Distinct objects for predicate lpv:spokenText sorted by frequency

ResourceCount
"UKIP voted against the discharge votes for multiple reasons. Primarily we are against the EU spending taxpayers’ money therefore we do not consent to this money being spent. Second of all, the lack of transparency in these procedures is of real concern to us. Finally many of these discharge reports call for a motion for resolution which requires further EU engagement which we are principally against."@en194
"The debate is closed."@en97
"The next item is the vote."@en85
"I voted against discharge on the grounds that I disapprove of the European Union, and consequently I disapprove of the expenditure in this area."@en84
"That concludes the explanations of vote."@en80
"The UKIP position, as on all of the votes on the discharge for 2013, was to vote against the granting of discharge. As a Party opposed to the UK's membership of the European Union, which has raised concerns over the spending of taxpayers' money, the Party felt that to do anything other than vote against discharge would send out completely the wrong message to the constituents we were elected to represent. I therefore voted against the granting of discharge."@en51
"I voted in favour of this Discharge. It is important that the European Union is transparent and that my constituents in Wales can be confident that scrutiny is effective and that resources are being used properly."@en50
"I voted in favour of this discharge because I am satisfied with the budget performance and monitoring. It is important to my constituents in Wales that public money is spent effectively."@en45
"I will continue to vote against granting discharge for any part of the EU budget until the budget as a whole receives a positive statement of assurance from the Court of Auditors. Therefore I voted against granting discharge."@en45
"That concludes the vote."@en45
"I voted to postpone discharge on this report today because the European Court of Auditors did not give the EU budget as a whole a positive statement of assurance. The level of error for the year 2014 was estimated to be 4.4%, which, whilst a slight improvement on 2013, is still too high. It is the job of the Parliament to verify that the EU budget was spent in accordance with the rules and in line with the principles of sound financial management, and unfortunately the Court of Auditors found that was not the case for the year 2014. We need more simplification of key areas of financial management in the EU budget and a stronger focus on tackling parts of the budget with a higher risk of problems."@en42
"I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament."@en38
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place shortly."@en37
"I have voted in favour since I have no objections."@en35
"UKIP voted against the discharge votes for multiple reasons. Primarily we are against the EU spending taxpayers’ money, therefore we do not consent to this money being spent. Second of all, the lack of transparency in these procedure is of real concern to us. Finally many of these discharge reports call for a motion for resolution which requires further EU engagement which we are principally against."@en35
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is against the further expansion of the EU. The system of annual reports on the progress of candidate and potential candidate countries towards alignment with the is part of this process. As such we voted against."@en34
"The discharge report was favourable overall so I voted for."@en33
"President, I voted in favour of this report. I am pleased that the EU agencies have made demonstrable progress in implementing the "Roadmap" following the ‘Common Approach’ agreed in 2012 and that the reports demonstrate that all but one of these agencies, the EIT, can be granted immediate discharge for 2013."@en32
"I am pleased that the EU agency have made demonstrable progress made in implementing the "Roadmap" following the ‘Common Approach’ agreed in 2012 and that the report demonstrates that the agency can be granted immediate discharge for 2013. I voted therefore in favour."@en31
"I voted in favour of approving discharge of this agency. Representing less than 1[nbsp ]% of the EU’s budget, agencies are vitally important to delivering the goals and results of EU policies. While some improvements still need to be made, I am pleased that agencies are now sharing best practice, and also support services when possible, and working closely with the Commission on key issues to bring benefits to EU citizens."@en27
"I voted in favour of the discharge. The 32 decentralised Agencies of the EU are vitally important in terms of delivering the goals and results of EU policies. There is now good progress being made in terms of the agencies sharing best practice and, where feasible, support services. Their network is strong and they are working with the Commission to implement the Roadmap on Decentralised Agencies. This is of clear benefit to EU citizens and their performance is improving year on year."@en27
"I voted in favour of this discharge report. These discharge reports are an important way for the European Parliament to get an oversight on how the institutions have spent their budget over the year. It is also a chance for the European Parliament to have a say. It is important for my constituents in Wales that the EU and its institutions are transparent and democratic and the discharge process is important."@en24
"That concludes the item."@en24
"We in UKIP are concerned about the safety of GMOs for health and the environment, but we would prefer our national Parliament to legislate on this delicate issue rather than the European Parliament."@en24
"I voted in favour since I have no objections."@en23
"I voted in favour as I have no objections."@en22
"I voted in favour of granting discharge to all Joint Undertakings given that significant progress and improvements have been made situation since 2013 in terms of recoveries reached, preventive measures taken and action plans implemented."@en21
