when there are problems in individual cases with individual citizens – regardless of which country they come from – in an EU Member State, that Member State and its authorities are obliged to deal with these problems, and if these problems are criminal in nature, then they are obliged to pursue criminal proceedings in this regard. Conversely, that also applies to the enforcement of our common European Union law. States based on the rule of law that are members of this legal community are also obliged to accept European Union law and, where necessary, enforce it. That is precisely what we are calling for in this specific case of the Roma. No more than that. (Applause) Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I wish to thank President Van Rompuy for the report on this important Council. I want to start with the last part of his intervention, on the Roma issue. I would say very clearly and personally to my colleague in the PPE Group, Mr Daul, that the Commission has acted in the right way on the Roma question and we should not criticise it. We have to help the Commission in this fight. I call on the Commission to stick to its point of view, because what we are facing today is a fundamental question. Values are as important as market rules in the European Union, and it is important that everybody sees too that the Commission treats every Member State equally – be they small or big Member States. When it comes to values, there is no difference between small and big Member States. They all have to apply the same rules. Unfortunately, it is true that the European summit has been a little bit hijacked by this issue, but that happens in politics. Certainly, in Europe, matters are often hijacked by the issue of the day. That is naturally a pity because, on the issue of economic governance, we have no time to waste. We cannot afford to face a new economic and financial crisis without these new instruments on economic governance in place. We know that a monetary pillar cannot work without an economic pillar. If you look at the spreads today, the spreads between the German interest rates and other interest rates are still very high. We need a package on economic governance on the table as soon as possible, and I hope that the Commission will come forward with this, as it has promised, on 29 September. In my opinion, to be credible – because that is the most important thing – this package has to respond to and fulfil three primary conditions. President Van Rompuy, the first condition, which you have always defended, is that this is not only about enforcing fiscal surveillance but also about improving macro-economic surveillance, because that is the lesson of the Greek debt crisis. It is not only about the Stability Pact, it is also about the state of the economy in that country. The second condition is that the package should contain effective sanctions. I personally think that the best way to do this is, firstly, through progressive sanctions; secondly, there must be a combination of financial penalties and political penalties – not a choice between one or the other but a combination of both; thirdly, in some cases, this can also mean suspending the voting rights of those who are breaking the rules. That is so in normal life and that has to apply also in political life, I should say. 10 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

The third and final condition, in my opinion, is that the trigger has to be in the hands of the Commission and the ECB. I believe – and I have said this a few times already – that surveillance by Member States simply does not work. It did not work with the Lisbon Treaty, it did not work with the Stability Pact, and it will not work in the future. We have seen this with Germany and France, who did not apply the Stability Pact in 2005 and simply changed the Stability Pact at that moment. This will happen again in the future, so the trigger has to be in the hands of the Commission. I hope that on 29 September, based also on the work of the task force, a credible package will be on the table both of the Council and of Parliament. Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, I am now hearing the report on the last summit – which we should not call a summit because it was a Council meeting – for the third time. Even the public report makes me think that you and we live in different galaxies. What I expect when Heads of State of the European Union gather in Brussels together with foreign ministers during a continuing and precarious crisis is rather different to what you have presented. However often you preach about the success of this summit, which we are only allowed to call a Council meeting, I would still say that you have not actually achieved anything. Your role in particular, Mr Van Rompuy, as the one to guide the task force to ways out of the economic and financial crisis and to more economic governance in Europe, is something you ought to reflect on. I am pleased to hear that the Commission is no longer participating in this game of shifting power and influence to the Member States, but that, even this month, the Commission will be presenting proposals for the shape that common economic governance in Brussels could take. I have the impression that, among other things, your near obsessive concentration on penalty mechanisms, which would not have been possible at all without an amendment of the treaty, has actually only led to the situation that we have today among the Member States where we are agreeing to disagree – but progress towards the goal of ‘more common governance’ is not something that you have to weigh up. I would ask you to stop the pretence, because that is extremely damaging to the perception of European policies in times of crisis. In your role, you have a particular responsibility for the image of European policies. Even if it is a difficult role that you have been lumbered with as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon and its vagaries, my impression is that you will not live up to this claim of making a genuine effort to achieve more common policies. As regards the Roma, I do not agree with the fact that there has been a one-sided apology from Mrs Reding. I am still waiting for the French to explain how they can openly present the Commission with lies these days. I really cannot understand why that is not worthy of an apology. (Applause) I am pleased – and, for me, this is the best thing to come out of the summit – that Mr Barroso showed support for Mrs Reding. These treaty infringement proceedings must be initiated. They can also be comprehensively initiated. Just to take up the idea that actually guided Mrs Reding: what concerns me is the fact that in times of great uncertainty, of economic crisis, financial crisis and uncertain prospects and increasing poverty in the European Union, Heads of State like Mr Sarkozy and even Mr Berlusconi – I could name others, but these are the leading state-level protagonists in this matter in the European Union – are turning their domestic policy problems and their incompetence into policy during the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 11

crisis. They are hiding behind a policy that is returning to a repertoire of racial intolerance and xenophobia. I think that we should, and indeed must, think back to the last century here in Europe. (Applause) Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I want to make a couple of quick points before I go to my main specific point. Firstly, I should like to congratulate the Council on its concentration on improving economic governance in Europe. Secondly, on the Roma, I want to make it clear that we have been pressing very hard to get a very clear legal statement from the guardians of the treaty, the Commission. Until we do, I must say that attacks on the French from some political quarters, just for the sake of it, are not very edifying or very helpful to European unity. However, this morning I want to talk about the declaration on Pakistan, a Commonwealth partner of three of the European Union’s Member States and a strategic ally of the Union. We welcome the progress that has now been made to provide emergency aid for Pakistan and we are pleased that the Council agreed that a comprehensive package of measures for Pakistan’s recovery and future development is required. Development aid for Pakistan, as elsewhere, is vital, and the new UK coalition government is proud of its commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid by 2013. And yes, Mr Schulz, the coalition government in the UK comprises Conservatives and Liberals – just to make the record complete. But aid is only one side of the coin. The long-term future of the developing world rests on the ability of each nation to create a robust, dynamic trading economy. I believe the intention to grant to Pakistan increased market access through the immediate reduction of duties on key imports to the EU is an important step, even though I regret that the policy will need to be time-limited rather than becoming the rule. Nonetheless, the call to establish a major new trade partnership between Europe and Pakistan was a bold proposal by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, which has been pursued with determination by the coalition’s Trade Minister, Ed Davey. I fear though that the need to take into account industrial sensitivities, referred to in the declaration, will turn a dramatic initiative into something of a timid half measure. Given the plight of the people of Pakistan, such a betrayal would be a disgrace. We in my group will therefore be watching closely to ensure that the ambition of the declaration is not thwarted by any selfish protectionism. Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the only aspect of the European Council that will have been highlighted by the mass media is the sinister polemic of the French President against the Commission to defend a hunt organised in France against part of the European population, the Roma. In the name of universal values, the universal values of human rights, the French Government – but others too – must immediately stop this stigmatisation and these appalling expulsions. Likewise, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left demands that the so-called Returns Directive of June 2008, nicknamed the Directive of Shame, as well as the partnership agreement allowing the expulsion of Pakistani refugees, be repealed. 12 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Moreover, which specific European initiatives do you intend to take, Mr Van Rompuy, to finally bring the Roma population out of poverty and misery? This policy against migrants is destroying the moral and political influence which Europe could have in the world. I would add that anti-European populism demeans politics and encourages xenophobia, nationalism and fundamentalism, impregnating what Bertolt Brecht called ‘the foul beast’. Moreover, at the European Council, you have once again come up with conclusions which are very unfavourable to the European people and to the European idea itself. I will mention a few examples. At the very moment when ultraliberalism is pushing the world into crisis, you have decided, and I quote your text, to allow ‘ambitious free trade agreements’. You have decided to accelerate the construction of the transatlantic market: that is, the alignment of our standards with those of the United States and a greater engagement in NATO. Mr Van Rompuy, the free tradeism, the submission to the United States and the militarism that you propose will destroy Europe. You mention, in relation to foreign policy, the plan, and I quote, for ‘clear strategic direction’, but what exactly is this about? Should not a good foreign policy involve, as the GUE/NGL Group argues, committing oneself to action against poverty and famine, debt cancellation, establishing food sovereignty, disarmament and peace? Should it not involve energetic action to make sure that the Cancún climate summit is successful? Why, even though your text points out that we are the principal commercial area, do we not commit ourselves to taxing financial transactions? What do you intend to do, aside from produce this vapid text, to make sure that the dialogue between Israel and Palestine is successful? I note that you are not talking about the 1967 frontiers, nor of East Jerusalem as the capital, and that you are incredibly benevolent towards Israeli colonisation. Finally, you have decided to apply the iron heel of austerity through what you call the European Semester: surveillance with the threat of sanctions against the Member States. Why do you hide the fact that the Member States’ debt has increased not because of excessive social spending, but because of constant support for the forces of money? Why are there no large industrial, services or agriculture projects, on a new basis and in cooperation, which could encourage employment? I would like to know on what legal basis you intend to apply such sanctions, which would further aggravate the situation of the Member States and of the people. We are in the European Year for Combating Poverty. What are the initiatives and the action that correspond to this proclamation? Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, as regards the question of the Roma, I do not think that the problem lies in the deportation of the Roma from France. It lies in the inhumane conditions under which the Roma live in most countries in Europe. Instead, therefore, of being judgmental at this point, we should – given that the Roma are an ethnic minority in every country in Europe – pull together and propose a pan-European plan and a pan-European programme for the Roma as part of our action on social exclusion. Deportation is just one aspect of the problem. It is the conditions under which the Roma live that are the problem. Now, as far as the conclusions of the European Council are concerned, you have set European foreign relations on the basis of mutual interests. Without doubt, China, which 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 13

has a reserve of USD 2.5 trillion and is seeking to invest in Europe, offers a very interesting alliance. Do you therefore intend, in the run-up to the EU-China summit, to smooth over the obstacles which Europe has raised in its relations with China, especially human rights and relations with Iran? Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) The actual official agenda of last week’s European summit was obviously completely overshadowed by that textbook example of political correctness gone mad, the particularly foolish outburst made by Commissioner Viviane Reding against the French policy on the Roma. It was high time that the European Commission was put in its place in this regard. Member States do have the right, indeed not just the right but also the duty, to take action against such an unacceptable nuisance, against actual child labour and child neglect and against illegal immigration. They have the duty to protect their citizens. Pretending that the Roma/Gypsies are not a problem is not going to do anything to solve our problems. I would like to know what the European Commission would say if a Roma camp installed itself at the esplanade of the Berlaymont building. The Belgian Presidency of the European Council and also Mr Van Rompuy, the so-called President of the Council, once again kept trotting out meaningless statements, blowing hot and cold and using particularly woolly language, but they were completely spineless in the debate. We have actually got quite used to that. I can only conclude – and I seem to be in a very small minority in coming to this conclusion – that, thanks in particular to France and Italy, the last European Council summit was one of those rare occasions when opposition was expressed to the seizing of power by politically appointed officials of the European Commission. For once, a summit that was no bad thing for Europe. President. – Mr President of the European Council, I imagine you would like to say a few words. Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like very briefly to say a few words in response. There are always different ways of presenting things. One can let oneself be guided by perceptions, or one can let oneself be guided by achievements and facts. I am the type of person who prefers sticking to achievements, realities and facts. What have we done, during these first eight months of the year, with a new Commission and new institutions following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon? We have succeeded in agreeing on important financial supervision – on an extremely important reform – with Parliament’s cooperation, of course. We have agreed, after long negotiations, on external action, on the External Action Service, a new ministry for foreign affairs, a new diplomatic service for the European Union. These are two extremely important achievements in the context of a complicated institutional architecture, but one which we wanted. We have agreed on an important package for helping Greece to survive. We have agreed on a package of EUR 110 billion, combined with an extremely important programme of reform which is now being implemented, despite the major difficulties that are being encountered by the Greek Government. We have agreed on a package of EUR 750 billion 14 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

of financial support for contingencies – subject to certain conditions, of course – which has appeased the markets and created new perspectives. On the initiative of the Union, major reforms are being made, and I certainly know that there are objections to them within countries and beyond them. Important reforms are being carried out in quite a few European countries. Without the pressure exercised by the institutions, this would not have happened so quickly. On foreign policy, I repeat, following the Security Council, we came to an agreement among the 27 on the sanctions against Iran, on the additional sanctions, which was by no means easy. We have agreed on a resolution among the 27 concerning the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo – and, as you well know, five European countries do not recognise Kosovo. This dialogue is extremely important for stability and peace in this area, which is also a European area, and which must have a European perspective. Finally, we have agreed on a commercial agreement with South Korea. We have agreed on a package of support – not just financial, but also commercial support – for Pakistan. We have agreed on a global approach for the Middle East. In December 2009, we developed a common position of the 27 on one of the most contested regions in the world, the Middle East. We added a new statement which was adopted by the Quartet a few days ago. All of this has been done. These are achievements; these are facts; and I stick to the facts. With respect to the task force: no, we are not working too slowly. We started in May, and we are now in September. In a few months, we have made some big steps forward. Furthermore, we will finish our work not in December, as predicted, but at the end of October. I assure you that I will be able to report here on the qualitatively important conclusions coming out of the task force. There is no problem between us and the Commission. We are working hand in hand to obtain good results. There is no institutional rivalry. With respect to the problem of the Roma, I would repeat the five points, which are not the Council’s conclusions as such, but on which there is a very broad consensus. We are now awaiting the Commission’s inquiry. We must not prejudge it. I would also note that, as was requested at the European Council, the Commission has started work on developing a plan for better integrating certain minorities, including the Roma, into the European Union. I will add some words in Dutch, which is a minority language, of course, but we can let it be heard now and then. (NL) I think that, despite everything, the record of those first few months, in what were extremely difficult circumstances, has been a positive one. We never expected economic growth to pick up so soon. It might be fragile and this might only be the beginning, but if anyone had said a few months ago that one Member State would achieve economic growth of 3.5% and that the European average would be approximately 1.5%, then no one would have believed him. A number of countries are setting up reform programmes in extremely difficult political and social circumstances and what we are doing is setting up a new sort of economic governance for Europe. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 15

Today – and I say this cautiously – the economic situation, and even the situation in the labour market, is better than it was a few months ago. That has not happened by accident, but we have made it happen by dint of joint effort. However, our work is far from over. In my opinion – and that is the last thing I am going to say – very few European citizens today are that interested in our spats about which method is the best. My own thinking on that point is that, while the Community method might, of course, be the most appropriate method, our citizens are, first and foremost, waiting to see the results of our policy. Above all, they are waiting for a future. If that future is better, then we should make a public pronouncement to that effect, so that European citizens can once again have more confidence in us. That will prove a major contribution, not only to support of the European idea, but also a major contribution to economic growth. I am someone who sticks to the facts and does not get distracted by subjective impressions. The facts prove that, in the last eight months, we and all our institutions have made progress through joint efforts and that we are heading in the right direction. Our task in the coming months will be to steer a more definite course in that direction. Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, just a quick reaction to the statements by the political leaders. First, the issue of the Roma: here again I would like to assure this Parliament that the Commission will pursue its work according to two strands. The first is very thorough, precise legal analyses of the situation and the second is support for Roma integration. As you know, we have all been calling for a European solution for a long time and the Commission did a great deal of work with the Spanish Presidency. We organised a special ministerial summit on this issue in Córdoba, though we all know that the attendance was not the best. Let us therefore use this opportunity, this debate, to reinvigorate the whole process, to restart the thinking on how we can make better use of our resources and instruments in future. It is quite clear that we need European consensus on this issue; we need the support and commitment of European institutions, of national and local authorities, of civil society as well, and we need to pull with all our strength in one direction. Only in this way will we be able to approach a positive solution to the plight of the Roma in Europe. On proposals on economic governance, I would also like to assure the political leaders that our proposals will address the issue of macro-economic imbalances through greater surveillance. We will propose strengthening national fiscal frameworks and reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact, in particular, by focusing on debt reduction and sustainability and by paying more attention to prevention. So, altogether, on 29 September, we are going to propose a package of five proposals for a regulation and one for a directive. The priorities mentioned by the political leaders here will be substantially reflected in the package of proposals that will be presented to you very soon. Concerning Pakistan, I think we did a lot. We became the major international contributor to Pakistan. Our role there is very much recognised, but it is very clear that it represented only the first steps in helping Pakistan. We need to be involved more, we have to be more consistent, and we have to combine humanitarian aid with development aid, with improving trade access to the European market for Pakistan’s products. 16 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

We now have to concentrate on the measures that we can take as quickly as possible, and for that they need to be compatible with WTO rules and we need the support for our WTO partners. We are also looking for ways as to how we can evaluate Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP Plus for 2014. This would then be a measure for the long term that I believe would help Pakistan and would help its speedy and successful recovery. Concerning the Middle East, it is very much recognised in this House, in the Council, in the European Council and in the Commission, that this is absolutely a top political priority on the global political scene. I would like to assure all of you that Baroness Ashton is clearly and very much involved in the process. She regularly briefs the College on how we can cooperate and take even more action in the future, and she is in daily contact with all the principal leaders in this process. As Mr Daul has said, the EU’s role in accelerating this process is essential. I can assure you, on behalf of the Commission – and I am sure on behalf of Lady Ashton – that we will do our best and that we will play an important role in this process. Ivo Belet (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, you have quite correctly said that the European citizen is waiting for results and a future. The first precondition for that to become a reality is to speak with one voice, certainly in light of the forthcoming summits with Asia and President Obama over the coming weeks. When it comes to speaking with one voice, you are the person who can act as the necessary mouthpiece. Of course, one of the absolute priorities over the coming months will be the climate debate. We, as the European Union, should have the courage to put new initiatives on the table. Here, I am thinking first of all of the common approach to financial transactions known as the Robin Hood approach. You could be the new Robin Hood! That should give you the wherewithal to invest in renewable energy and energy savings, not just in Europe, but in Africa, too, because you know as well as we do that we have committed ourselves to dramatically reducing poverty in Africa. Investment in sustainable energy could be one of the most efficient instruments in achieving that objective. Besides, in Africa, we should not leave the field open only to the Asians, the Chinese. In my view, you have completed a flawless first lap. One year ago, some people said that they expected very little from you because you were an unknown quantity in their eyes. Today, I think that we could say – and those who wrote you off then share this view – that in recent months, the European Union has made significant advances and that we have weathered the economic and financial storm. I would say: the best is yet to come! Ultimately, that is what we expect of you. Thank you and good luck. Véronique De Keyser (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, my thanks to the Presidents. It is true that we expected a Council on economic governance, but what we actually got was the Roma issue. We have already spoken at length about the incident concerning Mrs Reding, but I would nevertheless like to add something. We support her statements, both in form and in content. With respect to form, I would like to explain what I mean. We cannot consign the Second World War to history, because we will not learn any lessons from it. After all, it should be remembered that gypsies, just like Jews, homosexuals and Communists, were in the camps. They were exterminated. Mrs Reding is right to say that it was from that moment, from that point in time, that we decided in favour of Europe and peace, and never again to discriminate on the grounds of 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 17

race. That is what we stand by. We support the Commission, we appreciate its role as guardian of the treaties, and we also say, as others have said: ‘the large and the small countries’. However, I would like to say to you that, following this Council, seeing the resurgence of nationalism has been an all but terrifying experience for me. It is a persistent echo of the 1930s. We will have to be careful of that tomorrow. On economic governance, very quickly, you said to us, Mr Van Rompuy, that the task force is making progress and we will have conclusions in October. I would say one small thing: you are going to implement supervisory mechanisms in accordance with the most stringent policy of financial orthodoxy, but you said to us: ‘Yes, but social aspects, pensions, and social parameters within that are all matters for the Member States.’ That is not the opinion of my group. The opinion of my group is that we must think about supervision while introducing social parameters into it. We cannot make a Europe against the citizens. That would also be dangerous. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, this, of course, was a European Council meeting that focused, among other things, on foreign policy. At almost the same time, in the United Nations General Assembly, China and numerous developing countries voted against granting special status to you, Mr Van Rompuy, and also to Baroness Ashton. This ought to be addressed with China at the summit on 6 October and it needs to be discussed in no uncertain terms. However, it demonstrates quite clearly the reality of the situation: the European Union still has a long way to go to achieve political power. We are currently an economic power and, for that reason, citizens expect us to do something in this area to combat the economic crisis. That brings me to the task force. Mr Van Rompuy, you said there was broad consensus. At the end of the month, this consensus will be put to the test. On 29 September, the Commission will present its documents. You have already said that you will present a draft on 27 September. I hope that these will be in line with each other to some extent. Incidentally, I would recommend that you speak Dutch more often; I very much enjoyed your statement on the Community method. As regards macro-economic surveillance, there is apparently consensus in the task force – great! Monitoring of national fiscal policies within the European Semester – that is a good thing and something that we expressly welcome. As regards the sanctions, you say that more work is needed. We all know what that means: there is no consensus. The test will therefore come at the end of the month. Why, as Parliament, do we insist so strongly on the Community method? Mr Schulz has just mentioned this. We are still in the process of weighing up the Lisbon machinery. However, the crucial point is this: the European Council is now a European Union body. What that means in terms of its understanding of itself, we do not yet know exactly. If often appears to us to be a gathering of Member States representing only their national interests. One national interest is very clear: that of the United Kingdom, which is to have as little regulation as possible in the financial sector. The Community method represents our only chance of getting the interests of Europe as a whole to prevail over individual national interests. That is why this House insists on the application of the Community method. In light of your Dutch statements, I am pleased that you view this in the same way. 18 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, this is a crucial time, at which the European Union needs to show its leadership globally, particularly on climate change and fighting poverty, but also in terms of governance, internally. This issue goes wider than to just the Member States. We must improve multilevel governance to address the governance deficit in the Lisbon Treaty, and that means an integrated EU-wide approach that recognises the importance of all the regions and substate governments. It also means clearly restating the aim of reducing regional disparities. I have been looking forward to welcoming President Barroso to my constituency in Wales next week. Three quarters of Wales receives structural funding to combat some of the highest levels of poverty in Europe. I look forward to showing him what a difference the funding has made to our economy and our communities. To continue this progress in this and many other regions, regional funding must not be nationalised to the Member States, and I urge the Council and Commission not to jeopardise this European Union assistance for long-term sustainable development. Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Verhofstadt to stay in the Chamber. The Roma are a deep-seated social problem in Europe, and I would warn against too much hypocrisy. We heard the sweeping statements of Mr Verhofstadt at the previous plenary session. He accused Mr Sarkozy of things that he did himself. In 1999, Mr Verhofstadt, as prime minister, deported groups of Roma back to Slovakia. They were dislodged in groups. Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights. NGOs protested against it. Ladies and gentlemen, the House has a right to know. The people have a right to know, and that is why I am saying this. We have sweeping statements about everything – that is the reason why Mr Verhofstadt is not listening, because he does not want to be reminded of it. That is precisely what I am doing, and that is why I have been elected: to remind him of what he did. If there was ever to be a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy, I am quite sure that Mr Verhofstadt would win it outright. Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also award the prize for hypocrisy to Mrs Reding, who forgot to describe – at least according to the texts – the situation of the Roma in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, where the problem of expelling Roma does not exist simply because the setting up of Roma camps is not allowed by law; it is forbidden. Thus, there are many different ‘Europes’. I hope that this is an indication of what is to come: at this European Council, at last, a Head of State or Government felt compelled to teach the European Commission a clear lesson in patriotism. The Commission must not, not even through its Commissioners, allow itself to insult a Member State, in particular, a Member State such as France which could give us all a lesson on the concepts of freedom and humanity. There is a huge difference between what you call European law and the law of the peoples. European law is perhaps the right to enter other people’s houses and steal, not to send your children to school and to exploit them, as asserted not by racist populism, but – according to Le Monde – as asserted by the Prime Minister of Romania during the ‘déjeuner de fiel’ – the ‘lunch as bitter as bile’ – on 16 September. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19

Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Mr President, a fortnight ago, this House adopted a ridiculous resolution in this place, one which accused France of all sorts of things and which found it guilty without a trial. It was a curious situation where the European Parliament put itself in the place of judge and jury. Then came Commissioner Reding making comparisons with the Second World War, even before the facts were known. There is something fundamentally wrong with the European Union when the legislative and executive powers sideline the judicial powers and start passing judgments without knowing the facts of the matter. The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) had hoped that European institutions would respond to the expulsion with a little more awareness of legal and democratic mores. What is ultimately at the heart of the matter here is the legal question of to what extent EU Member States are allowed to expel EU citizens and the institutional question of who has the right to police this issue. As the guardian of the treaty, the Commission has taken on the policing mantle, but that authority belongs to the local courts and, ultimately, to the European Court of Justice, the Community courts. The Roma who were voluntarily deported with EUR 300 in their pockets therefore have the option of going to court. Until such time, the European Parliament and the Commission should simply not interfere. The legal question is not about expulsion or deportation, but about the limits of hospitality and the extent to which you can accept someone entering your home, tearing the place apart and taking away your possessions. It is crazy that we are in a situation where we obviously have no clear rules laying out how to deal with EU citizens who behave inappropriately in another EU Member State. The answer to that, of course, is that any Member State should be able to throw out any EU citizens who are out of work, scrounging benefits and who break the law. I hope the Council will pick this up because the European Commission and Parliament are failing to serve the public and the public should not, therefore, count on them. Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, I admire the optimism with which you are presenting your interim report on the task force. We will, of course, see later what tangible results remain. However, as regards the assessment of the economic situation, you somewhat prematurely said – exactly like Mr Barroso – that the economy has recovered to a considerable extent. As long as we do not have the United States on board, we will not bring the economic crisis to an end. It is certainly good that you see progress, and we all hope that this progress will be realised. However, if the claims made by Mrs Lagarde were true – and the discussions have been continuing right up to the last few days – that Germany has improved its competitiveness to the detriment of the other EU Member States, we would not have had this economic growth. Without the driving force, this economic growth following the crisis would not exist. Anyone who applies the brakes to the locomotive providing this driving force will not succeed in ever getting the train to arrive at its destination. You did not say anything about the excessive debt or the solution to this debt problem. However, that is important in this regard. It is not enough to introduce the European Semester. It is right and proper for it to be implemented, but without a higher level of automation – and, indeed, based with the Commission, not the Council of finance ministers – we will not be able to implement the stability pact measures that are being discussed. 20 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

It is important to regain confidence, but that will only succeed if – as other Members have said – the Community method is applied with the involvement of Parliament. Stephen Hughes (S&D). – Mr President, on economic governance, my group supports efforts to achieve stronger European economic coordination, but we have serious doubts about the direction being followed by the Commission and Council. In essence, they want to strengthen an imbalanced policy approach which has failed us now for over a decade. This mistaken view is based on the assumption that balanced budgets combined with more flexible labour markets will, per se, bring about properly shared growth and prosperity. Sound public finances are very important, but at any point in time we must get the balance right between potentially conflicting policy objectives. This is being ignored. What is proposed for the 24 million unemployed across Europe? The answer is fiscal consolidation and a gradual reduction in social protection. That is not good enough. We need economic governance that can achieve a balanced policy mix, with sound public finances and high quality full employment. The two objectives must go hand in hand. The reform of the current system will be a missed opportunity if the policy focus remains solely on balancing budgets and reducing public debt. That strategy is wrong, from both an economic and social standpoint. (The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8)) Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Hughes, we have worked together before and I have high regard for your work. However, in your analysis of the economic crisis and of the measures that are now to be taken, you are seriously wide of the mark, just like the majority of your group. Would you not agree that it was excessive debt – in other words, too much expenditure in pursuing so-called policy objectives – that triggered the current crisis? Would you not also agree that, for that reason, precisely the right thing to do now is to focus on stability and a sound fiscal policy in order to overcome this crisis? Stephen Hughes (S&D). – Mr President, it is very difficult to distil complex arguments down to one minute, but I did devote one sentence to saying sound public finances are very important. We agree absolutely with that, but it is the timing and method of approach that you adopt which is also crucial. If you do it far too quickly, as is being proposed – that we get back to the 3% deficit criteria by the end of 2013 – that could well cut off any possibility of growth and lead to long-term stagnation and high levels of continuing long-term unemployment. That is the wrong approach. We need a two-legged approach, not a one-legged approach which focuses only on deficit reduction. Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have two sincere questions to put to the President of the European Council and to the Vice-President of the Commission. The first regards the rationale behind the development of the External Action Service: I was particularly struck by the fact that, among the appointments made by Baroness Ashton, there is the appointment of a Dutchman in South Africa, a Frenchman in Chad, a Spaniard in Argentina and an Italian in Albania. There are those probably further to the left than me who would have no hesitation in describing these appointments as being based on neocolonialist ideas. Where is the European approach to the organisation of this service? This is a sincere question, since I believe that we have great ambitions for Europe’s role in the future, and 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 21

if Europe’s role is merely to satisfy the regional policies of the various Member States, then we are getting it all wrong. The second question concerns the Roma issue. Now, it is true that for political reasons, one government or another could be criticised for the solutions it has adopted, but the fundamental problem remains: do we or do we not wish to communitarise the issue of the Roma and the solution that we must find to Roma-related problems, and also communitarise Europe’s efforts to address the epic immigration flow arriving from the South? If we fail to answer this question, we will clearly continue to quarrel among ourselves without understanding the genuine difficulties in which our fellow citizens live. Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, on the Roma affair, I believe it may be useful, at this stage in our debate, to repeat the motto of the European Union: unity in diversity. This motto – unity in diversity – must also apply to the Roma. Let us respect the diversity of the Roma and then let us implement the strategy that we have just established. In the 2020 strategy, we have defined the fight against social exclusion and poverty as one of our major objectives. What is the need to go looking for new strategies? Let us implement the one we have just defined. Let us give it the financial resources to succeed and we will have taken a big step where integrating the Roma is concerned. On economic governance, Mr Van Rompuy, everyone is talking about what a great success establishing a European Semester is. So be it. Up to now, though, I have not fully understood what role the European Parliament would play in this European Semester. If it is simply about organising a debate here – of which we have many – I believe that we will not have fulfilled the objective. Now, let me put something to you. When you came to meet the ministers of employment and social affairs, you heard what they had to say to you. Economic governance which would today turn its back on the objective in terms of employment would not be up to the challenges that we have to face. We are counting on you to establish a form of balanced economic governance; that is, with employment as a priority objective. Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Mr President, turning back to foreign policy – which was supposed to be the main topic of the summit – we need a foreign policy which is not just reactive, but which is forward-looking, holistic, anticipative and wants to achieve long-term goals. I am afraid that the present debate on the EAS will bring exaggerated expectations if this new instrument is not accompanied by more common EU policy. It is just an instrument, not an end in itself. We need more policy convergence and we need to bring the positions of the Member States closer together. I see here a great role for the President of the Council, who brings together the Heads of State or Government, to bring more convergence to the Member States’ positions. The same goes for the European Parliament and national parliaments, in order to bring about more convergence. Then the instrument may work. We also need more competent foreign policy, and there is great room for improvement. More competent means more geographically representative for the Union of 27, because competence is not geographically neutral. We can afford richer, better and more competent foreign policy, drawing competence from the experience and wisdom of all 27 Member States. 22 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

We need to define strategic partners. I am afraid that our list of strategic partners is too long, and we put all the important or big ones on the list. For me, the list is too long. We need to define it. It should not be synonymous with important partners. Only those who converge with us on policy – and possibly share values and want to share with us responsibility for global strategic issues – merit being called partners of strategic importance. David-Maria Sassoli (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last week we witnessed a disconcerting spectacle in the new body over which you preside: Mr Sarkozy and Mr Berlusconi called into question the treaties signed by their countries. We realised that the French President and Italian Prime Minister, in serious difficulty in their countries, wish to have a Commission that bends to their will. The former refuses to accept criticism, and the latter even wants to deny Commissioners the right to speak. We must remember, as Parliament has reminded us, that the Roma are European citizens on European soil. The treaties must be upheld. We have the instruments to do this, and we must not be afraid to open infringement procedures too. Moreover, if we do not defend the principles of European integration, how will we be able to agree on strategies to emerge from the economic crisis? The forces on the ground, Mr President, have had their say. Parliament, its Presidency and the Commission must respond to the populism advocating a fear-driven Europe with an enhanced social Europe and enhanced citizenship, and we believe this to be the challenge that this political generation must meet. Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I am really delighted that the European Council has discussed the Union’s external action. We are in a new world, which is multipolar from an economic point of view and increasingly from a political point of view, with a smaller number of significant players. Moreover, the challenges that we face are global ones. No country can face them alone, including the countries of the EU. As the President of the Commission said a few days ago, in a global world, size does matter. The European Union must be one of those players. I therefore regret the result of the vote in New York last week on strengthening the EU’s position in the United Nations. What happened is very concerning. I think it would be very good for careful preparations to be made in future for summits with the other major players. As well as tackling the way that the other players voted on 14 September in New York, they are also needed to tackle important bilateral and multilateral issues. Among other things, we need to govern globalisation, adapting the institutions that were established after the Second World War and strengthening more recent forums such as the G20. In doing all these things, I also think that we need to be working in harmony with the United States. We share many values and interests with them, and I trust that sound preparations are being made for the summit on 20 November. Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the new instruments of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union’s external action will have more continuity and consistency. However, along with the internal strength of the Union, the political will for joint action by the 27 is also essential, particularly among the most significant Member States. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 23

This process of uniting will inevitably be a long and difficult one. It is necessary, however, if we want to prevent Europe from being irrelevant and prevent what is beginning to be described as the advent of a post-Western era. President. – That was slightly too fast, and the interpreters could not interpret precisely. Please do not speak so fast. Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, the EU has half a billion inhabitants, and this number of people is not negligible in world politics. The USA has only 296 million people. The EU has all the potential to be a great power, as we have been for years in the economic and cultural field. Yet in the political field, we have not yet lived up to our potential, because Europe often remains divided, even when common action would be more efficient. Europe already has a phone number, but it has no real common voice. The CFSP and the ESDP are currently non-visible policies from a political point of view. Whether we like it or not, a common voice means that we will need greater foreign policy and defence policy coordination. Common policies like that go right to the heart of the matter of national sovereignty, but what members get in return for parts of their national sovereignty is greater influence in world politics. That is why I welcome President Van Rompuy’s initiative and why I encourage the Council to continue the coordination it began last weekend, and eventually to broaden and deepen it. Emotions must not deter us from our goals, as you said. Lívia Járóka (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to warmly welcome the statement by the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, about launching the European Roma strategy during the upcoming Hungarian Presidency. This Parliament has been the propelling force behind developing a common European programme for Roma inclusion and, after the announcement of the representatives of several Member States, I sincerely hope that the Council will also support the next EU Presidency in providing a common European solution for a common European problem. The primary cause of the social exclusion of the European Roma is not mainly racism or discrimination, but the interdependence of several historical and economic factors. Therefore, the strategy must define its target audience not by ethnicity but on the basis of its common economic attributes, and must focus on alleviating geographically-concentrated deep poverty that affects Roma and non-Roma alike in certain disadvantaged micro-regions of the European Union. This strategy must permit an EU-coordinated chain of complex development programmes, based on clear and unambiguous indicators like the Laeken indicators, with proper Community monitoring, and taking advantage of multilevel governance. In the short run, the pan-European action plan must prevent the reproduction of deep poverty through generations, and in the medium term, it is necessary to equalise the regional lack of the underdevelopment of micro-regions. (Interruption from the President) In the long run, as I said, the hopeless poverty stricken masses of today must become the equal taxpayers of tomorrow. This will require a sustained, enhanced and shared effort by all the stakeholders, the EU institutions, the Member States, NGOs and also the Roma themselves. Europe cannot afford politics as usual: not at the moment, when the demographic and the social challenges we are facing are so great and the consequences of 24 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

inaction are so dangerous. We must act quickly and we must act boldly to transform our entire approach. Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say a few words to the Commission. As someone who, on behalf of the group, heavily criticised the Commission, Mr Barroso and Mrs Reding for their weak position on the Roma issue last time, I would like to say that I am grateful for the clear position that has since been found. A lot of what was said was perhaps not always very carefully considered. In the fury and anger over the fact that the wool had been pulled over our eyes, Mrs Reding perhaps did not always make the right choice of words. However, we fully and wholeheartedly support the substance of the Commission’s activities. I would, however, like to direct three questions to Mr Van Rompuy. I appreciate your good intentions, but there are three things that I am not clear about. Firstly, you said that you are now able to speak with the Chinese Prime Minister on behalf of the 27. However, what will you say to him? What is the common line in respect of China? I have not been able to find this in the minutes. Secondly, you said that you will develop foreign policy strategies. In this connection, you made absolutely no mention of the Commission, or indeed of Parliament. However, for foreign policy strategies, particularly trade-related strategies, you also need this Parliament. Will you involve Parliament in the development of the foreign policy strategies, and if so, how? Thirdly, carrying on from what Mr Graf Lambsdorff said, I agree with him: we cannot accept the UN’s decision. We cannot once again – in this case, too – be the ones footing the bill, but not be allowed to have our say or speak before the UN. What went wrong there, and what are you going to do – including as the Council and with the Heads of Government – so that we finally come into our own and can present ourselves and speak at the United Nations as the European Union? Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) The Council mainly dealt with the EU’s external relations. However, let us not forget that the current problem facing Europe’s citizens is the economic situation. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached on a European Semester, but unless the European Commission is provided with an implementation mechanism which will also include sanctions, this agreement is useless. Sanctions are needed, but they must not allow citizens to be punished twice: once through ineffective governance and a second time through reducing the support from the European Union. The measures proposed must help prevent deficits and ending up in a situation which will already have an adverse impact. Regarding the Roma issue, all European citizens are obliged to abide by the law. All Member States are obliged to abide by European legislation. Anyone who fails to do this, be they individual citizens or a Member State, must face the consequences. However, in the current case, I believe that punishing citizens – or Member States – does not resolve the fundamental problem. The Roma’s situation can only be resolved by a European policy. I firmly believe that all Member States, whether countries of origin or transit, can produce a list of different measures for supporting Roma integration. I think that a European policy means a single list of measures and programmes which will be applied identically and simultaneously in all Member States. I also believe that the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 25

implementation of this idea does not require more responsibilities or more money, but simply political will. Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, President Van Rompuy, you are facing the major challenge of having to elevate the European Council above the jungle of national interests, above the jungle of the interests of the large Member States, and to ensure that our common interest prevails in the Council. That is the only thing that can help us out of the economic crisis. It is vital that you work to strengthen economic governance in Europe. You are on the right road to achieving this, because, a year ago, it would have been unthinkable that the Council would jointly support a European Semester in order to not only strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact but also to increase the European Union’s competitiveness. I hope that next week, you will receive an important shot in the arm because the European Commission is going to fully exercise its right of initiative. That is important because we need to be more ambitious when it comes to sanctions, but also – and, to me, that is even more important – when it comes to how the Council will ultimately deal with the European Commission’s recommendations concerning various national plans. Should these plans prove insufficient and should the European Commission come up with recommendations, will the Council then be prepared to act on those recommendations, one by one? Even if those recommendations are addressed to Paris and London? That is ultimately what counts, because that would undermine the Stability and Growth Pact. I would therefore be curious to know your thoughts on that score because, in this case, the Council will ultimately have to conform to the European Commission’s independent role. Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Mr Van Rompuy, first of all, I would like to say how happy I am to see that, on the question of the Roma, the positions for resolving the problems of poverty faced by these populations are balanced, reasonable and forward-looking. I would like to say to you, Mr Van Rompuy, that I appreciated your way of presenting the achievements of these last eight months. You presented them with vigour and precision. We do not say enough about Europe’s work, and neither do we say enough about the part Parliament plays in it. You spoke just now of collaboration, in particular, as it relates to supervision. This is good, because Parliament wanted agencies with a true European competence, which this supervision was able to introduce, because, as you know, the position of the Ecofin Council in December 2009 was much more reticent on this question. We must continue, at a time when the G20 will have a European Presidency, via France. We must say more, and we must say it stronger, with one voice. We must also have specific proposals for the future. We are counting on you, Mr Van Rompuy. Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) I would like to ask President Van Rompuy, whose consistent and systematic work I hold in very high regard, to convince Member States with Roma populations to develop medium-term government programmes on the Roma issue everywhere. I dare to say this because it was I, as undersecretary of state, who developed the first European Roma programme in Hungary. The programme included deadlines, accountable persons and financial resources. I would like to ask Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Šefčovič of the European Commission and Mr Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, to cooperate in developing a monitoring and supervisory system to verify whether Member States are fulfilling their commitments. Third, it is the task of the European 26 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Commission to develop a Roma strategy for the European Union which defines roles at local regional level, Member State competences and the added value provided by the European Union. The latter should be the essence of the EU Roma strategy. Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, we know how concerned you are to give an incarnation to the unity of Europe, as much within it as outside it. In my opinion, however, the way in which the Member States are represented at the G20 creates, within the 27, two categories of European states: those that have the status of members and those that do not have this status: the haves and the have-nots. This goes against statutory unity and equality. Do you not think, President of the European Council, that the best way of guaranteeing the economic cohesion and coordination of the European Union in the context of the G20 would be for this Union to be represented there by its institutions, including the Commission and the Council, and no longer by a few Member States? If so, do you intend to work towards this? President. – Colleagues, I would ask you not to raise blue cards. Please raise the white card if you want to take part in the catch-the-eye procedure. I am very sorry, the blue card is something different. All of you are on the list, but there are 25 names on that list, so it will not be possible to take contributions from all of you. I am very sorry. Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, I am grateful to you for repeating that human dignity is a core value of the European Union. However, given the political storm of last week and the xenophobic tone of the French Government, the promises of a future discussion are not up to our expectations. Mr Van Rompuy, do not waste the opportunity to embody European diplomacy. We expect a Member State which has not respected European legislation to be condemned without appeal. We expect specific proposals, the introduction of strategies which have already been decided on, funds, the evaluation of these funds and the utilisation of these funds. In conclusion, I would like to raise the issue of the rights and obligations that Mr Daul mentioned, and I would say to him that, in order to register children in school, we still need them to have school buses, and that means spending money. As you understood, on the subject of the Roma, we do not just need speeches; above all, we need a clear and unambiguous political will. Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) The main item on the agenda of the last European Council meeting was an attempt to give new impetus to the Union’s external relations based on the Treaty of Lisbon. Not for the first time, the Council meeting was dominated by a matter which, officially, had not been anticipated. This time it was about the removal of Roma people from a certain European Union Member State. This confirms earlier fears that, following adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union’s Member States would continue to be occupied with problems of an internal nature rather than external relations. The directions of foreign policy which were outlined during the Council meeting do not go beyond defining the strategic interests and objectives of the Union and the use of assertive methods. The European Council announced that it wants to give new momentum to transatlantic relations. It is to be hoped that during the summit planned for November this year, which will be attended by US President Barack Obama, the current anti-American phobia will be 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 27

replaced by a pragmatic settling of common interests. One of these should be the question of finally lifting visa requirements for all Member States of the European Union. Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate President Van Rompuy on the results of this Council meeting and, in particular, on his systematic efforts to introduce real economic governance for the European Union. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and its Portuguese Members fully endorse these efforts. Secondly, I should also like to acknowledge the efforts made by the Commission which, in this respect, has devoted its full support and initiative to establishing real economic governance. Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the issue of external relations and, particularly, our opening-up to Pakistan. I believe we must show complete solidarity towards Pakistan, but we must always protect those countries that meet their obligations towards their workers, which clamp down on child labour and are not against paying social security. In that sense, I think we must give Pakistan some aid, but not the kind that will stimulate industries that exploit their workers. Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) I would like to touch on two topics, the first one only briefly as we examined it here in Parliament two weeks ago, in relation to a solution to the Roma problem. It is paradoxical that even today, this topic is addressed by some Members who have never set foot in a Roma encampment, and who have no idea what life is actually like in these encampments, while uttering some very strange judgments here. I very much appreciate the fact that the Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Reding, but also President Barroso, have taken the right approach to this problem, and I hope it will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for the Roma themselves. The second topic mainly relates to the discussion on introducing tighter rules for Member State budgets where, on the one hand, I very much appreciate the efforts taken by the Commission for these rules to be not only politically declared but also legally enforceable, and for them to apply equally to all EU Member States. However, on the other hand, I must say that I am rather disappointed by the fact that almost all the attention has gone to budgetary discipline and that the issues were not discussed more comprehensively. I therefore hope that these issues will be resolved more comprehensively in the future. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, this debate has again highlighted the serious contradictions that the European Union contends with. It wants to be the greatest power in the world and puts itself forward as the great defender of human rights, but some governments, like the French, carry out hateful actions that smack of state-sponsored racism and xenophobia, as they have done against the Roma. Meanwhile, as regards capital, they delay adopting measures that would prevent its free movement and speculation, and only worry about threatening states that are unable to fulfil the irrational criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. As regards the people, the mass expulsion of European citizens is designed to hide the utter disaster of neoliberal policies. Furthermore, the solidarity that the European Union must offer to the flood victims in Pakistan and to increasing support for cooperation must not be given at the expense of vulnerable industries in countries and regions facing serious difficulties and where unemployment is already high, as is the case of the textile and clothing industry in Portugal. It is time, therefore, to change policies and prioritise the fight against poverty. It is time to 28 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

focus on production, on the creation of jobs with rights and on social progress. In that way, we can give some real content to the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). – (SL) Mr Van Rompuy, I would like to remind you that we have two important international environmental conferences coming up soon: one will be taking place in October, in Japan, and will be devoted to biodiversity, and the other one on climate change will take place at the end of this year. Both conferences will be held under the auspices of the United Nations and we need the European Union to play an active role, but, at the same time, we have to ensure that international findings and positions are in line with the direction being taken by the European Union. We all know that, but we also know what happened in Copenhagen, where Europe came forward with a number of different positions, and that was not good news for the progress of the actual negotiations. I would, therefore, like to ask you: what does the Council actually mean when it says that we have to speak with one voice? I would also be interested to know whether or not the prime ministers are prepared to undertake a specific commitment in that respect. Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, you have been very generous in allocating me the time. I shall try to be very brief and just react to the four major topics that have been discussed here this morning. First, I think we can clearly see that there is strong support for the new strategic approach towards our key partners, that we need to make much better use of the Lisbon framework and that we need to make better use of EU positions and the projections of EU powers in foreign policy. We can achieve this by making better use of foreign policy synergy and we need to work on Member States and the European institutions singing from one hymn sheet with one voice. I therefore appreciate highly the importance President Van Rompuy placed on ownership of EU foreign policy, not only by the institutions, but also by the leaders of the Member States, because only in that way, when we speak with one voice, not only multilaterally but also in our bilateral contacts, will we achieve the necessary results. A couple of words on economic governance. Here again, I see strong support in Parliament for maintaining the momentum of the change we started this spring. There is very clear support for building up a new and better system and I would like to assure the honourable Members of this Parliament that we are not going to look critically only at budget deficit. We are also going to take a very close look at the issue of debt – how to manage it better and how to monitor it better in the future. Parliament will have the chance to discuss this issue annually because Commissioners will be coming every January for the annual growth survey which will start the so-called European Semester, and where you will see the complex picture of the European economy and the economic state of the different Member States. This will be a very welcome opportunity to have a deeper debate on this issue at the beginning of every year. At the same time, I would like to assure you that we have not forgotten the importance of growth and employment. For that, we need to use the EU 2020 strategy tools, because we would like to set the European economy on new bases, on new wheels, and we want to 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 29

pursue the smart inclusive green – meaning healthy – growth of the European economy. Therefore, we need to focus more on employment, on better education, on high quality youth policies and, of course, on the reduction of poverty. These two strengths – better surveillance and smarter economic policies – must go hand in hand, because only in that way will we achieve the necessary results. So if the Commission is for something, it is for smart consolidation. Turning to the External Action Service, I think that Baroness Ashton made it very clear that she is fully committed to building a professional European External Action Service which will reflect European values, strength and also the European landscape. Therefore, geographic and gender balance, as well as an agreed balance among the sources for the European External Action Service from our institutions and Member States, as has been agreed, are very important in building up the new professional staff of the European External Action Service. Cathy Ashton undertook to inform you regularly about progress in building up the service. I believe that the progress achieved in the transitional period to 2013 will answer present concerns, which I fully understand. For my last point, let me thank you all for your insistence on respecting European law, cherishing European values and undertaking to look for better ways to alleviate the plight of the Roma people and for their integration. More than EUR 17.5 billion have been allocated to measures benefiting Roma and other vulnerable groups by the Commission and 12 Member States, mostly from the European Social Fund. However, we have to look at how we use our means and the instruments which are at our disposal. I would call for these to be used more efficiently. For that, we will need to take a new fresh look at how to do this in the future. If we do this together, it will definitely be much more efficient, and will bring much better results than in the past. Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, thank you to all the speakers in the debate. I know that it is a difficult task to respond, but I know that it is also a very hard task to synthesise, in one minute, the points of view that we want to develop. I will therefore not be able to reply to all of the remarks. I would like to make a few comments on just two important topics. The first topic is foreign policy. We have travelled a long road. We have had the important work of Mr Solana. We forget it too often. I have given you a list, just for the last few months, of the common positions that we were able to develop, with the European Union, on Iran, on the Middle East and on certain trade matters. However, we also took a step forward, particularly with respect to our position at the G20, the biggest annual global conference. When I came in as a Prime Minister at the European Council, there were still, a year ago, separate meetings of all the Member States which were part of the G20. They would establish a common position among themselves. I asked, demanded in fact – as we have done since then – that there should be a common position of the 27. Even if not all the countries are present at the G20, Mr Barroso and I represent the Union as a Union, and we therefore have a common position. I can assure you that, during the G8 and G20 meetings, the Member States and the representatives of the Union carry the same message. We also sometimes have positive 30 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

things and progress, and I would like to stress that, in this respect, there have been such things. I am talking here about the biggest international global conference, the G20. Are there still problems? Of course! Furthermore, we are still suffering from the effects of the Copenhagen trauma. We had a common position. We had a common message. However, we did not succeed in imposing this, in getting the others to accept our position. The result: everyone loses, because the results are totally unsatisfactory. So, on various points, progress has been made, but we must work more in the right direction. People have asked me: what will your messages be during the summit with China? I would invite you to read attentively – not in a superficial, but in an attentive way – what was contained in the European Council conclusions. I advise you to do so. Of course, we will not say in the European Council conclusions what strategy we will develop and what balances we will present to our strategic partners, such as our Chinese partners. However, if you read the text, you will notice that there are actually new emphases, and that we will introduce the notion of reciprocity. It is not just us who are reacting in relation to the message of others. We have become ‘askers’ in our relations with a good many of our partners, and so we need this concept of reciprocity. The European Parliament is involved – even more so since the Treaty of Lisbon – in trade agreements, and completes colegislation with regard to international agreements and international trade agreements. So there is also progress, but we must have more of it. The summit with the US President will be prepared at the October Council. We will agree on the messages that Mr Barroso and I will give to the US President. We will agree in order to be able to speak on behalf of the Union, on behalf of the 27. So, once again, we will go in the right direction, step by step. My second observation concerns economic policy. In these last two years, we have followed an intelligent economic policy, much more intelligent than in the past. We wasted 10 years. We could have acted in time on the budget and on competitiveness, but we did not do so. It is precisely because of this that we have problems today. What have we done since the financial crisis? Apart from saving the banks and others, we ran a very risky expansionist policy in 2008 and, in large part, in 2009. It was a risky policy because it added to budget deficits. However, since we have had an upturn in growth – which we believed to be slow at the start of the year – we have initiated a policy of budgetary consolidation, of gradually reducing budget deficits, not immediately, but gradually. Even this year, we still have a slightly expansionist effect. We have followed an intelligent monetary policy. The markets have always been liquid, so there have been no ruptures of liquidities as in the 1930s. We have followed an interest rate policy where the rates are low enough to ensure that the recovery can take place and that the Member States’ budgets do not suffer too much from very high interest rates. On budgetary and monetary matters, we have followed a prudent, wise and gradual policy. Why? Not for the pleasure of proceeding – as we are going to do now – with serious budget cuts, not for the pleasure of reducing the debt, but to have lasting economic growth, to have an employment policy which bears fruit. All of these efforts are to bring about employment, to reduce unemployment. There is an eminent social aim in all the efforts that we are making. We are not doing it for the pleasure of reducing debts and deficits. This is only an instrument: the objective, of course, is employment and the reduction of unemployment. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 31

