24-09-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1 WEDNESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2008 IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING President 1. Opening of the sitting (The sitting was opened at 9.00 a.m.) 2. Statement by the President President. − It is with great sadness that we have learned of the dramatic events in Kauhajoki in the west of Finland, where 11 people have lost their lives in a very tragic incident at a school. A number of people were also seriously injured by the perpetrator, who then turned his gun on himself. On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to express my deepest sympathy and solidarity with the families and all the relatives of the victims. All the victims were innocent young students at a vocational training school, where they were studying for careers in the service sector. This tragedy occurred less than one year after a similar appalling killing spree at Jokela High School. As we all know, Finland is regarded as one of the most peaceful and safest countries in Europe, so we can understand that the people of Finland are speechless with shock, and we share their distress. Unfortunately, we often see similar patterns repeated in these acts of bloodshed. In this instance, although the perpetrator posted threatening videos on the Internet before the killing spree, it was not possible to avert the tragedy. As responsible politicians in Europe and in all the Member States, we must do our utmost to ensure that such acts of violence are detected and prevented in time. Once again, on behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to express our deepest sympathy and solidarity with the victims and their families. 3. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes 4. Priorities of the European Parliament for the legislative and work programme of the Commission for 2009 (debate) President. − The next item is the debate on priorities of the European Parliament for the legislative and work programme of the Commission for 2009. Hartmut Nassauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we are debating the legislative and work programme of the Commission for the coming year, 2009, which is an election year. Next year, a new Parliament will be elected and there will be a new Commission. No one's position is certain: not that of the Commissioners and not even that of the Commission President, who is unfortunately unable to be here this morning to present his programme in person. During any election year, it is always a temptation to do right by all our voters, assuming, that is, that we know what they want, or at least what they should want. The question, then, is this: how should the European Union present itself to Europe's citizens in the coming year? Like all politicians, our task is to try to respond to citizens' concerns. The European Union has an outstanding opportunity to do this. We have many possible ways of responding to people's needs and concerns. Peace has been a fundamental concern throughout human history, and the European Union has safeguarded peace in Europe for many decades. We are able to find answers to external threats, such as international terrorism or the conduct of large neighbouring countries which occasionally trample the rules of international law under foot. We can make a contribution to ensuring that Europe has a secure and sustainable energy supply, while doing what we can to protect the climate. We can safeguard social security and justice in Europe by unleashing the growth potential of our successful European economy, and we can safeguard innovation and the competitiveness of the European economy, with the associated opportunity to create and safeguard 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 24-09-2008 jobs. Europe can become a haven of security in a changing world. My colleagues will have more to say about the finer points of detail on many of these issues shortly. What are the prerequisites for successful action in the European Union? I would like to mention two in particular: firstly, we need appropriate institutional bases, and that certainly means the Treaty of Lisbon. This Treaty will create more transparency and more democracy and enhance the EU's capacity to act, thus enabling it to perform its functions more effectively. We can only appeal to the citizens of Ireland to reconsider their position on this Treaty. I share many of the criticisms levelled at the European Union, but we cannot ignore the fact that this Treaty provides sound solutions to many of these points of criticism. Thus the Treaty of Lisbon is vital. Secondly, however, we also need the backing of Europe's citizens, which has declined to an alarming extent. That became apparent from the referenda in France, the Netherlands and, not least, in Ireland. It is not about whether we need more or less Europe, as I recently had the opportunity to say to the Commission President. The real issue is where we need Europe, and where we do not. That needs to be decided. If I may cite an example – and I admit that this is my very favourite example – soil protection is not something that we need to deal with at European level. Soil protection makes work, but it does not create jobs. That is why Europe will be successful and will generate support if it acts where Community action is undoubtedly required, and where action at European level can achieve more than action at national level. The Commission would therefore be well-advised, in my view, to attach greater importance to the issue of subsidiarity in its action during the coming year. That will boost Europe's acceptance and we will probably all be re-elected by more of Europe's citizens than was the case at the last election. Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the European Commission has done outstanding work in the last few years in many areas, notably environmental and climate policy, and here in this House, we are in the process of translating this into legislation. As regards the development of the common market, however, we see major shortcomings, especially where the social dimension is concerned. The current financial crisis is sufficient reason to discuss this issue, and that is what we have done in the context of the Rasmussen report. It is not only my group and I, and indeed many others, who are deeply disappointed by what Commissioner McCreevy has said – or has not said – here. That is the major problem. If we read the lead articles in any conservative newspaper today, whether it be the Financial Times or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, the headlines could have been written by socialist groups in this House, but not by the Commission President and certainly not by Mr McCreevy. The Financial Times, for example, has had the following headlines: ‘Modern history’s greatest regulatory failure’ or ‘After the crash: why global capitalism needs global rules’. While Damien Hurst's The Golden Calf broke art auction records, the financial institutions have suffered record losses, prompting the following comment from the Financial Times: ‘How we were all blinded by the golden calf’. (DE) Unfortunately, this applies to the Commission, or at least to those members of the Commission who should be responsible for these issues. Frank Schirrmacher, the editor-in-chief of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and hardly a left-winger, writes: 'Neoliberal ideology created a rational and fortuitous connection between the individual and globalisation which was rooted solely in the economy', and laments 'the self-destruction of the social welfare discourse'. It would be nice to have detected at least an element of this in the words of the Commission President or Commissioner McCreevy. After all, I am not demanding a large amount of left-wing criticism or self-criticism, but what we are demanding, time and again, as Martin Schulz recently made very clear, is the strengthening of the social dimension and scrutiny of all Commission projects in terms of their social impacts. Unfortunately, this is still not happening. There is no response from the Commission here. What we are also demanding is a stronger common economic policy in Europe, which could also help to cushion or avert the type of crisis now spilling over from the US. Here, too, the Commission has been notable for its omissions. Another area where the Commission has failed – and I am sorry to address these comments to you as I know you can do very little about it – is its failure to tackle the growing inequality in Europe of its own accord, or to urge the national governments to act. We will be debating this issue this afternoon in 24-09-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3 relation to energy poverty, another topic which we have repeatedly raised and where we have received no response from the Commission, which has yet to produce any real initiatives here. It is unacceptable for the Commission – with its commitment to inclusion and social justice as a matter of principle – to stand by and watch while social inequality in Europe steadily increases during this particular phase of economic and social life. That is unacceptable, and we should not be accepting it. Europe's citizens expect the Commission to take their needs and concerns seriously, to present appropriate proposals and to act as a moral authority, notably in the context of the financial crisis. It should not be left to the French President, Mr Sarkozy, in his capacity as President-in-Office of the Council, to take a clear position here; this clear position should come from the Commission, the Commission President and the relevant Commissioner as well.