"UKIP rejects the notion that greater EU integration will help detect and prevent crimes. We note that a number of serious criminals from EU Member States have entered Britain and committed serious crimes, with the UK powerless to stop them. We note that Interpol and other organisations are better experienced and more appropriate forums for criminal cooperation than any EU scheme."@en20
"The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was set up to provide additional assistance to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. I voted in favour of this report because it is a means by which the EU can give valuable help to local economies hard hit by company closures. I regret that the government has not taken advantage of this fund in Wales."@en19
"UKIP voted against this legislative vote regarding the granting of short term visas. Although this vote only relates to the Schengen area, which the UK is not part of, UKIP opposes the principle that the EU can decide immigration policy for any Member State. The only people who should decide immigration policy and visas are nationally elected and accountable governments, not undemocratic EU institutions in Brussels."@en19
"I cannot support granting discharge in this case, as I do not believe that discharge should be granted on any part of the EU budget, until the budget as a whole has received a positive statement of assurance from the Court of Auditors."@en17
"UKIP voted against this legislative vote regarding the granting of short-term visas. Although this vote only relates to the Schengen area, which the UK is not part of, UKIP opposes the principle that the EU can decide immigration policy for any Member State. The only people who should decide immigration policy and visas are nationally elected and accountable governments, not undemocratic EU institutions in Brussels."@en17
"Although the measures to repeal old EU legislation only covers Schengen (which the UK isn’t part of), UKIP will always vote to repeal EU laws. The only people that should create laws are democratically elected and accountable national governments, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en16
"UKIP voted against this measure because this was a proposal for legislation. UKIP is opposed in principle to the European Parliament making any law which is applicable to the United Kingdom."@en16
"UKIP voted for this because it is not for the EU to influence the railway network in the UK."@en16
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow."@en15
"UKIP chose to abstain on this vote because it is such an emotive issue. The right of countries acceding to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is extremely important; however, this should be done at the will of the individual country and not en bloc by the EU."@en15
"Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex). That concludes Question Time."@en14
"We in UKIP believe that a responsible use of all veterinary medicines in British livestock farming is vital to maintaining our high standards of food safety, animal health and welfare. We believe that all veterinary medicines including antibiotics should be used responsibly, under veterinary care and according to licensing conditions. We believe that the British Parliament should be able to legislate on this issue without being overruled by the unelected EU Commission."@en14
"That concludes Question Time."@en13
"These are the annual discharge reports on the agencies following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors reports for the 2014 financial year. The number of decentralised agencies concerned by the discharge is 32. The European Court of Auditors gave an unqualified (positive) opinion to all agencies concerning the reliability of their accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court of Auditors noted that overall there were less problems with agencies than in previous years and as such not as many comments were required in the Court's reports. Two agencies, EIT and EU-LISA have, however, been given an ‘emphasis of matter’ and were marked for follow up."@en13
"I have voted in favour since I have no objections"@en12
"I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund, as I support giving assistance to reintegrate workers in the labour market made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and the economic crisis."@en12
"I voted yes because I agree."@en12
"Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing ()."@en12
"Today UKIP voted in favour of Objection pursuant to Rule 106: Authorisation of genetically modified soybean varieties. Our vote in favour will stop three genetically modified soybeans being imported into the EU and processed into feed and food."@en12
"I voted in favour."@en11
"S&D MEPs support the Agencies in their work - they help to keep our food safe, our environment clean or our planes and flights safer and more secure. This is of clear benefit to citizens across the EU and I voted in favour of the proposal made by the Rapporteur."@en11
"S&D MEPs support the Agencies in their work – they help to keep our food safe, our environment clean and our planes and flights safer and more secure. This is of clear benefit to citizens across the EU and I voted in favour of the proposal made by the rapporteur."@en11
"This report is all about the preparations for the 2017 EU Budget. Since there is no fundamental prospect of cutting the huge amounts of taxpayers’ money sent to Brussels, we would vote against it on principle anyway. But the report is also highly critical, stating that ‘the Union budget has in recent years been a collateral victim of Member States’ duplicitous behaviour’. We do not believe that the Union should lecture Member States when the Member States are already providing too much finance to the European Union."@en11
"UKIP have voted against this proposal as the regulation does not take into account the commercial nature of UK ports. In order to ensure that commercial ports are exempt from this regulation, UKIP put forward an amendment to Article 1.3. It is important to ensure that ports are entitled to operate fully as commercial businesses; this regulation does not allow it. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the text creates uncertainty and puts essential future investment, growth and jobs at risk."@en11