As the Vice-President of the Commission has just said, in order to do all of this in a more social manner, we have integrated the objective of poverty into our objectives for 2020. We had to fight to obtain it. We have integrated an education policy and we are maintaining a cohesion policy. We are maintaining the structural funds, and I hope that we will also maintain them in the financial perspective that we develop, so that living standards can be as balanced as possible within the European Union. The goal behind all our actions is therefore an eminently social one; all the rest is only instruments. I wanted to say this to you at the end of this debate. President. – President Van Rompuy, thank you very much for your report from the European Council and for the discussions with us. We look forward to your next important discussions with the European Parliament. The next European Council will be in October, so there will not be a big break between now and then. That concludes this item. Written statements (Rule 149) João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) At a time when the repercussions of the crisis of capitalism in the European Union are lowering living standards for millions of Europeans and causing a worrying deterioration in the economic and social situation in various Member States, the Council has decided to skirt these issues and reassert the old political guidelines that brought us to where we are today. That is the only way to understand the insistence on liberalisation and deregulation of world trade both within the World Trade Organisation – with the call to conclude the Doha round – and in new bilateral agreements. That creates a situation in which even greater pressure can be put on the most vulnerable productive systems and on the workforce, cheapening it. The result is more unemployment and less job security. The Council thinks it is time to reap the benefits of the Treaty of Lisbon and to ‘promote Europe’s interests and values in the wider world’. The road ahead has been clearly laid out: greater alignment with NATO and the United States, growing external interventionism, and a worrying military build-up in international relations. As for the ‘financial supervision package’ mentioned in the conclusions, the message is clear: the main financial speculation mechanisms remain untouchable. Speculation will continue to have free rein, as it has had until now. Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The events we have witnessed in the past few weeks prove that our demands, which we have voiced for some time now, are legitimate. Europe is in need of a comprehensive strategy to facilitate the social integration of the Roma. The expulsion of Roma from France immediately brought into focus the problems of the largest minority group on the continent, making it a European issue. I trust that the disturbing events of the past few weeks will add momentum to joint actions. The decisions made at the EU summit last week bring hope. The European Parliament has been pressing for the development of a European Roma strategy for quite some time now. Such a strategy would prevent Member States from passing the responsibility for rectifying the situation of this community to one another. I am curious to see what the Hungarian Government, as the next Presidency of the European Union, will do to move forward with this strategy. I do hope that the European Commission will complete its investigation of the legality of the French Government’s measures very quickly and, if necessary, take prompt legal steps to eliminate practices which violate the fundamental rights of the European Union. I find it unacceptable that the French Government, a representative of one of the founding 32 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Member States of the European Union, has so far ignored the European Parliament’s opinion and the warnings of the European Commission. Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) I welcome the inclusion of the Eastern partnership in the conclusions of the European Council as one of the common foreign policy strategic directions. I support the objective of the European economic policy governance initiative to reinforce the functioning of the Stability and Growth Pact and to increase monitoring of macro-economic imbalances. It is important to establish a stricter sanctions mechanism for those Member States which do not comply with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is, those which ignore budget deficits or disproportionately increase their external debt. At the same time, the use of the European Union budget for sanctions is only possible if all types of budget expenditure are included, not just European funds, for example. It is important to draw up clear and comprehensible principles and criteria for the application of the sanctions mechanism. Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – As President Van Rompuy said, the EU governments knew for a long time about their financial problems but failed to react. We need a new financial supervision architecture for Europe. Reaching consensus on the macro-economic surveillance framework is a crucial step in the long-term prevention of future crises. However, the Commission has a decisive fight ahead to counter the still prevailing short-term approach of first trying to restore economic growth and considering budgetary discipline not that important in the foreseeable future. All Member States need to realise that budgetary discipline (a balanced budget) is the only precondition for reliable macro-economic stability. Therefore, the new EU rules and control mechanisms will help Member States in restoring self-discipline. Also, long-term crisis prevention needs robust structural reforms. Are the Member States ready for this effort? I welcome President Van Rompuy’s concept of reciprocity in EU relations with its strategic partners. Such an approach means balancing what the EU wants and values and what our partners would like to get from us. At present, up to 56 different dialogue sectors are numbered in EU-China relations. To overcome such a grotesque situation, political will giving preference to common policies over bilateralism is needed. Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The problems relating to the Roma’s situation in one of the European Union’s Member States have taken up a great deal of time intended for debates in the European Council. Without trying to play down the gravity of these problems, I consider that this approach to issues based on cyclical crises or situations is superficial and ineffective. Admittedly, the positions on this issue were balanced and geared towards finding solutions. However, in order to overcome the problems linked to the Roma communities living in the European Union, long-term measures with vision are required, not merely EU level summits. Putting this difficulty to one side, I must say how pleased I am that Europe’s institutions have realised that in this debate, they will be playing their active role as guardians of the treaties and EU law, which is one and the same for all citizens of the European Union, regardless of the Member State they come from and their ethnic origin. The right of free movement, provided for by Directive 2004/38/EC, cannot be brought into question for any European citizen, as simply raising such an option sets a dangerous precedent. Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing must never happen again. Europe’s new economic governance, however, must take into account not only the level of government debt, but also its sustainability in the medium to long term. Private debt and the sustainability of social security systems are 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 33

just as important as government debt as such for the stability of public finances. Indeed, countries which had controlled government debt have plunged into a deep crisis precisely because of the serious indebtedness of families and companies, while countries with high government debt, such as Italy, have come through well. Sovereign debt must be placed under control by means of obligations and more incisive and effective monitoring. We do not need, however, new mechanisms to tackle debt that are excessively automatic and pro-cyclical, which risk failing to meet the objective and, if anything, hindering actions to boost economic growth. We do not need sanctions when we are still trying to prevent overruns: it would be almost like passing sentence before the trial. Rather, we must better consider the structural reforms required to stimulate competitiveness and economic growth in Europe. Competitiveness brings economic growth; growth brings more tax revenues and effective financial consolidation. Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) 2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. There are currently 84 million European citizens, 16% of the EU’s population, who are exposed to the risk of poverty. Against the background of the economic and financial crisis, the main concern that European citizens have is about losing their jobs. At this juncture, the European Council should examine the main challenges facing the EU and identify solutions and priority areas where the European Union will invest in order to retain its global competitiveness and ensure a minimum employment rate of 70%. I believe that areas such as energy security and efficiency, investments, innovation and climate change should be on the European Council’s agenda. I welcome the fact that, during the European Council in October, the EU will reaffirm its strong commitment to the battle against climate change and will agree on the EU’s position for the Cancún conference. Free movement of persons is one of the EU’s fundamental principles, also advocated by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Consequently, we ask the European Council, Member States and the Commission to respect EU law and its enforcement. As a reaffirmation of the importance of the Eastern Partnership in promoting EU values, I call for an EU Black Sea strategy to be devised. Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – The European Council’s sometimes heated debate on the Roma crisis in France was a step in the right direction. It stressed the need for a pan-European approach in dealing with the Roma problem. It also proved that the pervasive clichés of the left will only serve to leave unsolved or to even aggravate this issue. Three main ideas emerged form this robust debate: 1) the Roma problem is not owned by one Member State or another. It is a European phenomenon that requires coordinated European policies; 2) the right to free movement should not amount to the limitation of the right to security; 3) minority rights should not preclude legal responsibilities. The Council debate has proved wrong the assumption that Romania and Bulgaria are not pursuing integration programmes for the Roma. Finally, the Council position was a clear rejection of the suggestions that linked the Roma question to the Schengen accession of Romania and Bulgaria. I am convinced that France and Romania will maintain a high level of cooperation and set a model in the field. The Roma question was systematically distorted and used for political reasons. This sad precedent should be replaced by appropriate and energetic policies. Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Unfortunately, the last Council meeting left a lot of specific measures undecided. We need, at long last, to strengthen the economic and monetary union and, in so doing, learn the necessary lessons from the economic crisis 34 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

– in other words, we need to strictly implement the Stability Pact and precisely define the financial transaction tax. However, this must not be at our citizens’ expense. The new European External Action Service could be a significant achievement for the European Union, provided the basic idea behind its enshrinement in the treaties can be put into practice. We must look for, find and use existing synergies in order for Europe to be able to act as a unit on the world stage – and this will certainly also significantly increase the EU’s influence in the world. With regard to the climate, we can see that here, too, it is important to learn the necessary lessons and to prepare accordingly for the summit in Cancún. Human rights violations must not be tolerated in the EU. Human dignity must remain sacrosanct – populism in any form inevitably leads to nationalism and this is in no way conducive to the European ideal.

IN THE CHAIR: Roberta ANGELILLI Vice-President

4. Financial supervision package (debate)

President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the financial supervision package. Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Madam President, just an enquiry. I thought we were going to have a catch-the-eye segment in this debate. Is that the case? President. – We will use the catch-the-eye procedure for the statement on the financial supervision package. I must, however, be very clear: I will be very strict regarding speaking times since we are running considerably late and we have a long voting time. Therefore, when someone’s time is up I must cut them off, and as for the catch-the-eye procedure, we shall have to stick to five minutes. I am sorry, but that is how it must be this morning. Didier Reynders, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I appear before you again to discuss financial supervision once more, as we have had the opportunity to talk about it following the last Ecofin meeting, while the legislative package on supervision is now being submitted to Parliament’s vote. It is a collection of texts which introduces a particularly important reform in the Union and which responds to several challenges. The first challenge – the President of the Council has just spoken about it – is the response to the crisis. The decade which is just coming to a close has seen the introduction and deployment of the Lamfalussy architecture in all the financial sectors. The committees of supervisors have, in some way, begun to make their presence felt. They have contributed to the development of European financial legislation and to a process of progressive convergence of prudential supervision. This process was an important and positive first step towards a European approach, but, in the light of the crisis, we really must say that this process did not, in the end, turn out to be ambitious enough. It did not allow us to prevent or contain the financial crisis or to coordinate rapid and efficient responses on the ground, particularly relating to cross-border cooperation. It is for this reason that we are aiming to create an operational European Systemic Risk Board, with all the administrative support of the European Central Bank, which, under the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 35

leadership of its president, is more than ready to work on the implementation and introduction of this board. I do not doubt that Mr Trichet will bring all his competence and authority to it, including in following up potential warnings or recommendations made under his Presidency. It is for this same end that we also want stronger, more responsive and much better equipped supervisory authorities to prepare the Community technical standards and ensure their full implementation, including in times of crisis. In the event that a national supervisory authority fails to act, these authorities will have the legal means to make financial establishments conform to the standards. They will help establish a true European supervisory area, which is indispensable for strengthening the internal market. They will thus be involved in the functioning of the colleges of supervisors and will help resolve any disputes between the national authorities while, of course, allowing them to conduct prudential everyday supervision. Have no fear of words; the introduction of these authorities is an historic agreement, as some have already mentioned many times in this Chamber. The Belgian Presidency made this its main priority in the area of financial markets, but also in a global manner. Let us make no mistake: in this way, we are continuing to build an original supervision model – I will come back to this – but we must also take account of the evolution of the supervision structures of our main partners. This is the second challenge: to show that the European Union of 27 is capable of reforming its financial supervision structures without allowing itself to be left behind by the United States in particular. With the de Larosière report in February 2009, which the European Council welcomed very warmly, incidentally, the debate in Europe moved in promising directions, but we had to make these hopes of reform succeed. The United States has meanwhile undertaken a large-scale revision of its supervision with the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act. In voting today, I hope, in favour of the legislative package, which is the fruit of a year’s investigation, negotiations and cooperation between the different institutions, the European Parliament will show that the European Union is not being left behind, and that it is also a leader in the reform process supported at the G20. However, we can only be a true leader in the long term. Today’s historic vote aside, we will have to ensure that our new system keeps going and evolves. This is the third challenge. What we are aiming at, firstly, is a model of micro-prudential supervision which is largely decentralised, where the authorities support and coordinate the national supervisors without taking their place. Secondly, what we also want is a system which becomes ever stronger, not one which stands still. With the European Systemic Risk Board, we will introduce an essential organ of debate and macro-economic decision making, including at a transatlantic or even a global level. With the European supervisory authorities, we will have effective actors of risk prevention and treatment if we give them the powers to carry out their actions. This is partly the case with the Omnibus I Directive, on which Parliament is being asked to give its opinion today. However, other legislative measures will have to follow as part of the revision of existing texts. It is on this point, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, that I would like to conclude. Today, we are coming to the end of a crucial first step and, while hoping for a positive 36 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

result from your vote just now, I would like, in particular, to thank the Chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Mrs Bowles, the various Parliamentary rapporteurs, Mrs Goulard, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, Mr Skinner, Mr Giegold, Mr Sánchez Presedo and their shadow rapporteurs, as well as Commissioners Rehn and Barnier, who are present in this Chamber, and, of course, all their collaborators too. There have been fruitful exchanges – and, I think, constructive ones – between us on the package of amended texts put to the vote today. However, I hope that the will to achieve results which has inspired us will continue to lead the negotiations on future texts to complete and modernise this system further. I think I can say, on behalf of those who will succeed me as President-in-Office of the Council over the next few months, and in view of recent negotiations, that I am confident that this will be the case. I hope that we will be able to come here soon with new agreements – particularly regarding investment funds – and that together, we will be able, with Commissioner Barnier, to support a whole range of actions to implement new legislative texts. Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement on the financial supervision package which you will be voting on in a few moments, almost a year to the day since the Commission adopted these proposals, is, I think I can say, something quite historic in terms of the evolution of financial regulation in Europe. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the European Union has reacted at international level. It initiated the G20 process launched at the Washington Summit in November 2008. The working group led by Mr de Larosière learnt the first major lesson from this crisis and immediately afterwards, the Commission drew up its proposals. Allow me to pay tribute to Mr de Larosière’s intelligent work, to which we owe a great deal at the moment. With this agreement, we will have, if you wish, a framework in which, from now on, all initiatives will be situated, product by product, market by market, player by player, to implement what we committed ourselves to and what I committed myself to when I spoke to you on 13 January: intelligent regulation and effective supervision. This framework that we will adopt is the foundation which gives credibility to all the sector-based initiatives that we want to take. We owe this agreement to the personal commitment and competence many of you have shown. Allow me, in turn, to thank your rapporteurs, Mr García-Margallo, Mr Skinner, Mr Sánchez Presedo, Mrs Goulard, Mr Giegold, Mr Tremosa i Balcells and Mr Balz, as well as the shadow rapporteurs. I would also like to thank Mrs Bowles, who led this negotiation with great determination. I would like to thank the President of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN), Mr Reynders, for the proactive role he played with his teams – which was decisive – building on the good work that the Spanish and Swedish Presidencies had done before him. Allow me in a rather unusual manner perhaps – I will tell you why – to say a word of thanks on behalf of the European Commission to the person beside me, Mr Wright, because in a few days, he will step down as Deputy Director-General for the Internal Market and Services. I would like to say that I believe that this man is a credit to European public service. Ladies and gentlemen, the value added by Parliament is undeniable. It was decisive. In particular, I am thinking of the strengthening of the competences of the European supervisory authorities: mediation, emergency measures, drafting of legal and technical standards with a consumer protection role – which we will come back to – along with 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 37

prevention of, and protection from, certain toxic financial products and the cross-border nature of the institutions which will be taken into account to a greater degree. Then there is the establishment of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) for which we owe much to Parliament, in particular, as regards its Presidency, and here, I would also like to thank my colleague and friend, Mr Rehn, and his staff. All of that is, of course, a compromise. Some would have liked to go much further. On many issues, the Commission itself has made dynamic compromises and concessions. We regret, for example, the solution ultimately accepted concerning the drafting process for technical standards, which, in our view, must not serve as a precedent for other sectors, and what is more, I will confirm this in a statement. However, on the whole, after the unanimous vote of the Council, after your vote today if you want it, from the beginning of next year, Europe will rely on a supervision model adapted to its needs and the reality of its financial industry. In most European countries, most of the banks belong to another country. This is what defines the transnational dimension, both of the financial establishments and the risks that they can bear. We will have a supervision model that is adapted to prevent crises more effectively. We will be able to show citizens who are concerned and who wonder whether Europe has reacted that it is drawing concrete lessons from the crisis and that it is doing this at the same time as the Americans, and hopefully other continents, in the framework of the decisions of the G20. As for the authorities, there is a huge amount of technical and budgetary work ahead of us – ahead of me – that we are committed to, so that the authorities effectively see the light of day on 1 January 2011. With the agreement of the European Parliament, we will have to appoint the future presidents and director-generals of these authorities. I would like to say before you that the only criterion that will govern these appointments must be that of independence and competence to make these new authorities succeed, and I am confident that the future President of the ESRB who, thanks to you, is the President of the European Central Bank, will have this concern for independence and this competence. Then, ladies and gentlemen, we will determinedly fill the framework that we have on 1 January. The European Securities and Markets Authority will quickly gain power thanks to the role reserved for it in decisions that are taken or that will be taken: the proposal to put the supervision of credit rating agencies at European level, the draft regulations on over-the-counter derivatives and short-selling, and then the Credit Default Swaps, adopted just a few days ago. We shall not stop there. This is a whole integrated programme to consolidate and stabilise our financial system and make it more transparent that we will follow with you, step by step: the regulation of the hedge fund and private equity sector that we are working on at this very moment; the implementation of the Basel III Accord on bank capital; the review next year of the directive on financial markets; the strengthening of sanctions within the framework of the revision of the directive on market abuse; and the introduction of a European framework for crisis management and resolution. All of these measures must allow us to avoid the repeat of serious crises, to protect consumers, who are also taxpayers, and feed the sustainable and fair growth we are calling for. 38 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Ladies and gentlemen, I have always thought that in the area of financial sectors, as in the area of the environment, prevention is always cheaper than cure. I would like to remind you that during this financial crisis, in one way or another, we mobilised 17% of European GDP to save the financial system. It is the banks that must pay for the banks, not taxpayers. Prevention will always be cheaper than cure. We will present all of these measures in the framework of the agenda adopted by the Commission and supported by the ECOFIN Council on 2 June and our aim is for them to be implemented and presented with determination, voted for if you wish, in any case, adopted and proposed by the Commission, by the end of 2011. Ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, I would like to say on a personal level that the quality of relations that we have had and the confidence without complacency that has driven our debates are, to me, an encouraging sign for the whole of this very rigorous and demanding agenda. On behalf of all the services of the Commission, I would like to thank you for that. José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, today is a good day for Europe. In December, we had a poor agreement and now, thanks to the cooperation between Parliament, the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and the Commission, we have a good agreement. It is a good agreement that is going to establish genuinely European authorities that are strong and subject to the democratic control of Parliament: authorities that are going to be designed to ensure that all the banks are subject to the same rules across the European Union. They will be able to impose their decisions on the national supervisory bodies and, if they do not comply with them, on the private banks, in order to protect families and businesses. This will enable them to combat the banks that could cause systemic risks and prevent taxpayers from having to pay once again for the irrational exuberance of some financial institutions. The lesson that we can learn from this debate is that Parliament is not like a dog whose bark is worse than his bite that will back down at the slightest gesture from the Council: it holds firmly to its positions. Nor is it a dog in the manger: it is a good ally of the Council and the Commission for moving forward in the process of European integration. Thanks to my fellow Members, Commissioner Barnier and Mr Reynders, we now have an excellent agreement on which we should congratulate ourselves. Peter Skinner, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and Mr Reynders. I would also like to thank David Wright very much for his activity, as well as my colleagues around the room. We have been quite successful. However, you are either captured by the moment or you capture it. A financial crisis has given life to new agencies, which are much needed and very welcome at this time across the European Union and perhaps even across the globe, but the power invested in these institutions also has to be a responsible power. Ambition, therefore, must have a purpose, in order for there to be any fulfilment, and that purpose must be shared by our citizens whose jobs and livelihoods depend upon us getting it right. There is no doubt that the discussion between Member States and Parliament has often led to tensions during this debate, but none of us have completely got our way and all of us have been successful in delivering what will, I believe, be a success. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 39

Parliament has pushed for greater powers at European level. Of course, this has been against the background of being against the wishes of Member States. Some in this House will want to go further in creating direct supervision, particularly in the area of central counterparties, for example. We all have to caution against adventure over ambition, but let us have proper measured responses when we get to fill in the blanks which will come later. Financial stability at this time depends upon the years – and sometimes decades – of experience of thousands of nationally-based people who have experience of financial services. They have been the first front line in preventing problems. The national governments have proved that they can also bail us out when it comes to meltdown. However, this has been about fortune rather than design. These new institutions give us the chance to have design. That is what has been missing and that is why it is so important to have it fulfilled. The agencies do have practical issues involved. We will have a joint committee, which I have been very proud to help champion. The joint committee should be a vehicle for coordination, exchange of information and joint decision taking. It will be the platform for focusing; these agencies work on eliminating systemic risks. We have also insisted on giving the Head of the ECB control over monitoring risk at the aggregate level, but if we have to ask Mr Bernanke whether his reputation was enhanced, I think he might say ‘No’ about having such powers. So, avoiding the casino-style financial operations of the past – yes – but being responsible ourselves as regulators, we have to be very measured as well. There should be regulatory ambition, but this is also about people’s pensions, their savings, their houses and their jobs. I welcome the supervisory infrastructure that we have. It is young, but it will have to grow up very quickly indeed. William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Madam President, I should like to ask Mr Skinner on what basis he assumes that the judgment and decisions of new European institutions are going to be better than the decisions taken by regulatory institutions at the national level? Peter Skinner (S&D). – Madam President, if the Earl of Dartmouth had listened to my speech, then he would have heard me say that I consider this has to be done in coordination with national authorities, not against their interests – and only done when the legislation that we put forward for such purpose is fit and has passed through the democratic procedures of this House. I believe that this actually provides the best of both worlds. If you are to imagine that, sitting on your island, a moat alone will protect you from the real issues of the real world, then you are a fool, I am afraid, because the realities are that the global crisis has taught us a real lesson. Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, we have made it. The supervisory architecture train has left the station and we are expecting great things from the common rule book. However, our financial legislation is still like a Swiss cheese with holes and carve-outs – places a single rule book will never reach. That is a shame that we will all share until we all really truly subscribe to a single market in financial services. The new authorities give us an extra dimension to achieve cross-border coordination, but that means extra care has to be taken to make sure that decisions are responsive and taken 40 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

close to the markets. The ESAs will need to be joined up with one another and with national supervisors and they will indeed have to have fingers in all the pies to make appropriate decisions, mindful that a bad decision is not made better by making it widespread. Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, today is indeed a day on which another stone has been laid in the House of Europe. It is a good day, and it proves false all of the claims that, following the financial crisis, nothing would happen. It also proves wrong all those who believe that a new phase of renationalisation is now starting. Instead, Europe is drawing the necessary conclusions. However, it must be made quite clear that this financial market legislation naturally still contains things that must now continue to happen. Parliament has achieved and secured something important. This has already been mentioned. We succeeded because the various forces here in this House worked together and, in so doing, resisted the attempts by many Member States not to take heed of the lessons that can be learned from the crisis. Some important questions still remain unanswered, for example: how many members of staff will these authorities be given? What would be the point of having these authorities with these new competences if they are not provided with sufficient staff and an adequate budget? What we have heard in this regard is still not clear; we need to work together on this. The next question is: what is going to happen as regards the president of this financial market authority? This is another area where we need to ensure that the right people are appointed. For us as the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, an important step was our desire finally to have transparency with regard to the relevant accounting requirements of the large transnational undertakings. In this regard, the Commission has, thankfully, now announced that there will be a communication with regard to the country-by-country reporting. We look forward to this. In this connection, we also look forward to working together. At long last, we have a joint declaration from four coordinators in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to the effect that we want the market infrastructures and also the central counterparties to be placed under direct European supervision. There is still more to be argued out here in this regard. I hope that, on the issue of economic governance, we will get the same level of coherence here in this House as we did on this issue of supervision. Otherwise, Parliament will lose its influence on these issues. We must not allow any re-ideologisation of the debate in this regard. If we do, then the Council will, unfortunately, not take sound decisions according to the Community method. Kay Swinburne, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the legacy of this financial crisis has been a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the financial services sector and our public finances. The banks, the financial markets, governments and corporations are feeling this uncertainty daily, and in order for our economies to show signs of recovery, we need to ensure that this uncertainty is dispelled. One of the main uncertainties since the spectacular failures in the financial sector has been uncertainty regarding regulation, including who will do the future regulating and which institutions will enforce them. This House has been instrumental in debating this issue and has, over the past few months, discussed the minutiae of regulation and supervision in terms of who, what, where and when. The result delivers balance: balance between Member States’ responsibility for supervising institutions and a new European authority setting a common rule book, thereby progressing the single market in financial services whilst elevating the role of peer oversight; 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 41

balance between safety in the system as monitored by the new ESRB and the need for financial companies to take risks; balance between ultimate protection of the taxpayer and provision of capital to fuel the economy. We all have a strong interest in establishing new mechanisms to underpin the single market in financial services, including: the monitoring of global risk at our European Banks; ensuring a coordinated and ordered procedure across all Member States in a crisis; ensuring stronger arrangements for mediation between supervisors; and ensuring the enforcement of the rules in all financial centres and by all financial players. This supervisory package as it now stands delivers the balance required. However, the recruitment of high calibre, financially competent staff will be critical to its future success. I call upon the Commission to ensure that this next step works. Jürgen Klute, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank my fellow Members who have participated in rather tough and lengthy negotiations here. It is a tremendous achievement by the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs to have managed to do what they have done. They achieved the best result that it was possible to negotiate. Nevertheless, I do not want to hold back on the criticism that my group has, either. There are three points in particular that we are not happy about. On the one hand, the competences that have been granted to the supervisory authorities are, in our view, inadequate. We would have liked these competences to have been more extensive. We believe it is also wrong for the supervisory authorities to be split over several locations. We advocated combining them as far as possible in one location. That would certainly have made cooperation easier and more efficient. Mr Giegold has already mentioned that the staffing could, and should in fact, be improved in the long term. These are our main points of criticism. Nevertheless, we believe this to be a right and important step in the right direction, a right and important step towards a new regulation of the financial markets that is urgently needed. However – and this is simply our assessment – we still need to take some further steps in order to arrive at a truly effective new regulation of the financial markets, to get to a point where, through European regulations, we can prevent another crisis like the one we have just experienced. Our group will contribute greatly to this. There are, of course, a few more legislative initiatives on the way. We hope that these will bring more substance to this matter. If so, something truly effective and good could come of this. However, we really do still have a few more steps to take in this regard. Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, when last I met the Commissioner, I expressed grave concern that regulation of the City of London was going to move to Brussels. He seemed surprised that I was so concerned, but since he has taken office, he might have come to understand that a significant portion of the United Kingdom’s GDP actually comes from its financial services sector. It is very important to the United Kingdom. Indeed, it picks up most of the tabs. The GBP 45 million a day we send to this place to support the rather suspicious European Union project, which has not given any of our electorate an actual say, is one of those tabs. In fact, you must understand that big salaries and big pensions do not grow on trees. Commissioner, I also mentioned to you that we could learn something from the old dominions – Australia, Canada – who have not suffered from this problem, and you rather 42 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

charmingly, and in a very Gallic way, suggested that Australia was a long way away. I hope, now that you have been in office for a little while, you will understand that perhaps such a parochial approach will not do. I still worry, Commissioner. I still fret that we will have regulation from the usual mishmash of ignorant bureaucrats, parliamentary committees with their usual complement of cryptocommunists, anachronistic socialists, journeymen politicians, fringe greenies, a sprinkling of well-meaning housewives, and grandmothers exploring their new third age. The outcome will be the same as all the other EU projects: fishing, agriculture, energy, employment, immigration and, horror of horrors, the ticking time bomb of the single currency. It is an astonishing litany, is it not, of failure? You would think the European Union would get something right once by accident. I am sorry, but I am not satisfied. I am desperately cross that the British Conservative Party has given away the City of London regulation. If Dave Cameron had been the Admiral at Trafalgar, it would be Admiral Villeneuve on the plinth in Trafalgar Square now. Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate those who have worked on this financial package, especially the staff and Members of this House. It took a financial crisis of huge proportions for Europe to wake up. However, an opportunity has been lost, in part, to strengthen the joint institutions of Europe, because, on the one hand, these new supervisory authorities have a limited scope of competence compared to similar authorities in Member States. Moreover, it is a shame that progress has not been made on similar integration to that which took place with the European System of Central Banks. We have made progress, but we need to keep climbing the mountain. Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Mr Reynders, Commissioner, I would, of course, like to add to all the congratulations offered and I would like to underline the work done and the excellent collaboration within this Parliament and also to remind you that without the will of Parliament, this supervision would certainly not have had the European characteristics that it has today. As far as the future is concerned, Mr Reynders, before the end of this period and perhaps even before the end of this month, I would like us to be able to reach an agreement on one of the subjects that concerns us to which you have dedicated yourselves, and not in vain I can assure you. In the coming days, thanks to the great minds of the Belgian Presidency, we will find a satisfactory solution on hedge funds and private equity. To repeat one of the Commissioner’s analogies, I think that we must add bricks to this framework that has just been outlined that will ensure that financial regulation is intelligent and affects all products. It is not about regulation for regulation’s sake. It is about trying to ascertain the effectiveness of regulation that is intended to limit as far as possible the risks inherent in the financial system. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Mr Wright who regrettably is leaving us. We hope that after all the work he has done to help Parliament achieve results, we will see him again soon on the European way. Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner Barnier, Mr Reynders, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the compromise reached in order to adopt 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 43

the financial supervision package at first reading and with a broad consensus. European supervision was a long-held aspiration in European integration and an essential instrument for moving forward with financial integration, making monetary policy more effective and improving competitiveness. It was also something that we needed to achieve in order to put an end to the financial hypertrophy and close the gap between global finance and national supervision. The current crisis has confirmed the insufficiency of the market and of nationally based solutions. We need to correct the defects that have been detected in regulation and supervision. In our case, supervision is a priority in financial reform because, while European regulation has been deficient, supervision has been non-existent. European supervision lays the foundations for a complete, thorough and credible reform. This first transnational experience is a step towards a consistent system of international financial supervision. Parliament has worked together to ensure that the package has three focuses. The first focus is that it is more balanced, in order to achieve security and solvency for the financial institutions, financial inclusion and protection for consumers, savers and taxpayers. The second is that it is more prudent in order to respond to systemic risks, act in emergency situations and be able to temporarily ban toxic products. The third is that it is more sustainable, promoting competitiveness, the internalisation of costs and the prospect of a European crisis management system based on contributions from the financial entities. The Omnibus Directive makes it possible to launch the authorities by incorporating them into sectoral legislation, specifying their powers and setting out rules for how they will operate. It increases transparency in the exchange of information and cooperation and, at the same time, establishes a deadline for reform in the development of legislative implementation to be completed before 1 December 2012 and for transposition to be done with correlation tables. I will conclude by thanking all those who made it possible for this package to move forward for their work. Today, we are offering the first fruits, but this agreement marks a watershed in the development of European finance and democracy, because democracy means legislating, supervising and ensuring that the laws are effective. It has also been demonstrated that if we want better finances, we need to follow the path towards greater democracy. Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Commissioner, Minister, many things have been said. The agreement is concluded and it is satisfactory. Thank you everyone. I wanted to learn from this exercise for the future. The ordinary legislative procedure cannot consist – as was the case with the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in December – in concluding an agreement unanimously, and then coming before Parliament saying: ‘You know, it is a shame, we have reached an agreement, and furthermore, you must move very quickly because the markets are waiting’. The deadlock was broken, and Minister, we thank you for this, when the Belgian Presidency opted for a little more commitment and dialogue. I just wanted to tell you that, as far as economic governance is concerned, we intend to work as a team, as we did on supervision. Mr Reynders, if possible, I would therefore like to ask you, like Mr Barnier, to pass a short message to the Commission and to ECOFIN, telling them that we really want to be completely involved from the start and to play our role as regards the ordinary legislative procedure. Do not block us in the Council. Do not 44 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

block us in the task force, and even try perhaps to explain to Mr Van Rompuy that we would be very pleased to see him in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as we asked him to attend. Markus Ferber (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Reynders, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that today is a good day, not only for the European institutions, but also for the people of Europe, because we have succeeded, two years after the collapse of the Lehman bank, in creating a structure that, although not eliminating all of the problems that could arise in the financial market, will help to make the excesses that have occurred in the financial market no longer possible in the European Union. We can be proud of ourselves for this. I would like to express my thanks to the Belgian Presidency, because we had the feeling – and I can endorse what Mrs Goulard said – that the Council was not making much of an effort in this regard at the beginning. Although the Council adopted a unanimous resolution at first, it did not solve the problems. It was thanks to the European Parliament that a solution was found across the group divides which is truly viable and which will ensure that we have stable supervisory structures as well as a range of instruments that can be used in crisis situations to stem excesses and thus help to stabilise the financial sector. I would like to thank you most sincerely, Mr Reynders, as you have personally shown a great deal of commitment to this matter. However, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the Commission, which ensured that, in a fair dialogue, the two positions represented by the Council and Parliament, which were very far apart to start with, could be brought together. Thank you very much. That gives us hope with regard to further legislation. Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Madam President, the President of the European Central Bank will automatically become the President of the European Systemic Risk Board for the next five years. This is not a minor issue. It visualises that the ECB is really implicated in the financial supervision of the European financial markets and institutions. It also means that Mr Trichet, who is also accountable in his hearings in this Parliament, will also have to answer questions relating to financial supervision, not only questions relating to price stability. With this reform, the President of the ECB will risk his reputation and his credibility in achieving effective financial stability in Europe. Thanks to this reform, doing business as usual will be more difficult for the financial institutions that have generated this crisis. It will benefit future generations of European citizens. Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to add my voice to the congratulations on the compromise obtained by the European Parliament as regards financial supervision. It is a very satisfactory result, not because this House stood up to representatives of the States. This compromise is really good because it is meaningful. We had to give the package a more European tone for the sake of its effectiveness and credibility. The reason why Mrs Goulard and I – as shadow rapporteur of my group – fought so hard to ensure that the President of the European Central Bank should automatically be the President of the European Systemic Risk Board is because we are fully aware of the significance of this issue. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 45

In a landscape that will remain very fragmented between national authorities, we need a European body that is strengthened by indisputable competence and legitimacy. Perhaps even the British understand that! By virtue of his authority and prestige, the President of the ECB will be able to impose the authority of the European Systemic Risk Board when faced with its numerous negotiating partners – in the first instance, the Council of Ministers. Ultimately, it is not excessive power that we should fear; rather, it is excessive weakness that we had to fight, and finally, I would like all the authorities to settle in as quickly as possible and for a climate of confidence to be established between all partners concerned. The bet has not been won. Once again, the European Union was slow to move, but in the end we are laying the interesting foundations for a model that is expected to evolve in the coming years. Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are convinced that in the global market, no financial player, product or region may escape regulation and appropriate controls. The recent crises have demonstrated the need to take decisions in 48 hours, and to have common rules. Banks deemed ‘too big to fail’ must be supervised at European level. Furthermore, in the event of future crises, the costs must not be borne by the citizens. We must put transparency, accountability and ethics at the heart of the financial system. I applaud the agreement reached in which Parliament played a key role. My position has always been in favour of creating independent authorities with sanctioning powers and the possibility of intervening in specific cases. I agree with creating two funds, which cannot be designed as a tax on banks: this would not be the answer. All this is to ensure recovery, to prevent costs being passed on to small and medium-sized enterprises and citizens and, above all, to avoid having a single banking system. George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) I welcome the shift from fragmented European economic supervision, dictated by decisions made at national level, to a uniform macro-prudential supervision system, which will enable the EU to speak with one voice. The European Union will be able to plan its macro-economic interventions carefully and will have available more suitable tools for preventing a possible financial crisis in the future. However, it is unfortunate that Member States have disregarded the MEPs’ proposal to grant the newly created authorities direct power to supervise the major cross-border banks. We must bear in mind that these banks are one of the main sources of systemic risk. I also regret that Member States have retained their right to oppose the decisions made by the European supervisory authorities, which could have too great an impact on national budgets. I think that the time for taking small steps is over. Europe’s future cannot be established by half-measures, but by total political commitment. Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, we need more European solutions, fewer safeguard clauses and less national egoism. That is why it is particularly important that these efforts do not stop here. We must return to this matter. Crossborder banking, which now accounts for more than 70% of all activities, needs supervision. It requires a common system of European supervision that serves our common interests. The three new supervisory authorities present us with a solution now, and that is the maximum number for the present. It is not an ideal solution overall, as national interests are still far too disparate when it comes to crossborder banking. 46 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, ordinary people see crises as disasters; the European Union sees crises as opportunities for gathering power to itself, always at the expense of the power of national governments. Member States will lose their sovereignty over their own financial systems. Whilst it is true that the crisis in the United Kingdom was handled in a woefully defective way, that is because successive UK governments have not imposed sufficient control over the activities of their private banks. Banks are not ordinary businesses that are best left to themselves. They are the creators of credit, a large part of the money supply – and that cannot be left in the hands of unregulated private business. Burkhard Balz (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, in my opinion, the compromise negotiated today represents a milestone in the continuing development of Europe-wide financial supervision. This joint success was made possible in particular by the constructive way the negotiations were conducted by the Council Presidency and by the cooperation of the Member States, which had previously drawn red lines, indeed, dark red lines, in this regard. We have not just created a toothless tiger, but agencies that are also able to bite at the crucial moment. In crucial situations in future, there is to be no more bickering among the national supervisory authorities over powers, but a clear, binding statement from a European authority. Finally, in emergencies, the decisions will, in future, be taken by European institutions. That means more responsibility. What seems to me to be of particular importance is also the fact that the European Systemic Risk Board will be chaired by the President of the European Central Bank. With regard to the content-related points that have already been mentioned, I agree with the rapporteurs and I would like to express my thanks for the excellent cross-group teamwork. Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, at the end of this debate, I would like to thank each of the rapporteurs, group representatives and MEPs who spoke, almost unanimously, in favour of supporting this compromise and this agreement. I would like to confirm that these new European authorities and the European Systemic Risk Board will not replace national supervisors, but rely on them and make them work better together, … (The President calls for silence) ... put them into a network, pool competence and expertise to have a good European response when it is necessary, faced with European risks and sometimes more, in financial establishments which, as I told you, are largely transnational. This framework will exist thanks to you and the Council. As has been said, we will fill it brick by brick: the payments system as per the Single Euro Payments Area, from October, the regulation on bank capital, the review of the directive on market abuse, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities for depositaries, rating agencies, risk management and finally, corporate governance. That is what lies ahead of us, not to mention the regulation of investment funds. We will carry out this work with determination. We will do it so that at the end of the road, as I told you, ladies and gentlemen – and it has been our road map since the G20 – no financial player, no product, no market or any territory will remain immune or excluded from intelligent regulation and effective supervision. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 47

Ladies and gentlemen, our ambition, my ambition, should be that together, at the end of this road that is short, because citizens are watchful and demanding as they have every reason to be, we will have built the world’s best system of regulation and supervision before it is too late. It is Europe’s duty to have the ambition to build the necessary model of regulation and supervision in the world. That is our objective and it is in the interests of citizens, consumers and the financial industry itself. Didier Reynders, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, honourable Members, I would, in turn, like to thank all of the speakers and the very large majority of you who have supported the texts put to your vote. Furthermore, I am very pleased to see the interest that many MEPs have shown in this subject and in financial supervision. First and foremost, I would like to tell you that, as several people have reminded us, it is a question of the first real lesson learnt from the financial crisis. We have had much debate on a large number of texts, but the implementation of the new supervision package and the European Systemic Risk Board is really the first lesson that we in Europe are all learning together from this financial crisis. The second element that I would like to underline is that it is a question of the beginning of a process. As Mr Barnier has just mentioned, we are going to implement a whole series of other elements within the framework of this process. Regulation must continue to be strongly reinforced and several people have referred to this. In the same way, we will pursue the work between the Commission, the Council and Parliament. The Belgian Presidency is, in any case, utterly determined to be involved in the same way. I hope that in the next few days, we will really be able to move forward as far as the directive on investment funds, hedge funds and other investment funds is concerned. Soon, we will hold debates on rating agencies. I would like to reassure you of the collaboration that Mrs Goulard referred to. We have already proposed, and all of this has been agreed, that during the informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council, Mrs Bowles, the chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, will join us to take stock of the state of progress of our work. I do not wish to speak any longer because I know that there are important procedures that will take place, but I really hope that we will be able to help in what many have described as an historic vote. In any event, I will see you in the next few days and weeks to promote, in the same way and with the same determination, some other texts that once more will be put to you. Thanks anyway to those who have done what they could over the last few months to move forward with this dossier which, as I said, is really the first important lesson learnt from the financial crisis. President. – The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149) John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Brussels are now totally in control of banks, stock markets and insurance companies, yet what was supposed to be supervisory has escalated into powers that stretch much further than the advisory nature of current systems, leaving national bodies without power or purpose. If Brussels were viewed as over regulating banks and stock markets, financial services would face two options – fall behind international competitors or move their headquarters to countries free from any limitation whatsoever. 48 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

The former would keep European investors stuck in the dark ages of recession as the rest of the world takes huge strides out. The latter could lead to a cowboy banking market overseas beyond reach where everybody’s money would be at risk. The majority of EU regulation in other sectors has been an unmitigated disaster. We have put the city of London, one of the UK’s largest industries, responsible for 80 per cent of European hedge funds, into the hands of the Commission. If this follows the rest of Brussels’ erroneous lawmaking, the UK, and the rest of the world, could rue the day such a power transfer was allowed to take place. Giovanni Collino (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We cannot allow European citizens to pay the price for the failure of a banking system which, until now, has done anything but safeguard their rights. We also cannot allow our economic system to buckle under the weight of reckless access to credit. My colleagues from the Committee on Budgets and I have ensured that the rules governing the functioning and funding of the new monitoring and financial supervisory authorities are appropriate and balanced, in line with a European budgetary policy that must take into account the difficulties that all the Member States are facing. On the other hand, these difficulties would be much worse if the EU did not bear the burden of preventing another crisis similar to the one we are still experiencing today. The beneficial impact of each new agency will balance out, more than proportionally, the costs which must be borne for their initial creation and their subsequent functioning. The European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which led the negotiations brilliantly, reaching an historic agreement with the Council, will both represent the spirit of a change which, for taxpayers, will mean being able to depend on a Europe that is closer, a Europe that is more prosperous, and a Europe that is safer. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is only some two years after the onset of the severe financial crisis that the Council and Parliament have reached agreement on a package of what they call ‘financial supervision’ measures, but which, in fact, have been pared down to a minimal degree of intervention in this sector. Moreover, they have done so without first making the fundamental, basic decisions in this area, namely, to put an end to tax havens, to levy a tax on capital movements and to close the derivatives market. Nor do they propose making the European Central Bank more democratic or radically altering its objectives in order to prioritise jobs with rights and, at the very least, to seek a balance between social progress and public finances. That means that the main financial speculation mechanisms remain in the market and that the measures taken now are aimed more at facilitating control by the major powers and their financial groups over Member States with more fragile economies than at tackling the issue of financial speculation head-on and stamping it out. Moreover, we must not forget that this package forms part of the measures adopted by Ecofin for prior checks on national budgets, included in the so-called ‘European Semester’. That merits our strongest protest. Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – (BG) Today’s debate on financial supervision indicated that most of us have the will and determination for serious reforms in the area of economic governance for the benefit of Europe. The most effective method against crises of any kind is prevention. Today’s approval of the reports on the independent European supervisory 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 49

bodies means that this is precisely what we are investing in – a better basis for effective supervision of financial and non-financial institutions, which will guarantee in the long term greater and more stable security for the financial system, while reducing significantly the likelihood of future crises. I would like to thank all the rapporteurs and I am pleased that the European Parliament strongly defended its positions on the independence and powers of these supervisory bodies and turned them into systems for actually improving currently existing regulations. For this reason, we must all defend to the hilt the interests of the European citizens whom we represent, guaranteeing a suitable framework for risk management during crises. Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The European Parliament has always talked about the need for a single voice for Europe on the international stage. The uniquely European financial supervision package is one of the steps in this direction. With the package in place, Europe of the 27 would finally be able to work more coherently and with more solidarity within the framework of economic governance decisions taken at global level. More importantly, the only way that Europe can reduce systemic transnational risks and subsequently prevent or mitigate the negative impact of future financial crises is to have an integrated network that funnels and coordinates the expertise and efforts of actors of all levels to establish and maintain a sound, stable and transparent financial system. Such a system serves as a prime example of the accountability of Europe to its citizens. I support this package because I believe in the future of Europe – a Europe where our financial industry no longer needs to suffer from its own excesses, and where our citizens no longer need to suffer from the devastating, unnecessary consequences of preventable crises. Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I congratulate the European Commission, the Council and European Parliament for adopting the regulations on the supervision of financial institutions and markets. European citizens needed to know that in future, those types of financial speculation where speculators consider it normal to claim for themselves the profits which have been made, while losses are covered by ordinary taxpayers, will be prevented. I also ask the Commission and Council to focus on the following issue arising from the efficient operation of the European economy: how can most industries be achieving low levels of profitability or verging on losses, while the banking sector is reporting increased profits again, following the crisis? Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The weaknesses of financial regulatory and supervisory bodies around the world gave rise, to some extent, to the difficulties that we have been experiencing in the European Union and the euro area. The need to activate plans to bail out the economy and families was a decisive factor in the marked increase in government deficits. The package we are debating today is the concrete result of a new financial supervision architecture in Europe, based on the creation of institutions and mechanisms designed to provide both macro-prudential supervision – that is to say, supervision of risks affecting the entire European financial system – and micro-prudential supervision of banking, insurance and the property markets, in coordination with the network of national supervisors. There are also other areas where it is hoped that the European supervisory authorities will contribute to financial stability, in particular, by centralising in one institution the supervision of EU-registered credit rating agencies, the promotion of mandatory technical standards and the mediation of conflicts between national supervisors. 50 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Additionally, this new supervisory architecture may also contribute to the success of new Union mechanisms for economic, budgetary and social planning, coordination and supervision within the European Union. Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. – (NL) Madam President, this historic agreement was only possible thanks to the excellent work of the Belgian Presidency, which supported Parliament’s approach and scored a success where some other Presidencies had failed. True to the key elements of the Larosière report, the European Parliament has secured sufficient clout for the new European supervisors. They will be able to impose binding measures on financial institutions where national regulators fail to take adequate action, provide greater alignment between national authorities and settle their mutual disputes. Fortunately, with this agreement, we have been able to go much further than the non-committal coordination between national watchdogs that many Member States initially preferred. In the meantime, we have witnessed what a lack of European supervision can lead to. The new supervision structure will better protect not only the bank’s customers but also the taxpayer. However, there is a downside to this agreement. I regret that Parliament’s call for the supervisors to be headquartered in one place, in Frankfurt, close to the European Central Bank, was rejected. Fortunately, Parliament was able to incorporate a review clause, so that in three years’ time, we can assess whether or not the European supervisors require more powers and whether or not dispersal of the authorities is appropriate. Winkler, Iuliu (PPE), in writing. – The decision on the financial supervision package constitutes a truly crucial response, proof that the EU has understood at least some of the lessons of the crisis. The creation of the supervisory authorities is a major step towards European integration and the furthering of the single market. Now, the implementation of this new architecture begins. It is true that the new supervisory authorities will act in a coordinated manner, together with the national supervisory bodies, and not by replacing them. But it is equally true that the fragmented response of the Member States during the financial crisis prevented the EU from showing more efficiency, more coordination and more leadership. So it is quite obvious to me that advisory powers and non-binding recommendations are not enough. Binding rules, harmonised application and coordinated supervision are needed for a more efficient single market. These are the requirements that have to be fulfilled by the new ESAs to constitute the institutional foundation of the new European financial supervision architecture. The same requirements are necessary to best serve the interests of European taxpayers.

IN THE CHAIR: Gianni PITTELLA Vice-President

President. – Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I can see among us a very young person, just a few days old: little Vittoria, Mrs Ronzulli’s daughter. I would like to extend my best wishes to both Mrs Ronzulli and her daughter on behalf, I believe, of all Members of this Parliament. Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have brought my daughter with me today as a symbolic act, and my thoughts are with the many women 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 51

who, owing to work-related issues, are unable to enjoy their pregnancy, reconcile work with family life, or worse still, be the best mother they can be. In this regard, I would ask for greater efforts by the European institutions, starting with Parliament, so that no woman is faced with making such a choice. President. – Congratulations once more, and we support your heartfelt appeal. We shall now proceed to the vote.

5. Voting time

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

5.1. Multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013 (A7-0248/2010, Reimer Böge) (vote)

5.2. Draft amending budget no 7/2010: guarantee provided by the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the TFEU – financial assistance to Member States (A7-0250/2010, László Surján) (vote)

5.3. Refund of value added tax (A7-0247/2010, Sharon Bowles) (vote)

5.4. Pharmacovigilance of medicinal products (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004) (A7-0153/2010, Linda McAvan) (vote)

5.5. Pharmacovigilance (amendment of Directive 2001/83/EC) (A7-0159/2010, Linda McAvan) (vote)

5.6. Placing on the market and use of biocidal products (A7-0239/2010, Christa Klaß) (vote)

- Before the vote: Corinne Lepage (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, regarding the vote on the report by Mrs Klaß, I wanted to say that there is an error on page 10 of the ALDE Group’s voting list – which corresponds to page 5 of the Klaß report, but page 10 of the voting paper. As regards 342d, we must vote for and not against, as that is part of the overall compromise agreement. Regarding 342d, the vote must be for and not against. President. – We may start the vote. I would like to point out that Amendment 338 has been withdrawn. Also, Amendments 8 and 317 do not relate to all language versions, and will therefore not be put to the vote.

5.7. European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (A7-0170/2010, Peter Skinner) (vote)

5.8. Macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishment of a European Systemic Risk Board (A7-0168/2010, Sylvie Goulard) (vote) 52 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

5.9. Powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority (A7-0163/2010, Antolín Sánchez Presedo) (vote)

5.10. European Banking Authority (A7-0166/2010, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil) (vote)

5.11. Specific tasks for the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (A7-0167/2010, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells) (vote)

5.12. European Securities and Markets Authority (A7-0169/2010, Sven Giegold) (vote)

5.13. Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (A7-0175/2010, Marielle Gallo) (vote)

- Before the vote: Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, there is an error in the Dutch version of the resolution on the Gallo report. I am listed there among the signatories to the resolution by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left as a member of the GUE/NGL Group. In this regard, I would like to say that, firstly, I am not a member of the GUE/NGL Group, I am not a Leftist and I am no Communist. Secondly, I remain a member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – a Liberal – and will vote for the ALDE resolution, as will many members of the other groups in this House. Thirdly, I call on the GUE/NGL Group to also vote for the ALDE resolution. (Laughter) President. – Very well, we shall correct this, Mr Chatzimarkakis, although never say never! In any case, we shall correct the positions. Marielle Gallo, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, the two alternative resolutions have fallen. There is only one text left. That is my report which is a compromise … Listen, Mr Cohn-Bendit, let me at least tell you that it is a compromise between the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group. I have taken all of the sensitive issues surrounding intellectual property into consideration. I now feel that it is Parliament’s responsibility to come to a decision. I do not see why we should give the Commission a free hand. Ladies and gentlemen, I therefore call on you all to come to a decision at least on this issue which will launch a debate and … (The President cut off the speaker) - After the vote on paragraph 13: rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I would again like to hold out my hand to our liberal colleagues and accept that paragraph 13 is rejected by all of the political groups that support the report. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 53

5.14. European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (B7-0518/2010) (vote)

6. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Reimer Böge (A7-248/2010) Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, at this juncture, I would like to compliment the European Parliament and the rapporteur, Mr Böge, in particular, who has increasingly established himself as a guardian of a stable European Union budget policy. In my opinion, the following aspects are important. Firstly, the European budget will still manage without having to obtain credit, and that is the way it should stay. Secondly, the Financial Perspective – in other words, the seven-year financial framework – will provide the Member States with greater planning certainty. Thirdly, we and the Member States will have to get used to the fact that there is less financial leeway. In my opinion this means, fourthly, that when the Member States transfer additional tasks to the European Union, the principle we should follow in future must be that the Member States must also provide the necessary funding.

Report: László Surján (A7-0250/2010) Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, we are all familiar with the famous bicycle metaphor – the idea that the European Union has to keep moving forward or else it will topple over. I have always thought that a ravening shark would make for a better simile – it has to keep swimming lest it choke – but we will leave that aside. Let us examine the question of why that is the case. The truth is that the European Union has become a mechanism for the redistribution of money. It has to keep sucking in more and more funds in order to reward its favoured client groups. If it stops doing that, then the bicycle indeed topples and the shark drowns. That is why we have this extraordinary spectacle, at a time when every national government is looking to constrain spending, that the one budget that keeps rising is that of the European Union. In my country, every departmental budget is looking for savings of between 25 and 40 percent, but one budget is increasing by 60 percent, namely our net contributions to the European Union. Far from stimulating the economy, we are taking money out of the productive sector and taking people out of the productive sector and putting them in the bureaucracy. This will simply confirm people in the view that the European Union has become a racket.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0153/2010) Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Public awareness of the adverse effects of medicines goes beyond the issue of how the drug companies will behave. It also goes beyond the issue of what is stated on accompanying leaflets or on the Internet. I would like to emphasise personal contact between the patient and the doctor. Everyday experience shows that there is a group of pharmaceutical products on the market in respect of which information on adverse effects is deliberately ignored. The medicines are often freely available in pharmacies and women take them without prior guidance. There are few doctors who will point out that hormonal contraceptives increase the stress hormone level, cause thromboembolic diseases, breast cancer, cancer of the uterus and liver, strokes 54 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

and difficulties with conception even after coming off contraception. Let us be honest and informative about all pharmaceutical products on an equal and genuine basis. Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, allow me as a physician to emphasise the significance of the new regulation passed today allowing the sharing of information on adverse drug reactions in the entire European Union. Although healthcare does not fall within the competency of the EU, Member States were able to agree on the need for and details of how to create a common database on clinical experiences in the use of EU pharmaceuticals, in which information will be stored and then shared and evaluated. This is great news for European patients and it also demonstrates the benefits of the further integration of European states. I appreciate the work of the rapporteurs from the ENVI Committee, because they reached agreement on all points of contention, and I am especially pleased that the Committee draft was improved as regards a more rigorous protection of personal data.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0159/2010) Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Mr President, today’s vote on the two pharmacovigilance files will give us a safer and more effective system for the monitoring of medicinal products. The compromises reached in the two files are balanced. The new system will take due account of both the risks and the benefits of medicinal products. It also takes due account of the need for control without creating too much bureaucracy, and the central procedure for authorisation of medicinal products, in particular, will be more streamlined. The compromise helps secure the financing of the system, with a possibility for the European Medicinal Agency to charge fees for its services. Of course, this is a compromise, but compared to how divergent the views were from the outset, I believe that this is a sensible solution. Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the text she has drafted as an amendment to the two directives on pharmacovigilance. It is important to make full use of what these amendments offer us. We will only counter the fears of some Member States concerning the workability of the system if the reporting of adverse effects is coordinated. The time lost in sharing information between Member States must be minimal. One more comment: statistics show that diseases are more frequent among older and elderly people. These are people who quite naturally suffer from failing eyesight. It will be pointless for accompanying leaflets to contain comprehensive information, including often unnecessary information, if patients cannot read it even with their normal glasses, as the print is also tiny. Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, on the subject of this text that we voted for, I would like to draw your attention – and I must congratulate Mrs McAvan for the quality of her work – to an omission regarding guinea pig populations. In fact, there is one point that has been neglected, which, on account of the agreement concluded in first reading, could not be the subject of an oral amendment: it is a question of people used as guinea pigs for clinical tests of a medicine or vaccine conducted before authorisation in order to check its harmlessness or its risk-benefit balance. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 55

These people may include men, women, children or elderly people; in this text, we are concerned with the follow-up of the possible side-effects of drugs for human use. In fact, it must be pointed out that these people who participate in clinical tests are kept in ignorance as regards the substance ingested or injected and that the effects are only likely to be triggered ten, twenty or thirty years later. These guinea pigs are the forgotten people of pharmacovigilance and it is important to remember this and mention it. Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I strongly support the report on the rationalising of the pharmacovigilance system for medicinal purposes for human use. I think this is an area where the EU can certainly add value and where, by working together, we can ensure greater patient safety. Even after medicines are fully authorised, there can still be adverse reactions, and I think the full safety profile of medicines can only be known once they have entered the market. That is why we must continue to be vigilant. This proposal will ensure greater patient safety by strengthening the EU system for monitoring the safety of medicines. It will enhance Eudravigilance, the database for collecting information on adverse drug reactions. The creation of the new European medicines safety web portal will allow citizens better access to clear and understandable information on safety issues. This is the first part of the three-part package to strengthen and address gaps in EU pharmaceutical legislation, and I believe it is a good first step.

Report: Christa Klaß (A7-0239/2010) Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Despite the fact that biocidal products such as disinfectants or preservatives are part of our everyday life, their incorrect use or lack of authorisation can represent a significant risk for people, animals and the environment. In the interests of protecting health and the environment, it is therefore necessary that the products of both European and non-European producers comply with single EU standards. It should be emphasised that the benefits of these products coming onto the market and being used far outweigh the risks, although existing risks should be eliminated as far as possible. Personally, I support a higher level of harmonisation of the national procedures for recognising products within an EU framework and, first and foremost, for consumers to be better protected and better informed. Ensuring clear, concise and intelligible labelling is essential, in the first instance, for laypeople who come into contact with such products. Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I heartily welcome this resolution. Mountain regions and sparsely populated areas enrich geographical features, nature and the quality of life. I am thinking, in particular, of the Slovak regions, and I invite you, ladies and gentlemen, to visit us in the High Tatras to see for yourself the beauty of that region. Beyond the content of the resolution, which needs to be implemented without delay, I would like to see public authorities commit themselves to helping these regions. In everyday life, towns and urban communities are the areas that are given priority. Public services are provided in towns and urban areas, but are often dispensed with in small towns and villages, 56 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

in sparsely populated areas. Yet small towns and villages also have their own quality of life and they should not be underestimated. Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) I am delighted that I was able to support this report, which I believe is very important. Given the high population density and international mobility, we must pay particular attention to preventing the spread of pathogens and diseases. While the measures we take must be effective, we must also make sure that they are not harmful to the environment. These materials must be handled with particular care. Biocides are indispensable for meeting our high health and hygiene standards, and also form an integral part of our everyday life. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to pursue dialogues on this regulation in the future as well, given that the authorisation and marketing of these products must be subject to particularly rigorous criteria. Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, biocides are primarily used in the hygiene and cleaning sectors, but they are also found in furniture and fabrics. Biocides provide protection against bacteria, vermin, insects, stored food pests, mice and rats. In future, biocides will have to meet EU-wide minimum standards. I am very grateful to the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, for stating that the regulation is to be equally practicable for both consumers and manufacturers. In other words, appropriate expenditure, fair framework conditions and acceptable costs for registration. If we really succeed in doing this, we will have achieved another step towards harmonisation of the European market in the interests of business, but also in the interests of our consumers in particular. Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I apologise, but I was getting the baby’s dummy. The report adopted today contains some positive elements which, we hope, will be implemented soon. In particular, I would like to express my satisfaction over the efforts to protect SMEs, especially with regard to the procedures to obtain information about the formulation of products, access to which is often prohibitive for a small business, and not just in terms of cost. Many efforts have been made to simplify the procedure to authorise the marketing of these products, especially regarding the time frames according to which the competent authorities take the relevant decisions. Lastly, I hope that we can continue along this path, where harmonisation of Europe’s internal market must result in businesses’ true qualities coming to the fore, and in greater competition.

Report: Peter Skinner (A7-0170/2010) Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) I welcome the package of proposals for creating a more effective, more integrated and more sustainable system of financial supervision within the EU, the aim of which is to address the failure of European financial supervision which became apparent during the recent financial crisis, to the surprise of all of us. I fully support the submitted draft regulation setting out a new structure for financial supervision, because the earlier negative experience clearly highlighted the need for regulation, more effective supervision and far-reaching reform in this area. I believe that greater competition based on the creation of equal and transparent conditions for all, as well as the provision of a unified regulation, will help to guarantee adequate protection for depositors, investors and consumers in the European Union. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 57

Report: Sylvie Goulard (A7-0168/2010) Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I abstained from voting on the issue of establishing a new authority for the European financial system because the new arrangements do not in any fundamental way change the manner in which the financial system works and they do not bring the financial markets under control. In particular, these arrangements do not put an end to speculation and profiteering at major banks and to the speculative funds known as hedge funds. Yesterday in Ireland, for example, the financial market lent EUR 1.5 billion to the Irish Government, but at four points dearer than if the country in question was Germany. This means therefore that the country’s workforce will have to pay additional millions to these institutions. The new board being established changes nothing. There is no answer to Europe’s financial problems other than to place the whole system in public ownership and under democratic control. Edward Scicluna (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs on their work on this package of highly significant reforms to the supervision of Europe’s financial sector. This overhaul of the EU’s financial architecture has been a huge undertaking for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The crisis has demonstrated that our regulatory framework was not robust enough, that markets do not always self-correct and, worse, that they were exposed to unmonitored systemic risks. I am particularly happy to see the establishment of the European Systemic Risk Board, whose mandate is to act as an early warning against systemic risks or imbalances. With regard to the ESAs, I am satisfied that a balance has been found that does not weaken the role of Member States. We must now ensure that the three institutions have the staffing and resources they need to be able to do the job properly. In conclusion, Parliament has put enormous effort and political will into a compromise with the Council to ensure that this urgently needed package of reforms has now been agreed and should be in place in early 2011. Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that this report has been adopted. One of the strategic objectives of the European institutions for the coming years is to relaunch the internal market. The economic crisis has shown how unattainable this objective is while we have a fragmented financial services market. Indeed, all kinds of financial intermediaries, infrastructure and markets are interdependent and potentially fundamental for the system as a whole, so much so that the failure of one of these aspects can have repercussions at the macro level, with devastating consequences. The economic recovery that all Europeans are impatiently waiting for is based on a financial sector which is healthy and sound, precisely because it is adequately regulated and supervised. It is my view that the adoption of the financial supervision package and, in particular, the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board, is an important step towards meeting the objective of a harmonised supervision system in Europe in order to create confidence among businesses and citizens. 58 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, I am glad that it was possible to complete the creation of conditions for effective oversight of the financial markets, which failed at the beginning of the financial crisis. I welcome the fact that Europe is building instruments with which it might be possible to avoid crises in the future and therefore, I have supported all the reports in the package on the financial oversight of financial markets. The aim should be closer adherence to the rules of good management, and neither budgetary profligacy nor increasing debts at the expense of future generations are examples of this. For this reason, I reject the proposal of President Barroso of the European Commission for the issuance of European bonds, which he mentioned in a recent speech in the European Parliament, when speaking about rewards for states which maintain the rules of good management. It was a question of rewards in the form of European bonds. Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the distant rumble we can hear is the EU’s barrage, its opening assault on the prosperity of the City of London, whose prosperity sustains the surrounding economy of my constituency. The new supervisory architecture, which this House has just voted through with an enormous margin, is not a proportionate remedy to an identified problem. No one has convincingly demonstrated – no one has even seriously tried to argue – that the measures we are putting in place would have prevented the financial crisis two years ago. What we are seeing rather is measures driven by envy, by resentment of London’s position, and by hostility to capitalism as a model. You can blame an awful lot of people for the credit crunch – you can blame the banks, you can blame the regulators, you can blame the governments for keeping interest rates too low for too long – but you cannot blame managers of private equity who were rather among the victims and who took their losses on the chin and who did not come bleating for bail-outs. The people in those industries are not going to sit around waiting for Commissioner Barnier to send in his inspectors. Already they are emigrating to Switzerland, to Shanghai, to Singapore – leaving London, and the EU as a whole, the poorer. Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, as a Member of the European Parliament for London, many of my constituents – as you can expect – are very concerned about the impact of this not only on Europe’s largest financial centre, but on its two largest financial centres: London is home to the City and to the Canary Wharf Group. When we look at the financial crisis, it is very easy to fall into a trap – the trap that this Parliament and all the institutions are falling into – that more regulation is the solution. We forget the role that regulation actually played in creating the sub-prime crisis in the first place, telling banks to lend to uncreditworthy customers. When one in ten of those customers defaulted, we had the sub-prime crisis. We also need to understand the difference between regulation and supervision. It could be argued that regulators had the tools at their disposal but did not use them properly. One of the advantages we hear is that this will create a single rule book for Europe. That is very interesting, but the problem we have got, as we know, is that many EU countries often ignore the rules and do not pay their fines. How can you create a level playing field when many of the players will not obey the rules? 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 59

Report: Marielle Gallo (A7-0175/2010) Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I thank the rapporteur for making the effort to accept some suggestions and, of course, for her defence of copyright, which I agree with. However, the fact that certain exchanges are defined in the report as infringements that are punishable, that the authority of providers to issue punishments is recognised, and that mass exchanges are excluded as possible infringements, mean it is impossible for us to vote in favour of either of the two opposing reports. The Gallo report provoked a great deal of interest and could have been appropriate, but the core of the debate is too bitter surrounding the arguments for and against the French law known as HADOPI, which involves cutting off the Internet connections of those who infringe the rules. There has not yet been a genuine European debate taking into account other progress in national legislation. I hope that we will achieve a common position in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, and a majority in Parliament in the debates and amendments on the proposal for a directive from the Commission, which, according to Commissioner Barnier, will shortly arrive in Parliament. On this occasion, we will try to arrive at a more balanced position than we have today that takes into account both the rights of Internet users and the essential need for intellectual property to be respected. Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, Mrs Gallo’s report has divided the Parliament into three camps. No report has proposed such necessary and balanced regulation of intellectual property. Mrs Gallo’s report deals with piracy in digital networks in a one-sided manner, and overlooks measures against counterfeiting which are truly ruining our industry, although the viewpoints of the IMCO and ITRE committees proposed practical measures. Furthermore, it proposes some kind of harmonisation of criminal sanctions for violation of intellectual property, rather than addressing the fact that the professional public understands criminal law as the exclusive domain of Member States. However, I do appreciate the fact that the report emphasises prevention and an educational campaign. I appreciate that the draft resolution of the ALDE Group more carefully addresses rights and responsibilities, especially of Internet service providers, but it was presented at the last minute. It is clearly inspired by the proposal from the PPE Group but unfortunately, did not bring any innovative initiatives into the debate. The draft resolution, presented among others by Mrs Castex, is more complex and current with regard to the meeting on ACTA. I also appreciate the more targeted measures against counterfeit drugs. However, I do not agree with the limitation of the mandate for the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy. Ultimately, therefore, I did not support any of the three draft resolutions. Lena Ek (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, here are my views on the Gallo report. None of the reports that have been put to the vote in this Chamber today are good ones and I have therefore voted against all three of them. There are numerous problems with them. For example, trademark infringement is confused with copyright, people are calling for regulation and surveillance and an unreasonable compensation system is encouraged, while, at the same time, there is the admission that the effects of existing legislation need to be investigated first. I believe that fundamental rights and the free market can, instead, be combined. If the principle of a ‘mere conduit’ is threatened, we would jeopardise the dynamic nature of the Internet that we know today. If Internet service providers were to be made liable for the 60 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

legality of the content, it would force them to minimise the risk by monitoring and filtering the traffic. This would lead to cautious companies that are unable to grow or take on staff and to problems for new companies in obtaining access to the Internet. Abolishing the principle of a ‘mere conduit’ would extend the role of Internet service providers to make them supervisors as well. Nowhere else in society is the messenger responsible for the content. Neither is there anywhere else where we instruct our citizens not to break the law every time they use a service. Imagine, for example, if, whenever stamps were sold, it was mandatory to provide information stating that it is prohibited to send letters containing anthrax bacteria. Instead, my wholehearted support goes to Commissioner Kroes and her digital agenda. Her flagship initiative demonstrates an understanding of how the market perspective could be combined with respect for fundamental rights, including on the Internet. China is an example of how the Internet has been ruined by interference in the freedom of expression and by surveillance. Let us not go down the same route. Countries in northern Europe have shown the way by means of voluntary agreements and effective competition. We need to look to the north, not to the east. Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, firstly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Gallo, for her report. It is very important that we now establish panEuropean, common rules for intellectual property rights, because the truth is that when we consider Europe in this situation, what we need is innovation. We need creativity. They both produce genuine added value. For us to be able to guarantee the flow of innovations and creativity, resulting in creative solutions, it goes without saying that they have to be protected and developed. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot accept infringements of intellectual property rights. At present, this is a problem in industry, in many creative sectors and in sport. I therefore welcome the fact that this report by Mrs Gallo is the first step in the right direction. As legislators, there is no possible way we can condone piracy or theft, whether it takes place online or wherever else. We have to ensure that the creative sectors are left in peace. They can create and innovate, and, as a result, we can act against the continued infringement of intellectual property rights and impose sanctions when it occurs, and that way, we can achieve European added value by means of the creative sectors. Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, like many Members of Parliament across the political spectrum, I, too, had my reservations about this report, particularly when it was looking to confuse the issues of file sharing with the health risks associated with counterfeit goods, say in aircraft or counterfeit medicines. The two are not comparable and should be clearly separated. We also need to come to terms with the difference between products and services in the world of atoms and products and services in the world of bits – the digital economy. We need to understand that, in a world of increased processing power, in a world of cheaper data storage, in a world of increased broadband, what we are seeing is, on the whole, that many digital products tend towards zero. Unfortunately, what is happening is that, while many artists are responding and finding other ways to make money while giving away some of their content, the music industry as a whole has not caught up and still seems to want people to go back years to the days of the physical media. It is time for the music industry to wake up and adjust their business models to the digital economy. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 61

Motion for a resolution B7-0518/2010 Edward Scicluna (S&D). – (MT) As an MEP who represents the islands of Malta and Gozo, this topic is very close to my heart. To start with Gozo, it is a pity that while the Maltese Government included Declaration 36, whose objective was to safeguard Gozo’s future, during Malta’s EU accession negotiations, the specific funds never materialised. However, Gozitans should feel reassured by this resolution which demands a European-wide framework for mountainous regions and islands; not simply a policy measure, but a number of Union policies which have an impact on the development of islands. Specifically, this resolution asks the Commission and Member States to ensure that islands benefit from specific funds within a new financial framework for the budgetary cycle 2014-2010. Above all, mountainous regions and islands in the Union share common factors which are unlike those of other regions, sometimes even within the same state. I am very pleased that this resolution requests Union programmes and a policy which would enable islands to become competitive and to adjust to the challenges they are facing. I am also pleased that this resolution says that Member States, including Malta and Cyprus, which are located in the southern part of Europe, deserve regional programmes for their development. This resolution is making a declaration of intent to protect the interests of Member States, particularly of islands like Gozo. Therefore, I support this resolution. Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) I fully endorse Parliament’s position on mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. They are usually areas of special natural importance, so care should be taken to ensure that the support given to them is combined with protection of their natural assets. We should support these regions in a way which enables them to make good use of their best attributes in an innovative way, but we should also take care to ensure that their natural riches are suitably protected. I would also like to draw attention to the difficult position of farmers in these areas, where cultivation of the land may be the only or one of very few ways of making a living. Farmers should be given special care. This solidarity does not have to be based only on financial support, because it can also involve support for the education of young people and support for innovative technologies. Written explanations of vote

Report: Reimer Böge (A7-0248/2010) Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I commend the rapporteur for the work he has done. I voted in favour of this text because I believe that, in such difficult economic conditions as these, the European Union cannot work with inflexible instruments, and the multiannual financial framework has proved to be inflexible. This is without mentioning that the narrow-mindedness shown by certain institutions (the Council and the Commission) is certainly not the response that European citizens expect. Outside this Chamber, millions of workers have lost their jobs: they need our support. The EU budget must be truly European. Indeed, I am convinced that it is necessary, if not fundamental, to have greater budgetary flexibility in difficult economic conditions, so that the EU may provide a tangible response to current needs, but also to those which are not anticipated when the budget is adopted. In conclusion, the moment has come to equip the EU with its own resources. 62 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Due to the potential far-reaching consequences of the proposal in question and the need for further thought to be given to the EFSM, I am in agreement with the conclusions that have been reached by the rapporteur. I have thus decided to vote in favour of this interim report. Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Böge report in order to condemn the untenable financial situation in which we currently find ourselves. Whereas the Treaty of Lisbon gives new prerogatives to the European Union, and large-scale European projects are called for and announced by Member States, the Commission and the Council refuse to reconsider expenditure limits, which does not make any sense and reveals their narrow vision of the European project. The recession requires more Europe: to achieve that, the European budget should be strengthened by replacing the current financial framework, which is restricted and unsuitable. It is time to comply with our treaties, which stipulate that the Union should have resources commensurate with its objectives. Together with a very large majority of MEPs, we back the need for own resources such as Eurobonds. Member States should acknowledge that the added value of European policies is an essential tool to contain national expenditure. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As stated by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU must provide itself with the resources necessary to achieve its objectives and implement its policies. In addition, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has brought with it new areas of action, one of which is the European External Action Service. I believe, therefore, that a mere reallocation of resources or redefinition of priorities within the scope of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) will not be enough to meet the new needs of the EU. This means that a revision of the MFF and the flexibility mechanisms included in the interinstitutional agreement is crucial. The EU needs greater flexibility to allow it to create reserves and room for manoeuvre so that it will be able to react quickly and effectively to urgent or unforeseen situations. For this reason, I am voting for this report and its recommendations. Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We believe it is important for it to be possible for sufficient resources to be provided, for example, for the EU’s new EU 2020 strategy for growth and employment, but also for the EU’s budget to be able to meet the necessary demands when it comes to the need for aid and combating climate change, for example. Moreover, with the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU now has a number of new spheres of competence, including within foreign policy, sport, space research, energy and tourism. However, we believe that this should largely be financed through the redistribution of funds that are already available within the EU’s budget, for example, from the budget for agriculture, so that the overall size of the EU’s budget does not increase. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The effective planning and follow-up of the European Union’s actions are inconsistent with a simple annual budget. What is needed instead is a multiannual financial framework that can provide the institutions with sufficient means to carry out their duties and missions. The interim evaluation of the implementation of the multiannual financial framework led to the drafting of the report that lay behind the resolution on which we have voted. This resolution contains some of the widely felt concerns, which I share, about the failings of the multiannual financial framework and the Union’s current financial ability to reach its targets. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 63

The criticisms that have been levelled at the European Union are often the result of a lack of transparency in its accounts. Full disclosure of the Union’s budgets and multiannual planning, as well as their sustainability and respect for all stakeholders in the budgetary process, in which I include the European Parliament, of course, must be the means for eradicating such suspicion and encouraging citizens and political agents to play a more active part in this sphere of activity. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Between 2007 and 2009, the ceilings of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) were reached or exceeded. Important projects such as Galileo, the Food Facility and the European Economic Recovery Plan have only moved forward in the last four years of the current MFF through using up existing margins or by using the instruments provided by the interinstitutional agreement. The remaining margins for the current financial framework are insignificant for the rest of the period. The margin available under heading 1a (Competitiveness for growth and employment) will be less than EUR 50 million per year, and the overall margin available under all the headings will be limited to EUR 436 million in 2012, and EUR 435 million in 2013. However, this margin will be further reduced due to existing commitments which have not yet been included in the budget. The Treaty of Lisbon has brought with it new powers and bodies, and the EU 2020 strategy, which has already been adopted and which advocates intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth, should now begin to be implemented using the necessary financial resources. We therefore advocate the revision of the current MFF as a matter of urgency, along with its flexible management. João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report calls for the instruments needed to implement the budgetary provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon to be adopted as soon as possible. That means subordinating the Union budget even further to the needs of neoliberalism, federalism and militarism – the three basic axes of the European integration process that is under way, now enshrined and developed in this treaty. Since our position in this regard is well known, we had no option but to vote against the report. We have always criticised the meagreness of the current multiannual financial framework, which has reduced the structural funds to 0.37% of the EU gross national income. That has resulted in cutbacks in social and environmental programmes and in the fields of research, education and culture. We therefore advocate an increase in the funds it makes available and a reorientation of its objectives. We advocate a Union budget at the service of genuine economic and social cohesion, at the service of full employment with rights, investment and public services, environmental protection, cooperation and peace. We therefore reject the view of the Union budget as an instrument at the service of the commercialisation of more and more aspects of social life, liberalisation, lack of job security, structural unemployment, external interventionism and war. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The EU budget is vital for helping and supporting rural Ireland and farmers’ incomes. Approximately EUR 2 billion per year from 2010 to 2013 will go to benefit Irish farmers, the rural community and the Irish food sector. Crucial budget negotiations are under way at present to reach agreement on the amount of money to be made available to the agricultural sector from 2013 onwards. It is very evident from the high annual level of funding for the Irish agricultural sector that these negotiations are vital to Ireland and to rural Ireland in particular. 64 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The report by Mr Böge makes the clear recommendation that, in order to facilitate planning, the financial structuring of EU projects should not be dependent on unused budgetary funds. Funds that have not been utilised or are not set aside for emergencies in one sector should not simply be used in other areas, as is often the case in the agricultural sector. The changes in the EU agricultural budget must not result in an indirect budget cut for 2010. I therefore support the call to create reserves in the course of the review of the multiannual financial framework. The use of reserves should also be clearly defined in advance and they should not be redeployed in other policy areas. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is calling for new resources to implement the European Union’s new policies. These policies derive directly from the Treaty of Lisbon, whose liberal blindness and anti-democratic nature are no longer in doubt. I am voting against this report. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon has brought the EU new powers in several areas, including external action, sport, space and climate change. The EU needs to provide itself with sufficient resources to enable it to achieve its objectives and implement its policies. The multiannual financial framework, with which I agree, is being established in this respect so as to give the EU adequate financial planning to achieve the ambitious political objectives that have been outlined. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With the adoption of this resolution, the EP asks the Council and the Commission to take into account the following recommendations: (a) that they work with the European Parliament to allow swift adoption of the new instruments needed to implement the budgetary provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and revise the current MFF in order to provide for the extra resources necessary to deliver initiatives not foreseen when the current MFF was adopted, and (b) that they fully comply with Article 312(3) TFEU, which requires the financial framework to lay down any provisions required for the annual budgetary procedure to run smoothly, and with Article 312(5), which states that ‘throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall take any measure necessary to facilitate its adoption’ – among many others. Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In this report, Mr Böge takes a critical look at the various different problems facing the current multiannual financial framework and makes specific reference to the framework conditions provided for by Articles 311 and 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In view of the current economic climate, efforts must be directed towards a possible reprioritisation within the budget, while bearing in mind the European added value of the EU budget.

Report: László Surján (A7-0250/2010) Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The current market instability and the particular vulnerability of certain Member States as regards their financial markets fully justify the creation of the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). While I hope that it will be used as little as possible, which would mean that the Member States are able to respond to the crisis themselves, I must emphasise the important role that this mechanism can play in cases of severe financial difficulties. The creation of a budget line allowing for the EFSM guarantees to be mobilised this budget year has the advantage of endowing the Union with the ability to show solidarity and 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 65

respond more quickly to any problem that has arisen in the meantime. It also sends out a message of confidence to the financial markets as to the EU’s collective commitment to market security and stability and to helping resolve situations of financial breakdown. Despite these advantages, I believe a serious and very thorough assessment is required of its impact on the Union’s accounts, which is likely to be considerable. If necessary, speed should be given up for the sake of soundness. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This amending budget is the result of an initiative by the Committee on Budgets and its chair to use an amending budget to introduce an amendment aimed at creating a p.m. line (token entry) in order to finance the guarantees provided for in the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). We recall that the EFSM was created in May 2010 by a Council Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), without Parliament’s participation, and it consists of a mechanism providing for the possibility for the Union to borrow funds in the capital market to loan to Member States in financial difficulties. The European budget will only be called upon to intervene if the Member State receiving the loan is not able to reimburse it. Therefore, this amending budget for the 2010 financial year encompasses the creation of a new budget item 01 04 01 03 for the guarantee provided by the EU, and, correspondingly, a new Article 802 on the revenue side. A token entry (p.m.) is proposed for commitment and payment appropriations, as well as revenue. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In July, I voted against the Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, dreamed up by the Council, whereby the granting of new European loans becomes subject to implementation of economic and financial reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We have seen the dramatic consequences of this in Greece. Today, we are being asked to vote for setting up a financial structure which endorses and therefore guarantees the implementation of this disastrous mechanism. Obviously, I am voting against the implementation of such a structure. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The economic and financial crisis which has plagued the whole world, including the EU, has brought many challenges, including the need for the EU to respond to speculative attacks on weaker economies that could jeopardise the single currency. It was therefore necessary to create the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) to ensure support for Member States that feel threatened by these attacks. For this mechanism to be incorporated into the budget, an amending budget, which is justified in exceptional, unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances, needs to be adopted. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The assistance given to Greece was sold to us as an exception from the bail-out ban, on the basis of Article 136. However, Article 136 does not provide a basis for giving credit to Greece since it only allows measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the treaties. Not only are these not provided for in the TFEU; they are actually explicitly banned. The provision does not therefore authorise more extensive measures. The finance ministers of the euro area decided to assist Greece by providing credit at an average interest rate of 5%. This means that credit was granted at a politically motivated interest rate that is below the market rate and thus represents an illegal subsidy. Hence, the assistance given to Greece was extremely controversial from a legal point of view, if not downright unlawful. As far as the actual consequences are concerned, I fear that if the euro area countries continue to be answerable 66 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

for the debts of other Member States, then in 10 years’ time, the euro will no longer exist. I therefore voted against this report. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With the adoption of this resolution, the EP 1. takes note of Draft amending budget No 7/2010; 2. approves the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 7/2010 unamended and instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 5/2010 has been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; and 3. instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission. Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted against the establishment of this new budget line, as this ‘line’ was adopted by the Council and the Commission in connection with the package of measures to preserve the financial stability of the euro area with reference to the so-called ‘urgency articles’, without involving the European Parliament in any discussion whatsoever. As long as it is not clear where this money is to come from, even supposing that a Member State were to make such an application, I cannot, under any circumstances, accept responsibility for the creation of this budget line.

Report: Sharon Bowles (A7-0247/2010) William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – In voting for this measure, there is no endorsement of the system of VAT. What is clear is that the timetable set for the introduction of an electronic refund procedure and a single refund request was, in practice, unrealistic – and many taxpayers and small businesses might lose as a consequence. This essential measure recognises this and, in doing so, recognises the central role of Member States – arguably hands power back to them if only for six months. It also stops an unrealistic timetable causing the UK’s and other Member States’ SMEs from financially suffering due to EU incompetence. For these reasons, we are voting for it. John Bufton, David Campbell Bannerman, Derek Roland Clark and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – In voting for this measure, there is no endorsement of the system of VAT. What is clear is that the timetable set for the introduction of an electronic refund procedure and a single refund request was, in practice, unrealistic – and many taxpayers and small businesses might lose as a consequence. This essential measure recognises this and, in doing so, recognises the central role of Member States – arguably hands power back to them if only for six months. It also stops an unrealistic timetable causing the UK’s and other Member States’ SMEs from financially suffering due to EU incompetence. For these reasons, we are voting for it. David Casa (PPE), in writing. – The rapporteur has welcomed the Commission proposal concerning making the necessary modifications so as to facilitate VAT refunds in situations where some of the parties involved in the transactions in question are located outside the EU. I feel that this was a necessary and positive step and thus have voted in favour of this report. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At the end of the year, when businesses do their accounts, their account balances tell an interesting story of work, sales, taxes paid and much more. They describe the point of departure one year before and the point of arrival twelve months later, yet they do not capture the path that has been taken from one point to the other, which is irrelevant for tax purposes, but absolutely fundamental for the very survival of 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 67

the business. It is no trivial thing, in day to day management, to have an interim cash flow and accounts which will break even, but which temporarily remove liquidity. Above all, for businesses to recover effectively when the crisis, which we have all experienced, is over, it is not appropriate for them to have to pay value added tax in advance whilst they are unable to pay their employees and suppliers. Admittedly, this is the best way to fight tax evasion, as long as workers, who need to spend and keep money in circulation, are not penalised. Therefore, speeding up VAT refunds and simplifying procedures, as provided for in this report, are welcome. George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I feel that the proposal for simplifying the VAT refund process by introducing an electronic procedure is useful. I think that my vote is beneficial to taxpayers as it will help safeguard their right to deduct VAT. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of the recommendations in this report. The simplification of the VAT refund process considered in the VAT Refund Directive contributes to the increasing integration of the internal market. Since it has been established that the delays in meeting deadlines are sometimes the responsibility of the Member States, which opened their web portals late or had other technical issues, I am keen that the taxable person’s right to deduct VAT should not be jeopardised as a result. Preservation of the taxpayer’s right to the deduction of VAT has become particularly important and pertinent in the European Union’s current economic climate. Delays in refunding VAT to companies which operate within the internal market may lead to greater difficulties for those companies, especially in terms of their financial needs. This will have a knock-on effect on the recovery of the EU economy and the functioning of the internal market. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that the amendments proposed to the current directive on refunding VAT and enabling the adoption of certain implementing measures, in order to improve the functioning of the web portals, are extremely important. For greater efficiency and simplification of the current tax rules, the reduction of costs, and integrity in the internal market, it is crucial that measures for refunding VAT electronically are implemented swiftly by certain Member States. I could not agree more with the rapporteur, who noted that any delay in refunding VAT could have very serious financial consequences for companies within the internal market, especially in the current climate, where any increase in the financial burden could be catastrophic. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I feel that this report makes a very positive contribution to improving the efficiency and transparency of tax procedures within the European Union. I would like to highlight the way the report defends taxpayers’ rights, particularly with regard to the deduction and refunding of VAT. The implementation of measures to facilitate and lighten the bureaucratic burden on European companies operating in different Member States, along with the standardisation of procedures, is crucial for consolidating the internal market and contributing to European economic recovery. The delay in implementing measures concerning the electronic refunding of VAT by some Member States is regrettable. It is clear that, given the current economic situation, the delay in refunding VAT has serious financial consequences for companies operating within the internal market. 68 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) If it is a matter of making it easier for businesses to obtain tax refunds, I can accept it. If it is a matter of validating the expansion of VAT instead of tax on income, I disagree with it. In liberal Europe, it is acceptable to be cautious. I will abstain. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Directive 2008/09/EC (the VAT Refund Directive) attempted to simplify the process of refunding VAT and reducing the administrative burden by introducing an electronic process that would allow taxpayers to submit a single request for a refund. However, the delay in implementing this directive in the majority of Member States has led to complaints by several companies, so that it is now necessary to introduce some changes to it in order to safeguard the interests of taxpayers, as we all know that the delay in refunding VAT can have serious financial consequences for companies operating within the internal market, and can thus mean slower economic recovery for the EU. That is why I voted as I did. Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted ‘for’, because I believe it is necessary to develop a common method of applying VAT. I hope that a unification of the method of applying VAT will lead to a situation where the rate of VAT is dependent on a country’s GDP indicator. Today, the increased rate of VAT in Latvia is hindering economic development, causing the crisis to deepen further and the population to sink into poverty. In tandem with VAT, all taxes have been raised, preventing business and the economy as a whole from developing. I hope that the development of a logical and clear way of applying VAT will favourably influence EU taxation policy as a whole. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The refund of value added tax is extremely significant from a financial point of view for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. As a result of breakdowns in the computer system, it is now to be feared that the right of deduction on the part of the taxable person will be put at risk. Postponement of the deadline from September 2010 to March 2011, as called for by the rapporteur, would therefore be desirable. I voted in favour of the report, as it clearly indicated the effects of late payment and its economic consequences. Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour inasmuch as the directive will simplify the procedure for the refund of VAT and, above all, reduces administrative burdens by introducing an electronic procedure allowing the taxpayer to submit a single refund request in his Member State of establishment. It is necessary to avoid belated VAT refunds inasmuch as they can have serious financial consequences for companies operating in the internal market and can thus have a detrimental effect on economic recovery in the EU and the good functioning of the internal market Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report contains improvements to the electronic procedure for value added tax refunds. In addition, technical problems involved in the refunding of sales tax are resolved. I therefore voted in favour of this report. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With its vote, today, the European Parliament: (1) approves the Commission proposal as amended; (2) calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; (3) calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; (4) asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; and (5) instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 69

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0153/2010) Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s pharmacovigilance system has changed over recent years in the sense that the work of the Member States is better coordinated. Nevertheless, there are still gaps in the legislation in force, and so the Commission has proposed changes designed to strengthen pharmacovigilance in the EU and to rationalise procedures. This report not only endorses the Commission’s proposed changes but also enhances them in some areas, including: strengthening the role of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, which must have the power to recommend action to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use; strengthening the role of healthcare professionals in the sense of voluntarily reporting adverse drug reactions; strengthening the role of patients in directly reporting adverse reactions; requiring that all adverse drug reactions (and not just serious ones) are reported to the Eudravigilance database by competent authorities and companies, which means that information on all adverse drug reactions will, for the first time, be centralised in one place in the EU; and requiring patient information leaflets that give a clearer indication of the main features of the drugs. For all the above reasons, I voted in favour of this report. There can be no doubt that pharmacovigilance is a priority for European public health policy. Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Pharmacovigilance plays an important role in European public health, with almost 200 000 deaths every year reckoned to be caused by adverse drug reactions. Clinical tests are not sufficient to detect all the side-effects of drugs to be launched on the market. The cases involving the drugs Thalidomide or Vioxx are still too recent to forget. I welcome the proposal to amend the EU provisions on triggering urgent legal procedures where dangerous situations involving drugs launched on the market are signalled, with rapid, coordinated action needing to be taken. The Commission has made the correct decision to replace the existing Pharmacovigilance working party with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Advisory Committee (PRAAC). Most experts have confirmed that the existing working party system works in a rather ad hoc manner, focusing only on drugs authorised through the central procedure and lacking the status to ensure that its findings are acted on by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, which oversees the whole system. I welcome the proposal to appoint two additional representatives on PRAAC, who will represent patients and medical staff. Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Through the measures voted on today, we will ensure greater protection for European patients, while guaranteeing them more analytical information about the undesirable effects of certain medicinal products. I am convinced that the establishment of a centralised database, connected to national databases, as envisaged by the rapporteur, represents an effective tool for ensuring that all European citizens are aware of any undesirable effects of medicinal products in use in the EU. The European Union has a responsibility to keep its citizens as informed as possible, including in the area of health: only in this way will they be able to make the best choices. I am likewise convinced that a sound pharmacovigilance policy is an effective tool for indirect prevention in avoiding cases of poisoning or incorrect consumption of medicinal products. In this regard, the black symbol with the wording ‘this medicinal product is subject to additional monitoring’ on those medicinal products which are subject to more 70 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

thorough checks may actually ensure greater safety, as well as more accurate information for citizens. For these reasons, I voted in favour of both texts tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs McAvan. Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because it seems unacceptable to me to want to make pathetically low savings on patient safety and product quality. The European Commission’s initial proposals led to a weakening of the current system by giving a central role to companies for listing, alerting, analysing and providing information as regards their medicines’ side effects. However, the cornerstone of efficiency and safety for patients is the independence of pharmacovigilance networks and committees. The compromise with the Council contains improvements in terms of transparency and, more importantly, it prevents inadequately tested medicines from being put on the market, as the European Commission was initially proposing. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency. I did so because the agreement reached with the Council will make it possible to establish an effective and transparent European pharmacovigilance system, particularly through the creation of a European drug safety web portal and means for patients to report adverse reactions to the competent national authorities. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pharmacovigilance is the system used to monitor the safety of medicinal products after they have been authorised for public use. A total of 197 000 people die in the European Union every year due to adverse reactions to medicinal products. Achieving a good pharmacovigilance system, based on healthcare professionals, companies and patients themselves reporting any adverse reactions, is therefore a priority. The rules regulating the centralised procedure are set out in this regulation, which relates to new medicinal products or those that combat cancer, HIV or degenerative diseases, while the centralised system is provided for in Directive 2001/83/EC. I therefore advocate strengthening cooperation on pharmacovigilance, which allows for a more comprehensive ‘pool’ of adverse drug reactions to be obtained, and avoids duplicate monitoring of the same adverse reactions in other Member States. I welcome the measures proposed to encourage healthcare professionals to voluntarily report adverse drug reactions to their competent authority. I would particularly like to highlight the creation of a web portal for each Member State (Article 106 of the directive), where all relevant information relating to medicinal products will be available to everyone who wants to consult it. These national web portals will be linked to the European web portal, which will be managed by the European Medicines Agency (Article 26 of the regulation) and available in all the official languages of the EU. Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Currently in the European Union, too many patients are still suffering from the side-effects of medicinal products. This is the reason why I voted for this report which seeks to address this issue. This text plans to launch national and European websites where patients can report side-effects, thereby creating a database. Also for the sake of transparency, a black symbol will appear on the leaflet of all medicines that require additional testing. In short, this text represents a remarkable step forward by achieving conditions of increased protection for patients by providing them with practical information on the use of medicines and their side-effects. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 71

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important sectors in today’s societies, at an economic, social and scientific level. The EU is no exception, and this sector provides it with a source of economic growth and sustainable employment, besides contributing to the general welfare of the European public. However, in spite of the existing legislation, it is estimated that there are approximately 197 000 deaths in the EU every year caused by adverse reactions to medicinal products. Given these premisses, it is vital that there is consistent, sound and sector-oriented legislation. The prime objective of this proposal is to improve the authorisation and monitoring procedures for medicinal products for human and veterinary use so as to prevent people and animals from being affected by side-effects of medicinal products, as has happened in the past. I agree with the new measures adopted, which ultimately are an added value that means practical solutions for the consumer. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The health of the population is a key political concern and it should remain so, too. Pharmaceutical firms bring a large number of new life- and health-improving medicines onto the market every year. According to the rapporteur, an estimated 197 000 people die each year as a result of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) to such medicines. As a matter of urgency, we ought to carry out a very thorough review of the authorisation of new medicines and examine detailed information on ADRs as quickly as possible. In addition, it ought to be made possible for patients themselves, in an uncomplicated manner, to provide a report not only to the pharmaceutical companies, but also to national institutions. I voted in favour of the report, as the new regulations are, in my view, sufficient to guarantee the safety of patients. Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs McAvan’s report, inasmuch as I believe that European policy coordination in the area of public health is necessary. The monitoring of medicinal products means ensuring health safety and improving the effectiveness of the European health system. There is a duty to citizens of the Union to monitor the safety of medicinal products once they have come on to the market, as well as improving European legislation with regard to the aims of Mrs McAvan’s report. I agree with the structure and message of the report, aimed at closer cooperation between Member States, the establishment of a pharmacovigilance risk assessment advisory committee, and greater transparency in the pharmacovigilance system committed to listening to individual citizens, so as to facilitate the withdrawal of dangerous medicinal products from the market and form the basis for a better health system. Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as the topic it addresses – pharmacovigilance – is increasingly important in scientifically and technologically developed societies, particularly in relation to biomedical research. It strengthens the previous provisions of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use, updating it to meet today’s needs. In this respect, I would particularly highlight the importance of cooperation between Member States. Since it can result in a much larger pool of information on adverse drug reactions, it means that rarer patterns can be picked up more quickly. In other words, it makes pharmacovigilance more effective. A related point to be emphasised is the fact that the new system proposes that all adverse drug reactions be reported to the European 72 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Medicines Agency. The broadening of criteria and the centralisation of institutions will help biomedical research and provide valuable benefits to society. Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Medicinal products play a crucial role in the health of European citizens; nevertheless, they can have adverse effects which, according to the European Commission, are the cause of approximately 5% of all hospital admissions. Pharmacovigilance is the procedure and the science of monitoring the safety of medicinal products, including the collection and management of product safety information, the assessment of the information to identify any safety issues, the action to be taken and the assessment of the procedure which has been followed and the results which have been obtained. The Commission wishes to improve the current system of pharmacovigilance by simplifying procedures, increasing transparency and better defining the role and involvement of the parties concerned. I believe, however, that there is scope for further changes, particularly with regard to consumer protection and data protection: for example, consumers and health professionals should be able to have full access to the European Eudravigilance database in order to prevent the recurrence of adverse reactions to medicinal products, and they should be able to make use of not only the web format for announcements, but also other tools such as email, fax or telephone. Furthermore, in my opinion, funding for monitoring systems should continue to be public so that the responsibility of the authorities can be recognised. Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Pharmacovigilance is the process and science of monitoring the safety of drugs, which includes gathering and managing drug safety data, evaluating the relevant data to detect a safety-related problem, the actions taken to rectify the problem, which also means providing information about the nature of the problem and evaluating the procedures used and results obtained. Under current EU legislation, medicines can be authorised in two ways: a) through a central procedure where an application is made by a pharmaceutical company to the EMEA (European Medicines Agency), as stipulated in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, or b) through a system of mutual recognition where one country leads on the assessment of the new drug and coordinates with other Member States through mutual recognition. I support the report because consumers and healthcare professionals should also have full access to the central European Eudravigilance database in order to prevent the repetition of adverse drug reactions which could have been avoided by making validated information easily available. This is an effective way to tackle inequalities in information about adverse drug reactions among Member States. Public access to Eudravigilance is needed to restore citizens’ trust in health authorities’ ability to protect public health. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – While the proposals adopted today will bring improvements for public health, the Greens are concerned about the provisions on product authorisations. The proposed centralisation of product approvals at European level has been tailored to the demands of the industrial lobby at the possible expense of rigorous product evaluation. For this reason, the Greens abstained in the final vote. EU approvals should not lead to less stringent standards. The proposals adopted today would lead to European-level biocidal product approvals, giving the industry full access to all EU markets without first ensuring that the necessary resources are in place to manage those authorisations. The Greens are concerned that the European Chemicals Agency will have reduced means and significantly less time than at present to ensure rigorous authorisations. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 73