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. While we absolutely sympathise the sentiments of the report regarding those who have suffered abuse and persecution and the need to make sure that decent care and facilities are available, the report also called for legal routes for asylum in to the EU, an expansion of the EU migration and asylum policies and more burden sharing of refugees between all Member States. The EU has caused this crisis and is putting everyone at risk, so UKIP voted against further expansion of EU control."@en11
"We recognise the intention of these Agreements as helping in the fight against counterfeit cigarettes and note that so-called ‘plain whites’ cause particular problems. However, as UKIP MEPs there is another issue: the various motions for resolution all support further legislation by the Commission. We are unconvinced that this will do any good; the Commission has a poor track record on such matters. The Tobacco Products Directive in particular is a poorly-drafted piece of legislation. We note further that many of the reports call for non-renewal of the agreement with PMI. We consider it to be unrealistic to expect PMI to adhere to their side of the agreement once an agreement is no longer in force; balance is required. We therefore opposed the various motions for resolutions on this subject."@en11
"That concludes the debate."@en10
"This is a legislative report that seeks to create common minimum standards for children in criminal proceedings. The UK has had, for many years, high standards of safeguards in place for children in criminal proceedings. The UK Government has chosen not to opt into this directive as the current text would cause operational difficulties for the UK. In light of this, UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this vote for two reasons. Firstly, whilst we are of course not against high standards of safeguards for children involved in criminal proceedings, we are principally against the EU interfering in Member States’ judicial systems. Secondly, as the UK has chosen not to opt into this directive, it should not be the business of British MEPs to vote on laws that will not affect us."@en10
"This non-legislative report paints far too rosy a picture of the state of the EU’s supervision of the banking system, accordingly UKIP voted against."@en10
"This report admits that the overall financial impact of fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported in 2014 is 36% greater than in 2013, while the number of such irregularities increased by 48%, and that 1 649 irregularities were fraudulent. It recognises that fraud in TOR is up by 196% from 2013 to 2014, and that just 24% of the money is recovered. Such honesty is commendable. However, it fundamentally fails to grasp that the causes of the problem are the systems themselves – particularly around the bureaucratic nature of VAT – and its proposed solutions involve more action by the Commission and further harmonisation. One-size-fits-all has been a proven failure; this report calls for more of it."@en10
"UKIP supports the economic development of all countries, and trade preferences can be a part of this. However, we feel that the EU has no right to conduct any part of UK trade policy."@en10
"UKIP voted against this because any aviation agreements should remain a sole competence of the sovereign country with which the agreement is made."@en10
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. The report called for 40% gender quotas, more gender programmes, changes to rules of procedure and gender budgeting internally within the EU Parliament. UKIP voted against the EU Parliament spending any more money on internal administration."@en10
"We supported the rejection because the overall effect is to extend and bureaucratise EU control with all its negative impacts, especially in relation to family pets."@en10
"Whilst the legislation calls for the level of consumer protection to be raised, it does so only to reduce the need for varying national measures. It increases the scope of firms covered by EU regulation and the powers of EIOPA and, although it reduces the regulatory burden for SMEs selling travel and car rental insurance, it gives the Commission more powers to issue delegated acts."@en10
"Although the measures to repeal old EU legislation only covers police and judicial measures which the UK Government has already opted out of in 2014, UKIP will always vote to repeal EU laws. The only people that should create laws are democratically elected and accountable national governments, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en9
"Article 23 of the CPR demonstrates the lack of democracy in the EU. The fact that the Commission can tell the Council to withdraw funding from a Member State without consulting the elected Parliament highlights the democratic deficit. The reality with this report is that there will be no change; if Parliament received more powers of ‘scrutiny’ from the Commission they would only be allowed to give an opinion and not fully go against the judgment of the Commission. Therefore we were against this legislation."@en9
"Cohesion policy has been ineffective in several Member States due to the draconian financial burden placed on Member States by the ECB and the IMF. Due to the report neglecting to mention that this had a larger impact on Member States’ growth than cohesion policy itself we voted against the report."@en9
"I do not wish to see the EU involved in any visa policy so I voted against this resolution."@en9