It is, however, a consolation that MEPs supported a Green demand to give Member States the right to place extra controls on the use of biocides. Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Despite the requirement for exhaustive clinical testing and a Marketing Authorisation (MA), medicines have serious side effects which very often require hospital admission but also frequently cause deaths in the European Union. I am pleased that the European Parliament has adopted the legislation on pharmacovigilance, which strengthens provisions on this subject in European legislation concerning medicines for human use. Henceforth, patients will be able to report any undesirable effects of a medicine directly. At the same time, the setting up of a European web portal will improve information on medicines. I welcome the provisions in relation to the protection of personal data. These provisions will improve the safety and quality of medicines for patients. Nonetheless, improvement is still needed in the funding for pharmacovigilance which, at present, still remains dependent on fees paid by laboratories (and therefore on their goodwill) and in ensuring the independence of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee in relation to the European Medicines Agency, which issues a large number of MAs for medicines in the European Union. The ball is now in the Commission’s court, particularly with regard to improving patient information leaflets.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0159/2010) Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Adopting this package is of paramount importance to increasing patient safety, as patients will be much better informed about the drugs available on the market and which are intended for human use through databases being created, which will contain up-to-date, detailed information, as well as translations of the patient information leaflets in all EU languages. The measures introduced by this package will greatly improve the situation in Europe on pharmacovigilance, which is the reason why I voted for this report. Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s pharmacovigilance system has changed over recent years in the sense that the work of the Member States is better coordinated. Nevertheless, there are still gaps in the legislation in force, and so the Commission has proposed changes designed to strengthen pharmacovigilance in the EU and to rationalise procedures. This report not only endorses the Commission’s proposed changes but also enhances them in some areas, including: strengthening the role of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, which must have the power to recommend action to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use; strengthening the role of healthcare professionals in the sense of voluntarily reporting adverse drug reactions; strengthening the role of patients in reporting adverse reactions directly; requiring that all adverse drug reactions (and not just serious ones) are reported to the Eudravigilance database by competent authorities and companies, which means that information on all adverse drug reactions will, for the first time, be centralised in one place in the EU; and requiring patient information leaflets that give a clearer indication of the main features of the drugs. 74 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

For all the above reasons, I voted in favour of this report. There can be no doubt that pharmacovigilance is a priority for European public health policy. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. I did so because the agreement reached with the Council will make it possible to establish an effective and transparent European pharmacovigilance system, particularly through the creation of a European drug safety web portal and means for patients to report adverse reactions to the competent national authorities. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Consumer safety is a matter of vital importance to me, particularly when the consumers involved are also patients who are looking to the drugs they take for a cure, or at least a significant improvement in their health. That is why I consider the compromise agreement reached on the new pharmacovigilance rules to be significant, as it grants the European Medicines Agency centralised powers in this area, particularly through the creation of a pharmacovigilance database. Broader, better and more integrated access to information can be vital in reducing the severity and frequency of certain adverse effects and in simplifying and speeding up the procedures for suspending sales of drugs flagged as having severe adverse effects or for taking them off the market. Another point I consider important is the decision to set up an easily accessible web portal where all Europeans can find the information leaflet for any drug in their own language. A patient’s right to safety and information is, in my view, a fundamental right, and I shall therefore pay particular attention to the other proposals in the pharmaceutical package that are yet to be examined in this Chamber. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pharmacovigilance is the system used to monitor the safety of medicinal products after they have been authorised for public use. A total of 197 000 people die in the European Union every year due to adverse reactions to medicinal products. Achieving a good pharmacovigilance system, based on healthcare professionals, companies and patients themselves reporting any adverse reactions, is therefore a priority. The rules regulating the centralised procedure are set out in Regulation No 726/2044, which relates to new medicinal products or those that combat cancer, HIV or degenerative diseases, while the centralised system is provided for in the present directive. I therefore advocate strengthening cooperation on pharmacovigilance at EU level, which allows for a more comprehensive ‘pool’ of adverse drug reactions to be obtained, and avoids duplicate monitoring of the same adverse reactions in other Member States. I welcome the measures proposed to encourage healthcare professionals to voluntarily report adverse drug reactions to their competent authority. I would particularly like to highlight the creation of a web portal for each Member State (Article 106 of the directive), where all relevant information relating to medicinal products will be made available to everyone who wants to consult it. These national web portals will be linked to the European web portal, which will be managed by the European Medicines Agency (Article 26 of the regulation). João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Pharmacovigilance, which means the assessment, detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions, is an extremely important subject, particularly in view of the fact that such reactions are the fifth largest cause of hospital deaths, resulting in an estimated 197 000 deaths a year in the European Union. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 75

The whole process must be conducted with the greatest transparency and the competent authorities must be given adequate resources. The operations of these bodies must be guided exclusively by what is in the best interests of patients and public health, and they must therefore be public bodies independent of any commercial interests. It is vital to have in place a system, involving healthcare professionals and patients, through which adverse drug reactions can be reported securely and reliably. We share the rapporteur’s opinion that the Member States must remain key players in the EU pharmacovigilance system. The competent authority in each Member State should therefore continue to act as the clearing house for all spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. We also agree that the Member States must be informed immediately if a company reports an adverse drug reaction that happened on their territory to the EU’s database (Eudravigilance), and that the alert system proposed by the rapporteur should be set up. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on the McAvan report on pharmacovigilance because the basis of effectiveness and safety for patients taking medication should be the independence of the pharmacovigilance committees. This inevitably requires public funding which is no longer safeguarded by this text, since from now on, these activities will be mostly funded by laboratory fees, a system which is disputed and disputable. Even though the compromise reached with the Council brought improvements to medicine testing and transparency in procedures, I was not able to support this text. Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this motion because, for too long now, there has been a clear need to provide patients with correct information. Death due to the side effects of medicinal products has been the fifth largest cause of deaths in the EU in recent years and is the reason why action, such as that proposed by this Parliament, could no longer be delayed. Therefore, I have voted to guarantee quality of life for the sick, to give patients certainty about possible adverse reactions, to make medicines the true ally of whoever is suffering and, finally, to allow for medicinal products to be withdrawn from the market immediately in the event of problems. In our Europe, the creation of a single web portal in all languages represents a great innovation and great support for all European patients who can thereby rightly feel united in the protection of their own health. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important sectors in today’s societies, at an economic, social and scientific level. The EU is no exception, and this sector provides it with a source of economic growth and sustainable employment, besides contributing to the general welfare of the European public. However, in spite of the existing legislation, it is estimated that there are approximately 197 000 deaths in the EU every year caused by adverse reactions to medicinal products. Given these premisses, it is vital that there is consistent, sound and sector-oriented legislation. As the prime objective of this proposal is to improve the information provided to the public about the medicinal products taken and their respective side-effects, and bearing in mind that a good overall agreement has been achieved regarding the amendments to the initial proposal, I agree with the new measures adopted. Ultimately, these are an added value that means practical solutions for the consumer. 76 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Alexander Mirsky (S&D) , in writing. – (LV) I voted for this resolution, as I consider that information that people have should be available in their mother tongue. Over 40% of Latvia’s population have Russian as their mother tongue. In spite of this fact, information in Russian is not available for medication on sale in Latvia. There are many elderly people in my country who do not speak Latvian at all. Yet the Latvian authorities deliberately prohibit the use of Russian even in instructions on the use of medicines. I supported this resolution, in the hope that this issue will be included in the text of the legislative package. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Pharmacovigilance is the name of the system for monitoring the safety of medicinal products after they have been authorised. In order to be able to guarantee patients the best possible protection, information on Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) should be collated from the whole of the EU quickly and with no red tape. Only in this way can quick action be taken and an assessment of the follow up made. In addition, it would be of enormous benefit to patients if they could find out about ADRs from a central location. I voted in favour of the report, as its aim is for unbureaucratic and swift action to be taken in the area of pharmacovigilance. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Pharmacovigilance is used to monitor the safety of medicinal products after they have been authorised and therefore plays an important role in public health. Side effects from drugs that are rare, only appear after long-term use, or only in interaction with other drugs, can be missed in clinical trials. Thus, an estimated 197 000 deaths per year are caused by Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) in the EU. A system for reporting adverse reactions and looking for patterns in these reactions are therefore important elements of an efficient health policy. By strengthening cooperation on pharmacovigilance at EU level, the ‘pool’ of reported ADRs is larger, meaning rarer patterns can be picked up more quickly, duplicate work on following up the same ADRs in different Member States can be avoided and unsafe medicines can be withdrawn quickly when required. I therefore voted in favour of this report. Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Pharmacovigilance is the system used to monitor the safety of medicines after they have been authorised for public use. Under current EU legislation, medicines can be authorised in two ways: a) through a central procedure where an application is made by a pharmaceutical company to the EMEA (European Medicines Agency), or b) through a system of mutual recognition where one country leads on the assessment of the new drug and coordinates with other Member States through mutual recognition. Rules governing the procedure for the decentralised system are set out in Directive 2001/83/EC. I voted for this report as European patients will be better protected and informed about the use of medicines and their adverse effects. The new regulations provide for the creation of national and European websites, specifically for medicines, which can offer patients more information. The latter will have the opportunity to inform the national authorities about the drugs’ adverse effects. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – While the proposals adopted today will bring improvements for public health, the Greens are concerned about the provisions on product authorisations. The proposed centralisation of product approvals at European level has been tailored to the demands of the industrial lobby at the possible expense of rigorous product evaluation. For this reason, the Greens abstained in the final vote. EU approvals should not lead to less stringent standards. The proposals adopted today would lead to European level biocidal product approvals, giving the industry full access to all EU markets, without first ensuring the necessary resources are in place to manage these authorisations. The Greens are concerned that the European Chemicals Agency will have 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 77

reduced means and significantly less time than at present to ensure rigorous authorisations. It is, however, a consolation that MEPs supported a Green demand to give Member States the right to place extra controls on the use of biocides.

Report: Christa Klaß (A7-0239/2010) Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I support this proposal aimed at improving the regulation currently in force on the manufacturing and use of biocidal products. The limited and responsible use of biocides is part of our everyday lives, because they help avoid the spread of diseases and ensure high standards of health and hygiene. However, it is very important for legislation to ensure a high level of protection in their production and use. It is possible to achieve this by laying down uniform compulsory standards on biocidal products for consumers and manufacturers. In order to protect consumers, it is necessary to ensure there is a reliable system for labelling materials and products which corresponds to the level of risk, whether the biocidal products are produced inside or outside the European Union. It is also necessary to define more clearly the information that should be provided on the label and to indicate the exact place it should be located in order to provide valid and appropriate information. George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as biocides used to combat harmful organisms and pathogenic germs need to be safer, which means environmentally as well. There will be a simpler authorisation procedure for placing new biocidal products on the European market. I voted to ban the most toxic chemicals, especially those which are carcinogenic, have a damaging effect on fertility, or an impact on genes and hormones. Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is perhaps the most mobile area in terms of population, with a high population density, especially in conurbations. These conditions make the transmission of germs and diseases more likely, which will make biocides a necessary part of our life, with the aim of preserving high standards of health and hygiene. Biocides need to be effective, which is why handling them can also become dangerous. However, the new regulation on biocidal products must be applied fairly to the private companies manufacturing them so that they do not end up in a situation where they would be short of raw materials for producing the biocides. This situation would be unfortunate at a time when these substances are very much needed. The report submitted during Parliament’s plenary has clearly indicated that the Commission’s proposal for a regulation requires considerable improvements to enable the objectives which it has also suggested to be achieved. The new regulation must take account of three essential areas: environmental protection, consumer protection and safe and practical implementation by manufacturers. Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The stance on biocides should contribute to health protection without leading to unwanted risks. This resolution presents amendments to the Commission’s proposal on biocides and aims to standardise the existing legal regulations in force at a European level, as well as adapting them to new technical developments, which justifies its importance at the very outset. Firstly, I believe that it is vital to guarantee environmental and animal protection, with the emphasis on the application of the precautionary principle. The resolution also increases the provision of useful information for professionals and users, as well as the importance of the area of research and development, which I would like to emphasise. 78 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as biocides used to combat harmful organisms and pathogenic germs need to be safer, which means environmentally as well. There will be a simpler authorisation procedure for placing new biocidal products on the European market. I voted to ban the most toxic chemicals, especially those which are carcinogenic, have a damaging effect on fertility, or an impact on genes and hormones. Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The main purpose of this proposal for a regulation is to improve the safety of biocidal products used and placed on the market in the European Union and to simplify the authorisation process across the whole of the European Union. For this purpose, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation seeks to unify existing European legislation and to update it in the interest of both consumers and manufacturers. It intends, therefore, to reform the current system by broadening its scope in order to include materials and articles treated with biocidal products, by introducing a European-wide authorisation for products known to be ‘low risk’, by reducing animal experiments, by bringing requirements in relation to data into alignment, by expanding the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and by guaranteeing the uniform application of the regulation throughout the European Union. Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The submitted report aims to unify current European legislation and, at the same time, adapt it to technical development. Biocidal products and substances in our society are indispensable, for they help fulfil stringent health and hygiene requirements. A whole series of micro-organisms have already become resistant to the original products, so current biocidal substances are becoming more and more dangerous as a result of their increased effectiveness. I fully support the aim of the rapporteur to take into account not just the practices of manufacturers, but especially protection of consumers and the environment as well. Regulations governing biocidal products should also be extended to manufacturers outside the EU. It is unacceptable for us to demand higher values for consumer and environmental protection from our producers at the price of increasing costs, and to demand nothing from other producers outside the EU and outside of Europe who import these goods into the EU. Consumers who purchase biocidal products on the territory of the EU must be sure that the goods meet minimum standards without regard to whether they are purchased in Poland or Germany or whether they originally come from the EU or from China. The report is clearly formulated. It requires concrete and feasible legislative changes and takes into consideration the environmental impact. For these reasons, I will vote in favour of its adoption. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products. I did so because it strengthens the rules on the authorisation, commercialisation and use of biocides in the EU, with a view to protecting human and animal health and the environment, in accordance with the precautionary principle. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The high standards of hygiene to which our civilisation has grown accustomed require an increasingly constant and intensive use of biocidal products. At the same time, we demand that these products are ever more effective and aggressive, which means that they are also more dangerous to handle. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 79

For that very reason, the approach to regulating the marketing and use of biocidal products has to pay particular attention to consumer and user protection. Again, as I have said on other occasions, the rules on this subject must be uniform and valid throughout the European Union, or we will not be able to effectively guarantee protection for all European consumers or for the environment, which is no less important. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This regulation seeks to standardise the existing regulations at a European level and adapt them to recent technical developments. Consumers should be able to assume that the products that they purchase meet uniform minimum standards for the EU internal market, irrespective of the Member State where the product was purchased. That means that clear labelling of treated materials and products is as vital as the corresponding authorisation for the biocidal products, irrespective of whether they come from inside or outside the EU. The European biocidal products market is estimated to be worth approximately EUR 890 million per year, which equates to approximately 27% of the global market. Three large companies hold about 25% of the European market. It is therefore necessary to establish a balance between the interests of the large companies and those of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs need to be given more help in an industry dominated by several large industrial producers. This can be done by exempting SMEs from paying an annual tax for putting biocidal products on the market. In addition, Member States should create national helpdesks to complement the guidance documents provided by the European Chemicals Agency. João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The fact that we abstained at first reading shows our concern about certain critical issues that a majority in this House has ignored, in view of the real need for the Member States to protect their citizens against the harmful effects on health and the environment of the active biocidal substances that are used on the market. The European Chemicals Agency, which will be responsible for scientifically evaluating whether the use of a biocide on the market can be authorised, will now have three months to prepare an opinion based on the conclusions of the evaluation and to submit it to the Commission, instead of the nine months previously proposed. We do not believe that this reduction will benefit the rigorous approach needed to protect public health and the environment. We hope this issue can be reconsidered yet again in future negotiations with the Commission and the Council. We are pleased with the acknowledgment that the Member States will be able to take account of regional differences and local environmental issues in their national authorisations, and also with the reference to respect for the principle of subsidiarity. We also welcome the proposed procedures for nanomaterials and the added levels of protection to be considered in the case of more vulnerable groups, such as children and pregnant women. Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text which is being voted on contains notable improvements over the original motion and I commend Mrs Klaß for the effective mediation work that has been done. Indeed, I welcome the objectives which have been reached of a greater level of data protection for business and the gradual introduction of a centralised authorisation procedure at European level for placing these products on the market. The specification of greater requirements with regard to labelling will also certainly help consumers to make a more informed and safer choice. We are heading in the right direction, 80 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

but we still have some way to go: the regulatory framework on research and development is not consistent with other regulatory advances in the sector, such as the REACH Directive. Furthermore, the necessary financial package for the European Chemicals Agency to undertake its new assessment responsibilities has not been announced. In this respect, I expect clarification from the Commission, bearing in mind also the workload already ascribed to this body by the REACH Directive. Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. Thanks to this legislation which was approved at first reading by the European Parliament, biocides for use against parasites and germs are about to become safer and more environmentally friendly. The overall purpose of this proposal for a regulation is to bring up to date the Community rules governing products ranging from insect repellents to chemical products for water treatment (agricultural pesticides are covered by separate legislation). For the first time, materials treated with biocides will also be regulated. We have also adopted the ban on the most toxic substances, especially those which are carcinogenic, harmful for fertility or which interfere with genes or hormones, while at the same time reinforcing the requirement for other dangerous substances to be gradually replaced with less harmful alternatives. The future authorisation system for biocides, centralised at European Union level, will be implemented progressively and will also ensure greater consistency at the level of the 27 Member States and hence, improved safety. Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Biocides are intended to provide protection against pests, vermin and bacteria and have everyday uses as well as agricultural applications. In order to increase safety in connection with the use of biocidal products and to establish a system of scrutiny, it is logical for these substances to be subject to the same tests and standards throughout the EU. As a representative of farmers in the European Parliament, I am committed to the responsible use of biocides. This proposal represents a good basis for uniform regulation in the EU. In the interests of fair competition, I am especially in favour of all planned new biocide provisions also applying to imports from third countries. However, agriculture must continue to be able to do its job of producing safe food and feed at a reasonable cost. Proposals that have a direct effect on production and production costs need to be evaluated particularly carefully. The use of suitable measures to combat harmful pests must not be made more difficult or expensive by making them uneconomic. In any case, a new regulation must satisfy both the wishes of consumers and the demands of producers. Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The role of biocides has always been somewhat controversial, probably as a result of the fact that their identification and definition is not always easy. It is certain, however, that biocides have many uses in our daily lives and it is therefore necessary to understand their real impact on the safety and health of all of us. For these reasons, I have voted in favour of simplifying and harmonising the regulations for European industry, and also for the Member States, who will have renewed regulations that meet new public needs. The launch of a system to harmonise the approval criteria will help avoid double assessments of the risks associated with products that have already been authorised. This is a further important step forward that this Parliament has taken, which goes towards protecting citizens’ health. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 81

Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Every year, approximately 90 million tonnes of biocidal products, the function of which is to control pests and germs, are placed on the market. The European Union’s concerns on this matter are therefore completely natural, since it advocates that biocides should be safer and more environmentally friendly. Accordingly, it seeks to strengthen the protection of human health by banning the most toxic chemicals such as carcinogens or those that are detrimental to fertility. It also seeks to strengthen animal and environmental protection. However, in addition to the adoption of this proposal, I believe that comprehensive certification of products imported into the EU should also be required. That is why I voted as I did. Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The regulation on the placing on the market and use of biocidal products, being voted on today, allows us to take another step towards a centralised system for the registration of biocidal products. The registration system for chemical materials introduced with the REACH Regulation demonstrates that the rejection of separate national registration systems is really justified. Currently, we often face the situation where a particular product cannot be placed on the market of a Member State simply due to that state’s complicated and unduly expensive registration procedures. On the other hand, while simplifying the placing on the market of biocidal products, we must make sure that a high level of protection is maintained due to the particular health risks posed by these products. Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Biocides are an integral part of our civilisation and are essential for meeting our high health and hygiene standards; biocides must be effective in avoiding illness and infection, but may, at the same time, be highly dangerous: for this reason, optimal management of these substances is necessary. The new regulation on the use of biocides must ensure that manufacturers, or rather medium-sized enterprises, can apply the regulations in their production without being placed at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, both consumers and manufacturers of materials which contain biocides must be able to rely upon minimum standards applicable throughout the European Union. In my opinion, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation is in considerable need of improvement and amendment in order to achieve the stated objectives, such as eliminating the shortcomings in the existing directive, improving the authorisation procedure and streamlining the decision-making process while further developing the high level of protection. The new provisions must take account of three essential fields: environmental protection, consumer protection, and safe and practical implementation by manufacturers. The new regulation will also provide for a simplified procedure for product authorisation in order to avoid unnecessary costs and excessive fees. Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The future regulation provides for a simplified procedure for product authorisation subject to certain conditions in order to avoid unnecessary costs and excessive fees. It is also a revision of the existing 1998 directive and establishes the focus of authorisation with the European Chemicals Agency. I support the gradual introduction of a centralised authorisation procedure: 2013 for low risk products and 2017 for all biocide types. The exclusion criteria for dangerous active substances (carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, persistent, bio-accumulative) may be considered when a substitution plan for them is already available. Consequently, when a biocide containing an active substance which is a candidate for substitution is authorised, the time limit will be restricted to three years and there will have to be alternatives available 82 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

which are not harmful to the environment or human health. The new regulation must take account of three essential areas: environmental protection, consumer protection and safe and practical implementation by manufacturers. Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The new European regulation on biocides is not only an internal market matter. It is also a matter of health and environmental protection. That, in brief, is the message sent out by the European Parliament today Of course, several demands from manufacturers have to be met concerning these products for use against vermin, such as access to the European market, time taken for the approval procedures, non-duplication of tests and consistency with legislation on pesticides. That in no way constitutes a blank cheque for manufacturers. The principle of substitution for the most harmful substances is clearly recognised. That mainly concerns persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic substances (PBT) and endocrine disrupters. It is recognised that responsibility rests with all those involved, including manufacturers who place on the market articles treated with biocides. Let us not forget the toxic sofas affair! I have one regret, however, and that is the rejection of an amendment which stipulated that manufacturers should pay an annual fee, at reduced rates for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), so as to make it possible for the Chemicals Agency in Stockholm to fulfil its brief. One thing is clear: with limited resources, it will be difficult to carry out reliable tests and so to reduce health risks for users. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) We abstained on this report because the advances made in terms of protection for human health and the environment have been wiped out by the gifts made to industry which jeopardise the functioning of the European Chemicals Agency. One can accept that over time, all biocidal products could pass through the centralised procedure. That becomes unacceptable, however, if the time allowed for scientific assessment is drastically cut back while, at the same time, their financial resources are reduced. One cannot expect to do more, more quickly and at less cost without compromising the quality of the work. This vote shows up the real intentions of the right and the centre-right: less stringent assessment for all biocidal products, with direct access to the whole of the internal market at the expense of people’s health. A small consolation is that the sovereign right of Member States to restrict or to prohibit the use of biocidal substances will be respected. It is up to them to ensure a high level of protection.

Report: Peter Skinner (A7-0170/2010) Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the following report as I believe that what Europe really needs is a financial supervisory body, like a complex yet efficient structure, which is able to dominate the financial institutions of the European Union and ensure that they function properly. In view of this, I look very favourably upon the creation of a European Banking Authority, a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and a European Securities and Market Authority, because I feel that this is the only way that we can improve the current level of regulation within the European internal market, guaranteeing both incorruptibility and the proper functioning of the markets, while preserving the stability of the financial system and ensuring the coordination of European and international monitoring. We can only identify the risks of financial systems through better monitoring, which will give us timely warnings about crises like the one which devastated the world in 2008. This powerful crisis has brought home the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 83

need to reform this sector so as to maximise competition by encouraging genuinely competent supervisory bodies which are truly able to make a much needed difference in this important sector. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal for a regulation establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority forms part of the financial supervision package. This package establishes three European authorities to oversee specific sectors of the financial industry: banks, insurance and financial markets. I fully supported this report and the financial supervision package as a whole for it represents, to my mind, a major and, above all, necessary step forward. Through this, we are learning the lessons from the recession and its dramatic consequences on the economy and on jobs, caused by failures in the current financial system. With this new supervision framework, the aim is to stabilise the financial system and guarantee its stability. Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) will have responsibility for dealing with a number of practical issues, such as non-life insurance policies and life insurance policies which provide a form of investment and occupational pensions. If we bear in mind that the insurance market in new Member States has been developed by foreign European investors, the supervisory committee for such cross-border networks will play a vital role in being able to offer security to all Member State citizens. The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority will also be able to intervene at national supervisory authority level when these authorities encounter problems in implementing the EU technical standards consistently. I believe that this initiative, together with the EIOPA’s power to resolve disagreements between national supervisory authorities, where the legislation forces them to cooperate or reach an agreement, marks a step forward in managing the integration of financial services in Europe. In a nutshell, this is a balanced system which deserves total support. George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because three new European supervisory authorities (ESAs) will be created, replacing the current supervisory committees. They will have much greater powers than the consultative remit of the current system. They may also receive additional powers in the future, thanks to the review clause. The European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) will also be created to monitor and issue warnings about the accumulation of risks in the European economy. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The performance of the European financial system depends on careful risk management and accurate assessment of the structural stability of the entire sector. A new supervisory authority involves a clear assumption of responsibility by the Union’s institutions to ensure that crises are prevented, free riding is discouraged and behaviour and attitudes are monitored. In view of the ever increasing integration of our national markets, with the inevitable lowering of defensive barriers, it is necessary to act together to neutralise threats, be they internal or external. Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I agree with the Commission’s proposal to create three new decentralised European agencies for insurance and occupational pensions and I think that their creation is all the more welcome against the current backdrop of the economic and financial crisis which hit Europe in 2008. 84 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As with previous reports on the creation of European financial regulation authorities, I am also voting for the proposal creating a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. I would stress once again the importance of providing the European Union, and the internal market in particular, with European supervisory authorities so as to minimise the economic and financial impact of future situations that put our financial markets under stress. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is one thing that we have all learnt from the recent crisis, irrespective of our political convictions or worldviews, it is the need to reform the institutional supervision structure by creating European bodies and, in so doing, to rethink the whole concept of macro- and micro-economic supervision. There are countless positive points to the agreement that we have achieved and which is being put to the vote today. One of them is the creation of independent European bodies to supervise the banks, insurance companies and financial markets. These bodies will not replace the national supervisory bodies, but will work with them, seeking to carry out their mandate of prudential supervision and systemic risk analysis, so as to prevent the European banking sector and financial markets from being hit by another crisis of similar proportions to the one we have been facing. As I have had occasion to say countless times before, I personally am not afraid of having European supervisory authorities. I consider it essential for them to be able to carry out their mandates both independently and competently, so as to strengthen the confidence of the markets and their players, particularly in the insurance and pensions sector in this case. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to protect the transparency and credibility of European markets and institutions vis-à-vis the public, it is vital to strengthen the powers, resources and autonomy of European supervision of the insurance and occupational pensions markets. This will ensure the effectiveness of the current reform that the EU institutions are presently engaged in for overseeing financial markets so as to avoid any further risk of a crisis like the one that is currently affecting the global economy, which has had a particular impact on European society. The Commission has tabled a series of proposals with the intention of instituting a more efficient, integrated and sustainable system of financial supervision in the EU. The basis for this approach is a European System of Financial Supervisors. To that end, the Commission proposes the creation of three new European decentralised agencies: the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and the European Securities and Markets Authority. It should be noted that the impact of the creation of these three agencies on the European budget will amount to some EUR 59 699 000 for the years 2011-2013. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is part of what is known as the financial supervision package. When voting on it, we bore in mind the way in which the Council, the Commission and Parliament itself delayed measures in this area and confined themselves to adopting decisions that do not alter the basic issue, which is financial speculation, including the question of insurance on sovereign debt, which acts as a highly speculative derivative. Unless they put an end to it, the establishment of European authorities in these areas will be virtually useless. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 85

Our vote against the report is, above all, a protest against the fact that we have yet to see any proposals on putting an end to tax havens, levying a tax on capital movements, or closing the derivatives market. That means that the main financial speculation mechanisms remain in the market and that the measures taken now are aimed more at facilitating control by the major powers and their financial groups over Member States with more fragile economies than at tackling the issue of financial speculation head on and stamping it out. Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Parliament has called on a regular basis for equal opportunities for all agencies operating at EU level. At the same time, the EU has also been seen to suffer significant failures in its supervision of the integrated financial markets. I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. I believe that there needs to be an authority which will safeguard the stability of the financial system, the solvency and liquidity of financial institutions, the transparency of the markets and financial products, as well as offer depositors and investors protection. I also believe that this authority cannot operate without having access to relevant information it requires regarding transactions and economic agencies. Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The creation of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) is part of the Commission's proposals based on the recommendations of the Larosière Report of February 2009. The Larosière Report suggested the strengthening of the supervisory framework in order to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. I welcome the creation of the EIOPA as a European response to ensure a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision throughout Europe. This European-wide authority will supervise the national supervisory authorities of the insurance sector and will ensure the existence of appropriate and adequate protection for investors and insured consumers in the EU. The Authority will make decisions directly applicable to financial institutions and it may alert the Commission to dangerous products or market transactions. Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority because I believe it is necessary to fill the gaps which exist today with regard to coordination, the uniform application of EU law and trust between national supervisors. Indeed, the recent financial crisis has shown the inefficiency of some national supervisory models, which were unable to deal effectively with the problematic situations that arose in the European financial markets. I cannot, therefore, but welcome and support the decision to strengthen the supervisory framework on the basis of an intervention aimed at identifying tools that are capable of preventing performance risks in the financial system occurring in future. With the new financial supervisory architecture, we will fill the gaps in the sector, work to improve the functioning of the internal market and, finally, ensure a uniformly high level of regulation and supervision, whilst always taking the needs of individual Member States into consideration. 86 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Systems for insurance and for occupational pensions should be guaranteed by Member States. Europe is obviously not going in that direction at a time of reductions in public revenue and expenditure. The Green Paper brought out by the Commission on 7 July regarding retirement pensions is there to remind us of this. In this context, it is unthinkable to imagine that a European Supervisory Authority could supervise a sector of this kind. I am voting against this text. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis has highlighted major weaknesses in financial supervision, both in individual cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Models of supervision have had a national perspective and have not adapted to the globalisation that has occurred within the financial system, in which various financial groups conduct their operations across borders, with the systemic risks that this entails. There has, therefore, been no cooperation, coordination or consistency whatsoever in the application of EU legislation. Hence, the aim of this directive is to improve the functioning of the internal market by ensuring a high level of supervision and prudential regulation, and by protecting depositors, investors and all beneficiaries. It is therefore crucial to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and smooth running of financial markets, to maintain the stability and sustainability of public finances, and to strengthen international coordination and cooperation in the field of supervision. The creation of a European authority for the insurance and occupational pensions sector is essential in order to achieve an effective supervision model, alongside many other monitoring mechanisms, to be decided on and implemented as a matter of true urgency. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The financial crisis actually brought to light numerous weaknesses in the financial system. Particularly in the sensitive area of insurance, reinsurance and occupational pensions, it must be ensured that risky financial products and house-of-cards constructions are not utilised. Recently, for example, an online insurer went bankrupt leaving its customers with claims out in the cold. Waves of complaints also revealed serious shortcomings in the advice given, where customers had been sold risky financial packages as secure arrangements for their occupational pensions. If we want to take the supervision obligation seriously, it will be necessary to deal with these sorts of problems that have surfaced in the EU and to create fair conditions. We need more stringent financial supervision. The establishment of a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority does not seem to be the optimum solution, but it is better than nothing, which is why I voted in favour of it. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time when banks and insurance companies are operating across borders, a purely national form of supervision for these companies is inadequate, as the current economic and financial crisis shows. However, it should be viewed as positive that, in the case of serious budgetary problems, the Member States have retained the power to make the final decisions. This report, however, goes too far in the direction of European economic governance and I therefore abstained from the vote. Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted to see the commitments taken by my political side during the financial crisis broadly supported by the European Parliament. It was imperative for us to review the European System of Financial Supervisors. The lack of coordination between national supervisory bodies increased the future risk of financial institutions failing. By establishing three new European authorities responsible 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 87

for supervising how banks, financial markets and insurance and pension companies operate, we have set up a comprehensive framework for financial supervision. In this way, banks will be regulated by the European Banking Authority in a standard and coordinated fashion. With real coercive power, the latter will have the last word in the event of a disagreement with national bank regulators. Ensuring financial institutions are solvent and enabling more transparency in financial markets and products will also guarantee improved protection for investors, businesses, savers and consumers. This new tool will therefore not be the privilege of a few financial experts but will well and truly be for everyone’s benefit.

Report: Sylvie Goulard (A7-0168/2010) Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The creation of a European financial supervision had been suggested in September 2009 by the European Commission, and was based on work carried out by the group chaired by Jacques de Larosière. From 1 January 2011, the Union will therefore have at its disposal a ‘control tower’ to identify financial risks, and will have ways to act if need be. This role will be entrusted to three new Supervisory Authorities for banks, financial markets and insurance and to the European Systemic Risk Board. I therefore voted in favour of this report because I believe the European Union needs a body specifically responsible for macro-prudential oversight of its financial system, able to identify risks to financial stability, and, where necessary, able to issue alerts and formulate recommendations to address such risks. Protecting the provision of public services, encouraging innovation, improving the financing of SMEs: these are the three objectives for ultimately achieving sustainable and fair growth. Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the following report because I believe that the current EU system has several faults as regards macro-financial supervision and because I believe that this issue is far too important to be forgotten. Initiatives implemented with the intention of resolving this issue should be welcomed. If it were good for anything, the financial crisis that has recently devastated the world certainly served to draw our attention to the fragility of our economic systems, to the constant economic risk in which we live and to the glaring need to create a body charged with macro-economic supervision within the EU. That is why I look positively on the fact that Members from all political groups have voted for this report and that it has been adopted by an overwhelming majority, which is a good illustration of the general concern about fiscal sovereignty. I believe it is of the highest importance for this new system of financial supervision to operate without hindering the financing of the economy, while safeguarding the single market, allowing the EU to maintain its status and warning of risky situations in good time. For all these reasons, I am in favour of the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal for a regulation establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority forms part of the financial supervision package. This package establishes three European authorities to oversee specific sectors of the financial industry: banks, insurance and financial markets. I fully supported this report and the financial supervision package as a whole for it represents, to my mind, a major and, above all, necessary step forward. Through this, we are learning the lessons from the recession and its dramatic consequences on the economy and on jobs, caused by failures in the current financial system. With this new supervision framework, the aim is to stabilise the financial system and guarantee its stability. 88 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The recent economic crisis has raised many questions, which we urgently need to answer, and has shown that although the European Union does have numerous economic policy coordination instruments, hitherto, they have not been used fully and the existing management system has significant gaps. The creation of the European Systemic Risk Board is an important innovation because, up until now, no one has undertaken a macro-economic analysis, at European level, whose primary goal is to evaluate systemic risks. Close cooperation between the ESRB and those who possess the relevant information (national supervisors and the European authorities responsible for each sector) is the basis for creating coherent ‘macro-micro’ supervision. George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I have called for the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) to have increased powers in order to ensure rapid, clear communication. The ESRB will create a common set of indicators to make it possible to categorise on a standard basis the risks of the various cross-border financial institutions and identify the type of risks they may present. The ESRB will also devise a ‘traffic light’ system to reflect the various degrees of risk. The Advisory Scientific Committee will also include experts among its members in order to enhance the ESRB’s ability to estimate the accumulation of risks and have available the widest possible expertise. The President of the European Central Bank will chair the ESRB for the first five years to give it a sufficiently high profile and the credibility it needs. Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I voted in favour of the reform of financial oversight in the EU despite the fact that I have many reservations about the decision that was taken. The need for regulation was excessively promoted over the need for a free market environment for banks and the financial sector. The authorities of the national and European regulator are defined quite unclearly and the boundaries between them are significantly blurred. In the best case scenario, this could lead to legal uncertainty on the part of all players in the financial market, in the worst case, to the misuse of authority on the part of the European regulator, against which it will be practically impossible for players to defend themselves effectively. In the absence of a single EU financial market, the existence of strong supranational supervisory bodies endowed with the authority to decide on individual subjects of the financial market in Member States is of questionable legitimacy. If we are so obsessed with regulation in the EU, as we are now witnessing in the case of financial markets, we will have nothing left to do except to stand by while China pushes us from the global playing field. So while we criticise unfair competitive behaviour, for some time, China has not only benefited from generous state subsidies, cheap labour and a failure to maintain environmental protection standards, but has also promoted itself thanks to innovations and modern technologies. And that should be a concern and a warning for us. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The majority of economists believe that forecasts are rarely characterised by reasonable certainty; therefore, the only remedy that remains is monitoring and self-protection. The European Parliament, together with the Council of Ministers for the Economy and Finance and the relevant Commissioners, has carried out some excellent work. Let us not pretend that this is sufficient, nor that it can cancel out the past, but in the future, we can return to foster trust with regard to the banking and financial sector insofar as macro-prudential oversight is entrusted to a body which has the responsibility of monitoring 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 89

the entire European market, the entire euro area, and not its subdivisions, which are now no longer valid. Furthermore, monitoring by this body will extend from the countries of the EU to all those whose currency is, in some way, linked to the euro, and therefore to our businesses and all those with whom they do business. Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In voting for this report, I have called for this European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) to have increased powers in order to ensure rapid, clear communication. The ESRB will create a common set of indicators to make it possible to categorise on a standard basis the risks of the various cross-border financial institutions and identify the type of risks they may present. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of the majority of this report’s proposals and the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). The European Parliament, aware of its responsibilities and making use of the new powers granted to it under the Treaty of Lisbon, must be called on to play a key role in improving the EU’s supervisory framework. As it is impossible to resolve the weaknesses of the existing supervisory structure, which the current financial crisis has underlined, it has become even more pressing to create mechanisms for macro-prudential supervision that are capable of guaranteeing the stability of European financial markets. It is also important to safeguard the unity of the single market as well as equipping the EU with instruments that will enable it to defend the euro and other international currencies at global level. I would also like to stress the important contribution that the ESRB introduces through the proposal for it to take on macro-economic analysis at European level so that it can analyse potential systemic risks. With the weaknesses in micro-prudential supervision at Member State level exposed, I believe that close collaboration between the ESRB, central bankers, supervisors and the ‘real economy’ will not only legitimise the actions of the ESRB but will also make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of those actions. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is one thing that we have all learnt from the recent crisis, it is the need to reform the institutional supervisory structure by creating European bodies and, in so doing, to rethink the whole concept of macro- and micro-economic supervision. As I have had occasion to say countless times before, I personally am not afraid of having European supervisory authorities. I consider it essential for them to exist and to be able to carry out their mandates both independently and competently, so as to strengthen the confidence of the markets and their players. In this particular case, the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board is designed to provide the European Union with an effective supervisory system without hindering economic growth; to safeguard the single market against the risk of fragmentation; and, lastly, through the development of a European macro-prudential perspective, to help resolve the problem of fragmented individual risk analysis at national level, while enhancing the effectiveness of early warning mechanisms and allowing risk assessments to be translated into concrete action. The creation of this European Systemic Risk Board is therefore to be welcomed, and I hope that excellence in carrying out its mandate will be the starting point for better supervision in the Union. 90 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The creation of structures that are capable of preventative intervention, sustained by permanent, carefully reasoned evaluation, should be a priority in the EU decision- and policy-making process in the current framework for responding to the current crisis, where it is imperative to ensure the efficiency of Union macro-prudential supervision of the financial system. Since the European Systemic Risk Board has the ability to monitor and assess the risks of the financial system in periods when it is considered to be functioning normally, it could be the guarantee of financial stability that is absolutely necessary for the real economy to develop, bringing growth, wealth and jobs. I would highlight the rapporteur’s concern to ensure a balanced and realistic proposal, through effective supervision, which will safeguard the financing of the economy, the single market and the interests and objectives of the EU. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) When voting on this and other reports included in the financial supervision package, we bore in mind the way in which the Council, the Commission and Parliament itself delayed measures in this area and confined themselves to adopting decisions that do not alter the basic issue, which is financial speculation, including speculation in sovereign debt. Our vote against the report is, above all, a protest against the fact that we have yet to see any proposals on putting an end to tax havens, levying a tax on capital movements, or closing the derivatives market. That means that the main financial speculation mechanisms remain in the market and that the measures taken now are aimed more at facilitating control by the major powers and their financial groups over Member States with more fragile economies than at tackling the issue of financial speculation head on and stamping it out. Implementing these measures may have some positive effect at first, but their reach is too limited and, if the basic measures are not adopted, time will show that speculation will continue. Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the European Commission’s proposal to establish a new body called the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) in response to the financial, economic and social crisis that has swept across the European Union. The ESRB will operate under the auspices of the European Central Bank and will monitor and assess risks to the stability of the financial system as a whole. Additionally, the ESRB will also issue early warnings to Member States of systemic risks that may be building up and, where necessary, will make recommendations for action to deal with these risks. The heads of the European Central Bank, national central banks, the European supervisory authorities, and national supervisors, will all participate in the ESRB. Thus, the ESRB, through its macro-economic surveillance functions, will assist in the prevention of future crises. Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I am sure that the expert group led by Jacques de Larosière conducted a high quality analysis of the causes of the crisis and its solution at a European level. Despite this, I have some misgivings about the legislative package proposed by the Commission. I can personally imagine the creation of a European Council for Systemic Risk. Such an institution could, in my view, have a certain justification. The Union needs a strategic authority of this type. Moreover, I believe that by its very nature, there is no danger that this institution would be a rampant bureaucratic structure. However, I have a completely different viewpoint on the European System of Financial Supervisors. It is obvious from the proposal that a robust and complex bureaucratic juggernaut is being built, and it is unclear at the present time whether its extensive powers would be 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 91

implemented at the expense of the powers of Member States. If the European System of Financial Supervisors is not to extend beyond its original intentions, its powers must be formulated so precisely that not even the slightest doubt would arise that daily oversight of the financial markets will remain in the hands of Member States and their independent domestic oversight authorities, and all of this done while preserving the fiscal responsibility of individual Member States. As the legislative package as a whole does not fulfil these parameters, I cannot vote for it. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis has highlighted major weaknesses in financial supervision, at both micro-prudential and macro-prudential levels. Supervision models have not adapted to the globalisation that has occurred within the financial system, in which various financial groups conduct their operations across borders with systemic risk. There has, therefore, been no cooperation, coordination or consistency whatsoever in the application of EU legislation. Hence, the aim of this directive is to improve the functioning of the internal market by ensuring a high level of supervision and prudential regulation, and by protecting depositors, investors and all beneficiaries; in truth, its only fault is that it does not go far enough. It is therefore crucial to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and smooth running of financial markets, to maintain the stability and sustainability of public finances, and to strengthen international coordination and cooperation in the field of supervision. I believe that the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board is essential in order to achieve an effective supervision model, and in order to avoid the systemic risk caused by the cross-border nature of large financial groups. However, many other steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the truly immoral situations of the recent past, which have damaged economies, shareholders, depositors, taxpayers and the credibility of the system. Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the report and the provisions which have been introduced and which are aimed at achieving greater market stability. The report was necessary to protect the unity of the internal market. Safeguarding the internal market is essential. Nevertheless, I have doubts about the monitoring that the European Central Bank will be required to perform; often, in the past, central banks which were required to monitor did not do so and a significant part of the crisis is their fault. I would have preferred a different monitoring body. That is why I have voted in favour of the text, but I have abstained on the legislative resolution. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time when banks and insurance companies are operating across borders, a purely national form of supervision for these companies is inadequate, as the current economic and financial crisis shows. However, it should be viewed as positive that, in the case of serious budgetary problems, the Member States have retained the power to make the final decisions. This report, however, goes too far in the direction of European economic governance and I therefore abstained from the vote. Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I abstained. On the one hand, the compromise reached on macro- and micro-prudential supervision is a step forward compared with the current lack of any EU-scale assessment or regulation of financial risk. On the other hand, however, the solutions put forward are not equal to the problems they are meant to address. The proposal does not give due consideration to the interdependence of the myriad of actors and products that make up the financial system or to their 92 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

relationship with the real economy. None of that can be reduced to the sum-of-parts solution that forms the basis of the supervisory architecture. Moreover, we cannot avoid the fact that the European Central Bank may itself be a systemic risk factor in accepting bank assets as security for its loans. Lastly, the European Systemic Risk Board ends up being the weak link in a system that concentrates effective power in the arrangements made between states in their own interest, thus extending the intergovernmental approach that currently marks European integration to the financial sphere. Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. Given the integration of international financial markets, there is a need for a strong commitment on the part of the Union at the global level. The European Systemic Risk Board should draw expertise from a high-level scientific committee and take on all the global responsibilities required in order to ensure that the voice of the Union is heard on financial stability matters, in particular, by cooperating closely with the International Monetary Fund, the Financial Stability Board and all the partners of the G20. Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report on macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board as this is a significant part of the new financial market architecture in the EU and the package represents a major step towards regulation of the financial markets. As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the European Systemic Risk Board, although I would have liked to have seen more and stronger rights of intervention for the Board, I regard the creation of the Systemic Risk Board as a success. In future, more competences should be transferred to the European supervisory authorities. Macro-prudential oversight only makes sense at the supranational level. Twenty seven individual supervisory authorities would find it difficult to assess global financial market risks. Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The financial crisis has shown micro-supervision by the national authorities to be insufficient to enable systemic risks to be identified and averted swiftly. We must establish an effective European system of supervision to monitor, assess and avert potential risks to financial stability. The report clearly highlights the importance of preserving the unity of the European single market. However, it is also very important to protect the internal market from goods from those countries that do not foster values like democracy, ecology and social guarantees, which is why goods and services from those countries are becoming cheaper and our European companies will be unable to compete under such circumstances. I agree with the observations made this month by President Barroso: ‘We have the people. We have the companies. What they both need is an open and modern single market’. The internal market is Europe’s greatest asset, but we are not using it to its full potential. Only 8% of Europe’s 20 million SMEs engage in cross-border trade. Still fewer engage in cross-border investment. The European Systemic Risk Board would be the main pillar of the EU supervision structure and, in this way, would help make the internal market function more harmoniously. Along with the values mentioned, the European single market was one of the main reasons behind the accession of Lithuania and the Member States of other fellow Members to the European Union. Any significant split or misunderstanding would undermine the decade-long efforts to remove borders and barriers. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 93

Report: Antolín Sánchez Presedo (A7-0163/2010) Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the financial crisis has laid bare the faults of the financial markets at global level, and the European markets were no exception, meaning that they did not remain immune in an increasingly integrated global economy. Parallel to the proposals to create an integrated level of supervision at both micro and macro levels, this report proposes a package of revision of the sectoral directives, mainly in the field of banking and securities, in order to adapt them to a new banking supervisory architecture. As the G20 has also committed to take action to build a stronger, more globally consistent supervisory and regulatory framework for the future financial sector, the EU’s response must be ambitious, dealing with particular cases, providing answers on both macro and micro supervisions as well as on global regulation, and focusing on harmonisation and cooperation at global level on systemic risks. This is a unique opportunity for us to introduce our political objectives of integrated supervision. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On this matter, the European Parliament is clearly making a stand for closer integration of financial supervision on a European level. I welcome this because I believe that Europe had a duty to act in this respect in order to show European citizens that we are taking strong and tangible action in favour of stabilising the banking sector. Therefore, I backed the report and the compromise reached with the Council because the aim is for these authorities to be operational on 1 January 2011. I hope from now on that these authorities will be able to exercise their remit fully in practice. Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the financial supervision package, for the reasons outlined below. The creation of the three authorities must be accompanied by a single set of rules so as to ensure consistent harmonisation and uniform application; this will help the internal market to function more effectively. The authorities must ensure a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, taking into account the interests of all the Member States and the diverse nature of financial institutions. Matters subject to technical standards should be genuinely technical, and their development requires the expertise of supervisory experts. The technical standards adopted as delegated acts should further develop, specify and determine the conditions for consistent harmonisation and uniform application of the rules included in the basic instruments adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, supplementing or amending certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. This directive should identify situations where a procedural or a substantive issue of compliance with Union law may need to be resolved and the supervisors may not be able to resolve the matter on their own. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be able to refer the issue to the competent European supervisory authority. George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as it has consumer protection as its main objective. In response to the complex nature of existing financial services, I have urged for consumer protection to be at the heart of the ESAs’ activity. They will have the power to investigate certain types of financial institutions, financial products such as toxic products, or financial activities such as ‘naked short selling’, as well as to evaluate the risks which these institutions may pose to the financial markets and, if necessary, issue warnings. In certain specific cases provided for in the financial legislation, ESAs may ban or restrict certain risky financial products or activities, or even ask the Commission to table legislative proposals which will ban such activities or products permanently. 94 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the report in which the European Parliament approves the establishment of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. This institution should aim to improve the functioning of the internal market, above all, by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, taking into account the various interests of all Member States, protect the insured and other beneficiaries, ensure the integrity, effectiveness and smooth functioning of the financial markets, protect the stability of the financial system and strengthen international supervision coordination for the benefit of the entire economy, including financial institutions and other interested parties, consumers and workers. In this document, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to examine how it would be possible to make progress consolidating a better integrated insurance and occupational pension supervision structure and, at the same time, aim to establish a common financial services market. Given the fact that a real and serious risk to the stability of the internal market has arisen due to the financial and economic crisis, in the medium term, Parliament also calls for supervision of international institutions at EU level and the preparation of a European mechanism to overcome crises that the EU may face. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The growing interconnection of national markets, the multinational or, at least, transnational nature of many of the main actors in the financial markets and, especially, the economic and financial crisis now being felt around the world, have revealed the need to rethink, reformulate and even recast the way in which supervision works at a European level. In this context of systemic adjustment to the current situation, the three European authorities that are the subject of this resolution are particularly important, since they have been entrusted with special responsibilities in the new structure, which is intended to be more able to face the challenges that arise today and have repercussions on the lives of everyone in the European Union. I hope the new architecture that is being designed now will be a success in practical terms, and that our joint efforts to minimise risks and safeguard transparency and truth in the markets will not be content with the solutions now found. I also hope that we will always be willing to learn from experience and take account of best practices in order to help improve what needs improving. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The competences granted to the three so-called European ‘Supervisory’ Authorities (ESAs) are not confined to what their title would lead one to suppose. They should be attached to the Council of Member States. They should not be able to put in place any measure whatsoever without the prior agreement of the Council except to change their road map which requires them to protect investors, savers and the functioning of the internal market in cooperation with international institutions. I am voting against this text. The competences of the ESAs and their objectives must be revised. Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the launch of the Financial Service Action Plan, Parliament has been a central actor in the construction of a single market for financial services, actively promoting harmonisation, transparency and fair competition, while ensuring investor and consumer protection. Long before the financial crisis, Parliament had regularly been calling for the reinforcement of the true level playing field for all actors at European level, while pointing out important failures in Europe’s supervision of ever more integrated financial markets. In all its reports, 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 95

Parliament called upon the European Commission to analyse how progress towards a more integrated supervisory structure could be achieved. It also noted the need for effective oversight of the systemic and prudential risks of the top market players. In order to make progress towards a more integrated supervisory structure, the Commission has issued legislative proposals aimed at establishing a new network of European supervisory authorities, based on three pillars: the first for the banking sector, the second for insurance and occupational pensions, and the third for securities and markets. Finally, a European Systemic Risk Board should be established to monitor and assess potential threats to financial stability. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The establishment of one or more authorities is necessary but is insufficient to detect signs of anomalies and forecast the onset of problems in the financial markets. The second step consists of calibrating these authorities so that they are assigned functions and tasks which are not redundant, but concrete and achievable. The new institutions are not designed to point the finger and pick out those responsible and punish them, but to study the markets and flag up critical situations, and highlight undesirable trends and behaviours, thereafter proposing solutions. The objective should not be sanctions, because no pecuniary punishment can ever restore confidence. Rather, we must focus on problem prevention, on pre-emptive solutions, and on the identification of those indicators which – more than others – reveal the emergence of possible problems. This report analyses the following critical situations and seeks to resolve them, by designing a mechanism which, ex ante and based on our knowledge of financial mechanisms, has a very high chance of working well. Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In response to the complex nature of existing financial services, I have voted for consumer protection to be at the heart of the ESAs’ activity. They will have the power to investigate certain types of financial institutions, financial products such as toxic products, or financial activities such as ‘naked short selling’, as well as to evaluate the risks which these institutions may pose to the financial markets and, if necessary, issue warnings. In certain specific cases provided for in the financial legislation, ESAs may ban or restrict certain risky financial products or activities, or even ask the Commission to table legislative proposals which will ban such activities or products permanently. Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority has become an absolute must in the wake of the economic and financial crisis. This has highlighted the shortcomings of the instruments for supervising the market and the vulnerability of Europe’s citizens, specifically depositors, investors or contributors. They need to be given greater protection. One of the ways of doing this is to supervise insurance and occupational pension institutions, with particular attention, which I believe is necessary, being focused on cross-border agencies. I support the report from my colleague, Peter Skinner, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, especially as the European Parliament warned a long time before the outbreak of the crisis about the superficial nature of the control over certain increasingly integrated financial markets. I believe that the text tabled by the European Parliament is more appropriate to the need for prevention and better management of other possible crises, especially through the measures aimed at increasing transparency on the financial markets. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting altogether in favour of the measures tabled in this report in respect of the powers of the European supervisory authorities (ESAs). 96 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Despite having laid bare the weaknesses of the financial market, the current situation of the European and world economies is a good opportunity for the EU to develop a stronger framework for supervision and regulation that is more consistent with the needs of a globalised economy. The Union’s responses to the crisis must be bold, both at the level of macro-prudential supervision and regulation, and at the micro-prudential level. I think that the new supervision architecture should be based on the precautionary principle, because I recognise the underlying complexity of its design. It is also important for the ESAs to have the effective capability of going beyond monitoring the systemic risks of national financial institutions, and to also be able to assess cross-border and systemic risks at European level, as well as international systemic risks. Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) To bring an end to the financial crisis that has shaken the world, destabilised our economy, worsened unemployment and accelerated our indebtedness, we need regulation and supervision. This is why it was important for us to show our support and to vote for the six reports proposing an ambitious and large-scale reform of economic governance. This agreement is a first step towards independent and strong authorities, which we need in the interest of Europeans. With this vote, we have assumed our responsibilities since, on 1 January 2011, three authorities will be established for supervising markets, banking and insurance, as well as a European Systemic Risk Board chaired by the President of the European Central Bank. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As is now clear due to the consequences of the current economic and financial crisis, the continued success of the European integration process is absolutely dependent on its ability to find solutions for strengthening the powers of integrated supervisory structures at European level. National sovereignty is increasingly dependent on supranational intervention through Union structures, which have resources and powers that enable them to act and set out strategies outside the influence of isolated national desires and needs. I therefore reiterate my support for consolidating the powers of the European structures charged with acting and supervising activities in Europe’s various financial sectors, as is the case with the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority. Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The European Commission's proposal to update a series of banking and securities directives so that they can adapt into the new European architecture of financial supervision should be embraced. The new financial supervisory framework should go beyond individual risk of financial institutions regulated by the national supervisory authorities and focus on broader systemic risk border while promoting European cooperation on systemic risk internationally. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis highlighted major weaknesses in financial supervision, both in individual cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Supervision models have not adapted to the globalisation that has occurred within the financial system, in which various financial groups conduct their operations across borders with systemic risk. There has, therefore, been no cooperation, coordination or consistency whatsoever in the application of EU legislation. Hence, the aim of this directive is an overall improvement in the functioning of the internal market by ensuring a high level of supervision and prudential regulation, and by protecting depositors, investors and all beneficiaries. It is therefore crucial to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and smooth running of financial markets, to maintain the stability and sustainability of public finances, and to strengthen international coordination and 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 97

cooperation in the field of supervision. The creation of a European System of Financial Supervisors and the definition of its powers are essential in order to achieve an effective supervision model in all sectors. However, many other steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the truly immoral situations of the recent past, which have damaged economies, shareholders, depositors, taxpayers and the credibility of the system. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time when banks and insurance companies are operating across borders, a purely national form of supervision for these companies is inadequate, as the current economic and financial crisis shows. However, it should be viewed as positive that, in the case of serious budgetary problems, the Member States have retained the power to make the final decisions. This report, however, goes too far in the direction of European economic governance and I therefore abstained from the vote. Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This directive should identify situations where a procedural or a substantive issue of compliance with Union law may need to be resolved and the supervisors may not be able to resolve the matter on their own. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be able to refer the issue to the competent European supervisory authority (ESA). The ESA should act in accordance with the procedure set out in the regulation establishing it and this directive.

Report: José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (A7-0166/2010) Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis has shown financial regulation to be inadequate and the mechanisms for market supervision to be weak. We all know that mere cooperation between national supervisory authorities was not sufficient for a single internal market, which is an area truly without borders. That is why I believe that a new European supervisory authority will make it easier to prevent future crises, as we need more flexible institutions for quicker responses. I believe that the European Systemic Risk Board will play a predominant role in vigilance and assessment of the potential risks to our financial stability. We need a series of rules that gives us a level playing field, as well as greater protection better adapted to our depositors, consumers, taxpayers, and small and medium-sized businesses. It is essential to safeguard the position of those who are suffering most from this crisis and to ensure credit facilities in future crises. We must also pay particular attention to the big financial entities, which are usually called ‘too big to fail’ and can, as we have seen, bring about the collapse of the entire global financial system. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal for a regulation establishing a European Banking Authority forms part of the financial supervision package. This package establishes three European authorities to oversee specific sectors of the financial industry: banks, insurance and financial markets. In the same way as for the Skinner and Giegold reports on the other two supervisory authorities, I fully supported this report and the financial supervision package as a whole for it represents, to my mind, a major and, above all, necessary step forward (see the explanation of vote on the Skinner report). Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I commend the rapporteur for his sustained efforts and for the compromise reached. It is now generally acknowledged that first the financial crisis and then the economic crisis have underlined how crucial it is for Europe to speak with one voice: in the face of a global economic crisis, the EU cannot be divided. We saw that European financial legislation was insufficient and that the supervisory mechanisms proved ineffective. This report therefore attempts to remedy these 98 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

shortcomings: the attempt to establish a true European authority with clear responsibilities is entirely commendable. The effort to establish a mechanism to resolve future crises is also praiseworthy. Our duty is, above all, to protect the interests of citizens and investors who, in some cases, have seen their savings go up in smoke: it is therefore right to establish an EU fund, pre-financed by financial institutions, which – under Amendment 137 – will protect depositors. I therefore believe that the report is balanced in its objectives, including where it identifies a clear role for SMEs (see Amendments 169-170), which are still today paying the highest price for this crisis. That is why I voted in favour. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The banking system, which carries out a crucial social and economic role, tends to pursue multiple objectives and causes often undesirable effects. If the main aim of shareholders is the creation of wealth, then the aim of some stakeholders can be to support an entrepreneurial system which is perennially short of liquidity, or the creation of wealth through financial instruments which aid saving. Without prejudice to the sacredness of the aims of each of these, the impact that the managerial decisions made in these companies can have on the surrounding economic and social fabric cannot be neglected. It is therefore the duty of politics to safeguard the requests of the various actors, whilst asking that nobody reneges on their own moral and social duties. The European Union therefore has the task of providing the necessary supervision so that all of them can achieve their aims without clashing with anyone else involved. The establishment of an authority able to make an impact in pushing this objective forward has to be applauded. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of the majority of this report’s proposals and the creation of a European Banking Authority. The financial crisis revealed many weaknesses in financial supervision and in the Union’s banking system, in particular. In view of this fact, the European public realised that Parliament and the Commission were taking urgent measures. Subsequently, at the point at which we now find ourselves, it falls to us to develop prevention mechanisms that will allow us to better adapt the European economy to potential future shocks. To this end, the creation of the European Banking Authority is a crucial contribution to financial supervision, as it will be responsible for setting out the modus operandi and governance model for managing crises, from the need for early intervention to solving potential insolvencies, where necessary Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since it introduces innovative proposals regarding the supervision of financial institutions, especially cross-border institutions. I think it is important that the large financial entities are afforded special treatment in this document, since their failure could cause the entire financial system to collapse. The creation of a European fund pre-financed by the financial institutions, to protect depositors and rescue institutions in difficulty where their bankruptcy could ruin the entire system, is, in my view, a suitable solution for filling in the gaps and remedying the ineffectiveness of the system that led us into the deep crisis that we are currently experiencing. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is one thing that we have all learnt from the recent crisis, it is the need to reform the institutional supervisory structure by creating European bodies and, in so doing, to rethink the whole concept of macro- and micro-economic supervision. The European Banking Authority comes as a result of that. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 99

Confidence in banking was severely damaged by the global financial crisis, and so the markets – and Europeans in general – urgently need to start trusting the soundness and robustness of their banks again and, most especially, to regain confidence in the supervisors. That is why the role reserved for this new European Banking Authority is so decisive for the future. On this point, we can be in no doubt: where there are financial institutions whose bankruptcy may cause the entire financial system to collapse, we cannot carry on doing nothing. As my colleague, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil – who has played a vital role throughout this supervision dossier – has quite rightly said, ‘There are only two choices here: increased powers for national supervisory authorities or more Europe. More protectionism or more internal market.’ On this question, I am in no doubt as to which path we should follow: it has to be more Europe and more internal market, with close and competent supervision. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A European Banking Authority will consolidate the effectiveness of the thorough reform of the current supervision system for the financial markets, in which the EU institutions are now engaged. This will ensure a structural basis for interventions with sufficient powers to avoid a repetition of this latest global financial crisis, which would be unbearable for society and the global economy. In fact, accepting a supervisory system based on the efforts of the national authorities is completely inappropriate, as their jurisdiction ends at their borders while market players are financial institutions whose activities take place across the borderless European area. I must therefore praise the rapporteur’s attention to the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises and the European perspective of the proposal. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is another report included in the financial supervision package and is based on the proposal for a regulation establishing a European Banking Authority as an integral part of a European System of Financial Supervisors. In one of its articles, it states that the objective of the authority is to protect the public interest by contributing to short-, medium- and long-term stability and the effectiveness of the financial system for the Union’s economy, its citizens and its companies. In this case, too, these are decisions that do not alter the basic issue, which is financial speculation. Unless they put an end to the derivatives market and tax havens, the establishment of European authorities in these areas will be virtually useless. Our vote against the report is, above all, a protest against the fact that we have yet to see any proposals on putting an end to tax havens, levying a tax on capital movements, or closing the derivatives market. What clearly emerges from the whole of this financial package is that it attempts to create the illusion that the problems of the crisis are being solved, but without addressing the basic issues that allow the financial groups to make huge profits from speculation, including speculation in the sovereign debt of Member States with more fragile economies. Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) is part of the Commission’s proposals following the recommendations of the Larosière Report of February 2009. I welcome the establishment of the European Banking Authority as a European response to the financial and economic crisis has created real and serious 100 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

risks to the stability of the internal market. This pan-European supervisory system is designed to establish close cooperation and coordination between national and European authorities to ensure the stability of the EU's financial system, and will close gaps in between different national regimes. A new board made up of heads of European central banks will monitor and act against macro-economic risks as they emerge across Europe. The EBA will issue decisions directly applicable to financial institutions and will alert the Commission regarding dangerous products or market transactions. Moreover, the EBA will play a key role in identifying systemic risks and will participate in the event of a crisis resolution. Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mr Garcia-Margallo, which makes up a significant part of the financial supervision package. Our crystal clear demands – two years after the start of the global financial crisis – characterise an ambitious project. The future European Banking Authority (EBA) will combine the controlling bodies of the national financial service providers. This is an essential prerequisite for getting the closely intermeshed financial markets under control. Mandatory technical standards must be developed in order to create a uniform European body of legislation. The goal is to prevent distortions of competition on the financial markets in an effective manner and to put a stop to excessive speculation. Financial market transactions must become more transparent. For this, we need to monitor risk products such as derivatives and short selling. For the sake of consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, it is not acceptable for players to largely conceal, unchecked, their activities from financial market supervision. We MEPs have made good use of the political weight that we have had since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009. We have shown cross-group unity and have found solutions that make European added value clear. No crisis can be solved by states going it alone. It is time for effective banking supervision that at any time prevents – as Commissioner Barnier said – a crisis becoming a disaster. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis has highlighted major weaknesses in financial supervision, both in individual cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Models of supervision have had a national perspective and have not adapted to the globalisation occurring within the financial system, where different financial groups conduct their operations across borders, with the systemic risks that this entails. There has, therefore, been no cooperation, coordination or consistency whatsoever in the application of EU legislation. Hence, the aim of this directive is to improve the functioning of the internal market by ensuring a high level of supervision and prudential regulation, and by protecting depositors, investors and all beneficiaries. It is therefore crucial to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and smooth running of financial markets, to maintain the stability and sustainability of public finances, and to strengthen international coordination and cooperation in the field of supervision. I believe that the creation of the European Banking Authority is essential to achieve an effective supervision model. However, many other steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the truly immoral situations of the recent past, which have damaged economies, shareholders, depositors, taxpayers and the credibility of the system. Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) From Poland’s point of view, but also from that of the Union as a whole, it is a matter of the greatest importance that we have uniform legislation. A number of regulations, which are part of the financial supervision package, have been brought into force today. The financial crisis revealed a series of weak points in the global financial system, including a lack of appropriate supervision of financial 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 101

institutions in Europe. In response to those deficiencies, we have adopted proposals which are intended to strengthen the supervision of financial markets in the EU. From the outset, Poland was in favour of appointing strong and independent supervisory bodies which would have the ability to issue binding decisions at supranational level. It was important for us that the supervisory bodies, which are going to be European in character, should be very strong bodies and should have a very broad range of competences. We have been able, in large measure, to achieve this objective. It should also be noted that the solutions which have been found are satisfactory. They are solutions which reconcile the national interests of the 27 Member States. Credit for this is, to a great extent, due to the European Parliament. For the first time on matters of finance, Members of the European Parliament have spoken unanimously and have reached agreement as to the legitimacy of the decisions which have been made. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time when banks and insurance companies are operating across borders, a purely national form of supervision for these companies is inadequate, as the current economic and financial crisis shows. However, it should be viewed as positive that, in the case of serious budgetary problems, the Member States have retained the power to make the final decisions. This report, however, goes too far in the direction of European economic governance and I therefore abstained from the vote. Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The current financial crisis has brought to light something that Parliament criticised many years ago: the lack of adequate financial regulation and the weakness of the market supervisory mechanisms. Parliament warned that, if a crisis in the system were to be avoided, it was essential to pursue three objectives: liberalisation of the markets, strengthening of control mechanisms and harmonisation of taxation on savings. To close the regulatory gaps and alleviate and correct the weaknesses in the supervisory system, the Commission recommends the establishment of a network of national supervisors and the introduction of a single rulebook to protect depositors, investors and consumers in the European Union. The ‘Europe’ solution would mean giving the colleges of supervisors the right to dictate rules, compliance with which would be mandatory, when national supervisory authorities cannot reach an agreement. Parliament’s report also proposes the creation of a European Fund financed by contributions from the financial institutions to protect depositors and rescue institutions in difficulty where their bankruptcy could ruin the entire system. The ultimate aim of this report is to establish a mechanism to resolve future crises that will make it less likely that European taxpayers will find themselves having to deal with the repercussions of a breakdown in the financial system. Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the European Commission’s proposal and with the respective amendments introduced by the European Parliament. Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) At a time of economic and financial crisis, the European Union should adopt strong measures at a European level by increasing control over banking institutions and their financial markets. The creation of four new bodies could prove to be a valid alternative, guaranteeing close collaboration with the national supervisory bodies. 102 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

It would not be a matter of bodies responsible for monitoring the entire sector within their jurisdiction, but specific financial institutions made up of representatives at the highest level of the national supervisory bodies that would help to harmonise the standards and regulations between EU Member States. In particular, the European Banking Authority will assess the access to, availability and cost of credit to consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. At the end of the G20, the idea of taxing the banks, forcefully upheld by both President Barroso and President Van Rompuy, was not even considered. In a Europe still exposed to the crisis, we need to act together to construct common rules at a European level. Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The crisis revealed the weakness of Union supervisory frameworks, which were divided along national borders, and it also demonstrated the necessity of better supervision of supranational financial institutions. European decision makers considered it imperative to introduce a harmonised system of financial supervision. For a year, intensive work has been carried out and efforts made to establish a European structure for this supervisory system. From the very outset, Parliament pushed for strong Union supervision of financial markets, persuading the Council and the Commission to adopt its position. Three new supervisory institutions will be established whose competences will go far beyond the advisory nature of current supervisory committees. The function of the fourth body, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), will be to maintain careful observation of the market situation and to issue warnings in the event of a growing risk in the European economy. Economic and monetary union require construction of a European System of Financial Supervisors which works well, and the result of today’s vote is an important step in this direction. Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the lack of adequate financial regulation in Europe and the poor development of market supervision became clear during the financial crisis. I probably do not need to remind you that Lithuania is one of the countries worst affected by the global financial crisis. At one time, Lithuania’s growth was based almost entirely on loaned funds driven by cheap credit, mostly from foreign lenders looking for a quick profit. Business had barely got on its feet when the crisis began. It is self-evident that there is absolutely no point in continuing to apply mechanisms whose ineffectiveness was exposed during the crisis. Now we need a strong and ambitious policy to create a more effective, integrated and sustainable European supervision system. I am pleased to see the amendments submitted in relation to the Commission’s proposal, which was mostly drafted from the banking perspective, regardless of the position of those seeking loans. It is important for us to include small and medium-sized enterprises because their business is more dependent on bank financing than large enterprises. I hope that we will be able to establish a reliable European institution with clear powers and a crisis management mechanism which will ensure that it is not Europe’s taxpayers who will face the greatest burden following any short-term change in the financial system. Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This report, and the corresponding reports voted as part of the financial supervision package, herald a new era in financial regulation, where banks will no longer be able to take advantage of grey areas in regulatory regimes, and the EU will be able to provide better protection from risky financial products and activities. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 103

These reports should be especially welcomed by consumers, as the creation of the new European supervisory authorities means the EU will now be able to regulate the cross-border activities of financial institutions and ensure that the interests of consumers are at the forefront of decisions made by banks. Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted to see the commitments taken by my political group during the financial crisis broadly supported by the European Parliament. It was imperative for us to review the European System of Financial Supervisors. The lack of coordination between national supervisory bodies increased the future risk of financial institutions failing. By establishing three new European authorities responsible for supervising how banks, financial markets and insurance and pension companies operate, we have set up a comprehensive framework for financial supervision. In this way, banks will be regulated by the European Banking Authority in a standard and coordinated fashion. With real coercive power, the latter will have the last word in the event of disagreement with national bank regulators. Ensuring financial institutions are solvent and enabling more transparency in financial markets and products will also guarantee improved protection for investors, businesses, savers and consumers. This new tool will therefore not be the privilege of a few financial experts but will well and truly be for everyone’s benefit.

Report: Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (A7-0167/2010) Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the European financial market cannot survive or function adequately if the financial supervision mechanisms for the EU area continue to differ within the EU. I think that it is essential for the EU to develop a new financial architecture that includes robust financial supervision that operates in the same way across the various countries of Europe. In that way, it will create mechanisms for preventing crises like the one we are currently experiencing, by reacting in a timely way and contributing to resolving the systemic problems that persist in our large markets. It is vitally important to strengthen these mechanisms, as without them, Europe will continue to feed a great financial handicap that impedes the stability of prices and financial markets that we want so much. Only by regulating and supervising the banking and financial systems throughout the EU, and by sharing data in a rigorous and confidential manner, can we be more competitive and stable in the global market and consolidate a stronger and more secure economy. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Once again, I endorse the compromise reached with the Council regarding the ‘financial supervision’ package (see my explanations on the Skinner, Goulard, Sánchez Presedo, García-Margallo y Marfil and Giegold reports) and on the question of the ECB’s role in particular. The European Central Bank has proven its ability to cope with the financial crisis effectively and reasonably. It must play a central role within the European Systemic Risk Board as the latter’s credibility and effectiveness is at stake. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Central Bank (ECB) has so far shown that it knows how to do its job well. The fight against inflation was taken seriously in Frankfurt, and ever since the euro came into circulation, an increase in prices systematically higher than the set target has never been recorded. All that is due to the great professionalism of the ECB technicians, as well as to the constant exchanges with the world of finance and academia to ensure effective monitoring of policies and the certainty of always being up to speed with the state of the art. Furthermore, the 104 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

reputation acquired by the Eurotower, partly thanks to the impressive heritage of the Bundesbank, meant that the scale of the crisis in Europe could be contained and it could be seen that there were some signs upon which nobody had yet had the authority to act. The European Central Bank is, therefore, the best candidate to assume a key role within the new system of European supervision. Without raising our hopes too much, we can surely expect an excellent job from an organisation which has so far shown that it has skills, competence and knowledge. George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I think that a European dimension needs to be created for financial supervision. However, we cannot be naïve in terms of our expectations. A new financial structure will not enable us to avoid economic and financial crises completely. On the other hand, the European Union will have a legal framework supporting quicker intervention. The European Central Bank is an institution which has proven its worth during the economic crisis with its prompt, efficient action. This is why I welcome the fact that the newly created authority, the European Systemic Risk Board, comes under the auspices of the ECB. Nevertheless, I deplore the decision not to grant the ESRB the power to impose sanctions on Member States or financial institutions. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposed financial supervision and regulation architecture that is currently under discussion within the Union will not be able to operate efficiently if supervision continues to be fragmented at national level. On the basis of this principle, I am voting in favour of this report. It will clearly not be possible to avoid future crises. Nevertheless, it is possible to mitigate their social and economic impact on the Union by developing more finely tuned micro- and macro-prudential supervision mechanisms. The European Systemic Risk Board, as a macro-prudential supervisor, will therefore play a crucial role. However, while it cannot impose measures or sanctions on Member States or financial institutions, the credibility of its actions is assured not least because of the prestige and good reputation of the European Central Bank. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is one lesson that we have all learnt from the recent crisis, it is the need to reform the institutional supervision structure by creating European bodies and, in so doing, to rethink the whole concept of macro- and micro-economic supervision. Personally, and as I have had occasion to say innumerable times, the existence of European supervisory authorities does not scare me. I consider it essential for these to exist and be able to carry out their mandates independently and competently, reinforcing the confidence of the markets and their players. Europe urgently needs to develop specialised capacities for macro-prudential supervision to detect systemic risk – in other words, to detect risks to financial stability at European level – and, when necessary, to sound the alarm and ensure that the situation is monitored. However, the supervision structure that we are currently adopting, and especially the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), which will not be able to impose measures or sanctions on Member States or financial institutions, relies, to a large extent, on the European Central Bank (ECB) being able to carry out its activities and undertake the tasks assigned to it. I believe that the prestige and reputation of the ECB will be an added value for the new ESRB. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 105

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The need to ensure conditions for stronger and more effective European supervision of financial markets has resulted in a strong commitment from Parliament, which has become more evident and more appreciated as the current economic and financial crisis has progressed. A surveillance system at national level, based on the individualistic perspective of each Member State, has proved increasingly inoperable and unreliable given the global coverage of financial markets, which are becoming increasingly integrated with one another as they develop. I therefore support this proposal for a legislative resolution by Parliament. Adequately equipped with technical support and making use of the capacity and resources of the European Central Bank, the European Systemic Risk Board will undoubtedly have a decisive role in enabling the EU to act earlier and more rapidly by analysing information about system trends and identifying possible risks. This will be essential in preventing new crises, or, if they are inevitable, mitigating their negative impact and quickly finding ways to reverse the trend. Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) While it may be consistent to seek to set up a supervisory body on systemic risk, it is much less so to place it under the supervision of the European Central Bank (ECB). A body of this kind ought really to be inter-state. This is absolutely not the case in this proposal. A body chaired by the President of the ECB, which blindly follows its euroliberal doctrine to the advantage of the private operators, will never put forward anything that is contrary to their interests. I am voting against this report, which endorses the control of the ECB over the European Systemic Risk Board. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The need to respond to a future financial crisis and the new models for macro- and micro-prudential supervision have led to the creation of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the European System of Financial Supervisors. However, it is only the prestige of the European Central Bank (ECB) that will make this new system effective, as the new ESRB will not be able to impose measures or sanctions on Member States or financial institutions, and its warnings will not be binding. The mission of this new supervision architecture coordinated by and subordinate to the ECB will be to anticipate future crisis scenarios so that preventative measures can be taken to block the emergence of new crises. It will also be necessary to ensure that all selections for senior management roles throughout the system are based on the criteria of real ability and merit, rather than politically expedient power sharing among the Member States. Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The EU is creating a framework for safeguarding financial stability. In order to avert the risk of new and serious financial crises, Europe requires an institutional framework for dealing with the insolvency of important financial institutions in the system. A new macro-prudential supervisory authority, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), and a new micro-prudential supervisory authority, the European System of Financial Supervisors, will be created. Their effectiveness is guaranteed by the authority of the ECB, since the new ESRB will not be able to impose measures or sanctions on Member States or financial institutions and its recommendations will not be binding. Consequently, their effectiveness depends on the considerable reputation of the ECB and the recognised expertise of its staff. The main aim of the supervisory architecture is to prevent dramatic situations such as the crisis we are currently experiencing from happening in future and to guarantee financial stability. The mainstay of the success of the new financial market regulatory and supervisory 106 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

policy will be precisely the interconnection between micro- and macro-supervision. In this way, the secretariat of the ESRB will play an important role in guaranteeing efficient, rapid exchange of the data concerned.

Report: Sven Giegold (A7-0169/2010) Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the European Parliament has always played a predominant and central role in building a single market for financial services, actively promoting harmonisation, transparency and competition, so as to provide greater and better adapted protection for those who need it most, such as small-scale investors and consumers. We had already regularly called for the creation of such conditions and pointed out some of the faults in financial market supervision. I therefore urge the European Commission to examine the best possible way to move towards a more-integrated supervision structure, in parallel with the delicate process of building an increasingly vigorous, integrated single market for financial services. I hope that with this report, we can help create a Union body that takes effective charge of contributing to a robust European harmonisation process, and that it will be an example to the world. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal for a regulation establishing a European Securities and Markets Authority forms part of the financial supervision package. This package establishes three European authorities to oversee specific sectors of the financial industry: banks, insurance and financial markets. In the same way as for the Skinner and García-Margallo y Marfil reports on the other two supervisory authorities, I fully supported this report and the financial supervision package as a whole for it represents, to my mind, a major and, above all, necessary step forward (see the explanation of vote on the Skinner report). Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The establishment of the European Securities and Markets Authority is part of the EU’s strategy aimed at strengthening the role of the European market supervisory executive in order to prevent situations arising which will lead to systemic risks of the kind which have shaken the financial markets since September 2008 and the economies of almost every country thereafter. However, the new feature of this authority is not that it will receive centralised supervision powers because, in this respect, we can include all the other authorities which make up the European System of Financial Supervisors, but that, for the first time, a European authority is being granted responsibilities for supervising the actors in a market directly, which also presupposes being involved in granting authorisation, carrying out investigations and imposing sanctions. This is happening at a time when the previous supervision system was restricted to simply regulating and drafting proposals which were subsequently passed on to the relevant authorities in Member States. I wish to sincerely express both my appreciation and curiosity facing this challenge and I am looking forward to seeing how the directives’ provisions will be implemented and what will be changed as a result of creating this agency (in other words, the directive on credit rating agencies where the main players are not only extremely important, but are also major global operators). David Casa (PPE), in writing. – This new ESA will now form part of the European supervisory structure for financial supervision. More specifically, it will be responsible for the micro-prudential oversight of specific institutions. ESMA will play a particularly important role in the regulation and supervision of credit rating agencies. I am very pleased 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 107

with what has been achieved by the ECON Committee in this regard. I have voted in favour of the report as drafted by the rapporteur. Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report even though current progress does not measure up to the promises made in 2009 at the G20 summits, where European leaders committed themselves to achieving effective and tough regulation of financial products and institutions. However, this legislation package is not a substitute for the lack of economic governance. Without fiscal harmonisation, without a common industrial policy, without strong initiatives for growth and jobs, we will not be in a position to resist market pressure or to ensure that the wealth produced in Europe is fairly distributed between all citizens. Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the creation of a European Securities and Markets Authority for the same kind of reasons and because I attach the same importance to it as with the creation of a European Banking Authority. I am doing so because the markets’ vulnerability to the intense speculation that has taken place in financial centres in recent years and to the collapse of European companies, as well as to the resulting repercussions on the dynamism of the Union’s internal market and economy, has demonstrated the need to reinforce the regulation of European and world markets. This has also been shown by cases such as Lehman Brothers, which exposed the Union’s weaknesses in a globalised world. I also believe that the creation of the European Stability Fund, as proposed in this report, could be a valid contribution to monitoring the financial institutions most exposed to risk. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because it advocates reform of the EU’s financial markets by guaranteeing supervision and establishing more efficient rules for better identifying risks in the financial system. I support these measures since they establish a single European supervisory authority for cross-border institutions at EU level and a European mechanism for resolving the crises affecting them. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is one thing that we have all learnt from the recent crisis, irrespective of our political convictions or worldviews, it is the need to reform the institutional supervision structure by creating European bodies and, in so doing, to rethink the whole concept of macro- and micro-economic supervision. There are countless positive points to the agreement that we have achieved and which was put to the vote today. One of them is the creation of independent European bodies to supervise the banks, insurance companies and financial markets. These bodies will not replace the national supervisory bodies but will work with them, seeking to carry out their mandate of prudential supervision and systemic risk analysis, so as to prevent the European banking sector and financial markets from being hit by another crisis of similar proportions to the one we have been facing. Since the financial markets have been badly affected by the crisis, there is an urgent need to restore confidence. To a great extent, this will depend on the role of the supervisory authorities, which will have to carry out their mandates competently and effectively so as to pass on the necessary confidence to investors and companies. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If there is to be effective regulation of financial and speculative markets, and bearing in mind the circumstances which led to this crisis, which has had serious consequences for Europe and developed countries, it is vital to ensure efficient and effective intervention at the level of securities transactions, in line 108 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

with the efforts of Parliament and other European institutions. The aim is to create a structural basis for monitoring, evaluation, supervision and intervention which, within an effective legal framework, will prevent the recurrence of situations such as those that led to the outbreak of the current economic, financial and social crisis. In this context, a European Securities and Markets Authority will need to be given not only a suitable legal personality, but also legal, administrative and financial autonomy in order to ensure the safety and stability of the markets and the transparency of transactions, so as to avoid new systemic risks. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The new agencies will enhance existing cooperation between national regulators and contribute to a more coherent approach in relation to supervision of the financial services sector. The new agencies will be able to tackle weaknesses in the current supervisory system and ensure that the problems that have been arising in some European countries for some time will not arise again. These amendments at European level will complement measures already implemented by the Irish Government to strengthen the regulation of the Irish financial services sector. Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Having been away from Strasbourg because I was representing the European Parliament at the annual meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) which took place in Hanoi from 20 to 25 September, I was not able to vote for the financial supervision package. I wish to stress that I give it my full support. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Giegold report on the European Securities and Markets Authority because the European Union urgently needs to equip itself with tools for supervising financial markets so as to avoid new financial and economic crises. The creation of this authority, and those created in the rest of the ‘supervision package’, enable us to move from simply coordinating national authorities, whose interests sometimes differ greatly, to real European authorities. In this way, the activities of credit rating agencies, who are largely responsible for triggering the financial crisis, will, from now on, be subject to direct European supervision. This is undeniably a step in the right direction, even if there is still a long way to go. Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The establishment of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) as part of the Commission’s proposals following the recommendations of the Larosière Report of February 2009 is to be embraced. This authority will significantly strengthen the supervision of the financial sector in Europe. The ESMA will issue decisions directly applicable to financial institutions and will alert the Commission regarding dangerous products or market transactions. Moreover, the ESMA will play a key role in identifying systemic risks and will participate in the event of a crisis resolution. Furthermore, in the case of an emergency situation, the ESMA may, within the scope of its powers, adopt a decision by simple majority obliging the national supervisory authorities to take certain measures. These measures must contribute to the stability and the orderly functioning of the financial markets. Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) My vote in favour is the result of my satisfaction with the agreement reached with the European Council. The creation of a European Securities and Markets Authority represents a very important result for the European Parliament, which used its expertise to improve the quality of the regulation, but it is a result which makes the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) particularly proud. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 109

In fact, we have always fought to close the large regulatory gaps on the subject and to correct the fragility of the supervisory systems. It was very important to secure the integration of the European Systemic Risk Board with the European supervisory authorities, as well as the assignment of greater mandates to the new authorities. This will make a decisive contribution to giving these instruments their proper European dimension. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis has highlighted major weaknesses in financial supervision, both in individual cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Supervision models had a national perspective and did not adapt to the globalisation that has occurred within the financial system, where various financial groups conduct their operations across borders, with the systemic risks that this entails. There has, therefore, been no cooperation, coordination or consistency whatsoever in the application of EU legislation. Hence, the aim of this directive is to improve the functioning of the internal market by ensuring a high level of supervision and prudential regulation, and by protecting depositors, investors and all beneficiaries. It is therefore crucial to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and smooth running of financial markets, to maintain the stability and sustainability of public finances, and to strengthen international coordination and cooperation in the field of supervision. The creation of the European Financial Markets Authority is essential to achieving an effective supervision model. However, many other steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the truly immoral situations of the recent past, which have damaged economies, shareholders, depositors, taxpayers and the credibility of the system. Alexander Mirsky (S&D) , in writing. – (LV) I voted for this resolution, as I believe that the European Union has ended up in this crisis largely because there was insufficient supervision of securities, bank resources and pension funds. We must not only implement supervision of the financial markets and determine the risks, but also develop a mechanism to prevent financial speculation and fraudulent financial reporting. Only then will the European Union be able to react in a timely way to the situation in different Member States: here I have Latvia, Greece and Hungary in mind, where the situation was nearly one of default. It is equally necessary to identify the names of people who provided false information at the EU level and concealed the true internal condition of different EU countries. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time of cross-border markets, a purely national form of supervision for these companies is inadequate, as the current economic and financial crisis shows. However, it should be viewed as positive that, in the case of serious budgetary problems, the Member States have retained the power to make the final decisions. This report, however, goes too far in the direction of European economic governance and I therefore abstained from the vote. Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I abstained. On the one hand, the macro- and micro-prudential supervision system is a step forward compared with the current situation where supervision is fragmented across different countries. However, the draft legislation on European supervisory authorities is silent on how to deal with financial companies that are already so large and diversified that the Union cannot allow them to fail, given the systemic risk that they present today. It should be made clear in this document that such companies should be broken up, and the parts of the business that work with non-transparent financial products should be closed down. 110 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

In addition, the document does not address the problem of rating agencies firmly enough. Parliament should have been clearer in stating that the price of sovereign debt cannot be determined by a rating oligopoly that classifies itself as a ‘market’. Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it as tabled by Parliament. The authority must act with the intention of improving the workings of the internal market, not least through a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, taking into account the interests of all the Member States and the diverse nature of financial institutions.

Reports: Peter Skinner (A7-0170/2010), Sylvie Goulard (A7-0168/2010), Antolín Sánchez Presedo (A7-0163/2010), José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (A7-0166/2010), Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (A7-0167/2010) and Sven Giegold (A7-0169/2010) Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The European Parliament today adopted legislation creating new EU financial supervisory authorities (for banking, insurance, pensions, securities and markets) and a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). Today’s vote not only establishes EU-level financial supervision, it also represents a landmark for the creation of a new EU financial architecture and stronger regulation of Europe’s financial markets. Europe-wide regulation is the only viable response to the financial challenges we face and to preventing a return to financial chaos. This underlines the relevance of the EU at a time when renationalisation is raising its head. The supervisory authorities will be more important than originally foreseen and have real teeth due to the insistence of the EU Parliament. A cross-political alliance of MEPs worked to ensure the authorities were given real powers in the face of opposition from some Member States that refused to acknowledge lessons from the financial crisis. Unfortunately, it seems Parliament will have to continue to fight to ensure the new authorities are able to provide meaningful supervision. This means ensuring that the new authorities are sufficiently staffed and that they will have direct supervisory powers over market infrastructure (such as central counterparties and trade repositories). The Greens are already working with the other main political groups to this end. Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The final vote on the ‘financial package’ marked the end of negotiations with Parliament on a minimum of European regulation with regard to finance. I voted against this financial package because the answers put forward were not adequate for the current crisis and would be even less able to prevent future crises. It is not enough to set up new bodies to regulate the financial sector, especially when these bodies demonstrate serious shortcomings. The composition of the general council of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) speaks for itself, having only representatives from the European Central Bank (ECB), the Commission and the national central banks. The measures adopted by the European Parliament are, at best, a first stage towards setting up a proper system of control over financial institutions. It is time to face up to reality and see the very real social damage caused by so-called economic and financial realism. The solutions put forward are not equal to the crisis and are of no use whatsoever. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 111

Report: Marielle Gallo (A7-0175/2010) Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The report highlights the negative impact of counterfeiting and violations of online intellectual property rights (IPR) in the creative sector as a whole, on jobs and on the European economy as a whole. I am convinced that in order to protect intellectual property further, it is necessary to make legal online content more attractive. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I believe it is essential to make consumers aware of the risks that counterfeit goods pose, for both health and safety. That is why I voted in favour of this report, and I continue to believe that efforts should be made through awareness-raising campaigns, especially directed at young people, in the fight against counterfeiting. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Marielle Gallo’s report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market. This is an own-initiative report, that is to say, not of a legislative nature, with an approach that, in my opinion, seems balanced. For me, the challenge in this matter is the following: on the one hand, we need to protect intellectual property rights, for they guarantee dynamic and flourishing creativity and innovation, yet, on the other, we need to develop legal services allowing as many people as possible to access online creative content easily. I am now waiting for the European Commission to propose templates combining these two requirements, namely, protecting copyright while guaranteeing broad access to creative content. Like the rapporteur, I think that studies should be carried out in order to assess developments and possible improvements to the digital market in Europe, through the consultation of stakeholders and the continuing involvement of the European Parliament. Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution. Infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) constitute a genuine threat to our economies and societies because innovation and creativity have considerable added value for the European economy. The phenomenon of on-line IPR infringements has assumed worrying proportions, particularly for the creative content industries, and the existing legal framework is incapable of offering rights holders on the Internet effective protection while guaranteeing a balance between all the interests at stake, including those of consumers. I welcome the proposal for the establishment of the Observatory, which would become a tool for collecting and exchanging data and information on all forms of all IPR infringements, helping us to discover the true scale of on-line IPR infringements, and to take the necessary measures at EU level to combat counterfeiting and other on-line IPR infringements. Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I would like to express my appreciation of the efforts made within the Committee on Legal Affairs and of the work done by the rapporteur, which have led to the adoption of this report. Although it takes the form of a non-legislative resolution, Parliament is sending the Commission the message that artists must be protected, especially national artists who are most vulnerable to the risk of extinction as a result of piracy on the Internet. A list is given below of the Romanian artists who would like this report to get through: TAXI, MORANDI, Elena Gheorghe, George Nicolescu, Florin Chilian, Cleopatra Strătan and Pavel Strătan, NICO, PROCONSUL, CLASS, Claudia Cream, HI-Q, VOLTAJ, Cristina Rus, DIRECŢIA 5, SMILEY, HARA, SIMPLU, SISTEM, Ştefan Hruşcă, Delia Matache, DJ PROJECT, Laurenţiu Duţă, Mihai Mărgineanu, DEEPCENTRAL, Cătălin Josan, XONIA, Z.O.B., PLANET MOLDOVA, KEO, NEXTEK, Andreea Bălan, Deepside Deejays, Aisa & DJ Yaang, Liviu Hodor, Arsenium, Andreea Bănică, BUG MAFIA, Leya, Sasha Lopez, Celia, 112 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

David Deejay, GeoDaSilva, Giulia Anghelescu, SUNRISE INC, IMPACT, Alina Crişan, DJ LAYLA DYA, DJ Sava, No 7, Lili Sandu, Lavinia, Guess Who, Grasu XXL, Nelu Strătan, PARAZIŢII. I am pleased that I was able to make my own modest contribution to the success of a balanced report, both through the positions adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs and within the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The violation of intellectual property rights constitutes a threat not just to the health and safety of consumers, but also to all sectors of industry, in particular, the creative and innovative industries. It is therefore important for the measures mentioned in this resolution to be applied, particularly those concerning support and training for companies on how to obtain patents and on the fight against counterfeiting of products, as well those regarding public awareness campaigns at European, national and local levels on the negative impact of counterfeiting and piracy for the economy and society. I also agree with the need to increase public awareness campaigns targeting young European consumers. I would also stress the importance of coming up with better adapted means of payment in order to facilitate the legal acquisition of content, thereby increasing the volume of legal electronic transfers in the EU. Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report because by likening file sharing for non-commercial purposes to counterfeiting and theft, Marielle Gallo and the European right are encouraging millions of Internet users who listen to music and watch films to break the law. In doing so, they pit artists against their own audience without guaranteeing a penny more for them. Contrary to what it would have us believe, the European right is not defending artists, but rather large corporations and their outdated economic model. This report is nothing but a continuation of the policy of the French Government, which is more worried about the interests of the big record companies and of the show-business world than about the fundamental freedoms of citizens. This attitude is incapable of rising to the challenges of creation in the digital age. Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The structure of the European production system and its international competitive advantage are closely linked to innovation and, in broad terms, to human capital. Research and development for new solutions, or new processes to resolve problems, constitute the basis for the well-being and prosperity of the European Member States in the coming decades. It is certainly not thanks to raw materials or the low cost of labour that the EU currently manages to bring in wealth, but to the production of ideas, the training of service providers, and the ability to come up with new ideas which are useful to the market. It is therefore fundamental, as far as our permanent presence on the international scene is concerned, to stimulate the creation of intellectual property through fair returns, ensured by a temporary right of exclusive use. In particular, this report rightly criticises counterfeiting and piracy, proposing measures to combat these two scourges. At the same time, I am in favour of the adoption of ad hoc measures for the Internet and for the cultural sector in order to avoid mass phenomena that are difficult to combat, whilst promoting virtuous behaviour. Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Internet piracy has indeed reached alarming proportions, affecting intellectual property rights. However, I voted against this motion for a resolution because it does not guarantee a balance between the interests of all the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 113

parties involved, with the risk of consumers’ rights being harmed. There is a risk of censorship being imposed on an area which has acquired a huge role in citizens’ lives, precisely thanks to freedom of expression. I believe therefore that a fairer approach is required to this issue, not simply a unilateral one. With this in mind, I think that more attention must be paid to the opportunities available for European consumers to purchase material legally online instead of downloading it illegally. Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the vote on the report by Mrs Gallo on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market, two mutually complementary rights have been reconciled. One is the particular intellectual property right of the author and/or editor of the item created, and the other is the more general right to knowledge of the users of the item itself. The European Union cannot only be an internal market, where businesses operate and protect the goods and services they provide, but it is also a shared space of citizenship and freedom, in which citizens can express and inform themselves and each other. Making everything bow to private interests, creating excessive, unjustified and unfair limits to the free dissemination of the creations of the intellect could unduly compromise the shared space, where the expression of thought takes on the significance of a public asset. Hence, it is important that intellectual creations are protected, but it is just as important that the methods of their protection are not excessive in order to make them fully available, as easily and quickly as reasonably possible, to the entire community, beginning with the Internet community. Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For most people, the term ‘property’ always refers to material possessions. All too often, however, one forgets that intellectual production, too, must give rise to rights of ownership: that is, copyright. In this way, artists, writers, composers, authors and creators of all kinds should legitimately be able to receive remuneration for the use of their works, while consumers should have access to a legal and diverse range of content on the Internet. Mrs Gallo’s report, which was put to the vote today, Wednesday 22 September, makes one thing clear: the phenomenon of on-line piracy, against which holders of intellectual property rights appear to be powerless, is becoming widespread. A system for the protection of literary and artistic copyright is therefore required which takes into account the rights and obligations of users, fundamental freedoms and which encourages innovation within a framework of legal clarity as much for the benefit of consumers as of rights holders. I am therefore in favour of the text that was put to the vote this afternoon. Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In France, just as in Europe, creation, research and innovation are waiting. Clarity and confidence need to be restored to all stakeholders. That is why the issue of intellectual property rights is legitimate. By our votes, we have therefore made our point in the fight against counterfeits (especially of medicines), in raising young people’s awareness of intellectual property issues and in support of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). On the other hand, in the end, we voted against the Gallo report, with the aim of reaffirming the distinction between file sharing between Internet users for private purposes and counterfeit issued from profit making networks. We regret that the report adopted does not take up our positions that were strongly defended in Parliament and in France (telecoms package and Hadopi law) calling for a court decision prior to imposing any sanction on Internet users. On this last very sensitive point, the stakeholders must find non-partisan proposals, without technological prejudice, and 114 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

ultimately capable of ensuring fundamental freedoms, clarifying respect for property rights and simplifying creation. Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted against this resolution because I think that Mrs Gallo’s report does not guarantee the principle of neutrality and personal data protection. It does not make any distinction either between file transfer for commercial and private purposes. The Commission must take into consideration, when creating a legal framework of penalties to be imposed for infringement of intellectual property rights, the serious nature and socio-economic impact caused by the relevant infringement. In this respect, I believe that it is unacceptable for serious offences with a possible major impact on the individual’s health and integrity to be included in the same category as penal sanctions for offences with a limited economic impact, as well as for piracy involving online media products. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I abstained in the vote on this report because I do not think it has struck the right balance between respect for artists’ rights, the need to combat counterfeiting and piracy, and freedom to access the Internet. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Artistic, scientific, industrial and cultural creations deserve protection, and for that very reason, there are internationally recognised intellectual property rights (IPR). They guarantee the integrity of the creation or invention and must protect it from counterfeiting and piracy. Modern technologies, however, particularly the Internet, have made piracy and counterfeiting easier and more accessible. We all know how easy it is to make illegal downloads or buy counterfeit goods online, and how such behaviour affects the creative industries in particular. I agree with the rapporteur when she mentions the need to educate consumers to respect IPR and reject counterfeiting and piracy, however easy and trivial it may seem to them. I also believe it would be very important to create a digital internal market to make online content legally available, as a way to combat Internet piracy. These are active and positive measures for fighting piracy and counterfeiting and are in line with the approach that I advocate we should take on this matter. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The protection of intellectual property rights is a cause that should mobilise the entire European Union for the sake of a progressive and fair society and of developing a competitive economy. With the adoption of this report, the European Parliament is making a strong contribution to filling the gaps that still exist in the legal framework, so as to reverse the current situation of frequent copyright infringements on the Internet. It is important to create the conditions for effective intervention in the European area by ensuring greater cooperation between Member States and national authorities on a common framework for intervention, especially in relation to the market without borders that is the Internet. The European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory must play a key role in permanently improving the effectiveness of the fight against copyright violations on the international market. Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report contains a number of contradictions. Although, on the one hand, there are aspects that deserve our full support, particularly where it defends copyright, even stating that the encouragement of creativity and the promotion of cultural industries are not carried out against the creators’ interests, on the other hand, it encroaches on the field of patents and ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 115