"I supported placing these substances under control measures as considerable research conducted by the EMCDDA shows clearly that these chemical substances merit control. They have been directly responsible for a number of deaths and intoxications across the European Union and are legally marketed as substitutes for either research chemicals or illegal substances. It is essential that they are controlled in an EU context to prevent them gaining a foothold in the market (illicit or legal) and to prevent distributors preying on legislative discrepancies between Member States."@en9
"I supported the ratification of the agreement as it provides for visa-free travel for EU citizens and will boost tourism."@en9
"I voted in favour of the report which ratifies the agreement on short-stay visa waiver and allows for EU citizens and citizens of the participating countries to travel to the EU or the participating country without a visa for stays of 90 days or less."@en9
"The European Court of Auditors is in charge of the audit of EU finances and as the EU’s external auditor, it contributes to improving EU financial management and acts as the independent guardian of the financial interests of the citizens of the Union. It is vitally important that candidates for the Court are selected based on their suitability for the position, their professional background, language skills and the ability to exercise independent judgement are important considerations."@en9
"The UK has been working on projects for sustainable urban mobility for years. For example London introduced the ‘Boris Bike’ in 2010 and Manchester has continuously expanded its metro system and is delivering completion ahead of schedule and within budget. This report is the EU adopting an approach of ‘teaching your grandmother to suck eggs’. The call for the ban of all cars by 2050 is ludicrous and would lead to chaos. It is not for the EU to tell the subjects of the UK when and where they can use their cars."@en9
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.30 a.m."@en9
"The debate is closed. The vote will be tomorrow at noon."@en9
"These are the annual discharge reports on the agencies following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors reports for the 2014 financial year. The number of decentralised agencies concerned by the discharge is 32. The European Court of Auditors gave an unqualified (positive) opinion to all agencies concerning the reliability of their accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The Court of Auditors noted that overall there were less problems with agencies than in previous years and as such not as many comments were required in the Court’s reports. Two agencies, EIT and EU-LISA have, however, been given an ‘emphasis of matter’ and were marked for follow up."@en9
"This involves the EU signing an international convention intended to be signed by states. We therefore oppose it, not because we do not care about the tuna – we care very much and want numbers to grow – but because this is another instance of the EU behaving like a state. What this does is to give the EU a vote in a convention in which voting is the prerogative of full members who are nation states."@en9
"This is a non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is concerned by the ongoing military and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, in particular the role played by both Saudi Arabia and Iran via proxies in the conflict. Amendment 1 calls for an arms embargo using the EU Common Position on Arms Exports 2008/944/CFSP. Whilst we are concerned by the role of Western arms exports to Saudi Arabia, we cannot support the use of EU mechanisms to address the issue and as such we abstained on Amendment 1 and the resolution as a whole."@en9
"UKIP abstained on the report on the work of the Petitions Committee. UKIP cannot endorse the work of the Committee because of the more overtly partisan political stance it has taken when it should be dealing with petitions on an impartial basis and judging the merits of each petition rather than judging them from an unashamedly political perspective. Citizens of Member States can have little faith that their petition will be dealt with objectively if it in any way runs counter to the norm, especially if it runs counter in any way to the political enthusiasms of the Committee. In addition, the Committee clearly wishes to expand, without adequate or proper justification its role and staffing levels, both of which will be injurious to the taxpayer. Whilst we are conscious of the Committee doing some good work on instances of maladministration (which should be its focus), we deprecate the attitude of the Committee towards anyone who raises their voice about migration (which concerns many tens of millions of ordinary citizens of Member States), whilst showing support for politically-correct petitioners such as those who complain about fracking. For those reasons we have abstained."@en9
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not recognise the authority of the European Union or the European Parliament to take decisions or positions on foreign policy issues. In particular, the humanitarian crisis has led to Eritrea becoming one of the biggest source countries for migrants in the ongoing crisis. On balance, we abstained."@en9
"UKIP does not support the further expansion of the EU, or the development of EU foreign relations or a foreign policy. The signing of this agreement represents developments in all these areas. As such we voted against."@en9
"UKIP opposes the Commission legislative proposal for a regulation on novel foods. The new proposal, with the removal of the former novel food categories, would put at risk foods already legally on the market which could be challenged under the new regulation. We are concerned that this would cause legal uncertainty for operators, and if products already on sale were to be withdrawn for further assessment this would compromise consumer confidence. We also oppose the new authorisation system proposal that would introduce a centralised authorisation process."@en9