Trade Agreement), without taking into account the specific nature of various sectors. This is why we abstained in the end. By doing so, we want to show that we recognise that there are problems with copyright and that it needs protecting in various areas, including on the Internet. We know that it is necessary to fight counterfeiting and piracy, but we also need to bear in mind the differences between sectors and not confuse copyright with patents, particularly in matters of software or medicines. We endorse the call for the Commission to seek a balance between the various interests at stake, although we are not certain that that will be achieved. We will remain alert to developments, however, particularly as regards protection of copyright and cultural industries in countries like Portugal, while not forgetting other interests such as those of underprivileged groups and peoples. Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report by Mrs Gallo on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market generally includes material that has already been expressed in a Commission communication, confirming the need for two-fold protection, of these rights on the one hand, and of consumers, on the other. It is an important report, above all, for small and medium-sized enterprises (which are very widespread in my region), which often find themselves defenceless against infringements of intellectual property rights. Furthermore, I support the protection that the report aims to accord the private user, considering the ‘private copy’ an exception to the infringement and upholding information campaigns targeting consumers on the legality (or illegality) of products acquired either materially or via the Internet. Given its contents and the excellent work carried out by Mrs Gallo, I will vote in favour of this report. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I have proposed an amendment to this resolution, regarding putting greater emphasis on the important economic sectors on which the communities in question are very dependent. Article 174 of the Treaty of Lisbon refers to territorial cohesion as the new aim of the European Union. This means that the European Union must pay greater attention to the economic and social needs of people living in mountainous areas, on small offshore islands and in remote areas. I strongly believe that the EU should respond to these needs immediately and implement definite measures to this end. Of particular concern are the fishermen who work off the coast and around islands on small vessels. Small-scale fishing is vital to outlying regions, where there is no alternative employment. In Ireland, most of the boats active in these areas are less than 15 meters long, and the type and amount of fish they catch has no significant effect on overall fish stocks. Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I am definitely in favour of protecting authors’ rights, and I think that currently, their rights are often protected in an illusory way – on paper – while technology makes it easy to evade copyright legislation. I am also an opponent of criminalising Internet users who exchange files for private use – I think that, as is the case with consumers’ organisations, this is the result of the lack of an option which is clear and legal and which would be easy for Internet users to use. It would be better if we facilitated legal Internet access to protected material, for example, via a platform operating throughout the EU and offering such material free or for a token payment, with advertisers covering the cost of licence payments. Thinking creatively, we need to adapt the law to the realities of the 21st century. In our resolution, which was, 116 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

unfortunately, rejected, we proposed supporting new economic models which would enable realistic financing as well as clear principles for the distribution of income among authors. The Gallo report is restrictive in its approach to the phenomenon of downloading files from the Internet, penalising this on a par with the production of counterfeit drugs or car parts, which is grossly disproportionate. The proposed non-legislative measures for improving enforcement of the law are a cause of some concern to me in connection with fundamental rights. I think that in adopting Mrs Gallo’s resolution, Parliament has given a very bad signal to public opinion about how it understands the balance between intellectual property rights and fundamental rights. I hope common sense will return when we discuss proposals for specific legislative acts. Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Clearly, intellectual property rights must be respected. Clearly, infringements of these rights must be punished, because they undermine the interests of our creators, our economies and our businesses. Nevertheless, we have not been able to approve Mrs Gallo’s report because, behind the few remarks on the counterfeiting of material goods, which the Commission combats half-heartedly, what is really being targeted is Internet downloading, which unfortunately affects millions of people. The fact is, Mrs Gallo is an elected representative of the party which, in France, imposed the ‘Hadopi’ law. Nothing in her report actually states that the measures she strongly advocates will include any guarantee of a judicial procedure and means of redress against possible infringements. There is no guarantee of the right to private copying either. We cannot criminalise, monitor or blame millions of European Internet users on the grounds that the cultural industry is struggling to adapt to new technologies and to present citizens with retail offerings worthy of the name. Sylvie Goulard (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market was adopted by 328 votes to 245, with 81 abstentions. Admittedly, Mrs Gallo (Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)) obtained a majority, but the debate was confused; she did not manage to transcend divisions, nor did she pave the way to any legislation. Moreover, I voted against. This text does not achieve the right balance between respecting fundamental freedoms and protecting intellectual property rights; it is out of step with technological reality. While it is true that the alternative resolutions tabled by members of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament were not entirely satisfactory either, they had the virtue of ruling out wrong and ill-suited solutions. To be constructive, I nevertheless supported some provisions in favour of combating counterfeiting (in particular, in the area of medicines), of raising young people’s awareness of intellectual property issues, and of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. It is time for fundamental non-partisan work, without technological prejudice, to take place so that fundamental freedoms, creation and respect for the intellectual property rights of authors and artists are finally reconciled. Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) While I supported the amendments in favour of combating counterfeiting, raising young people’s awareness of intellectual property issues and supporting the novelty of small and medium-sized enterprises, I did, however, vote against the own-initiative report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market. Indeed, this report lumped together that which comes under 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 117

file sharing for private purposes between Internet users, and that which is the product of counterfeiting, originating from structured profit-making networks. In addition, I strongly regret that this report does not make any reference to the essential requirement of a court decision prior to imposing any sanction on Internet users. By voting against this report, I wished to show my disapproval of a text that was not able to strike a balance between safeguarding fundamental freedoms and respecting intellectual property rights. Matthias Groote (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted against the Gallo report because I cannot support measures that have even remotest chance of resulting in people having their Internet access blocked or in the loss of the neutrality of the Internet. Moreover, the report makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial file sharing, thereby criminalising private Internet users. Furthermore, the report does not contain a definition of the word ‘piracy’, which could counteract such hasty criminalisation. In contrast, the report makes recourse to demands from the very controversial ACTA agreement and to the call for the acceleration of the negotiations. I cannot support such a report. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Gallo report which, in my opinion, encourages nothing short of a real ‘pirate hunt’, and which unfortunately is reminiscent of the purely French debate surrounding the Hadopi law. Inspired solely by coercion, the text voted through in Strasbourg lumps together in a hazardous way the counterfeiting of material goods – particularly medicines – and the sharing of digital files for non-commercial purposes. The millions of Internet users who use ‘peer-to-peer’ file sharing and also listen to music and watch films thus seem to become potential criminals. My socialist colleagues and I defended an alternative position which supports an approach that is adapted to current realities, thus protecting consumers’ fundamental freedoms. Our strategy would not have affected copyright revenue since we suggested that new trade models be set up, offering compensation to authors for using their work online. As French and European socialists, we will need to remain particularly vigilant that fundamental freedoms are not further eroded. Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) I voted in favour of the Gallo report on enforcement of intellectual property rights. The position adopted by the Committee supports innovation, employment in the creative sector and consumer security. On the other hand, it also identifies the phenomenon of counterfeiting in its various forms and the threat that results from piracy. I thought that the report was a balanced one overall, and that is why I voted against the alternative motions for a resolution. I hope that the Gallo report adopted today promotes the establishment of a stronger basis for the fair and balanced development of information society content value chains. Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I wish to thank my colleague, Mrs Gallo, for her very thorough report. Although its content split opinion among the groups, there was an undeniable need to make people generally aware of the effects of the creative sectors on employment and the economy as well as their dependence on adequate protective mechanisms. For that reason, I voted in favour of the proposal. Countering the fears of those alarmed about the protection of privacy, for example, the Gallo report proposes no new legislation, let alone penalties, but endeavours to stress the importance of intellectual property for the economy of the European Union. It also urges us to develop a fair and just system, within the framework of current legislation, for guaranteeing fundamental rights relating to the protection of property, freedom of speech and the individual. 118 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) The maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights is a burning issue that is a concern to many European entrepreneurs. It is therefore necessary to appreciate the fact that the Commission pays appropriate attention to this issue in its communication. However, I have several basic objections to the content of the report proposed by Parliament. In contrast to the report, I concur with the view of the Commission, which is of the opinion that the current framework for the promotion of civil rights in the EU is effective and harmonised to the necessary degree for the proper functioning of the internal market and that it is not necessary to adopt any further legislative measures in this respect. I am implacably opposed to any call to create a European legal framework enabling the establishment of possible measures against intellectual property violators. In this matter, I believe it is correct to respect the instruments of Member States. If France has created its instrument in this area embodied in the digital guillotine, I fully respect that. However, I simply do not want to extend such a controversial instrument to the all-European level. I also have numerous reservations about the creation of new institutions such as the Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, just as I have my reservations about the contribution of the multilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) without involving those states that are the greatest source of violations of intellectual property rights. For these and other reasons, I voted against the proposed content of the report. Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (SV) Like several other members of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I chose to support the Gallo report, because as a journalist and writer born into an artistic family, I believe that it is extremely important to tackle the problems of increased violations of intellectual property rights. Without the possibility of reasonable incomes for artists, writers, composers, film-makers, photographers and musicians, we will have a culturally and intellectually poor society, a long way from the green, cultural growth potential that I believe is a basis for a green ideology. I would also like to emphasise that European organisations representing over a million cultural workers in Europe supported the report, including the European Federation of Journalists and the European Writers’ Council. I have been a member of the Union of Swedish Journalists in Sweden for nearly 25 years and have received help many times to protect my copyright from misuse and from being both commercially and artistically violated and taken out of context. During this time, I have also been a member of the organisation ALIS (the Administration of Literary Rights in Sweden). My first choice prior to the vote was to support the alternative report submitted by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which did not call for common criminal measures and, overall, was more balanced than the Gallo report. When it was rejected in the vote, the Gallo report remained the only option for supporting the right of copyright holders to receive payment for their work. Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Counterfeiting remains an enormous problem within the European market. Unfortunately, even though this is a topic which has been under discussion for many years now, few realise the terrible impact that copyright infringement has on our economies. Hence, there is a need to start raising the institutions’ awareness that they must carefully consider the possibilities for finding concrete, satisfactory solutions. The report also emphasises and indeed urges the Commission to take real steps aimed at combating online piracy. It is not easy, but it is necessary to strike a balance between free access to the Internet and the fight against piracy. Mrs Gallo’s report fits perfectly within this aim and I am therefore voting in favour of this report. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 119

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text recognises the intellectual property rights created by the French Revolution in 1789. However, it establishes rights to private justice for operators, a practice of the ancien régime. In keeping with my opposition to the Hadopi law in France, I voted against. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Throughout history, intellectual property rights have always been disrespected. However, the technical advances that have been taking place in information technology, not least the Internet, have made the problem more serious. It is also important to underline that any infringement of intellectual property rights is very damaging to economic growth and is the main cause of the so-called ‘parallel economy’, and all the harm resulting therefrom. Only through the strict enforcement of intellectual property rights is it possible for technical and scientific innovation to develop, for new patents to be discovered, and for the culture industry to grow; these all make major contributions to the growth of the EU’s economies. I believe that by adopting this report, we are making an important contribution to achieving these goals. That is why I voted as I did. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the Gallo report, which clearly advocates the protection of intellectual property rights. These rights are under threat on many fronts or are treated with contempt. It is not only industry that is affected, but it is also the creative industries, sport and the music industry. The unauthorised uploading of copyrighted material to the Internet has also been mentioned in this connection. As there are, in particular, an increasing number of cross-border cases of infringements of intellectual property rights, a European legal framework needs to be created in order to tackle this. In this regard, the report ensures that all measures for enforcing intellectual property rights must be necessary, proportionate and appropriate within a democratic society. This was particularly important to me. This will ensure that, on the one hand, copyright is given stronger protection and, on the other, that no needless restrictions are created for private consumers acting lawfully. Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I personally voted in favour of the Gallo report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market, because I believe it adopts a fair, balanced position on this important issue. Intellectual property rights (IPR) deserve no less protection than other rights. Creators and researchers, as well as the companies that market them, are entitled to such protection. The European economy is also based on creativity, research and innovation. The acquiescence that certain anarcho-leftists show towards IPR infringements, on the pretext of Internet freedom, cannot be justified. Like libel, defamation or racial hatred, they do not stop being unlawful just because they are carried out on the Internet. IPR infringements must not become acceptable either. The right to private copying already provides adequate safeguards for an individual to hold copies of protected works. We should not, however, accept the voidance of intellectual creators’ rights over their works, not least because piracy and counterfeiting often endanger the health and safety of consumers. Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I completely agree with what the Gallo report says about strengthening the application of intellectual property rights and share 120 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

in the call to the Commission to urgently work on revising the laws to protect the applicable IPRs in both the internal and external market. In the age of digitalisation of our society, it is essential to find legislative and non-legislative measures that guarantee a lasting balance between free access to the Internet and combating counterfeiting and piracy. Only in this way can we facilitate access by European industries to the digital market, without geographical borders, by addressing those issues of multi-territory licences that currently frustrate the possibility of our products being sold legally and of our consumers accessing the information they need in order to buy safely online. I fully agree with the importance, expressed in the Gallo report, of the role of European customs that nowadays need to be able to take concrete measures to block goods suspected of infringing IPRs, and because of this, I ask the Commission to work on a customs policy covering the problems connected with property rights and to step up the debate and negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Gallo report because intellectual property must be protected just as strongly as material property. No matter what form it takes, intellectual property is the driving force for development, innovation and economic growth. For this reason, it must enjoy a special place on the authorities’ agenda. This fact is especially valid in the European Union, which has a certain potential for generating innovation. It is undoubtedly the case that, where there is a lack of effective protection for intellectual property, experts will choose to carry out their research in other countries. Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted against the Gallo report on the following grounds: In my opinion, the report is half-baked and unbalanced. My group has therefore also drawn up a counter-resolution. This introduces a better thought-out and more balanced approach to the debate. In my opinion, the relentless criminalisation of Internet users – in the case of music downloads, it mainly concerns children and young people – poses a real danger. One of the significant aspects that is missing in Mrs Gallo’s report is the distinction between non-commercial file sharing and infringements of copyright for commercial purposes. Of course, the ideas of the creative professions must be protected and appropriately remunerated, and those who profit illegally from these ideas must be punished. I believe it is necessary to move away from old-fashioned legal ways of thinking and to find a balance between equal access to knowledge and fair remuneration for services in the fields of music, literature and film. The resolution tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament takes this approach – the report by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), however, does not. Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The resolution adopted today proposes an archaic, one-size-fits-all response to intellectual property infringements, and fails to recognise the changed reality of intellectual property. It is regrettable that MEPs were unwilling to acknowledge the obvious distinction between counterfeiting crime and copyright infringements. It is ridiculous to equate private music downloading, for example, with commercial product counterfeiting by organised criminals. We need to find new solutions that take account of the different types of intellectual property rights and reflect their impacts on consumer safety rights or health. Clearly though, we also need to find new models for remunerating artists in the changed environment. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 121

Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In a global world where an uncontrolled, unprotected Internet runs rampant, counterfeiting and piracy play the lord and master. To fail to value intellectual property, a vital commodity for businesses, means failing to encourage innovation and growth by ensuring a just reward for the work expended. The counterfeiting of brands is a separate matter which, as well as harming businesses economically, can also be damaging from the point of view of consumer safety. Another positive point is that it makes it possible to download legally for personal use from the Internet. It is an offence to do so for profit. We therefore voted in favour. Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Beyond the content, I supported this report for its balanced approach, despite pressure from some Internet players, pressure assumed by the socialists, because grandstanding will one day need to end. While this report is not legally binding, it does lay the foundations for a European reflection on intellectual property in the digital age and emphasises various aspects that I would like to reaffirm. Piracy and file sharing, on a scale of millions of users, have an adverse effect on the cultural economy, on creative industries and on jobs. While the figures we have got are the subject of debate, the issue remains. Therefore, the report is asking the European Commission to provide us with reliable figures. Some claim there is a market failure between the price of cultural works in the legal system and their ‘free’ availability on the Internet. However we must show responsibility. Illegal downloading cannot become legal just by a ‘fundamentalist-right’ sleight of hand for protecting individual freedoms. Cultural industries should also make efforts, by having truly attractive prices, adapted to the new digital demand and respectful of authors being fairly remunerated. Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In her report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market, Mrs Gallo emphasises the role and significance of intellectual property rights, patent rights, the fight against counterfeiting in areas that are sensitive in terms of health and safety, the creation and distribution of formats which are accessible to those with disabilities, the creation of a single market in the digital environment, Internet-based industrial espionage and the theft of data constituting industrial property. These are all extremely important matters which require specific measures. Mrs Gallo stresses how important it is to adapt the European legislative framework in the field of IPRs to current trends in society as well as to technical developments. She proposes the establishment of a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy. The greatest cause of controversy are the provisions concerning IPR infringements and the sale of counterfeit products online. Mrs Gallo calls on all parties concerned to adopt specific measures to alert and educate people on the value of copyright and the impact of IPR infringements and counterfeiting on jobs and growth, and stresses the significance of educating young people in this area. In view of the above, I decided to endorse the report, because it contributes to better protection of intellectual property rights in the internal market. Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted against the Gallo report as legislative rather than ‘soft law’ instruments need to be used to supplement the legal framework for intellectual property rights (IPR). Innovation and creativity are encouraged through respect for IPR. Implementation of the Digital Agenda requires both protection for consumer rights and respect for copyright and associated rights. European legislation needs to adapt quickly to technological progress and the evolution of the information 122 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

society. I believe that Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be reviewed in order to ensure that the legal framework for copyright protection in the information society is harmonised at EU level. This review is necessary as cases have been observed in Member States where the provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 8 in Directive 2001/29/EC have been implemented differently, which has led to different interpretations and decisions from courts in Member States. The Commission and Member States must quickly address the need to develop an internal market by establishing a simple, accessible EU-level licensing framework. As part of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I called for the promotion of facilities offered by digital television, such as subtitling, which enable licensees for a particular work to distribute it in several languages, thereby making it available across the whole EU. Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) My rejection of this report should in no way be misconstrued as the rejection of a legislative initiative for the protection of intellectual property. I am merely dissatisfied with the way in which the problems in this area of the law are dealt with. Effective measures against infringements of intellectual property rights are necessary and must be taken. For that reason alone, the way this matter is dealt with must be significantly more discriminating. Normal citizens must not be lumped together with organised crime – that is inappropriate and disproportionate.

Motion for a resolution B7-0518/2010 Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Mountain regions and sparsely populated regions face specific problems, as a result of which they require specific support based on regional programmes. GDP must remain the yardstick for measuring eligibility for aid and Structural Funds so that less developed countries continue to be helped and boosted. We need economic growth that will be reflected in an improvement in quality of life. Consequently, a strategy on mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas will provide added value to the measures adopted to overcome the problems facing these regions. The resolution calls on Member States and the Commission to ensure that these regions will continue to benefit from special provisions as part of the new multiannual financial framework, which is why I supported it. Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This resolution acknowledges the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the recognition of the principle of territorial cohesion as a key objective of the European Union and the necessary increase in help given to areas that are disadvantaged by their geographical situation (mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas). The resolution’s main provision calls for ‘the establishment of a specific European integrated and flexible policy framework, for dealing with mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas on the basis of their shared features’. As a member of the parliamentary committee responsible for the European cohesion policy, it seems to me that more should be done for these regions and that specific measures should be planned to help them. Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this motion for a resolution because it contains useful suggestions for helping regions with geographical or demographic handicaps to tackle the challenges they face. These regions perform below the EU average and have a low GDP and high unemployment rate. The cohesion policy is the most effective model for developing regions experiencing difficult conditions, supporting their socio-economic progress directly. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 123

Although mountain regions and islands have some problems in common, such as difficult access or dependence on a small number of economic activities, these territories do not have the same development constraints. For this reason, I believe that EU support must be adapted according to the specific features of each region. Such targeted strategies would make it easier to achieve real convergence with the rest of the EU and would improve living conditions for a large number of European citizens, 10% of whom live in mountain regions and 3% on islands. It is also important for regions with natural handicaps to make the best use of the financial support granted by the EU through the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. Some Member States, including Romania, must tangibly improve their system for accessing and implementing European funds. Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas face particular challenges which deserve special consideration; not least among these are poor accessibility, energy supply and regional integration, as well as climate change and migratory phenomena. I voted for this report because I believe the important characteristics differentiating these regions from others mean that they must be guided by special regional development strategies and programmes. These must be based on their specific characteristics and potential. I would also stress that the statistical indicators used must be adapted to each region and not limited to economic factors. That will make it possible to give a more accurate picture of these regions’ development. Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon places territorial cohesion among the fundamental objectives of the European Union, alongside economic and social cohesion, as it results in a more visible and quantifiable manifestation of European solidarity. EU cohesion policy must cover all the regions of the Union, particularly those marked by special geographical characteristics, such as the Portuguese archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores. I am convinced that we will only be able to tackle the development gaps between and within the Member States and regions if we have a specific, flexible and integrated European policy framework, with legal and financial implications, that can adapt itself to the most suitable scale of intervention for the region in question, at the same time as it provides solutions to common challenges, such as globalisation, climate change and demographic trends. I support this resolution and call on both the Commission and the Member States to ensure that these regions can continue to benefit from specific provisions, particularly in the context of the new multiannual financial framework, and to devise EU measures and programmes specifically adapted to each region, aimed at achieving a structural adjustment of these regions and making them more competitive and able to face new challenges. Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) One in ten European citizens live in mountain regions. Some of these regions, particularly in the new Member States, are disadvantaged areas where poverty and the lack of infrastructure have a serious impact on people’s living conditions. These regions must continue to be a priority for European cohesion policy whose specific instruments need to be adapted according to the particular nature and severity of the problems facing mountain regions. I voted for the resolution because I believe that the EU must take effective action based on solidarity in order to provide, first and foremost, access for local residents to health and education services, as well as to tap 124 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

the tourist and economic potential offered by Europe’s mountains, with the aim of creating jobs without impacting on the environmental balance. Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – The principle of territorial cohesion was consolidated in the regulations on the Structural Funds 2007-2013 and is one of the new key objectives established for the European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon, aimed at securing the harmonious development of the EU by reducing regional disparities and removing obstacles to development, including obstacles linked to natural and geographical handicaps This resolution considers that mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas constitute homogeneous groups of regions and that they share some important common features which differentiate them from other regions, that they deserve specific regional development programmes, and stresses, in this context, the special situation of the island Member States located on the periphery of the Union. Indeed, I might add the problems experienced by fishing and rural communities including those of the islands off the western coast of Ireland including the Donegal coast. The resolution further calls for the establishment of a specific European integrated and flexible policy framework for dealing with mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas on the basis of their shared features. Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas, because specific measures are required aimed at overcoming the handicaps and exploiting the potential of these regions, in line with the objective of territorial cohesion introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Of all the regional asymmetries and differences within the European Union, one situation that deserves special treatment is that of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. These regions face specific difficulties on account of their geographical and demographic circumstances, which is why they deserve to be treated differentially by cohesion and regional development policy. The cohesion policies laid down in the treaties cannot be merely a political objective reflected in the EU’s bodies of law. They have to be concrete, objective policies designed to achieve the sustainable development of all regions, including those which, for natural reasons, have greater difficulties and are territorially more remote (in the case of islands) or more inaccessible (in the case of mountain areas). This issue is particularly important to me as a Portuguese person, and I therefore hope that the Commission will take this resolution on board and carry forward the proposals made in it. João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The resolution in question could have sketched out guidelines and recommendations relevant to regions with structural and geographical constraints that hold back their economic and social development. Yet it barely skims the surface and does not touch on the really important points in its analysis of this issue. By referring only to territorial cohesion, it overlooks the importance of a fundamental pillar of economic and social development: economic and social cohesion. The document ‘welcomes the inclusion of territorial cohesion as a new objective of the Union’ – a provision included in the Treaty of Lisbon. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 125

As we have already pointed out more than once, new cohesion objectives must be allocated sufficient new financial resources to prevent them becoming dead-letters in the treaties or mere expressions of propaganda. That has not happened. The current funds allocated to the convergence objective have proved insufficient, and the policies that the EU has been pursuing have exacerbated existing asymmetries instead of remedying them. Even though mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas share constraints and handicaps, each of them has to be accorded specific treatment in line with the differences and particular attributes they display. We can only regret the absence of any specific reference to the outermost regions. Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas because I believe that it is important to re-launch the issue of territorial cohesion and harmonious development of all the geographical realities that make up the European Union. I believe that only greater coordination and strengthened cooperation between European institutions, Member States and local authorities can render geographically and demographically disadvantaged territories competitive. It is also necessary to bear in mind the specificity of each region in order to fairly and efficiently redistribute resources for regional development. In particular, the European Union must look after the islands in order to lift them out of the marginality which is often associated with insularity. To this end, the cohesion policy should also make use of other policies that can have a significant impact on the future of these territories. I am referring, for example, to instruments to regulate the flow of migrants which, in islands like Sicily, have a significant effect on the socio-economic development of the region. Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of paragraph 3 (Amendment 1 tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance) because I think that GDP should be one of the main criteria, rather than the sole criterion, by which eligibility for regional policy aid is decided. I voted against the first part of paragraph 4, and in favour of the second part, because I think that a legal and financial framework is necessary for regional policy in respect of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The definition of a European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas opportunely takes on the task of readjusting the implementing measures of the cohesion policy on the basis of the assessment of a further criterion, the ‘territory’. This intervention succeeds, in my opinion, in cultivating that ‘particular attention’ for regions with territorial specificities introduced by Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union without, however, compromising the key role of per capita gross domestic product as a benchmark indicator for the allocation of resources. The aim of the Commission’s statement, inter alia, is to simplify the organisation of governance, which would otherwise risk wasting the effectiveness of European intervention measures. This, however, should have been accompanied by a bolder attempt to alleviate control procedures which really impede the system’s functionality. 126 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Expenditure transparency is not an objective we can give up, but it must be achieved through a less bureaucratic monitoring system which is better suited to respond to the needs of a system which is still not harmonised, so as to not create inequalities between European countries. Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has made the principle of territorial cohesion even more predominant and has revealed a particular concern for the asymmetries existing between the various regions. Mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas should benefit from a special status that enables them to overcome their inherent constraints. Therefore, in order for these regions to be better adapted, a European strategy promoting the social and economic development of the least favoured regions is essential; this should be done using specific programmes that allow these regions to overcome their backwardness. That is why I voted as I did. Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In various papers, it is always stressed that rural regions, outermost regions and, in this case, mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas, require a special strategy or even subsidies. At the same time, however, numerous measures are taken that accelerate the withdrawal from these areas. We only need to think about infrastructure problems such as public transport or postal services, as a result of which individual regions are increasingly cut off from the outside world and residents have to resort to private cars and similar solutions. If we do not want neglected areas of land that are devoid of people, it is not sufficient to subsidise these areas separately, for example, in the context of site preservation. Instead, a sustainable balance must be found between the geographical and economic drawbacks. With this in mind, the ideas contained in the motion for a resolution are to be supported. Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mountain regions are distributed throughout the EU and a characteristic of these regions, and the Alpine region in particular, is a focus on agriculture and forestry. Problems arise, among other things, as a result of an increasingly ageing population, problems in relation to infrastructure and accessibility and the availability of services. Farmers in mountain regions are especially under a lot of pressure as their expenditure is high and their income is relatively low. However, they play a very important role in preservation of the landscape, sustainable management, organic food production and Alpine tourism. This needs to be given its due recognition and the specific problems of mountain regions need to be examined. The EU must get on track to safeguard the future of mountain agriculture, and thus the entire Alpine region. I therefore voted in favour of this report. Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Because of their characteristics, mountain areas face specific challenges including, in particular, a rapidly ageing population, transport difficulties, obstacles to energy supply and a lack of regional integration. As a representative of France’s South-West constituency in the European Parliament, and being particularly sensitive to the problems faced by areas in the Pyrenees, I voted for the resolution on the European strategy for economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. In particular, the text calls for the establishment of a specific European policy framework to deal with the problems that these areas face in order to enable them to better overcome the permanent disadvantages and to adapt their development model by making the most of all their assets. It also calls for better coordination of the four structural funds, the Cohesion Fund and the other European financial instruments in order to maximise their effectiveness and thus facilitate the economic development of these areas. I support these objectives. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 127

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Strong support the one that the EP has given to this resolution where we welcome the inclusion of territorial cohesion as a new objective of the Union, as well as new Article 174. With its adoption, the EP believes that the provisions of Article 174 should be translated into specific development strategies and concrete measures aimed at overcoming the handicaps and exploiting the potentials of these regions; and considers that mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas constitute homogeneous groups of regions and that they share some important common features which differentiate them from other regions; believes that they deserve specific regional development programmes; stresses, in this context, the special situation of the island Member States located on the periphery of the Union. Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of this statement as it is important to identify a joint European strategy for the economic development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. We should encourage initiatives along the lines of the Euroregion model that covers areas with common interests between Italy and France. Precisely due to their geographical location, peripheral areas create difficulties for people living there, but it is essential for the economy of Europe to retain and protect them as important areas from a naturalistic point of view. Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe it is necessary at EU level to have a specific European strategy for the development of mountain and island regions: a strategy that takes account of aspects such as promoting the economy and structures, employment policy, the protection of natural resources, civil defence, and environmental and energy policy. The principle of territorial cohesion is one of the European Union’s key objectives introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon with the aim of reducing regional disparities and removing natural or geographical obstacles. Concrete actions and specific development strategies are needed to do this. It is necessary to create equal opportunities between these regions and the rest of the European Union. One such opportunity might be to promote sustainable tourism in the mountain regions, thus creating an important subsistence base for the inhabitants of these areas. Also, that very Madrid declaration by European ministers on 15 April 2010 stresses a more effective coordination of the measures implemented with regard to tourism policy, and on promotion aimed at more innovative, sustainable and social tourism in Europe. Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are many regional disparities in the European Union with regard to development levels. As an expression of European solidarity, the territorial cohesion objective aims to eliminate these differences and promote harmonious development through financial means of structural adjustment and the adaptation of the various sectoral policies to the specific nature of each region. Mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas are particularly disadvantaged regions, and their social and economic development is affected by their natural and geographical characteristics. It is therefore necessary to grant them particular attention, not least by taking into account various development indicators, in addition to gross domestic product, that duly reflect the specific attributes of each region; by eliminating rigid eligibility criteria for cross-border cooperation programmes; by coordinating the various sources of funding; and by developing a vertical approach involving all levels of government. 128 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

In this respect, the same rationale suggests that the outermost regions, which have some features in common with these regions, likewise deserve to have the proposals contained in this resolution applied to them, according to the specific nature of the particular region in question. Joachim Zeller (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I did not vote for this motion for a resolution, as I believe that we are now seeing an upsurge in ‘strategies’ – for the Danube, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, to combat climate change and other similar issues – to the extent that we will soon need a strategy for the strategies so that we can keep track of them all. Support for remote areas has even been included in the Treaty of Lisbon and therefore has its own principle of law, and it is also a special point of focus of cohesion policy, underpinned by numerous Commission initiatives and decisions taken by the Council and Parliament. What we need are clear decisions at European level with regard to the continuation of cohesion policy and regional policy beyond 2013. In this way, support for mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas would also be taken into account. However, we do not need a flood of motions for resolutions on individual issues, which only serve to undermine the actual goal and for which there are currently no grounds.

7. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13:30 and resumed at 15:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Stavros LAMBRINIDIS Vice-President

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

9. Failures in protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo (debate)

President. – The next item is the statement on failings in protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo. As High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Commission Vice-President Lady Ashton is responsible for this matter. As she is unable to attend today’s sitting, Mr Chastel will speak on her behalf. Olivier Chastel, on behalf of Catherine Ashton (Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed on behalf of the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, that I have the honour of taking the floor before you. I should like straightaway, on her behalf, of course, to assure you that the European Union is concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, just as, indeed, it condemns the deterioration in the situation facing the country’s human rights activists, as evidenced by the recent attacks and assaults on them. In the context of these concerns, the issue of sexual violence assumes a particularly alarming dimension. Indeed, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been on the precipice and is still, moreover, in the grip of conflicts, which, although contained, are very tragic for the people. It must, 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 129

in fact, undertake a considerable amount of work in order to rebuild itself successfully. Obviously, all of the issues facing this country can be set back in their difficult context, but it remains impossible to justify them all. In their report of 8 March, the seven independent United Nations experts thus condemned the lack of progress made as regards the human rights situation in the country and, more specifically, noted that the government should step up its efforts. Protecting the rights and safety of the people, in the broadest sense of the term, is a country’s core responsibility. They must therefore be the main priorities in the drive towards reconstructing and consolidating the rule of law in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A few weeks ago, in Luvungi, the people from the North Kivu Province, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, were once again witnesses or victims of disgraceful gang rapes perpetrated over a period of days by criminal gangs, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and their local allies, the Mayi-Mayi. The latest figures in our possession, and confirmed by the United Nations, record at least 500 victims. This tragedy, which is, unfortunately, only one of many, absolutely must lead the authorities to step up their efforts in order to better protect the civilian populations, reach political agreements that will bring stability to the region, and thus eliminate the harmful elements that terrorise the Kivu Province. This tragedy also highlights, in the worst possible way, the extent of the work to be done before progress is ultimately made on the basic issues, such as security reform, without which the rule of law cannot be consolidated. It is indeed inconceivable that the Congolese Government can regain control of its territory without an army, police force or judicial system that is well trained, well regulated and well remunerated. If the Democratic Republic of Congo must assume its responsibilities – and do so at all levels – then the international community must also do the same. The UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, has fully appreciated this, since an investigation has been launched into why MONUSCO failed to act, given that its mandate is focused on the protection of the people. We must hope that MONUSCO becomes stronger as a result of this, because it still has a vital role to play over there. Moreover, the following question must be asked: what can the European and international courts do? Mrs Wallström, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, calls for the culprits to be brought to justice. We fully support this appeal in line with the joint declaration of 27 August by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, and the European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs. That being said, if there is one general issue which the tragedy in Luvungi has raised, it is that of impunity. Indeed, the rebels are not the only ones committing crimes. We have discovered equally reprehensible behaviour among the law enforcement authorities. Therefore, the real challenge in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the functioning of its judicial institutions. It is obvious that most of the efforts to be made can only be conceived in the framework of long-term action. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that in the fight against impunity, as in all other cases, people generally expect examples to come from the top. On this basis, and to mention just one case, the investigation currently under way into the assassination of the human rights activist, Mr Floribert Chebeya Bahizire, is undoubtedly a test case, because it is symbolic of the internal contradictions sometimes facing the DRC. 130 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

It goes without saying that the European Union is following this case very closely and, in the wake of the death of this human rights activist, the Union, through the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, called for the Democratic Republic of Congo’s authorities to shed light on what happened. To conclude, I should like to point out how much the European Union is supporting, and will continue to support, the Democratic Republic of Congo in this fight for justice and against impunity. To this end, the support of the international community, and especially of the European Union and its Member States, in the electoral process, which will take place between 2011 and 2013, will be particularly important for establishing a political environment based on democratic principles and on the rule of law. Furthermore, we have formally supported within the United Nations the appointment of a Human Rights Council independent expert to support the Congolese Government’s efforts along these lines. Unfortunately, our efforts have not yet come to anything. We hope to be able to continue talks with the Congolese authorities to make progress on this front. In particular, the European Union will continue to be involved in cooperation efforts in the areas of justice, policing, defence, human rights, and also, of course, victim support. The European Union is ready to step up this operation within the framework of a genuine dialogue with the Democratic Republic of Congo. Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) One of the most serious humanitarian crises of recent years is taking place in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The rapes committed at the end of July and the beginning of August, although horrific in themselves, are just one episode in a whole series of tragic events. Every month, over 1 000 women become the victims of rape in Congo, and tens of thousands of children are soldiers. Sexual violence is a method which is intended to terrorise and punish the people living in Congo who do not support the right side in the conflict. Sexual violence is so widespread that the organisation Médecins Sans Frontières says that 75% of all rapes worldwide are committed in eastern Congo. The problem also involves the fact that the largest UN peacekeeping force in the world – MONUSCO – is doing very little to control this phenomenon. The disputes over when MONUSCO learned of these recent rapes – if it was five days, two weeks or one week after they occurred – are lamentable. There was a MONUSCO base 10 miles from the site of these rapes, and the main method of preventing sexual violence in use by the UN is to put notices on buildings saying that rape is inhuman. We will not put an end to this phenomenon by this method. To make matters worse, UN soldiers were themselves involved in a sex-related scandal several years ago, and were, for example, accused of forcing young girls into prostitution. It may be that the problem goes even deeper and that, in fact, MONUSCO does not have the will to fight this destructive phenomenon. The European Union must be resolute in this matter. It must concentrate on giving help to the victims. The matter is urgent, because at the beginning of December in Kinshasa, we are going to have an ACP-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and this singular culture of impunity and helplessness – I agree with the Belgian Presidency – must be ended, because we are going to have to look each other in the face. Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, it is impossible to speak here on behalf of the women rape victims who have lost their dignity, of the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 131

mutilated babies, of the pregnant women whose stomachs have been cut open, of the elderly women who have been violated with bayonets thrust into their vaginas, and of all those women whose bodies have become, to their shame, but, above all, to ours, a devastated battlefield. It is impossible to speak on behalf of those children who have been recruited into militia and forced to club to death adults and children like themselves, and who have become veritable sex slaves too. The sexual genocide, which continues to take place behind the scenes in Congo, with tens of thousands of victims every year, today is beyond mere words. We really are beyond words. What is clear, however, is that all the instruments – legislative texts, reform projects for the armed forces, international missions, financial support and the mobilisation of the whole Community – are in place. And the impunity continues; appalling impunity when a criminal such as Bosco Ntaganda, far from being punished, lands an important job within the Congolese administration. We demand that justice be served. This culture of impunity cannot continue just for the sake of appeasement. What exactly does it mean to judge these crimes? It means carrying out investigations, reforming the judiciary, paying soldiers properly, and prosecuting the guilty parties, including those who have instigated the massacres, no matter how high their position. For our own countries, it also means not supplying the rebels and their mercenaries with weapons and not participating with them in dubious dealings in illegal minerals. This is why we support Mrs Wallström and call for the Commission to examine the possibility of a European law that would be based on the new US law, the Congo Conflicts Mineral Act. This means that we will no longer stand for our mobile telephones, our computers and, tomorrow, our hybrid cars being manufactured with minerals sold illegally and derived from conflicts. These minerals are blood minerals, just as there were blood diamonds. Moreover, our relations with the Congolese Government will depend, Presidents, on the way in which the zero tolerance policy on violence against women is applied – a policy which, I might add, was introduced by the Congolese Government itself. (Applause) Charles Goerens, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Thank you, Mr President. I am sorry to say that, in view of the little progress that has been made in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we must condemn the serious setbacks and failures. Everything, or almost everything, remains to be done in that country. Rather than being in a position to guarantee stability in that crippled country, the United Nations representatives in the DRC are having to report extremely serious human rights violations. In this case, it is not a question of a few exceptional acts of violence perpetrated by a few exceptional individuals, which, in itself, would be absolutely reprehensible; no, what is happening in the DRC cannot be limited to a few exceptional citizens who are exposed, without any defence, to the perpetrators of sexual violence. I am afraid to say that, here, we are dealing with a phenomenon that extends beyond individuals. Indeed, the corroborating information concerning the events that took place in the DRC between 30 July and 4 August put these crimes on another scale. Atul Khare, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, has confirmed that some 500 people – women, children and babies – have been victims of rape. 132 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

We can no longer simply condemn these odious crimes. We have to go even further and identify those responsible, bring them to justice, deter potential criminals, but also tackle the causes and tackle the backdrop against which many more of the incidents we condemn may occur. Tackling the causes cannot, under any circumstances, be interpreted as a mitigating circumstance for the perpetrators of sexual violence. A military and police response is certainly needed to deal with all these challenges, at least in the short term, but other responses are needed too. In fact, we are dealing with a state crisis. I choose my words carefully – we are dealing with a crisis in a country that no longer manages to exercise its sovereign functions including, notably, the guarantee of security that citizens of all countries can enjoy. The response must come simultaneously from the DRC, the African Union, the United Nations and the international community. With regard to all the elements that may constitute solutions to the problems facing the Congolese population, nothing whatsoever can replace the responsibility of the DRC authorities. However, at the same time, we must stand by them and support them. Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I can only concur with what has been said, especially with the remarks made by Mrs De Keyser, who gave a very harsh and very raw description of the violence being perpetrated against women. It is true that all the reports say the same thing. They are all unbearable, intolerable, both individually and, most of all, collectively. Moreover, all these acts of violence are clearly aimed at purging, humiliating and, ultimately, eradicating a population, by depriving it of its dignity and its reason for living. So, for all these reasons, I think we have to be able to react even more forcefully. It is true that the situation in Congo is now even more difficult on all fronts, not only as regards the acts of violence perpetrated against women, but on other fronts as well. Mr Chastel, you talked about the daily lives of countless Congolese, about the issue of human rights in general, not just the rights of women, and about human rights defenders. I would like to say that I see a direct link, obviously, between this violence against women and a series of crimes which are also still going unpunished. The pillaging of natural resources still largely goes unpunished. Reference was made, in fact, to US legislation, from which inspiration could be drawn here in Europe. However, I also believe that the issue of impunity for the pillaging of natural resources is absolutely crucial. It is crucial because today, even the undertaking made by the Congolese President, Mr Kabila, to prohibit their export is ultimately very harmful, particularly for all the small diggers who live on nothing but that. It is harmful because it actually serves no purpose; it is something of a smoke screen, since we know full well that the Congolese armed forces, or at least some of them, are linked not only to the rape of women but also to the pillaging of resources and the corruption organised around it. What matters, then, are not just the laws or decisions of a government but also the capacity to apply them and to implement them. It is important for a government to be able to exercise its powers. I therefore think, by way of conclusion – and many of us will soon be in Kinshasa to meet with the ACP countries – that, in order to both assist and support the useful, positive forces within Congo, be they governmental, community, human rights or other forces, we will 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 133

send out a double message: a message of support to those who want to develop the culture of justice and of combating impunity, and also a message concerning the political forces and their capacity to equip themselves with the means to ensure real governance at all stages: when establishing security, applying laws, implementing a series of decisions and, quite simply, establishing the credibility, ultimately, of those elected. Indeed, four years after the elections we all wanted, financed and supported, it is important not only to condemn, but also to encourage any action that will enable the real, specific exercise of government authority and democracy in general. Moreover, I think that violence against women and violence against human rights defenders are two extremely important aspects. I will conclude by saying that the trial of those responsible for Mr Chebeya’s death will, in principle, take place in September. In view also of his family’s suffering, I think that we really need to pay a great deal of attention to ensuring that this trial is truly symbolic of the desire to solve this problem. Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is neither particularly democratic as we understand the term here in the European Union, nor is it an effectively functioning republic; this is partly due to its vast size, porous borders and poor infrastructure, which makes democratic governance a major challenge. But the DRC’s fragility as a nation state is also due to decades of corruption, political repression and sporadic armed conflict, both internally and with neighbouring states, where atrocious crimes such as mass rape have been carried out. The deterioration began under the kleptocratic and murderous regime of President Mobutu and has continued to the present day. President Kabila has at least held a general election to give the impression to the outside world of instituting democratic reform, but in reality, he controls all the levers of power and, in particular, access to the country’s vast natural resources. The increasing interest of some countries, particularly China, in exploiting these resources has emboldened the Kabila regime to neglect its responsibilities regarding human rights and the rule of law. China itself has a lamentable human rights record and, at the UN, actually defends the actions of countries like the DRC with which it does business. It is therefore no surprise to me that, of the three trials under way at the International Criminal Court, all involve nationals of the DRC. Despite this alarming situation, the African Union refuses to condemn or pressurise Kabila to live up to his constitutional obligations. The EU, to its credit, has no such qualms, and I welcome the tough approach taken by the High Representative, Baroness Ashton. Finally, I want to reiterate the call I have made several times already in this House for the Kimberley Process to be extended to cover other key natural resources in Africa. Human rights abuses in Africa, which are all too common regrettably, are often linked to competition for the control of mineral resources. The Kimberley Process has been hugely successful in curtailing the trade in conflict or blood diamonds, and I believe a similar approach should now be considered for other extractive industries. Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, in this House, we are once again addressing the difficult issue of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which seems to be getting worse all the time. In June, we adopted a resolution to condemn the murder of Floribert Chebeya and expressed concern about the disappearance of Fidèle Bazana Edadi. Since then, another human rights 134 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

defender, Salvator Muhindo Vunoka, has been assassinated. Minister, you can add him to your list. This summer, it took the gang rape of several hundred people for the UN to decide to take action. It must be said that the MONUSCO peacekeeping force, which is in Congo to protect civilians, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders, and to help combat impunity, was just a few kilometres from where these rapes were being committed, and it took no action. Ban Ki-moon himself took exception to the passivity of the MONUSCO troops. The Congolese Government has finally been challenged by UN officials. A new report was due to be published in early October on the violence committed, but on the violence committed between 1996 and 2003. What a waste of time! How many more victims must be killed, raped and tortured? How many more children must be forcibly conscripted before the international community takes note of the situation and acts accordingly? I feel like asking: what is Europe doing? Huge sums have been invested in Congo. EUSEC and EUPOL missions are there. In addition to humanitarian aid, one of the European Union’s most important objectives is, on paper, to train the security forces there and to help reform the country’s security. What are the results of these policies? The DRC is a large country; it is Africa’s third largest country in terms of population. It is a country with enormous wealth potential, but 80% of its population lives below the poverty line. What is worse, it is becoming ever poorer due to rampant corruption. There is just one thing I would like to ask you: how long are we going to allow this situation to continue with complete impunity? As you said, Minister, we know that the security forces are also involved in the violence. Do you not think it is time to take a different stance? I imagine that things are not straightforward in the Council of Ministers, where a few big European countries, or at least their political representatives, whose commitment to human rights we are all aware of, are not really open to genuine intervention because they are able to roll out the red carpet for Mr Kabila. Therefore, you can count on the European Parliament to take the measures that are needed, and please stop allowing the economic interests of the few to prevail, without a thought for the civilian populations that cannot take any more. Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, 2010 marks 50 years of Congolese independence. When we look back, we can see that these last 50 years have been disgracefully besmirched with blood right up to the present day. The horrific events in the North Kivu region this summer simply corroborate this. When we read that 25 soldiers from the UN mission should have prevented it, this also raises the issue of logistics. Twenty thousand UN soldiers, with the professionals and experts saying that at least 60 000 would be needed to maintain some form of order: what a problem! I have the following question for the Council and the Commission. Exactly what efforts have the EUSEC and EUPOL missions in North and South Kivu been making to increase security for the local population and to prosecute the perpetrators of this summer’s atrocities? 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 135

The troubles are taking place exactly where the DRC’s richest resources are located. The Congolese mines have a potential of USD 24 billion, recent sources claim. According to a press report from the Congolese Government at the beginning of September, mining operations in Kivu had been shut down immediately because armed groups had been exploiting the mines illegally, sometimes backed by government authorities. On the surface of it, this is a good start, but how is this being enforced? However, there are also rumours going round that the Congolese Government is expropriating foreign investors’ mining projects, only to sell them on to its own foreign business partners. My questions to the Council are these. What influence can the EU missions on the ground wield to curb illegal mining? Also, can you confirm that the illegal exploitation of mines has been stopped, and how can this be enforced, possibly with the aid of the EU missions on the ground? I sincerely hope that the European Union will work on the vital reinforcement of the UN mission there, since this is something that is urgently needed. If I am not mistaken, and to read the press reports, the Congolese Government is currently making efforts to bring this to an end, which would have a dramatic impact on the country. Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, this debate implies that human rights abuses in the Congo are a recent phenomenon, or that this is an unusual state of affairs in Africa. Neither is the case: if only it were. I remember the independence of the Belgian Congo in 1960, when I was still at school. I recall the kidnapping and arrest of Patrice Lumumba within months of independence. I still remember vividly the coverage of him being thrown roughly into the back of a lorry, never to be seen again. Decades of fratricidal instability, dictatorship and civil war have followed. The Congo has not been a special case in Africa. A peaceful democracy would be more difficult to find. If I were to follow the prescriptive, ‘nurture’ explanation, I would have to say there must be something in the water. However, there is another explanation. In Africa in general, if not particularly in the Congo, when the colonists drew straight lines on the maps of Africa, they ignored the differences between different tribes and peoples. Each country, on independence, contained enormous vertical ethnic, linguistic or religious divisions in the body politic, which always inject political instability. This is as true of Belgium as it is of the former Belgian Congo. The only difference is that Belgium has escaped the political violence. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Bosnia and Croatia where there have been as many killings, if not the same gratuitous sadism. If vertical divisions in political states lead to instability, and sometimes to violence, why are we creating the same vertical divisions in Europe by uncontrolled immigration from the Third World in general, and Africa in particular? We were not content to leave Africa with unworkable political societies. We are busy recreating the same problems in the European heartlands. Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) We are holding another debate on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo – a republic, as someone has said, which, to a great extent, is democratic in name only – where human rights are being violated on a daily basis. We are talking, today, about violence against the weakest, in particular, against women, who are being raped, and against children, who, among other things, are being forced to join an army – an illegal army. We are talking about rape, torture and murder. We are talking 136 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

about violence whose perpetrators, worst of all, are going unpunished, and we are talking about violence which has become so commonplace that it is difficult even to speak of any kind of cultural or other kind of consent. We are talking about rapes which are being committed by partisans, but also by soldiers of the army and by civilians. We are talking about women who do not have anyone to defend them. We must not forget the fact that – paradoxically – we are debating a region which is one of the most unfortunate yet also one of the richest in terms of natural resources in Africa and the world. These resources should be more than enough to meet the needs of all the people who live there. We must not forget that this is a further stage in the misfortunes which, according to estimates, have cost the lives of tens of thousands of people in the last ten years and have also involved around two hundred thousand instances of rape. We can only guess at how many rapes have gone unreported. The situation is the subject of profound concern, not least at meetings of this Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights. The question arises as to the effectiveness of the work of the United Nations and about the way in which crimes committed both by partisans and by others are going unpunished – crimes which must be brought before a court. The judicial system must take action. I think the meeting of the ACP and the European Parliament is also the perfect occasion to cut short this inhumane situation. Since we are dealing with a crisis in the state of Congo, it is the international community which must take the initiative. It is also our role – the European Parliament’s role – to be speaking about this. Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) I would like here to thank the representatives of the Commission and the Council for their opinion on the failure of human rights protection and justice in the Congo. The situation is indeed dramatic and drastic, and I think it was very well described by my colleague, Véronique De Keyser, in her speech. Despite this, I would also like to draw attention in this context to the highly alarming reports from international non-governmental organisations. These actually talk about systematic organised attacks on communities under the control of armed units with the aim of raping local women. Just over a month ago, more than 150 civilian women were raped in 13 villages. All of this, ladies and gentlemen, took place only a few months after the UN Security Council renewed the mandate of its mission in the Congo with the aim of helping the government to protect civilians from human rights violations. Another paradoxical aspect of this situation is that sexual violence is perpetrated by all sides in the conflict, including government forces, which is absolutely unacceptable, and I would therefore like to ask the representatives of European institutions one more time to exert all possible diplomatic and other pressure, including pressure via the United Nations and its mission in the Congo, to put an end to these practices. You should be in no doubt that you have the full support of the European Parliament in this. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is still very worrying. It is particularly alarming that violence and a readiness to resort to violence are continuing to increase despite the presence of the European Union and the United Nations. We have been engaged in various missions in Congo for many years. We therefore also bear a certain amount of the responsibility, particularly in the case of acts committed or tolerated by groups that we formally support. There is a Congolese saying that goes: a cat can enter the monastery, but it nevertheless remains a cat. Applied to the security apparatus, this means that you can put a uniform 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 137

on criminals, but that does not mean that they will not commit any more crimes – far from it, in fact. That is exactly our problem. We need to make it unequivocally clear to the Congolese Government that we will not tolerate this behaviour and the covering up of such behaviour. Everyone in this House agrees that the situation in Congo is deteriorating. I would point out that we carried out an election observation mission there in 2006. Since then, there can hardly be said to have been any progress in the country’s democratisation process. The Council and the Commission should consider carefully whether or not we should send a new full mission there and monitor this election process differently this time. I believe that the prerequisites for a full election observation mission are anything but favourable. That would also be the wrong signal to send to a government that systematically disregards the rules as well as the recommendations of the European Union. Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, as Europeans, we ourselves are partly to blame for the misery we are seeing in the eastern DRC. That there is still a very great deal of money to be earned by rebels selling precious metals like coltan for the telephony industry and the computer industry is due to the fact that we continue to buy them indiscriminately. Countries in Europe have never had a need for, or envisaged scope for, a law that challenges responsibility in the supply chain. What is so remarkable at this point in time is that the United States have, finally, done just that. We have done nothing – simply because we were afraid of competition from China and the United States. Yet what did we see last summer? A law in the United States that calls for transparency, that requires companies to notify the use of precious metals from the DRC or neighbouring countries. The Hewlett-Packards and the IBMs of this world are having to adapt to this. We should follow the United States’ example and introduce our own version of this law. Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, this year is the Year of Africa and we remember here a whole host of countries which, fifty years ago, won independence from former colonial powers. However, when we look at development in some of these countries after those fifty years, unfortunately, we do not have many grounds for optimism. The same holds true for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If it wants to be a partner of the European Union fifty years after winning independence from the former Belgian colonial power, and to be a fully fledged member of the international community, it must be actively committed to the prevention of the appalling crimes committed there in recent weeks; it must maintain human rights and provide for the rule of law on the entire territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In cooperation with the UN, as well as with the African Union, the EU should pay its respects to the victims of violence in the Congo. It should do so, amongst other measures, by contributing to the disarming of military groups which carry out attacks on the Congolese population from neighbouring countries, from Rwanda, southern Sudan, and Uganda. We should also demonstrate that we are able to take action and here, I call on the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, to present a concrete EU action plan in the fight to maintain human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the occasion of the session of the Mixed Parliamentary Assembly of the ACP-EU in Kinshasa in December. Kinga Gál (PPE). – Mr President, as a member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, I strongly condemn the happenings of recent months in the Congo. 138 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