"UKIP today voted against the approval of a new interinstitutional agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. UKIP is opposed in principle to the EU having any power of any kind to make and pass legislation, whether by way of Directive, Regulation or any other means which will have primacy over UK law and thus over-ride the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Secondly, we do not believe that this interinstitutional agreement will alter in any way the profoundly undemocratic nature of the European Union in general or the European Parliament in particular. Thirdly we note that this document is, in terms, a singular and ringing indictment of the nature of the last 59 years of legislation by the EU and its predecessor organisations. The new agreement identifies with clarity the very real deficiencies in EU law-making which has placed so damaging a burden on the competitiveness and profitability of UK businesses, the vast majority of whom do not even do business outside the UK. For those reasons, we have voted against this agreement."@en9
"UKIP voted against this disaster fund for Europe because it has been allocated EUR 50 million in commitment appropriations. The maximum ceiling for this fund is EUR 500 million per annum; we oppose commitment appropriations, as they only increase the budget. The money that the Member State claims has already been paid by the membership fees that they pay to the EU; it is clearly a case of getting your own money back."@en9
"UKIP voted against this flexibility instrument because the instrument focuses on an amount for EUR 1.53 billion in commitment appropriations to deal with the migration crisis. A further EUR 24 million is being allocated for Global Europe to help refugees and migrants seek employment and social justice under the heading of Global Europe. The key points surrounding this instrument focuses over four years from 2016 to 2019 for a total of EUR 1.3 billion, the largest amounts are spread over 2016 & 2017. In 2016 EUR 734.2 million has been allocated and for 2017 EUR 654.2 has been allocated."@en9
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP does not oppose the concept of trade with all countries. However, we feel that the EU has no right to conduct our trade negotiations. Therefore, we voted against."@en9
"UKIP voted against this report (which was an ‘own initiative report’ and therefore not legislative) because it contained a call for an increase in the budget of the Ombudsman. UKIP is opposed in principle to any increases in expenditure and thus the burden on the UK taxpayer arising from membership of the EU."@en9
"We abstained on this vote. Despite our abstention, we note with concern the EU tendency to bully poor countries in trade ‘partnerships’. We hope that the EU will behave more fairly towards its trade partners in the future."@en9
"We in UKIP believe in the importance of preserving nature reserves and natural habitats for wildlife in Britain and in Europe. However, we believe that this task should be a national, not European, responsibility, and we will therefore oppose new EU legislation in this area. Nevertheless, we will support all amendments aimed at improving the existing legislation on this issue. We believe that the best people to decide on natural habitats in Britain are the British people. We do not trust the unelected EU Commission to decide on the protection of the environment and animal welfare. The EU has caused irreparable damage with its environmental policy. It has destroyed our fish stocks and caused widespread deforestation with its policy on bio-fuels."@en9
"We in UKIP strongly support animal welfare, also in relation to commercial practices. UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report, we do not want the EU Commission to produce a single regulatory framework on registration of pet animals in the EU as we believe national parliaments should decide if and how they legislate on this issue."@en9
"Capital punishment is something different nations can have differing views on. However, it is not for the EU to weaponise and politicise its trade policies to try and force countries which disagree with it on the practise to stop capital punishment. We note the way the EU has materially interfered on the side of criminals in capital cases in other countries. We feel that trade should be about trade only, and not a drum on which the EU can politically beat out its political agenda."@en8
"I abstained because I could not agree totally with the discharge."@en8
"I supported the request as I agree with the reasons for the proposal to waive the immunity."@en8
"I voted against."@en8
"I voted in favour since I have no objections"@en8
"It is important to get as many countries on board as possible. The accession will allow those countries acceding to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to participate in enhanced international cooperation with other signatories to the Convention."@en8
"The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a vitally important instrument. It has been ratified by all the EU Member States. The Convention introduces a system of cooperation between the contracting states aimed at settling cases of international child abduction. In many instances, these problems arise when a couple has separated. If the mother and father are from different states, there is a temptation to exploit the lack of cooperation between those states in order to secure custody of the child. The biggest problem in such cases is the differences between the legal systems of individual states. It may often be that the courts in both of the states concerned declare themselves competent, with each of them awarding custody of the child to the parent who is a national of their state. The purpose of the Convention is to resolve such situations at an international level."@en8
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at 12 noon."@en8
"The joint debate is closed. The vote will be taken at 6.30 p.m."@en8
"The motion calls on the Commission to act and, in particular, to progress the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) by which the EU intends to harmonise taxes across the EU and thereby prohibit beneficial tax competition between Member States, and for this reason UKIP voted against."@en8