In the 21st century, it is an inadmissible fact that killings, rape and child abuse are commonly used as a weapon of war while UN forces are present in the area. In the last five years, the number of just the documented cases has grown 20 times in the Congo. Women’s and children’s lives are in danger; their human rights are totally neglected and they are deprived of human dignity. Moreover, they can no longer integrate into their traditional community, which leads to the destruction of social infrastructure as well. The international community has to admit officially that mass rape in the Congo is a war crime against humanity. There is a need for a concerted response to maintain pressure on the perpetrators of these rapes and to bring them to justice at local level or in the International Criminal Court. I welcome the fact that the EUSEC RDC has just been extended until 30 September 2012 and, hopefully, EUPOL RDC will be renewed as well. Specialised personnel should be deployed to assign criminal investigation. Further support should be ensured by the European initiative for democracy and human rights. Further action should be taken, such as the provision of peacekeepers with mobile phones, the improvement of communication between the MONUSCO peacekeeping force and the local population, and a strengthening of the commitment to tackle rebel groups. Humanitarian agencies must be supported so they can reach the civil population in need of assistance. At the same time, the government should bring into effect its own recently declared zero tolerance policy and should establish the National Committee of Human Rights, as laid down in the constitution. All in all, the protection of women and children must be given priority. Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, earlier this year, Denis Mukwege, a gynaecologist from Panzi in the DRC, came to our European Parliament and told us that the at least 200 000 rapes which have taken place in his country over the last fifteen years are too brutal to be described as such, and should instead be called sexual massacre, and that sex is being used as a terrorist act. Little did we know that but a few weeks later, within twenty miles of an international peace keeping force in the area of Luvungi, the town would be put under siege and some 500 women and children subjected to repeated and horrific sexual violence. In this Parliament, where we have decried the failure to offer protection in Rwanda and Srebrenica, we cannot and must not stay silent. We should commend the UN Assistant Secretary-General for accepting that the UN had failed and is partially responsible. But we should also challenge the UN to investigate why local warnings in advance, delivered by motorcycle taxi drivers, went unheeded; why the UN base did not have access to local language interpretation; and how the rules of engagement continue to hinder the effectiveness of its peacekeeping force. Frankly, I would ask all Member States of the United Nations and every Member State of our European Union what has happened to the fine words we all voted on concerning the UN’s responsibility to protect. I commend what Mr Chastel has said this afternoon about bringing the perpetrators to justice, but in the report imminently to be produced by the UN itself, we need a meaningful justice system for a decade of crimes in Eastern DRC. President, I also express agreement with the others in this debate who have condemned the corrosive corruption which afflicts the plundering of the DRC’s rich mineral resources. But most of all in this debate, we should say that there are no explanations, no excuses, no 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 139

extenuating circumstances which can in any way justify sexual violence as a weapon of war, and that our foremost concern should be for those 500 women victims who all of us failed to protect. Our commitment should be to ensure it never happens again. Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – Mr President, the EU must hold itself responsible for standing by when defenceless women and children continue to suffer at the hands of gun-toting rebels and army men. It is time to move beyond rhetoric. We must take concrete measures to provide on-the-ground support to bolster the DRC security forces in conjunction with other international missions. We must actively engage and, whenever necessary, pressure the government to protect its own people. We must also speak with one strong and bold voice, saying to the government to stop human rights violations. The DRC – the country – has huge resources. We want to hear good news from Africa also. Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I can only concur with the criticism and the condemnation of this brutal massacre, as well as the criticism of the UN mission that it failed to do all it could to prevent this massacre. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed that the newly established position of Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict at the UN, taken up by Mrs Wallström, has already articulated this responsibility, and we can still hope that the crimes will be unequivocally cleared up. I would like to remind you of the fact that in February this year, we had an exhibition in Parliament presented by Medica Mondiale, which maintains a network of mobile gynaecological clinics in eastern Congo, and a woman came here from eastern Congo who had experienced many terrible things but who had nevertheless found the strength to organise the women there. She later called for the local EU embassy to also go to eastern Congo, for it to work with the NGOs and the women there in the witness protection programmes, and for crimes to be prosecuted, and she told us that they desperately need support in connection with income projects, medical aid and aid for victims of trauma. She also called on the EU to help in the building of prisons, because when people are arrested, it is not possible to imprison them. Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) We are talking about this because we are alarmed by the situation in Congo, and because the people who live in that country have no guarantee of fundamental human rights. We are, therefore, horrified by the fact that the reports of observer organisations about respect for human rights are particularly alarming in the case of Congo. However, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, our discussions should be addressed to one specific group. I am thinking of the people who are responsible for external policy in the European Union. External policy towards Africa is not the subject of controversy. Therefore, it is easier – it would seem – for us to formulate principles for common action. Today, therefore, we must look at the causes of what is happening in Congo. We should not stop at humanitarian aid. We should become involved in educational projects and infrastructure development projects, and we should become involved in projects which help build a modern state in Congo. In fact, we expect this kind of programme. Peter Šťastný (PPE). – Mr President, I can be counted among those in the very long line who sharply condemn the heinous crimes that took place in early August of this year in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Every society protects their weak and most vulnerable, so to hear such horrible news must be devastating to every decent human being. 140 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

The rape of least 179 women and children is truly a crime on a massive scale and must not be repeated ever – certainly not as a weapon of war as was the case in the DRC. The EU must assist in bringing all the perpetrators to justice. News of severe punishments has to penetrate every community in the DRC and go beyond its borders. Indeed, such news must travel globally so that these horrible acts of mass-scale rapes, used as a weapon of war, can be successfully eradicated. We know that developed countries have fewer crimes and that some heinous crimes simply do not exist in them. One way in which the EU can assist is through well-functioning economic partnership agreements in the region. These should help the whole of Africa grab their reasonable share of global commerce. At the same time, accelerated development will begin the process of eradication of poverty and, most certainly, that of the type of crime that happened in early August in the DRC to at least 179 defenceless victims. Thijs Berman (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, rape has become a daily weapon of war in the eastern DRC, with thousands of victims every year. The actual number is far higher than we know, because the women are unable to assert their rights and therefore often do not report what has happened. Rape is a seriously traumatising crime which results in deep psychological and often physical harm. If rapes remain unpunished, they become a permanent fixture in a violent daily life in society, even in post-war times. The mass rapes that took place between 30 July and 4 August 2010 in North Kivu demonstrate that the developments in the DRC are too low on the international community’s agenda. However, these crimes cannot be allowed to remain unpunished. We owe that to the victims and also to the future of the DRC as a whole. The Congolese Government needs to make every effort to bring the perpetrators to justice, and a certain amount of doubt would not be misplaced. Impunity must not be allowed to become the norm, however. This drama also makes it painfully clear that the relationship between the UN mission and the local population leaves a lot to be desired. It is essential that the presence of MONUSCO in the region be evaluated. It has remained passive in this drama. An independent enquiry is now called for to investigate the facts surrounding these mass rapes. The presence of the mission is and remains necessary, but it is essential that MONUSCO carry out its full mandate and offer the local population the protection it so desperately needs. Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Mr President, today’s debate is focused on the terrible events which have occurred in the east of the DRC, but Member States continue to maintain that it is safe to return Congolese asylum seekers to Kinshasa because the capital is far removed from the insecure areas to the east. Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise. For example, of the nine people removed from Teeside in north-east England since 2007 and taken to Kinshasa, seven report that they have been interrogated, imprisoned, sexually abused or tortured. They have either fled the country again or are in hiding. Since the 2006 elections, the EU has invested heavily in supporting good governance in the DRC. It is inconvenient to have to acknowledge that violence is still occurring in Kinshasa, but I ask the Council and the Commission to face up to this reality and to respond to it. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 141

Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Fifty years after gaining its independence, Congo is a country which is still engulfed in a state of war and unremitting conflict, and is a country which, today, has been given the macabre name of the rape capital of the world. The shocking events of the last two months and the rapes of hundred of women and children – both boys and girls – show that Kinshasa is not coping with the systematically organised rebel aggression. Rape has become a common weapon of war in Congo. The recent rapes were committed by fighters not far from international UN forces who are stationed in the area and who are, in reality, the only effective stabilising force in the country. Kinshasa must put an end to the prevailing impunity and must guarantee the security of the civilian population, mount an effective fight against spreading corruption and finally establish a true army with properly trained soldiers. Congo is rich in mineral deposits, but unfortunately has fallen victim to its own wealth. In this country of ten million people, three quarters of the population earn less than a dollar a day, while the country has become a part of Africa where natural riches are being looted. The illegal race for natural resources is driving Congo into poverty, chaos and humanitarian disaster. The international community must bring about a dramatic resolution to the conflict, and international concerns must guarantee that the natural resources they use are legally sourced. Only a stable Congo can be a guarantee of peace in the region. Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a situation persists of armed conflict, extrajudicial executions, violence against women, utter violation of children’s rights, enlistment, maltreatment, violence against minors, mass evacuations, arms trading and exploitation of vast natural resources, torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, application of the death penalty, repression of freedom of expression and of human rights defenders and, last but not least, impunity. All these criticisms are known to the international community which, via the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, has already made clear its deep concern on several occasions. The United Nations, like the whole international community, has responsibilities and they are undeniable. It is justifiable to review the terms of the MONUC as well as the EUPOL and EUSEC missions, as with all humanitarian interventions. We have a duty to support the countries of the African Union on their journey towards full, effective compliance with the international agreements on the protection of human rights. This area of land, paradoxically, the victim of enormous economic interests, must not become a no man’s land subject to exploitation, but instead be able to become liberated, by establishing, and being subject to, a respected, guaranteed legal system. The Congo is a country in which men like Floribert Chebeya Bahizire die in uncertain circumstances. Therefore, the European Union has a moral duty to provide valid, decisive political intervention in favour of compliance with international rules on human rights. Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, in April 2008, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the militia leader Bosco Ntaganda for war crimes such as enlisting child soldiers and the mass murder of civilians. Instead of handing him over to the court, the Kabila government promoted him to a top position in the Congolese army. This behaviour by the Congolese authorities, which is in breach of their obligations as a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, encourages a sense of impunity and accounts for the barbarities that continue to take place in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). These include the mass rape of 500 women and children, including babies, in the mining 142 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

district of North Kivu in August this year, when MONUSCO, the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in the DRC, shamefully failed to take any action, as Atul Khare, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, has confirmed. The corruption and impunity in the DRC account for the appalling conduct of the rebels – who are in the service of neighbouring governments – and of the government authorities and UN forces. We will not effectively fight corruption and impunity in the DRC until we tackle head on the issue of illegal mineral extraction and trading, which funds the armed groups and feeds the conflict and the human rights violations, as shown by the murder of Floribert Chebeya. The European Union and the UN Security Council urgently need to adopt measures along the lines of those proposed in the recent US law on conflict minerals, identifying Congolese, European, US, Chinese and transnational companies that thrive on the exploitation of the rebel-controlled mines, as well as those abandoned by the government. Naming and shaming is not enough, however. It is vital to ban and clamp down on the marketing and use of those minerals in technical equipment, jewellery and other products in common use throughout the world. In the European Union, we must also reinforce our EU advisory and assistance mission for security reform (EUSEC) and our European police mission (EUPOL) in the DRC and give them the means to make a real difference in the area of security. To achieve that, the gender perspective must be prioritised in terms of training and action through the involvement of female members of the Congolese Parliament and Congolese women’s organisations, not only in victim protection and assistance, but also as decisive actors in building peace, fostering respect for the law and fighting corruption and human rights violations. Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, it is really unspeakably sad that the gravest crimes against humanity took place under the eye of the international community and the UN. We, here in the EU, need to step up our efforts and work together more effectively to make sure that the UN acts in line with the fundamental values that we know here in the EU. We need to think more strategically. As unspeakably sad as these crimes may be, we cannot respond with silence. We have to step up our own responsibility and efforts to ensure that there will be no more victims to mourn. We have to help the African institutions to find their own solutions and to take responsibility for fighting corruption and ending impunity. To do this we have tools, which have been mentioned: the Cotonou Agreement and also the ICC. The trade in blood diamonds and minerals has to end. It fosters the incredible violence that is perpetrated by the various militias in African countries. Rape as a war crime is only one of the horrible crimes being perpetrated. We have to respond by acting vigorously and making sure that we do not remain silent in the face of these atrocious crimes. Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all armed conflicts have disastrous consequences. However, a conflict that has lasted as long as the conflict in Congo, an army partly composed of children, and rape used as one of the chief weapons of war, all show that we are facing the utter denial of the rule of law. The most recent example dates back to 28 July, when gang rapes were perpetrated in North Kivu. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 143

For years, the psychological, physical and social destruction of women has been part of everyday life for thousands of Congolese. It is time to sound the alarm, because what is happening now is that the rape of civilians outside conflict zones is becoming widespread and the norm. Combating the culture of impunity must be a priority. At local and national levels, there needs to be better communication with the people because, without the genuine participation of civil society, the decisions and measures taken will be constantly met with distrust by the people. The Congolese must, at all costs, feel that they are agents of change. At the same time, it must be ensured that, in the security forces and state institutions, the former perpetrators do not become the new judges. The next elections in 2011 are an opportunity for new projects to be launched. Establishing a parliamentary commission on human rights, continuing the reform of the judiciary by putting particular emphasis on the protection of victims, combating corruption, and paying special attention to the profit reaped from the extraction of, and trade in, minerals, represent major challenges. At European and international levels, and in the light of recent events, there must be a reassessment and a re-examination of the human, technical and financial resources deployed within the framework of the EUSEC and EUPOL missions. An in-depth review of the instruments to support the restructuring of the institutional, legal and economic systems, as well as improved coordination with the United Nations’ instruments, will help to stabilise the country in the long term. Without defending human rights and the rule of law, a Republic has no democracy. Let us ensure that this situation does not continue because, in the final analysis, it is democracy itself that is under attack. Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) The European Parliament is adopting for the third year in succession a resolution on the violation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is a sign of major concern about this issue, but we have to admit, of ineffectiveness as well. We condemned back in 2008 the use of rape as a weapon of war. Now we have the UN estimating that the average number of rapes reported during the first quarter of this year was 14 a day. At the end of July and the beginning of August, more than 500 women were added to this sinister tally, as victims of mass rape in just five days. The fact that UN troops from the most expensive peacekeeping force in the world found out only two weeks after these atrocities took place, even though there is a military base just 30 kilometres away, speaks volumes about the UN mission’s failure to put an end to this violent conflict with huge regional implications. This worsening of the atrocities preceded, by a twist of fate, the report from the UN’s High Commission for Human Rights. Since then, however, millions of Congolese have been victims of harsh violations of basic rights, while the impunity of the perpetrators has generally continued with a vengeance. I think that an extensive investigation is needed which will determine the responsibility for the mass crimes, including those carried out by neighbouring countries also involved in the conflict, particularly Rwanda. Genocide took place in the Great Lakes Region in 1994 and some of the culprits are answering for their actions in front of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda. I believe that imposing the force of law is one of the key requirements for halting the conflicts and massacres. Peace is not possible without justice. This is also borne out by the experiences in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Cambodia. This is why I believe that the UN report must provide a springboard for creating an International Criminal Court for the Democratic Republic of Congo. 144 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Mr President, we cannot avoid focusing our attention today on the situation of women in Congo. We all know that women and children are the most vulnerable population groups in conflict zones, and that women are the ones suffering the most from the devastating consequences of the current events. Rape is becoming uncontrolled in Congo, as my colleague says. It is used as a weapon of war to terrorise, attack, destroy and humiliate the civilian population. It would simply be unacceptable, a moral failure on our part, to close our eyes and ignore the situation. We have been talking too long without any efficient action. I sincerely hope that the EU and Member States will be able to specifically address this issue in their future action concerning the situation in Congo. We should prioritise help and support services at local level by means of the EU’s humanitarian and development assistance. Unfortunately, the use of rape as a weapon of war is a shameful crime that is not only happening in Congo. I firmly believe that combating sexual violence against women and girls in conflict zones has to be a top priority of our EU foreign affairs and humanitarian policies. Anne Delvaux (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, if the truth be known, in taking the floor today, it occurred to me that my previous speech on the subject, which I made almost a year ago, still has relevance. I spoke of extreme urgency, combating impunity and reassessing the MONUC mission. The same statements are being made and repeated, as are calls for the international community and the Congolese authorities to take action. In the meantime, nothing has changed. Tragically, the violence is getting worse. Are we aware that there are reports of hundreds of innocent victims being sacrificed, people humiliated, assaulted, and sometimes even mutilated? The situation is deteriorating and the failures are mounting: the failure of a state whose primary responsibility is to protect its people, the failure of MONUC and now of MONUSCO, which does not seem to have taken any preventive or reactive action in response to the mass rapes perpetrated this summer in North and South Kivu. How much longer will the international community allow this to happen? The acts perpetrated today are the result of a war that has gone on too long. It is true that the next mapping report of the United Nations High Commissioner on the human rights situation between 1993 and 2003 will confirm what we all know: the enormous scale of the crimes committed in the DRC in the past. However, what is important today is the present. It is high time that account were taken of all the crimes committed in the DRC, including sexual violence, which has also been committed on an historic scale. The zero tolerance promised by Joseph Kabila must go hand in hand with zero impunity. All those responsible for human rights abuses must be held to account and, in certain cases, brought before the International Criminal Court. With regard to earlier events, like Mrs Creţu, I urge once again that an international criminal court be established for the DRC. It is our responsibility and that of the international community to ensure that justice is obtained for the hundreds of thousands of victims, past and present, whoever they are, who have fallen over so many years in that long-suffering country. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, according to the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, every year, there are 15 000 rapes in the Congo, the majority of which are used as a weapon of war against women and girls. Since July of this year, more than 500 rapes have been recorded and the United Nations 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 145

has not taken sufficient action. The organisation has accepted partial responsibility for failing to protect the public. As you have acknowledged today, Operation Monusco is not working. I want to ask you whether we have data explaining why it is not working. We must ask for responsibility to be taken for this and for new action to be taken. Europe needs to work, through cooperation and international pressure, to ensure that there cannot be impunity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the country acts firmly in response to such barbarity. I would be grateful if you would answer the question that I have asked: do we know why the United Nations operations are not working? What are we going to do now? Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo is a country that has undergone decades of exploitation and violence, as has already been stated many times, but it is worth repeating once more: violence that currently affects women, in particular and, unfortunately, children as well, as documented by numerous reports by international organisations. Sexual violence against women is often used as a weapon of war and spares no one. The figures are disconcerting: approximately 1 100 cases of rape are recorded every month. We have just recalled that during last July and August, 500 women were raped, in evidence of the fact that the actions carried out by the UN peacekeeping force are proving inadequate, as my colleague, Mrs Matera, pointed out just a little while ago. This situation must end. The number of victims is only increasing, day after day. The culture of impunity and the reality of a terribly weak, if not non-existent, legal system are the reason for the scant importance attributed by the government to the problem of sexual violence. We know that there are more silent victims than those who have the courage to tell the facts. The atrocities that accompany sexual violence make victims incapable of carrying out many of their daily activities and the tools of social integration are still lacking. This spiral of violence must stop, and we must all do more to ensure this. In closing, I would like to recall an expression: if it is true that educating a woman symbolises educating a whole nation, it is also true that raping a woman symbolises destabilising an entire nation. Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) Today’s debate on the Democratic Republic of Congo shows irrefutably the huge scale of the human rights problem in that country. For many years, the world’s media have been constantly sending reports about the crimes being committed there. The Democratic Republic of Congo is the scene of the worst of crimes against fundamental human rights. It is estimated that around 4 million human lives have already been lost in the conflicts in Congo. Around 3.5 million have been forced to leave and abandon their homes. Murder, rape and the kidnap of children, who are then forced to join groups of armed fighters, are the terrifying daily reality with which the people of Congo have to struggle. It is, therefore, the obligation of the entire international community, and of the European Union in particular, to fight to make the Congolese authorities take effective action to bring about the immediate cessation of the murders and persecution. We cannot desert the victims. It is high time that Europe woke up and began to take effective action. 146 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Alf Svensson (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, we do not need to keep on citing the atrocities that the Congolese people have been, and are being, subjected to, and it is clearly a disgrace that the international community has not been able to put a stop to it. This disgrace also spills over to the EU and the European Parliament and to our Member States – a Europe that has had, and still has, so many dealings with Africa in particular. We now have a special external administration with which we parade about. Let us now see this external administration tackle this very situation in Congo, and this is something that we certainly have the right to expect. When we talk about what our external administration stands for, the word ‘action’ comes into it, and therefore it is this action in particular that we want to see in order to establish peace and reconciliation in Congo. I also think it is patently obvious that we should investigate and chart who is behind these atrocities so that they can indeed be publicly shamed in front of the entire world. This is something that I do not think has really happened up to now. Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) We have spoken many times in the committees of the European Parliament and at the plenary sittings here in Strasbourg about what is happening in the Congo, and as we describe the situation, I find myself quite unable to reconcile it with the name of the country, which is the Democratic Republic of Congo. The rape of women and children is a crime against humanity, and all the more so because it is being used as a weapon of war. The situation in Congo goes even further, however, as men are also raped. It is not merely a matter of attacking human dignity. It is also a matter of destroying social relations in Congo. These men can no longer participate in social life, but have to go off and live somewhere in the bush. I would like to ask the European Commission in the first place to undertake a study of the steps we took and, where appropriate, to ask the UN whether these steps are effective and whether our procedures should be changed. Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, on that day, soldiers attacked the village where Nadine and her family lived. They ordered her brother to rape her in front of the entire village. When he refused, they killed him. Then the soldiers forced her to drink her own urine before killing her three children aged four, two and one. They raped her in succession, causing the membrane between her vagina and her anus to rupture. Finally, they killed a pregnant woman, cooked the foetus and then made the villagers eat it. Nadine fled and received treatment, but how many young women like Nadine did not manage to escape? This is not a myth. It is the reality in a country at the pinnacle of horror. It is what has been happening in Congo for 10 years now. We have already adopted resolutions on this issue and I also spoke on it back in December, but the situation has not changed and impunity remains the rule. I call on the UN Council to act more effectively and on MONUSCO to actually protect civilians. Moreover, as mentioned by Mr Chastel, like my colleague, Mrs De Keyser, I call on the European Union to adopt a law similar to that recently adopted in the United States to prohibit the importation of goods manufactured from smuggled minerals and, therefore, to stop the funding of rebel groups. Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Margot Wallström, the United Nations special representative for violence against women and children in armed conflict, called the Democratic Republic of Congo ‘the rape capital of the world’. It is actually true that if we look at the figures made available to us by various organisations, we can only see barbarity, horror and unacceptable suffering. Fourteen women a day have been raped during the first 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 147

quarter, several hundred women and children were subjected to torture between 30 July and 2 August, and there have been 200 000 victims of acts of sexual violence between 1996 and now. As I said, there is unbearable suffering behind all these figures, all the more so as we are 10 years on since UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was adopted. I believe that we must think about imposing sanctions against the leaders of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Rwanda. Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would also like to thank the honourable Members for their interventions, new ideas and new proposals. I would like, too, to thank them for describing the situation in the Congo in such concrete terms, because we need to remind ourselves of how difficult the situation in that country still is. A very clear message has been sent to the Commission that the stabilisation, consolidation and further improvement of the rule of law and handling of the human rights situation in the DRC must remain a high-level priority for the European Union, for the High Representative, and for the Commission. The Commission will continue its support to the Congolese authorities and the Congolese population through the different instruments that we have at our disposal, including development cooperation and the European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy, to name just two. In this sense, the Commission will pursue its intervention in structural justice reform, where 40 million euros have already been allocated and where we have been working since 2003. Various other programmes are also being developed to strengthen even further the capacity of the judiciary to achieve a strong and accountable justice system which will contribute to ending impunity, which we all agree is totally intolerable for the future.

The Commission is following closely the situation with regard to human rights defenders in the country through our experts on the ground, and will continue to do so. We are also, notably, supporting different civil society organisations working in this domain. We therefore appointed a specific liaison officer in Kinshasa to follow up the implementation of the EU guidelines on human rights defenders. As regards the terrible crimes and sexual violence, the Commission will continue its action to fight against this violence and globally support implementation of the Congolese national strategy against sexual violence. I fully agree with you that we have to determine if this strategy is working and see how we can engage our international partners to achieve better results in the future. Mr President, today’s debate has proved that, despite the enormous efforts of the European Union, terrible violence in the DRC still continues, and we are all aware that the problem is enormous. Therefore, we must work more efficiently in the future; we must look for ways to better encourage African and international partners to focus on this issue so that we will not have a repetition of this very sad debate in the future. Olivier Chastel, on behalf of Catherine Ashton (Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). – (FR) Mr President, Minister, I would like to make three additional points in reply. 148 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

First, as regards MONUSCO, many of you have referred to its role, or rather its passiveness. We have warned against the premature withdrawal of MONUSCO on several occasions in order to avoid a vacuum and the possibility of even greater deterioration of security in the areas affected by the conflicts. Generally speaking, beyond the atrocities committed, we can only welcome the way in which the United Nations has handled the issue of extending the mandate of the UN mission in the DRC. As you know, while the new mandate was being discussed in the United Nations, for its part, the Congolese Government was insisting on a partial withdrawal. The Security Council therefore agreed to reduce the mission by 2 000 UN peacekeepers on 30 June 2010, bringing the number of soldiers on the ground down from 21 500 to 19 500, but resisted pressure from Kinshasa to commit to a further decrease. In the specific case of today’s debate, we think that responsibilities need to be established and we welcome the fact that the United Nations is taking a long, hard look at its own failings. However, we need to understand the difficult context in which MONUSCO works and, in all likelihood, call for better coordination between the DRC authorities and the UN. We believe that abolishing MONUSCO at this time would significantly aggravate the situation of the people and compromise the stabilisation process in the region. The second point concerns what the European Union is ultimately doing to support reform of the judiciary and the fight against impunity and, especially, against sex crimes. Commissioner Šefčovič spoke about this a few moments ago. It is true that the European Union is taking action at several levels, including through EUPOL and EUSEC. I have something more to add, because I think that the means developed by our institutions are neither meagre nor minimal, but there is probably scope to assess how they are used. Moreover, on this point, the Political and Security Committee, the PSC, which is chaired by the Belgian Ambassador, Walter Stevens, will travel to the DRC in the coming weeks to evaluate these two missions. The third, and final, point is that Mr Tarabella and other Members have quite rightly stressed the importance of tackling the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DRC because of its link with the violence there, since this traffic helps to finance certain rebel movements. It is an issue that the EU is monitoring closely. Moreover, as a number of you have suggested, we are going to analyse the US legislation recently adopted on this subject, which has been mentioned a great deal in this debate. It is still a little too early to analyse the decision taken by President Kabila to stop the exploitation of the mineral resources in Kivu, in particular. The only thing that can be said at this stage is that the closing of these sites is to be welcomed, as it shows that the DRC’s highest authorities are, in fact, committed to combating the illegal exploitation of the country’s natural resources. It is, however, clear that this measure can only be analysed in the light of the effect it will have not only on the financing of the rebel troops but also on whether the authorities can regain effective control, and on the socio-economic well-being of the people. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 149

IN THE CHIAR: Gianni PITTELLA Vice-President

President. – I have received six motions for resolutions (1) tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The debate is closed. The vote will take place during the first part-session in October. Written statements (Rule 149) Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Conclusions of the European Council, adopted on 16 September, state that it is very important for the EU to be prepared to strengthen cooperation with Africa and to strive to reduce violations in the areas of international human rights law and humanitarian law. In terms of human rights violations, particular attention should be paid to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Troops of the Congolese army are linked to the deaths of many civilians, and their violent actions and sexual violence against women and children are used as a tool to put fear into society while rape is used as a weapon of war. Therefore the European Parliament’s draft resolution on the protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo aims to take all possible coordinated actions in order to stop these terrible crimes. It is important to promote peace and stability in the region and to cooperate closely and regularly with the media and society at national level in order to reduce the level of crime and help to bring further crimes to light. I would like to stress that we must combat impunity and ensure the protection of civilians, in particular, women and children, from violations in the areas of international human rights law and humanitarian law, including all forms of sexual and gender-based violence. The gender equality aspect must be integrated at all levels of cooperation between the EU and partner countries. Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The forthcoming EU-Republic of South Africa and EU-Africa summits have to be a turning point in bringing to an end the violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rapid implementation of international measures to oppose the violation of human rights is imperative. In this region, slaughter, rape and murder have been going on for years. The fighting between tribes is getting worse. At the moment, everyone is fighting everyone. The highest price, as usual, is being paid by the civilian population, and this includes millions of children. In Congo, one child dies every minute. Most children die of disease or malnutrition. We are all aware of the problem and need to send help to the people who live there. However, we are also demonstrating an amazing helplessness and ineptitude. In Poland, in 2008, over 650 schools took part in the ‘Save the Children in Congo’ campaign. They managed to collect PLN 470 000, and this sum was sent to needy children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A Eurobarometer survey published on 13 September shows that 89% of Europeans definitely support giving aid to developing countries. Despite the efforts of particular countries and world organisations, no improvement in the situation can be seen. Our resolution must not be another manifestation of good wishes, but a clear plan of essential

(1) See Minutes 150 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

and urgent action which the Union will take to defend human rights and justice and which will bring us closer to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) We are dealing, today, with the lack of respect for fundamental standards of international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of Congo – a country which appears to be democratic in name only. I would like to condemn vigorously the mass rapes committed recently against women and children, as well as all other forms of violence against numerous innocent civilians in eastern Congo. The 15 000 rapes recorded in 2008 and 2009, as well as those committed at the end of July and the beginning of August this year, testify to the sense of impunity for crimes of this kind which is deeply rooted in the culture of this country. Sexual violence is being used as a combat weapon, and should, in relation to this, be punished as a war crime and a crime against humanity. I call upon all sides of the conflict in the region to put an end to all forms of sexual violence and other violations of human rights, and also to enable humanitarian organisations to have access to those in the civilian population who are in need of help. I demand that the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo, in cooperation with international institutions, continues its efforts at combating impunity, and that it immediately conducts an investigation into the recent attacks and ensures that the perpetrators are brought to justice. Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo is unquestionably one of the most cruel of the last decade. Despite extensive pressure from the international community, the situation has not improved in the slightest. Testimony to this are the continued reports bringing information of brutal violations of fundamental human rights by all the sides in the conflict. Murder, torture, sexual violence, oppression of the opposition and human rights defenders, along with numerous arrests, instances of persecution and cases of cruel torture, continue to be common practice. Not even child soldiers – forced to join the ranks of the combatants in huge numbers – are being spared. Extremely savage acts of sexual violence, perpetrated without distinction against little girls, elderly people and men, have become an integral feature of combat tactics on a huge scale. The international community, including both the United Nations and the European Union, has not, to date, been able to control the situation and bring about an end to the massacres in Congo. A situation like this is absolutely unacceptable. Emphatic steps should be taken to bring effective influence to bear on the Congolese authorities. The Congolese Government needs to convict people. It should ensure that the perpetrators bear responsibility for their deeds and should guarantee appropriate security measures for its citizens. Those who have already become victims need help and the restoration of order. Good medical care is essential. Many years will pass before they will be able to recover from the numerous cruelties inflicted upon them, and some of them will always be excluded from normal social life. Their welfare should become a priority, both for the Congolese authorities and for the international community.

10. Transatlantic relations: USA travel fee (debate)

President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Transatlantic relations: USA travel fee. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again, I have the honour, this afternoon, of speaking on behalf of the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, and not on behalf of the Council, as it says on the screen. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 151

The European Union and the United Sates attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that their citizens can travel easily from one side of the Atlantic to the other. Transatlantic mobility can be facilitated, to a large extent, if people can travel without obtaining a visa and without paying a fee. While US nationals can enter the Schengen area without having to obtain a visa, the same cannot be said of EU citizens wishing to enter the United States. Four Member States are still excluded from the benefit of the US Visa Waiver Programme: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania. However, we can celebrate the fact that Greece was included in this programme on 5 April. This happy outcome can be attributed to the Commission, which is doing its utmost to ensure that all Member States benefit from the exemption programme, and to the efforts of successive Presidencies to take this matter forward. Thus, every year since 2006, the Commission has produced a report on all third countries that continue to require visas from our citizens in violation of the principle of reciprocity, since the European Union attaches a great deal of importance to the existence of total reciprocity in this area. As the European Union exempts certain third countries, they should do the same for our nationals. Furthermore, for security reasons which we fully understand, in early 2009, the United States decided to introduce the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA), which can be used only for passengers from a country covered by the visa waiver programme who enter North America. Since 8 September, every one of these passengers has had to pay a USD 4 fee to cover the administrative costs generated by the implementation of the ESTA. This amount is in addition to the USD 10 that these same passengers already have to pay under a law on the promotion of tourism. To this end, a body has been tasked with developing tourism, and it is financed by a fund into which these USD 10 fees are paid. Following these latest developments, you asked the Commission to adopt a position without delay. Back in December 2008, it produced a report on whether the ESTA should be considered equivalent to a visa or not, and its conclusion – a provisional one at that time – was that no, it should not. Once the final rules concerning the ESTA have been published by the US authorities, the Commission will present us with its final report on this subject. It is clear that the payment of this fee will be an important element in its evaluation. This report will be taken into consideration by the Council, which will then take the necessary measures and make any recommendations it considers appropriate. As you will have gathered, the introduction of this additional fee is to be deplored. Moreover, the Presidency shares the concerns that have been expressed by Parliament on this subject on several occasions, notably in paragraph 18 of its resolution of 22 October. Although this fee may seem small at first glance, one should not forget that it has to be paid by every single traveller, which may, at times, prove to be very onerous for families. I therefore believe that this policy is contrary to the United States’ declared will to facilitate mobility between the two continents and will be a real obstacle for EU citizens wanting to travel to the United States. I would like to end by confirming that the Presidency will do everything in its power to help the Commission obtain full visa waiver reciprocity with the United States. Thank you for your attention. 152 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Chastel for his remarks and for offering the Council’s help, because in an issue as important as this one, the support of the Council is absolutely crucial. Regarding the position of the Commission on the ESTA fee, I have to underline that it was immediately following the publication of this fee on 6 August that my colleague, Commissioner Malmström, issued a statement in which she expressed the understanding that this decision is taken in accordance with the Travel Promotion Act’s obligations, but regretting very much the introduction of the fee. The Commission made very clear its concerns that this fee is inconsistent with the oft-repeated commitment by the United States to facilitate transatlantic mobility and that it will be an additional burden for European citizens travelling to the United States. The EU has raised its serious concern vis-à-vis the US Congress and the US Administration on numerous occasions during the process of passing the Travel Promotion Act. Numerous démarches were made by the Commission, both with the Council Presidencies and with third countries. In its démarches, the Commission also criticised the fact that the fees apply only to travellers under the US visa waiver programme and that therefore it is discriminatory. Moreover, it seems peculiar that foreigners are requested to pay for promoting tourism to the US, as this may possibly lead to less, and not more, travel to the United States. The Commission is currently examining further possible measures that could be taken vis-à-vis the United States in the framework of the EU reciprocity mechanism. The Commission will issue formal comments to the US in the framework of the public consultation launched by the US on the interim rule. A final assessment of the present ESTA will be issued once the final rule on ESTA is published in the USA Federal Register, taking into account any possible changes. The Commission has requested that this issue of concern be discussed with all Member States at the upcoming Justice and Home Affairs Council on 7 and 8 October. Subsequently, the ESTA fee will be raised at the next EU-US JHA Ministerial in December. The Commission will, of course, continue to keep Parliament informed at all stages of this process and on the démarches undertaken. Minister Chastel also reiterated the importance of equal treatment on the part of the United States vis-à-vis all EU Member States in relation to the visa obligation. Here, I would like to remind you that significant progress has been achieved in the visa reciprocity mechanism over the last two years. Further to the Commission’s efforts to achieve full reciprocity with the US, eight more Member States have joined the US visa waiver programme – seven Member States at the end of 2008 and Greece in April 2010. The Commission continues to raise with the US at political and technical level the importance given by the EU to the admission of the four remaining EU Member States – namely, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania – to the visa waiver programme as soon as possible. I can assure you that the Commission, in cooperation with the Council and the High Representative, will insist on putting this issue on the agenda of any future EU-US meetings. Ernst Strasser, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to say – as Parliament, but this, of course, applies to my group in particular – a very clear ‘no’ to this USD 14 travel fee, ‘no’ to unjustified measures on the part of the Americans 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 153

at the expense of Europeans and ‘no’ to this one-sided strain on European-American relations. We must not be content with the reports we have heard. I must say, quite openly, that, as regards this matter, regret is not enough. Stating that this is discrimination is not enough. This morning, President Van Rompuy said himself that one of the basic principles for working together as partners is reciprocity. I do not now want to demand that we treat the Americans in exactly the same way that they are treating us. However, the point has to be made very clearly that an unequivocal response from Europe is needed here, and this is something that we also need to demand from the Commission and the Council in the form of tangible measures. I call on you to come up with tangible proposals and to discuss with Parliament how you intend to approach this matter. The Americans need to recognise that we are serious about this matter – as we are about other matters, too – and that we want to be treated as a partner and not as someone who, when the other one says ‘jump’, simply responds ‘how high?’. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, I am joining this debate in the knowledge that this matter has not yet been concluded from a European perspective. Parliament does, however, need to note that the United States has made a decision. It is a decision that goes against the desire for transatlantic dialogue to continue making progress in strengthening not only commercial exchange but also the whole extent of social and human exchange, based on mutual trust and reciprocity. We cannot give way by applying a discriminatory charge that clearly goes against the promotion of those exchanges, that creates dividing lines between the Member States of the European Union, and directly impacts on the public. Moreover, it goes against Europe’s attitude towards the United States and towards its fellow citizens, an attitude which has not always been respectful of the desire to strengthen human and trade links, but which has always promoted the issue of transatlantic mobility in relations between people from the two hemispheres. That is why I believe it is very important for Parliament to send a clear message that expects the Commission to fiercely defend the European position and, if necessary, to exercise the reciprocity clause. This is obviously not good news for transatlantic dialogue but it would send a clear message that we are not prepared to just accept a lack of reciprocity in the promotion of the human and social exchange that takes place through the link provided by European and US airlines, not to mention, of course, the economic impact that this would have on the serious crisis already being suffered by the air transport sector on both sides of the Atlantic. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, there are very good reasons for the Administration and the Congress to step back and rescind the so-called Travel Promotion Act. First of all, it is a bit bizarre – and the Commission has pointed to this as well – to introduce a tax to promote tourism. If it becomes more expensive to travel to the United States, you will probably get fewer people who are going to travel to that country; for a family of four, we are talking about USD 40 – that is real money for many people. Also, it seems a bit absurd that the United States, of all countries, should tax people who are not represented in the debate. Taxation without representation has, I believe, played a certain role in American history, so I believe they should look at this again. 154 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Secondly, will America become more attractive by making people pay more? I do not think so. The United States are an attractive destination; there are household names like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Boston, New York, Washington, and San Francisco. People are coming anyway; they do not need to promote tourism in the way they are suggesting. Now, beyond those points, there are several serious issues, political issues, which we believe need to be addressed as well. I believe it is completely unacceptable that to pay the cost, you can only use credit or debit cards of companies which are registered in the United States of America. I do not believe that is acceptable. Furthermore, saving and verifying these data in the United States might be okay if this was limited to the specific purpose of controlling travel, but the Department of Homeland Security is authorised to give these data on demand to other American authorities, to foreign authorities, and even to businesses that deal with transportation. From the point of view of data protection privacy, this is simply unacceptable as well.

The Commission and the Council have to find appropriate answers now. I believe that the upcoming EU-US summit should address this issue. I believe that reciprocity is good, although regrettable in this case, and I believe that both sides should work to increase people-to-people contacts and not make them more difficult. Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, we are debating today a general fee of USD 14 for everyone entering the United States. First of all, it seems a bit contradictory to have, on the one hand, a visa waiver programme to facilitate the travel of persons between the European Union and the United States and, on the other hand, to have an obligation for all European citizens to transfer their personal data through ESTA and to pay an additional fee when travelling. Of course we have to respect the decisions of our American partners, and especially the Congress, but this does not look like a sign of trust and cooperation. When it comes to the protection of borders and efficient security measures, the EU side has shown time and again that it is willing to make things work, sometimes with big difficulties in respect to our own values and citizens. What about the right to free movement when it comes to border controls? What about the right to the presumption of innocence when it comes to security measures? And what about data protection and redress rights when it comes to the collection of personal information? If it were only about paying USD 14, it would not be such a problem, but the US Department of Homeland Security does not only get the ESTA data collected from travellers, namely numerous contact and identification details, including sensitive information. They also want access to the Passenger Name Records (PNR) in the travel agencies’ reservation systems, which almost includes information about who is sleeping with whom! It is more than unsatisfactory that Commissioner Malmström has not yet got the point that this use of PNR data collection seriously interferes with the rights of citizens and cannot be justified under EU law. It gets even more problematic when we recognise that the USD 14 fee has to be paid with one of the four major credit cards, whose companies are all based inside the US. I ask myself how you will ensure that those huge data collections will not be the subject of investigations not related to travel operations, at least throughout the duration of the Patriot Act? And I ask you, Commission and Council, whether you are aware of the fact that existing EU law is already undermined by the way we accept US regulation imposed on European citizens? 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 155

The Commission and Council, and you also dear colleagues, have an obligation to protect the rights of EU citizens and European law. This is also true for transatlantic relations with the US. Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) I do not want to concentrate on what has been the subject of the debate; here, I mean the question of payment, the question of the fee itself or the question of the possibility of using the data and information which may be obtained in this way. I would like to think about the most important thing. I am referring to the fact that in the European Union, and also in Parliament, we endeavour to ensure that all Member States of the European Union are treated equally. Unfortunately, on this matter, in this area, we are not treated in this way by the American side, so some European Union Member States are still affected by the visa obligation, while most of them are not subject to this obligation. I think the role of Parliament, but also of all other institutions of the European Union, is to ensure that all Member States, regardless of when they acceded to the Union, are treated equally. I say this on behalf and in the interest of the citizens of my country, but also of all the states which acceded to the European Union in 2004. Rui Tavares, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this really is an extraordinary scene. We are looking at reciprocity which is asymmetrical. Well, then, if it is asymmetrical, it is not true reciprocity. We are looking at registration which is redundant. Ultimately, however, we already ask Europeans for their passenger name record data and SWIFT data, and now we are also asking Europeans who travel to the United States to register first; and we are looking at a tourism tax, which, as Mr Lambsdorff has just said, runs completely counter to the aim of increasing tourism links with the United States. There is no point, however, in our criticising the United States for doing this. In the end, the United States – which, incidentally, is a country I know and admire greatly – does what its elected representatives decide must be done. I believe the problem lies much more on our side than on the US side. I believe it is, first of all, a problem of mentality in our diplomatic service. Recently, when we went to Washington in the delegation on the SWIFT affair, we saw that the European mission in Washington spent more time trying to cover up and apologise for the European Parliament’s vote on SWIFT than explaining the reasons affecting 500 million European citizens. It is a problem of lack of solidarity, because if one Member State does not enjoy the visa waiver, the other Member States should fight alongside it. It is also a problem of reciprocity, but in a different sense from the sense it has been used in here. Here, we have been talking about reciprocity as if it fell from the heavens, as if we had to ask for it. All right, but we can also give reciprocity. Other countries do that. At Christmas 2007, when security requirements for Brazilian citizens in the United States were tightened, Brazil immediately tightened its own security requirements for US citizens entering Brazil as well, and the United States backed down at once. Europe needs to do that kind of thing more if it wants to be respected in the transatlantic dialogue. Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, I would just like to make a few additional comments. I am, as you know, Chair of the Delegation for relations 156 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

with the United States, and we have talked a lot about abandoning the visa. We have also talked about abandoning it for Romania and Bulgaria and other such countries. In its place, a new type of visa has been created, in connection with which we are so kind as to make our citizens’ data available to the Americans in an unbelievably comprehensive manner, and on top of that, we are now paying fees for this, too. These fees will also be used to create advertising for the American tourist industry. I believe it is a unique business model that the Americans are presenting here, namely, to make consumers also pay directly for advertising. I will also suggest this as a business model to the tourist offices in my home region. I find this an unbelievable way to go about things. Of course, this also has something to do with the fact that there is still not enough contact between the European Parliament and Congress to be able to avoid this sort of thing by having a sensible dialogue. It may also be that the Council and the Commission are not approaching these matters in a courageous manner, and I believe – in this regard, I agree with the view expressed by other Members – that sometimes even just the mention of reciprocity can help. It weakens our position for us to come here and bewail the fact that we do not like this and that we have made many démarches, because then no one will take us seriously. It then really is as if we started out a tiger, but ended up a bedside rug. I therefore call once again on the Council and the Commission, as well as the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission, to address this matter in such a way that Washington can also see that this European Union is a genuine power. Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I think you are being too cautious. You do not want to make definitive statements because a definitive arrangement has not yet been worked out, but in the meantime, our citizens are already paying this levy. This is, of course, unacceptable. You must intervene, and in a very active manner. As has already been said many times by my fellow Members before me, it is astonishing to discover that the US authorities have found no better answer to the question of how to attract more visitors than by making these selfsame visitors pay an additional levy of USD 14. USD 4 of this is effectively to cover the costs of the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA). In other words, they do not want to offload regular costs onto the US taxpayer: instead, they are passing them on to the Europeans. This is a first major departure from all the various aviation charges or airport taxes we, too, have introduced in a number of Member States, such as very recently in Germany. I regret these unilateral measures by a number of Member States; in fact, I am in favour of a European approach to this matter, which should ideally take on board aspects such as the external costs of the flights in question as well. However, this is about something else entirely. In Europe, there is no question of discrimination: everyone pays the bill, whereas in the case of the US, it is only we who pay it. And there are 900 000 of us Europeans who re-register every month via ESTA. We also need to take an in-depth look at whether the measure does not contradict the letter and the spirit of the Visa Waiver Programme. This programme essentially means that people on both sides do not need to apply for a visa, with all the associated costs. ESTA is gradually becoming synonymous with a visa. This is also what Mr Brok has just said. I would therefore ask you not to treat this lightly, not to procrastinate, but to send a very strong signal to our partners in the United States that this is unacceptable; that this is no way to deal with each other. All options should therefore be looked at, and if there is no 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 157

flexibility forthcoming on the part of the Americans, we will naturally have to think about reciprocating. In that context, I can refer briefly to the efforts being made by Mr Tajani to get a European tourism policy off the ground. The Treaty of Lisbon has given us more say on this on a European level. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to exchange thoughts on this over the coming months. Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Commissioner, Mr Brok has also forgotten, I think, that Polish citizens, too, still need visas to travel to the United States, and this is very difficult to understand. I would like, from here, to appeal for action to be taken on this matter, because it is a serious matter. However, treating visas as just a procedural question, treating the problem of visas and these other strange unjustified fees as an opportunity for a little flexing of the muscles in Parliament in protest against the United States, is not, I think, the right approach either. If people treat visas only as a procedural question or as a reason for political jostling, they do not understand what visas mean in today’s world. No instrument of cooperation could have greater political significance. Therefore, I would appeal both to the Commissioner and the Members of this House to improve relations with Congress. We are entitled, as Members of the European Parliament, to appeal to Congress and to exert pressure so that they adopt an altogether different approach to visas. Visas are a barrier between citizens and, in reality, are one of the greatest political barriers hindering transatlantic cooperation. Until we understand this, no good will come from our efforts. Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, there used to be times when ships with passengers sailing to the United States were greeted at the harbour. This was at a time when, at the end of the 19th century, my grandfather also sailed over. When I want to visit the United States today, I pay some kind of strange fee. There must be some justification for this charge, but I suspect that I am paying it so that I can be monitored. This suspicion is all the stronger the more vehemently negotiators from the United States demand the transfer of often sensitive data about persons coming from the European Union. Verbally, it is not a question of any screening, checks, or visa issuance. In reality, a person thus finds himself among the millions who are monitored without adequate protection for the information which is transferred. What then happens with this sensitive data? God only knows! It is just the normal state of affairs between two so-called equal partners.

The United States takes some measures and the European Union finds it difficult to surmise whether and in what manner it should react at all. As a rule, the results of these negotiations are not generally satisfactory and, for example, the open skies agreement with the United States is highly one-sided. I understand that the economic interests of both partners are often quite directly reflected in the agreements which are or are not concluded in different sectors. However, I do not understand why there was no proper consultation beforehand about the measures taken, and I rarely understand how such measures would benefit the citizens of the European Union. I trust that as a result of the negotiations, there will be no introduction of visas or questionnaires examining in detail the marital status of my forebears. Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) After getting rid of the concrete walls and barbed wire fences which separated West Berlin from East, and divided the continent of Europe into an eastern reservation and a western part, we naively assumed that this was the end of the era of 158 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

paranoid regimes that prevent free people from communicating freely, learning about the world, and travelling. We know that freedom to travel and mutual awareness help people from different corners of the Earth, different civilisations and different cultures to overcome prejudice and lose their fear of the unknown, encouraging the development of trust between nations. I do not know what has happened with our American friends. They have always stood up in defence of freedom and democracy, but perhaps they have gone crazy. On their southern border with Mexico, they have started building the sort of fences that we Europeans managed to remove only recently. They introduce ever more administrative and technical barriers against visitors to their country. Where is this heading, ladies and gentlemen? Perhaps President Obama does not realise it, but from the outside, it looks as if the American administration is trying to turn the US into a sort of fenced off, fully enclosed garden, full of dutifully happy people, like the regime of Kim Jong-il in North Korea. I would like to believe that this is not the case, and we should therefore perhaps explain to our American friends that the fee and the personal data for snooping which they request in return for a visit to their country are simply an enormous shame for a superpower of freedom and democracy such as the United States of America. Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) I come from one of those countries in respect of which, some time ago, the visa requirement for travelling to the United States had been lifted. Just a short time after the lifting of the visa in several countries, we are witnessing another visa, under another name, being introduced by the United States – a visa by the name of ESTA, for which people are still required to pay. Initially, we were told it would cost ten dollars; now we have been told it costs fourteen dollars, but there is no guarantee that this amount will not increase further. This is not acceptable because this is another visa. I hope the European Commission will realise that this is a visa and will treat it as such. However, there is a second reason why this was a negative decision and development: it came at a very bad time. It came at a time when, in this Chamber, we had just voted in connection with a SWIFT agreement, and extended the hand of cooperation to the United States. I believe that the United States’ reaction, rather than being positive, turned out to be a negative one given this arrangement and fee. I would like to point out that there are a number of topics, like PNR and the general agreement about data protection, which are still before this Chamber. I think it is important that any cooperation between us and the United States should be built upon trust; unless it is built on trust, we cannot achieve satisfactory and positive results for the citizens of both sides. Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) I, too, think that the introduction of an entry fee to the United States is regrettable. It is a measure which contradicts the United States’ commitment to make transatlantic mobility easier. However, I do not believe that the European Union will respond with a reciprocal gesture against US citizens. Two wrongs do not make a right. This is why I believe that the solution must be found by stepping up the bilateral dialogue. With this in mind, it is the European Commission’s duty to make greater efforts to improve relations with the United States. Unfortunately, this unfair fee comes on top of another discriminatory measure imposed unilaterally by the United States against some European Union Member States, which affects transatlantic cooperation and trust. Citizens from four EU countries still need visas to travel to the United States: Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Cyprus. Citizens from our countries cannot, regrettably, travel freely to the United States. It is especially unfortunate that the US legislation in force since July 2009 has depressingly removed the prospect of 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 159

including some of these countries in the visa waiver programme at a time when the rate of applications being refused remains the main obstacle to eliminating the compulsory visa requirement. Given that this proportion of rejections depends, strictly speaking, on the decision of the US representatives, I believe that additional efforts are required on the part of the US to improve transparency in the process for granting visas. This is why I, too, support what has been said by the Vice-President and I wish to relaunch the appeal to the Commission to insist on guaranteeing equal non-discriminatory treatment for all European Union citizens, including those from countries which still require an entry visa for the United States. Fellow Members, it is wrong and sad that the states which have resolved this visa issue have forgotten about this topic being debated and about the European Parliament’s official dealings with the US authorities. I also believe that greater solidarity is needed, not displays of local egoism. Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I agree with all of the comments in relation to the negative impact of this particular measure. This fee of USD 14, payable once every two years, is applicable to countries that are in good standing with the United States. We have had very good negotiations in relation to open skies, exchange of passenger information, etc., but this is very counter-productive because essentially, what we are talking about is introducing a new visa. This is a visa affair, as Mr Busuttil has said: even non-ticketed infants are required to have an approved travel authorisation. I agree with the Commission, in this field, that this is regrettable and inconsistent with the United States’ commitment to ease transatlantic travel. What this has done, in fact, is to introduce new barriers at a time when we were actually dismantling barriers, with the United States Senate introducing the charge in an attempt to reverse the declining number of visitors to its country. The majority of this money is to be used to fund the promotion of the United States as a holiday destination. However, I believe that it will actually put people off travelling there. My own country, for example, has a long association with the United States: 40 million people living in the United States are of Irish origin, and we have huge trade between the two countries. People are not going to pay this amount in the majority of cases. The essential purpose of the legislation is basically to enhance the exchequer and to enhance the attractiveness of the United States as a tourist destination. President Obama says that overseas visitors spend USD 120 billion and support one million jobs, and that this measure will provide an extra USD 4 billion and 40 000 new jobs. I believe the direct opposite will happen, because an online poll carried out by Telegraph Travel showed that 44% of the readers said that the fee would put them off travelling to the United States. On the basis of that survey, I believe this is going to be counterproductive, that it is going to have negative effects, and that it is actually going to do damage to the United States and to its tourist industry. Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Transatlantic relations are a priority of European foreign policy. Mobility is at the heart of the concept of European citizenship, as provided for by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the treaties. All European citizens enjoy, on an equal footing, free movement in the Schengen area and the right to mobility in relations with third countries, including therefore, citizens from the new Member States. Taking all this into account, we continue to express our disappointment at the unjustified exclusion 160 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

of millions of European citizens in four Member States, including Romania, from the special mobility partnership between the European Union and the United States. Fellow Members have expressed their concern about the promotion of the ESTA system, which actually reintroduces a visa of sorts for all European citizens. The fee does not only entail the payment of USD 14, but also the collection of European Union citizens’ personal data. The US Department of Homeland Security is currently evaluating the application of this fee/visa. The Commission must find a solution along with the US administration to eliminate this. I want to point out that keeping this decision may have an unforeseen impact on other dossiers relating to transatlantic relations for security and mobility which are in progress, such as the future EU-US agreement on PNR information. If the US administration is not going to drop the fee, we support the Commission in taking the necessary measures to apply reciprocity to all US citizens travelling to the European Union, in accordance with the fundamental principle of the European Union’s visa policy. Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, following on from my colleague, Mr Brok, I would also like to reiterate that we are very committed to maintaining good relations with the United States. Europe cooperates with the United States in numerous areas, and we can be proud of that. My second point: I concur with all my fellow Members and agree with all the questions that have already been asked; there is really not much I can add. It is important that the Commission and possibly the Council answer these questions promptly. However, we regret that the US Government has taken this unilateral action, and one could well start a discussion on whether this is actually about the USD 14. Whether tourists pay that for their visa or for a Coca-Cola in Washington is hardly the point: the point is that Europe is being treated with a certain degree of contempt. A lot of conversations about SWIFT and so on, and then this unilateral action. The Commission must make it clear today what it has done. These days, the announcement of a policy study no longer makes an impression on the European Parliament. We simply want to know what you told the US Government and whether you were not able to deter it. Again, I really do feel rather insulted that this has been imposed on us unilaterally, given the extent to which we cooperate with the United States. The question of the method of payment has already been asked, but you should not be asking it in the first place if you do not want this levy. Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) We have a situation in which there are Members in this Chamber from Member States whose citizens do not have to have entry visas to get into the United States. Unfortunately, however, there are also Members here in this Chamber from Member States like Poland where it is necessary to apply for an American visa. In Poland, this visa is obtained over the course of a long procedure, which, unfortunately, is sometimes also a humiliating procedure. The citizens of my country pay over USD 100 when they obtain a visa, but they also have to pay when they are not given a visa. For us, therefore, the most important thing is European solidarity. For us, it is important for the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council to be saying very clearly that the citizens of all the states which make up the Union must be treated in exactly the same way. I am pleased that the European Commission and the Council are not only talking about this here in Europe, but that such a view is being advanced more and more often in contacts with the United States administration. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 161

In Parliament, however, it is worth asking ourselves this question: as Members of the European Parliament, what can we do together to solve the problem of the citizens of these Member States? I think that most important, here, are our contacts with the United States Congress, because in the legal system in the US, a decisive role in visa policy and tax policy is played by the US Congress. I would also like to express great satisfaction that for the first time, the representatives of the Commission and the Council are saying they can see a light in this tunnel and that there is a chance that quite soon, the citizens of countries such as Poland will not have to have visas for the US. Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, later on, we will be attending the reception for the deepening of relations between the European Union and the United States. The fact that this is happening today of all days is particularly significant. All of us will then have the opportunity to tell the ambassador what we have just underlined here in plenary. We ought to take the opportunity to do this in person. The United States of America is not making our work particularly easy at the moment, and it is not making our friendship very easy, either. On many issues, I have the impression that what we are seeing is more like a bull in a china shop than a performance on the elegant political stage. The EUR 14 alone is certainly not a decisive factor. However, if a family with three children wants to visit the United States of America, it then becomes a considerable amount and may ultimately prevent them from travelling there. On top of that, if you have to give extensive details on the Internet about which airline you are travelling with, where you are travelling to, which hotel you are staying in and, in addition, you have to give your credit card number, it raises a number of questions as to why all of this is necessary. If, in addition, you then hear the accounts of some good acquaintances who have had to wait for hours at American airports and experience the discourteous security control, then you sometimes ask yourself whether the United States of America is actually aware that in many areas, it is currently treating its own friends rather discourteously and perhaps, in certain respects in relation to what people actually need and have to do, it is way off the mark. Furthermore, with regard to our close transatlantic relations, I have to say that we do have a close relationship with the United States. However, this should also mean that we are treated accordingly. I call on the Commission and on you, Mr Šefčovič, to make a clear demand for visa-free travel to be ensured for those Member States that do not currently enjoy this facility, and if this is not followed by an appropriate reaction, then please also demand that reciprocity be introduced. It is not a question of ‘an eye for an eye’, but we must negotiate on equal terms and we must not allow ourselves to be treated in the same way that a feudal lord would treat his serfs. We are not serfs; we are of equal stature. Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) In the conclusions to the last European Council meeting, it mentioned that the transatlantic relationship is based on common values. The reality is as follows: US citizens can freely enter EU territory. The European Union has accepted PNR and Swift, as well as agreements concerning European citizens’ personal data. Some European citizens still need visas to travel to the United States. In addition, all European citizens have their fingerprints taken when they enter the United States, regardless of whether they have a visa or not. European citizens must indicate online their intention to travel and, most recently, they have to pay USD 14 to enter the United States. 162 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

I do not see where the common values are. I believe that the European Union must submit a request at the next summit in November to remove visas for all European citizens and provide identical treatment on both sides of the Atlantic. Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, the fee of USD 14 to travel to the United States is counterproductive for transatlantic relations and should be rejected for several reasons. It will make travel more expensive. It is discriminatory, and it is quite simply unfriendly. It is particularly regrettable that these costs can only be paid by credit card on the US Department of Homeland Security’s website. What do people who do not have a credit card do? Is it only credit card holders who are allowed to travel to the United States? Like so many of the previous speakers, I have mixed feelings about the fact that the credit card details of EU citizens will be passed on. This subject certainly upsets European citizens. They expect the European Commission and the Council to show its backbone here. Please act like confident Europeans and, where necessary, apply the principle of reciprocity. Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL) . – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I do not think that the US administration, which spends billions every day on war, needs money. Not money, but access to new, additional data that were and are accessible via the SWIFT programme – data on our citizens. I sense from one side and from another side the desire on behalf of the US administration and Congress to show who is the master in our bilateral relations. I have a personal experience: during the discussions in the European Parliament on the SWIFT programme, an adviser to the US ambassador to Latvia took the liberty of inviting me, a Member of the European Union, of the European Parliament, to come and see him for a discussion and to influence me on how I should vote. I have due cause to think that this is not about money. In Latvia, there are many people who have relatives living in the United States. They are also my constituents. They will not be happy if we do not stand up for our own interests here. Thank you. Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for your comments and the words of support for what we hope will be a constructive conclusion to our discussions with the United States on this very complicated matter. Firstly, I would like to reassure Members of Parliament that we are examining all possible measures vis-à-vis the United States in the framework of the EU reciprocity mechanism, including the possibility of the introduction of the EU ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorisation) on which, as you know, a feasibility study is currently under way. Of course, you will be informed of the outcomes and possible proposals for the future. As to whether this fee could be perceived as a visa fee in disguise, I have to say that, according to the preliminary assessment carried out by the Commission in December 2008 on the present ESTA, as laid down in the Interim Final Rule, at this stage, the ESTA cannot be considered as tantamount to the Schengen visa application process as defined in the Common Consular Instructions – which is now known as the Visa Code. Concerning the reaction of the Commission to the new ESTA rules in the United States, here again, I would like to inform you that we will issue formal comments and final assessments once the Final Rule on ESTA is published in the US Federal Register. Of course, 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 163

we are very much aware of the high sensitivity associated with personal data collection and personal data protection, and it is very high on the priority list of the Commission. Concerning future diplomatic and political action, I would like to inform you that the Commission has already requested the Presidency to put this issue on the next JHA Council in October and I am sure that the fee issue will be raised at the next EU-US JHA Ministerial in December. I have taken on board and fully understand the preoccupations of the honourable Members coming from those countries whose citizens still have to request visas when travelling to the United States, and I would like to assure them that we will relentlessly press for the inclusion of those four remaining EU Member States in the US visa waiver programme as soon as possible. This issue was raised by Commissioner Malmström in Madrid in April this year at the latest EU-US Ministerial. It was also the topic of her conversation in Washington two months later, and this is, of course, an issue which will be raised at all political levels and we will be pressing for a quick solution to this problem. Please allow me to conclude by reacting to the comments by Mr Brok. I really would like to underline that it would be very helpful indeed if Parliament intensified its communication with its US counterparts because, as we all know, the ESTA fee project and visa policies are very much driven by the US Congress, and your support and your assistance in this matter would be very valuable indeed. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few words to conclude and to tell you that, following our debates, it seems even clearer now that the European Union must continue to work in conjunction with the American authorities in order to improve transatlantic mobility. To this end, I am delighted, Mr President, that the United States ambassador to the European Union has been present at many of our debates. I believe this is a sign, a sign that the United States has been listening to the debate we have been having. We still have, and the Commission will remind us of this in the report on visa reciprocity, four Member States whose citizens are required to obtain a visa to visit the United States. This situation cannot be tolerated in view of the visa waiver that American citizens themselves enjoy when they visit the Schengen Area. The Presidency will therefore do everything it can to support the Commission in the steps that it continues to take to end this situation. We must, furthermore, do everything to keep the cost of trips to the United States as low as possible, whether these are for tourist purposes, business trips or when carrying out missions. Please rest assured that the Presidency will continue to support the Union’s cause vis-à-vis the American authorities. Once the Commission has submitted its report on visa reciprocity this autumn, and given its final assessment of the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) and once the definitive rules have been published by the American authorities, the Council will decide what measures should be taken accordingly. (The sitting was suspended at 17:20 and resumed at 18:00) Written statements (Rule 149) 164 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Parliament resolution of 22 October 2009 asked the United States to treat all EU citizens equally, according to the principle of complete reciprocity. However, four countries remain excluded from the US visa waiver programme: Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Cyprus. Furthermore, the United States has introduced a fee for issuing EU citizens with travel authorisation, commencing 8 September 2010. I believe that it is the European Commission’s duty to give greater priority in its relations with the United States to the issue of reciprocity of granting visas and to strive, at the same time, to obtain equal treatment for all EU citizens.

IN THE CHAIR: Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vice-President

11. Question Time (Council)

President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I am quite surprised to note that attendance at this question time is as low as it usually is during the night time sittings. The next item is questions to the Council (B7-0462/2010). The following questions have been put to the Council: Question No 1 by Mr Posselt (H-0399/10): Subject: Foreign policy and defence identity What action is the Council taking in order to strengthen the EU’s foreign policy and defence identity? Even though it is not directly answerable to the EU, does Eurocorps have a role in this in terms of setting an example or taking the lead? What measures are being planned to further improve the EU’s external security during the Belgian Presidency? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I am, in any event, delighted to be able to speak on behalf of the Council in front of such great numbers – I refer to our audience in the public gallery. There have been changes in the European policy on security and defence … President. – Mr Posselt, the procedure is perfectly clear. Mr Chastel answers the question that you put to him in writing and then you have the opportunity to expand the question, to put a subsidiary question, etc. It is now Mr Chastel’s responsibility to answer the question as you put it in writing. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) As I was saying, the European security and defence policy has undergone a remarkable change and has become one of the most dynamic elements of European integration. Almost 10 years after the creation of the European security and defence policy, which forms an integral part of the common foreign and security policy, the European Union is now a recognised player, in demand on the international scene. The Union’s numerous missions around the world are the best proof of this. In fact, the European Union has, at the initiative of the Council and the Member States, deployed 24 military, civilian and civilian-military missions on three continents within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy. The Union therefore has a presence in Afghanistan, Georgia, the Middle East, Iraq, Somalia and in the western Balkans. There is no doubt that these missions also contribute to increasing the visibility of the 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 165

European Union in this area. The general framework of these missions is furthermore set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, which also defines the general framework of the common security and defence policy. As for Eurocorps, I would first like to mention – Mr Posselt in fact points this out himself in his question – that Eurocorps is not part of the European Union. They are multinational operational land-based staff. Eurocorps was founded in 1992, based on an idea by Chancellor Kohl and the French President François Mitterrand. It was deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan and actively contributed to developing the interoperability of the armed forces of the participating Member States, as well as a culture of shared security and defence. Some Members States, namely Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, belong to it, and recently, Eurocorps has been open to the participation of members of both NATO and the European Union. The Belgian Presidency has made significant efforts to implement the Treaty of Lisbon, and in this context, the Presidency welcomes the agreement between Parliament and the Council on the European External Action Service, which constitutes a major contribution to the effective implementation of the common security and defence policy. I can assure you that the Belgian Presidency will continue with its efforts to also reach an agreement with Parliament on amendments to the two regulations directly linked to the European External Action Service on personnel and the financial framework and, more specifically, concerning the Belgian Presidency’s initiatives with regard to the ESDP. I would first like to refer you to the Belgian Presidency’s programme, which states that the Union must equip itself with the military and civilian capacities to reflect its ambitions: structured and ongoing cooperation, a European architecture of planning and command for crisis operations, the capacity for a swift and coherent response, including for relief operations, civilian and military cooperation, the training of civilian and military players in crisis management, the strengthening of the European Defence Agency and the strategic relationship between the Union and NATO are all important issues that require special endeavours. During its Presidency, Belgium will be launching numerous initiatives dedicated to the ESDP and, to this end, it has organised several seminars on matters relating to capacities in the field of ongoing, structured cooperation on training. All these questions will be at the centre of European defence ministers’ debates in Belgium tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would first like to make a brief comment. Your answer was very good, Mr Chastel. My protest earlier merely concerned your cynical comment regarding attendance. The people who have asked the questions are here and it is your job to answer these questions. I now come to my supplementary question. Is Belgium planning an initiative in order to make further progress as regards the Common Foreign and Security Policy? In Germany, we are having a debate about the restructuring of the German armed forces, etc. This would be a good time for a European initiative, which Belgium, as a very European country holding the Council Presidency, would be qualified to draw up. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I would like to remind the honourable Member of the end of my speech. I did indeed say that the Belgian Presidency’s programme comprised a whole series of issues that should strengthen our 166 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

cooperation, particularly in terms of defence, and that during its Presidency, Belgium would launch many initiatives focusing on the European Security and Defence Policy, in the form of a large number of seminars and studies, on issues relating to capacities in particular. I would also refer you to what is going on right now, or, in other words, to the discussion that will lead and guide the ministers of defence tomorrow and the day after in Belgium during an informal ‘Defence’ meeting taking place in Ghent. Thank you. Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I would like to ask a supplementary question, because Mr Chastel has informed us that tomorrow and the day after, there will be an informal meeting of the defence ministers of the European Union’s Member States. In relation to this, I would like to ask the following question: within the Union, battle groups have been established, which, for the time being, are battle groups only on paper – is it planned to discuss this matter during these talks? Are we going to continue to maintain a fiction, or is the Union going to have groups which it will ever be able to use? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) In response to this additional question, I will give a fairly similar reply to the previous one. Of course, we want to integrate the operational capability on the ground as far as possible. Of course, this specific subject will be covered during tomorrow’s informal meeting of the ministers of defence, and in the next few days, we will see what the result is of this informal meeting between the ministers, some of whom, I know, would like to make headway on this subject. President. – I would like to say to Mr Posselt that I understand that the comment kindly made by Mr Chastel, along with my own comment, are entirely in agreement with your comment that the question was very interesting, as was the answer, and therefore I think we should all regret the fact that there are not more Members in the Chamber to benefit from both the work of the Member who put the question and the answer from the Council. Question No 2 by Mrs McGuinness and Question No 3 by Mr Papanikolaou have been withdrawn by their authors. President. – Question No 4 by Mrs Blinkevičiūtė (H-0408/10): Subject: Reducing poverty and exclusion On 1 July 2010, Belgium, holding the Presidency of the Union, presented its agenda for the second half of the year. Belgium is the first country holding the Presidency that will be in a position to implement the Europe 2020 objectives, including those seeking to reduce social exclusion, poverty and inequality and to lift 20 million people out of poverty. The most important social priorities on Belgium’s agenda include combating poverty and reducing social exclusion, thereby helping to ensure greater cohesion and economic growth. What specific measures does Belgium intend to take during its Presidency to meet these objectives and to ensure that the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion is a success? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Thank you, Mr President. The Council’s 18-month programme, as established by the triple Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies, states that the fight against poverty and social marginalisation will be a major objective, with an emphasis being placed on the unemployed, children affected by poverty, the working poor and single-parent families. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 167

The fight against poverty is one of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy adopted by the European Council on 17 June 2010, whereby the Council has also approved the aim of promoting social inclusion, in particular, through poverty reduction, by removing the risk of poverty or exclusion for a minimum of 20 million people by the year 2020. Another objective which the European Council has set itself is to increase the employment level of men and women aged between 20 and 64 to 75%, and to improve levels of education, in particular, by reducing failure rates at school. During the Belgian Presidency, four priorities in the fight against poverty will be highlighted: minimum wage and social welfare, housing and the homeless, child poverty within the family and finally, the participation of those living in poverty and all those involved in the fight against poverty, insecurity and social exclusion. At a round table on poverty and social exclusion to be held on 18 and 19 October, the Presidency will attempt to look more closely at the debate on a minimum wage at European level, the final aim being for each Member State to adopt a minimum wage that guarantees a sufficient standard of living. Within the framework of these discussions, the Presidency will also aim to promote, at European level, the importance of the principles of good governance to ensure participation by those living in poverty. Next, in order to guarantee everyone the fundamental right to housing, the Belgian Presidency will grant special importance to the problem of accessibility to housing during a conference which will take place on 9 and 10 December. The Presidency will also prioritise the crucial role of education in the fight against child poverty and in the fight against its intergenerational transmission, which has already been the subject of a conference held on 2 and 3 September. Finally, on 16 and 17 December, the Belgian Presidency will close the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion by ensuring that lessons are drawn from it for the future. Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive reply. I really do understand perfectly that above all, it is up to the Member States themselves to combat poverty and social exclusion, and I would like to wish the Belgian Presidency all the best, so that Member States can reach a decision on compulsory minimum social standards and compulsory minimum wages as soon as possible. However, in your opinion, is the open coordination method currently in use sufficient to combat poverty and social exclusion? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) If my memory serves me well, two weeks ago, in the same Chamber, at the same question and answer session, I already replied to this question by reasserting that this method could actually provide some concrete results. I can only therefore reiterate what I said two weeks ago. President. – Question No 5 by Mr Gallagher (H-0410/10): Subject: International symposium on science and fisheries partnership agreements Can the Council make a statement outlining the key issues that will be discussed at the forthcoming international symposium on ‘Improved Science and Fisheries Partnership Agreements as Policy Drivers’ and what does the Council expect to be achieved at this international conference? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) The symposium entitled ‘International symposium – Improved fisheries and science partnerships as policy drivers’ will be organised by the Belgian Presidency on 9 and 10 November in Ostend, which, as 168 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

you no doubt know, is a town on Belgium’s coast. On 15 July, during the presentation of its priorities, the Presidency did, in fact, invite the European Parliament to attend. By organising this symposium, the Belgian Presidency wishes to contribute to current thinking on the preparation of reforms to the current common fisheries policy. A new common policy on the subject should be in place by 2013. The scientists and the fishing sector often have differing viewpoints and each adopt a different position on fisheries and environmental management. The aim of the symposium is to discuss this problem in detail and to learn lessons from good practices in the field. To this end, the plan is to organise discussions on five subjects: data collection and stock assessment, joint efforts to improve selectivity and reduce discards, communication between scientists and industry, improvements to the integrated consultation process and, finally, self-management. The results of the symposium will serve as the basis for a ministerial debate at the ‘Agriculture and Fisheries’ Council in November. The Council will then be able to draw the appropriate conclusions. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – I would like to congratulate the Minister on arranging this important conference, bringing the scientists and the fishing sector together. I would like to think that the Council will lay emphasis on the question of discards, and on enticing fishermen and fisherwomen to bring discards ashore, by providing for their being compensated. So it is vitally important that this, together with the other four issues which are to be raised, should be fed into the Council meeting. I would suggest to the Minister that he look, in particular, at small vessels under 15 metres, in which fishermen must make a livelihood and provide for their wives and families, and at the fact that they are making no major impact on this very important renewable stock. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) I would, in any event, like to thank the honourable Member for his suggestions and his concerns, which I will gladly pass on to the relevant minister who will chair the symposium. President. – Question No 6 by Mr Crowley, who has nominated Mr Gallagher as his deputy (H-0411/10): Subject: Accession negotiations between the EU and Croatia. Can the Council outline the remaining chapters to be discussed by the EU and Croatia within the negotiating framework for Croatia’s accession to the EU? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) The Council has certainly noted that a lot of headway has been made in the accession negotiations with Croatia, which are now entering the final straight. The European Union is delighted with all the work that Croatia has put in over the past year and the progress achieved, not least towards meeting the criteria agreed in the course of the negotiations. Overall to date, the accession conference has opened 33 of the 35 chapters and has provisionally closed 23. Croatia now needs to build on the progress made thus far and continue its reforms, focusing on fundamental issues such as justice and public administration, combating corruption and organised crime, and minority rights, which includes the return of refugees and investigations into war crimes. Croatia also needs to press ahead on economic issues, so as to be able to demonstrate positive results on all fronts. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 169

As indicated in our work programme, the Belgian Presidency is committed to helping Croatia to move forwards in its accession negotiations by closing as many chapters as possible as soon as possible. To this end, Croatia will need to implement the reforms I have just outlined and meet all other criteria within the agreed timeframes. In practical terms, the outstanding chapters could be provisionally closed if, on examination, the Member States feel that Croatia has met the relevant requirements. The chapters in question are: competition policy (chapter 8), agriculture and rural development (chapter 11), fisheries (chapter 13), regional policy and coordination of structural instruments (chapter 22), judiciary and fundamental rights (chapter 23), justice, freedom and security (chapter 24), environment (chapter 27), foreign, security and defence policy (chapter 31), and finance and budgetary provisions (chapter 33). Three chapters are currently on the table in Council pending a decision on provisional closure, namely, free movement of capital (chapter 4), transport policy (chapter 14) and institutions (chapter 34). Chapter 35 (other issues) will be examined last, at a later date. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive response. I would ask him if he could inform me – or let me know if the information is not available to him – whether, when the negotiations are completed and a decision has to be taken, that decision will be taken by the Croatian Parliament alone or whether an opportunity will be given to the people of Croatia to decide by way of a referendum, as was the case in my own country. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Naturally, we have to assess the progress made on the ground in Croatia and I am therefore unable to give you any firm dates. The timing will depend on Croatia’s input and the extent to which reforms have been implemented. However, in the light of discussions with my Croatian counterpart, I can tell you that, at the end of the process, there will indeed be an opportunity for the people of Croatia to express its opinion on the accession of Croatia to the European Union. Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I would like to ask Mr Chastel a question which seems to me to be important. You said, Mr Chastel, that 33 out of 35 chapters have been opened, and you told us about the progress made in these 33 chapters. My question, therefore, is about something else: which two negotiations chapters have not yet been opened? It seems to me that this is a matter of key significance. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) I have no idea. I will have to respond to the honourable Member in writing as I do not know the thirty-five chapters off the top of my head, i.e. those which are open and have been provisionally closed, those which have just been opened or the three chapters which are on the table and which could be closed imminently. I thought that my reply provided a comprehensive overview of the progress made on the various chapters. I will inform you in writing whether there are still two chapters which have not yet been opened. President. – Mr Chastel, I am sure that Mr Zemke will be happy to receive a swift written response to his question. 170 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

President. – Question No 7 by Mrs Harkin (H-0413/10): Subject: Demographics and carers Taking into account the Belgian Presidency’s priorities in relation to changing demographics and, more specifically, its intention to adopt conclusions relating to the prevention of poverty, would the Council agree that the role informal carers play as a result of changing demographics is increasingly important and that one of the major challenges facing Member States is to ensure that informal carers do not become the next generation of people living in poverty as a direct result of their caring responsibilities? In this light, what measures would Council propose to take to ensure that adequate policy attention is given to supporting the role played by informal carers throughout the EU? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) The honourable Member has raised a very thorny issue in these difficult economic times. The Council is aware that unpaid carers are at greater risk of poverty, as their duties limit participation in the labour market. The first issue to address is how to reintegrate unpaid carers into the labour market. The Council is aware of the difficulties encountered by those who have taken a career break in order to provide unpaid care services and has urged Member States to ensure that provision is made for these individuals within national pension systems. For example, in the directive on the revised framework agreement on parental leave, the Council stipulates that, at the end of parental leave, a worker is entitled to return to his/her position or an equivalent or similar post in accordance with his/her employment contract or relationship. The Council understands that the Commission has consulted the social partners about the possibility of adopting new forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave and leave to care for family members. The second factor is gender inequality. The Council has highlighted the fact that the majority of family care is still provided by women, largely as a result of social stereotypes linked to the social and domestic roles of men and women. As part of the Beijing Platform of Action, in 2007, the Council adopted conclusions on the question of women and poverty which include a set of indicators designed to allow Member States and the Commission to monitor this key issue. In its conclusions, the Council had to make allowance for the fact that the decision to provide unpaid care work rather than take paid employment can be a personal choice, although gender inequalities mean that career breaks taken for family reasons tend to be a problem specific to women. The decision can affect those women’s financial independence and the degree of social protection afforded to them, particularly at retirement age, when many women are forced to make do with a very modest pension. In view of all this, the Council has highlighted the need for a more equitable distribution of caring tasks between men and women. The Council has also stressed on a number of occasions the need for a childcare infrastructure and care services for other dependents. As the population ages, we are going to be faced with growing numbers of older citizens who will need care. In its conclusions on ‘gender equality: strengthening growth and employment’, adopted in November 2009, the Council stressed the long-term strategic importance of these questions for the Union, not least in view of population trends. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 171

There is a clear correlation between high female employment rates, the availability of childcare and care services, and high birth rates. The Council therefore advocates adopting policies that will allow men and women to achieve a better work/life balance. Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Thank you, Minister, for your very comprehensive reply. It is obvious that the Council is taking this matter quite seriously. I am interested to hear about the fact that you are looking at carer and family leave, that the same standards would apply to those who want to go back to work. You also mentioned the gender aspect of it. Another aspect is that a lot of young people end up caring, and I often think that is forgotten. You also mentioned personal choice. I think that is what carers want. They want to have the choice as to whether they work or care. I am also very pleased to hear that you are taking into consideration the whole issue of pensions, because what happens sometimes is that people give up work to care, they lose part of their salary, they cannot continue to make their social contributions when they are caring, and then they lose out on their pension, so I do think that is an area perhaps where the Council could make recommendations to Member States. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) The honourable Member has picked up on a subject that I touched upon in my reply and I have to agree with her. I do not think that those who make this particular life choice, particularly women, should be penalised at the end of their working life. Rather, they should be able to enjoy a respectable pension. The Council is making the matter a priority with a view to achieving that goal. President. – Question No 8 by Mr Zwiefka, who has nominated Mr Wałęsa as his deputy (H-0415/10): Subject: Al-Aqsa TV station On 24 June 2010, the French satellite provider Eutelsat ceased to relay the Hamas Al-Aqsa TV station on its satellite Atlantic Bird 4A. This follows a decision by the French Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA) on 8 June 2010 which found Al-Aqsa TV to be in violation of French and European audiovisual legislation and requested that Eutelsat cease to relay Al-Aqsa TV. According to media reports, Al-Aqsa TV has circumvented this measure by renaming its channel on Eutelsat ‘Seraj Al-Aqsa’ (sometimes also written as ‘Siraj Al-Aqsa’). Seraj Al-Aqsa is currently being relayed by Eutelsat on its satellites Atlantic Bird 4A, Atlantic Bird 2 and Eurobird 2. What immediate steps will the Council take in order to prevent Al-Aqsa TV from circumventing the decision by the CSA? Are the French Government and the CSA aware of this situation, which is a direct violation of the decision by the CSA? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) On 10 March 2010, the Council and the European Parliament adopted Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services, which updated the legal framework regulating television broadcasting and other audiovisual media services in the Union. Article 6 of the directive stipulates that Member States must use appropriate means to ensure that audiovisual media services provided by operators under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality. Member States are therefore responsible for implementation, whilst the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, is charged with verifying that the directive is implemented correctly. 172 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Under Article 2 of the directive, a Member State is also responsible for programmes broadcast by organisations based outside the European Union if the operator uses the satellite capacity of that Member State. In the specific case referred to by the honourable Member, the Council understands that the Commission has informed the relevant French authority, the CSA, which is now investigating the matter. It would be inappropriate for the Council to comment on the current investigation. Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) I do not agree with the final part of your answer, Mr Chastel, because it seems to me that it is, in fact, the role of the Council and the Commission to draw attention to these recurring and bad features of this satellite operator’s activity. This is yet another occasion when it has become necessary to draw attention to the fact that this television station is back on the air and is evading the law, which, at the moment, is not working quite as it should be. The question, therefore, contains a certain amount of concern – what should be done so that this cat and mouse game does not continue to be repeated? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) I agree with your interpretation in part. It is true that Member States are tasked with implementation and the Commission monitors compliance. As you know, the Council is colegislator together with the European Parliament and, in shouldering its responsibilities, has established a suitable legal framework, namely the directive I have just mentioned. It is then up to Member States to implement the directive, whilst the Commission is responsible for monitoring compliance. President. – Question No 9 by Mrs Ţicău and Question No 10 by Mr Kelly have been withdrawn. Question No 11 by Mr Schmidt (H-0425/10): Subject: Situation of the Roma minority in Europe and free movement of EU citizens Discrimination against the Roma minority is a widespread European problem with a long history. Can the Council provide an assurance that the situation of the Roma minority in Europe will be considered at EU level, and that the Council will search for a European solution rather than national ones? The Commission has stated that any deportations of EU citizens within the internal market must be carried out on a case-by-case basis, so to not prevent the free movement of citizens. Does the Council share this view? If so, is France’s expulsion of 79 Roma violating this fundamental Community rule? In the light of the latest events, will the issue of free movement of citizens be discussed within the Council? Furthermore, will the conclusions of the meeting dealing with immigration issues, which is to take place on 6 September in Paris between the interior ministers of France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and Greece, be discussed between all the EU Member States? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Following on from the second European summit on the Roma held in Cordoba in April, on 7 and 8 June 2010 the Council adopted conclusions on advancing Roma inclusion. The conclusions acknowledge that a significant proportion of Roma live in extreme poverty and suffer from discrimination and exclusion. This, in turn, results in low academic achievement, inadequate housing conditions, limited access to the labour market and poor health. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 173

The Council calls on the Commission and the Member States to forge ahead with the economic and social inclusion of Roma, in accordance with the decisions taken and recommendations drawn up by the European Union institutions, by guaranteeing more effective access to existing policies and instruments. The Council also stresses the importance of ensuring the active involvement of civil society, local authorities and the Roma themselves. The Stockholm Programme, adopted by the European Council in December 2009, specifically refers to the Roma community and recommends that Member States combine forces in order to promote the full social integration of vulnerable groups. Measures taken recently by one Member State in relation to individuals from the Roma community gave rise to a debate during the European Council lunch on 16 September 2010. The President of the European Council highlighted three points on which consensus was achieved during the discussions: that each Member State is entitled to take measures to uphold the rule of law in its territory, that the Commission has both the right and a duty to monitor Member States’ compliance with EU law, and that the question of Roma integration will be discussed at a future European Council meeting. The Belgian Presidency also wishes to include the issue of Roma integration on the agenda of the EPSCO Council scheduled for 21 October. The Council has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the outcome of the informal meeting held on 6 September in Paris. As far as I am aware, that meeting was not specifically about the Roma situation. Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, Mr Chastel, I believe that you and the 27 Member States which you now represent as President-in-Office of the Council have every reason to take very clear and swift action, as this is a very difficult situation for Europe. We know that the Roma have been persecuted for centuries, and recent times have revealed shortcomings that Europe cannot afford. If we want to tell other countries to look after their own people, we also need to look after our own people. Isabel Fonseca is a journalist and writer. She has written a book entitled ‘Bury me standing. I’ve been on my knees all my life’. Mr Chastel, I would appeal to you to appoint, on behalf of the Council and in collaboration with the Commission, a truth commission to investigate what has happened to the Roma throughout European history. I think we need to come to terms with our own history, otherwise we will not be able to move forward in a credible way. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Firstly, I acknowledge the suggestion of re-examining our history in relation to this issue. Secondly, I would like to say that, regarding an issue which – it is fair to say – has been impassioned over the last few weeks, the Council, which I am representing today, is waiting to receive from the Commission the detailed analysis of the matter in relation to the topical debate we have had over the last few weeks. Therefore, it is not up to the Council itself to decide on any given situation, but indeed up to the Commission to tell us if the treaties and directives have been adhered to in this matter. President. – As the author is not present, Question No 12 lapses. 174 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

President. – Question No 13 by Mr Higgins (H-0429/10): Subject: Child trafficking What measures will the Council take to ensure that each Member State plays its part to ensure that child trafficking is stopped? In its latest report, child protection organisation ECPAT named Ireland as one of the poorest performing EU states in combating sex trafficking of children. No reliable figures exist for the number of children trafficked in Ireland, but the report voiced particular concern over the 441 children who have gone missing while in Irish state care. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Current legislation to prevent and combat human trafficking consists primarily of the Council framework decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings, which, among other things, requires Member States to make human trafficking offences, whether for purposes of forced labour or sexual exploitation, punishable. A draft directive aimed at stepping up the fight against trafficking and improving victim protection, as well as a second draft directive relating to sexual exploitation and abuse of children and to child pornography, are being examined within the Union’s institutions. In particular, the aim of these proposals is to ensure that specific measures of assistance, help and protection are offered to children who fall victim to human trafficking. They also contain provisions aimed at improving prosecution of offences committed outside the territory of Member States, as well as regulations designed to prevent these offences. On the basis of the Stockholm Programme, specific attention is granted to children who are particularly vulnerable, notably child victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as child victims of trafficking and unaccompanied minors. In the context of the Union’s immigration policy, it should also be added that the Commission has adopted an action plan for unaccompanied minors which sets out a common approach based on the principle of the child’s best interests, and by identifying broad areas for action such as prevention, accommodation and the search for lasting solutions. Following this action plan, the Council, in its conclusions adopted in June 2010 on unaccompanied minors, decided to ask Member States to strengthen the measures concerning unaccompanied minors who fall victim to human trafficking by entrusting them to the relevant authorities in the Member State where they find themselves. Since it is difficult, currently, to estimate the exact number of people who are victim of human trafficking within the Union, or who are illegally brought in as a result of human trafficking, and in order to provide the European Union with objective, reliable, comparable and current statistics, the Council has adopted, in its conclusions of June 2009, the establishment within the Union of an informal network of national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms in the area of human trafficking. This network, which should act as a forum for sharing experiences and best practices in the area of preventing and combating human trafficking on a European scale, has been set up. Finally, a general guideline document on the fight against human trafficking was adopted in November 2009. It is partly devoted to the issue of child trafficking. With respect to the part of the question referring to a specific Member State, it is not up to the Council to express an opinion on individual cases. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 175

Jim Higgins (PPE). – I think we all agree that the trafficking of human beings is a most heinous crime. Trafficking is bad enough where adult trafficking is concerned, but child trafficking is the most sordid and revolting of the lot. In relation to my own country – and I know we have the 2002 legislation – the ECPAT report in relation to Ireland’s performance has been pretty devastating: 441 children unaccounted for. I welcome the proposal for the new network, but what we need is an effective network, a network that will stamp out the trafficking once and for all, because Europe is wide open in terms of open boundaries and open borders, so we really need to get our act together, and I commend the Council’s determination. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) I would like to thank the honourable Member for his remarks in relation to the Council and reaffirm that assisting and supporting the protection of victims of trafficking makes for a large part of the draft directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings. The Council will do everything in its power to keep this aspect of an effective network on the agenda, in particular, by trying to convince all Member States to analyse good practices wherever they are used so that all pieces of legislation in this area can be harmonised. President. – Question No 14 by Mr Aylward, who has nominated Mr Gallagher as his deputy (H-0433/10): Subject: European job creation measures What measures are being adopted at European level and in the Member States to support and encourage efforts aimed at creating jobs? What is being done to tackle unemployment and what measures are in place to provide further access to employment and to the labour market throughout the EU, especially in disadvantaged areas? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr Gallagher, thank you very much for enabling me to expand on this important issue. Member States have frontline responsibility for defining and implementing their national employment policies. Given that the situation of the labour market varies from one State to the other, the measures to be taken will inevitably vary as well, as long as they contribute, by and large, to achieving the Union’s overall objectives. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these measures are coordinated within the European strategy for employment, which notably sets out guidelines for employment and recommendations to Member States. During its meeting of June 2010, the European Council approved the general approach relating to the integrated guidelines for economic and employment policies, which are an essential tool for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. After taking into account the opinion of the House, adopted on 8 September 2010, the Presidency will submit the integrated guidelines to the Council for adoption at its next EPSCO session on 21 October 2010. According to these guidelines, Member States and the European Union should put in place reforms promoting intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth. The aim of the reforms should be to improve participation in the job market, particularly for under-represented groups – young people, older people, low-skilled workers, legal migrants – to reduce structural unemployment and to promote employment quality through measures impacting on both labour supply and labour demand. Their objective is also to develop a qualified workforce which meets the needs of the job market, promoting 176 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

lifelong learning and stimulating entrepreneurship, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. A suitable use of European funds, especially the European Social Fund, will enable us to reach these goals and to ensure better access to employment and to the job market throughout the European Union, more specifically in disadvantaged areas. Furthermore, through the annual joint report on employment, the Council, along with the Commission, monitors the job situation in Member States and, in particular, the implementation of the guidelines on employment and the recommendations in this matter. The latest 2009-2010 joint report on employment, published in the spring of 2010, provides an accurate description of the kind of measures that the various Member States have taken in order to promote employment, especially among young people and women. The Council highlighted, for instance, that Member States should also improve the business environment, stimulate job creation, especially green job creation, and help companies to modernise their industrial base. Given the importance of the European strategy for employment with a view to coordinating national employment policies and improving their effectiveness, this strategy will play a key role in the new governance context laid down by the European Semester. Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), deputising for the author. – On behalf of Mr Aylward, I want to thank the President-in-Office for his response, but while his plans are quite laudable, I believe that jobs can be created in the short term. The Commission has admitted that Europe is missing out on the creation of 1.5 million jobs in the short term because micro-businesses have been held back by excessive employment regulation and red tape. While I appreciate the fact that the Minister mentioned the national policies, he will recall that in the State of the Union address, President Barroso referred, in particular, to the Commission’s policy for dealing with red tape. I am wondering what immediate action the Council can take to ensure that this red tape is minimised and jobs created. Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) I would refer you to the Belgian Presidency’s programme on this matter, because the question did indeed concern employment, and in our answer, we focused on structural measures for employment, through the 2020 strategy and the guidelines. But yes, you are absolutely right. We have, in the Belgian programme, a whole series of measures which aim to reduce administrative burdens on small and medium-sized businesses, on micro-enterprises which do not have the structural capacity to take on staff to analyse all the legislation in force, especially with respect to subsidies for businesses, which are sometimes much too complex for small businesses. I know that in Belgium, and certainly under the Belgian Presidency, the Minister responsible for this matter, at an informal meeting he will be holding, intends to highlight this issue of administrative formalities and red tape, which prevent small and medium-sized businesses from functioning properly. President. – Mr Kelly has withdrawn Question No 15 and given that the author of Question No 16 is not present, it lapses. 22-09-2010 EN Debates of the European Parliament 177

President. – Question No 17 by Mr Howitt, who has nominated Mrs Göncz as his deputy (H-0444/10): Subject: Progress on the EU horizontal anti-discrimination directive 2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. As part of its Presidency programme, the Belgian Presidency stated its wish to make progress in the struggle against discrimination and for equality. With this pledge in mind, can the Council outline what progress is being made in seeking Council agreement on the horizontal anti-discrimination directive, on which the European Parliament has already given its first reading? Can the President-in-Office confirm that the definition of goods and services to be used in the directive will be in compliance with the EU obligation to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and ask the Council what is the strategy to dispel quickly the outstanding questions and concerns being raised by Member States on the issue of the economic cost of equality? Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, during the Spanish Presidency, the Council continued to examine the proposal for a directive and, on 7 June 2010, took note of a report from the Presidency on the progress of this work. According to this report, it will be necessary to continue with a thorough examination of the proposal, especially with regard to its scope, the provisions relating to disability and the timetable for implementation. Members of the Council have also insisted on the need to guarantee the greatest legal certainty and to enforce the principle of subsidiarity. The proposal should be adopted in accordance with Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which requires unanimous approval from Members of the Council. While the aim of the draft directive is to achieve certain objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, its goal is not to legally implement this convention, since the latter has a broader scope which goes beyond the European Union’s remit. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that one of the objectives of the talks that are currently taking place at the Council is to ensure consistency with this convention. As for the economic cost of equality, the talks also touched on the concept of disproportionate burden; this concept precisely seeks to strike the right balance between the actual right to equality of access and the economic cost of such access. Whilst every effort is being made to reach a unanimous decision, the Council is not in a position to predict the outcome of the negotiations or how long they will last. Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Thank you very much for your answer. Listening to Mr Chastel’s answer, I tried to gain a better understanding of the arguments and counterarguments which could have been raised in the Council. We know that this issue has remained unresolved since 2008, when the Commission tabled the draft directive and Parliament approved it the following year. This clearly entails certain burdens. However, the European Union also has an obligation, ensuing from or in relation to the UN Convention. In view of this, I would like to ask Mr Chastel whether he sees any chance or hope of any progress still being made in the near future, once all these factors have been examined. Secondly, I think that the crisis is a clear reminder that equal opportunities and the implementation of the Anti-Discrimination Directive may help many people in very difficult situations. 178 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-09-2010

Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I fully understand the subject mentioned and the understandable impatience regarding this issue. Talks have probably gone on for too long. However, we are dealing with an innovative proposal with a very broad scope and huge practical implications. As I have already said, the unanimous consent of Member States and the consent of the European Parliament are required so that the directive can be adopted. Complex negotiations are taking place within the Council, which is devoting a great deal of energy to this subject. The Working Party on Social Questions has already discussed this proposal twice under the Belgian Presidency; further meetings are planned, and I do not, for one second, doubt that if this issue is not resolved under the Belgian Presidency, the next Presidency, which will be Hungarian, will make every effort to conclude this debate. President. – As the authors are not present, Questions Nos 18, 19 and 20 lapse. I would like to note, to give a positive view of the situation, that for the first time in the last 11 years at least, we have achieved absolute equality of the sexes among the Members present in the House, as only Mrs Göncz and I are here. This is an exceptional circumstance and certainly a desirable one, although it would be better for that proportion to be maintained with greater overall figures. Mr Chastel, I would like to thank you most warmly not only for your efforts but also for your efficiency, and I would like to say that it is very unusual for practically all the speakers to highlight the precision, conciseness and efficiency of your work, as has been the case today.

12. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

13. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 18:55)