"The next item is the debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance."@en8
"The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance."@en8
"There were four reports on the subject of drugs today. UKIP notes two things; firstly, that the UK has an opt-out in this area. Secondly, we note that the UK Government already has very sensible laws and controls in place in the fields of drugs and public health. Therefore, we chose to abstain."@en8
"These reports relate to the visa regime operated by Schengen Member States. As the UK is outside of the Schengen area and will not take part in the agreement, I have abstained."@en8
"This is merely a procedural vote allowing Croatia to join the EC’s financial interests. We are against the EC creating financial interests for Member States, therefore we voted against."@en8
"Today UKIP voted against the creation of a new EU legislative framework on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. We are particularly concerned that the proposal to include methane in this directive would duplicate international and domestic climate-change legislation, creating an additional regulatory burden for industry and government, without any corresponding benefit for the environment."@en8
"Today UKIP voted against the resolution Authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP). We recognise the sensitivity and the importance of this issue and we believe that each Member State should decide in what measure the prohibition should take place."@en8
"Today UKIP voted in favour of the proposal for a revision of the current regulation on the authorisation system for GM food and feed. We believe that each Member State should have the power to opt out and to decide whether to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on its own territory."@en8
"UKIP did not support the ratification of Association Agreements with Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. The signing of these agreements contributed to increased tensions between the EU and Russia and contributed to the increased insecurity in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. They are also seen as a step towards future EU membership. As such we voted against. UKIP were however pleased to note that Amendment 17 called for the EU to ensure that the upcoming vote in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine Agreement is respected."@en8
"UKIP does not oppose the concept of trade with all countries. However, we feel that the EU has no right to conduct our trade negotiations, especially when it inaccurately claims that such preferences will prevent terrorism. We find the claim that poverty drives terrorism to be insulting to the millions of poor but peaceful people in the world. Therefore we voted against."@en8
"UKIP does not support the principle of any EU judicial forces and we believe this agreement expands the power and influence of Eurojust. UKIP has therefore voted against this Eurojust agreement with Montenegro."@en8
"UKIP does not support the principle of any EU judicial forces and we believe this agreement expands the power and influence of Eurojust. UKIP has therefore voted against this Eurojust agreement with Ukraine."@en8
"UKIP fully respects and is supportive of the work of the United Nations. However, we object to the EU’s attempt to develop foreign relations and to interfere in the work of international institutions. As such we voted against this resolution."@en8
"UKIP voted against approving giving EUR 1 095 544 (60 % of the match funding) of British taxpayers money through the Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EU dole money) to 412 workers in Belgium who have lost their jobs."@en8
"UKIP voted against the setting up of a complaints mechanism as we feel such a mechanism would be ineffective, open to malicious false claims and potentially demotivate border staff. Furthermore, we feel that a far better way to protect borders is to have sovereign states decide their own immigration policies, rather than to set up complaint mechanisms in an already broken and unworkable system."@en8
"UKIP voted against this conciliation on the basis that instead of reducing the budget there are large increases in certain programmes that are not justified and do not contribute towards fruitful aims and objectives for the beneficiaries that the programmes are meant to support. The euro crisis is one of the main contributors towards SME financial problems and continuous EU regulations that hinder SME progress. Many EU regulations are hindering employers to take on new employees and train them up to keep abreast of regulations. The Horizon 2020 Programme has been allocated EUR 31.8 million; it has already been allocated EUR 150 million. Erasmus is a Europe-wide education programme that allows students to have mobility throughout Europe and has been allocated a further EUR 6.6 million. Security & Citizenship has been allocated EUR 1.5 billion, and a further EUR 150 million will be mobilised to help Turkey to deal with the crisis. The COSME programme is designated to aid SMEs throughout the EU and beyond, and has been allocated a further EUR 14.2 million."@en8
"UKIP voted against this legislative vote on the EU-Vietnam agreement on partnership and cooperation. We are opposed in principle to EU institutions signing international agreements on behalf of the UK. Only elected and accountable national governments should negotiate and conclude international agreements, not the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission."@en8
"UKIP voted against this legislative, consent procedure (single vote) report. This ‘summit’ is a talking shop for high—level EU officials, lobbyists and European NGOs to discuss employment and economic issues. It is just another waste of taxpayers’ money that will achieve nothing."@en8
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report as it calls for more EU legislation, targets, funds and interference on the issue of health and safety law. UKIP is not against good and sensible health and safety rules, but the only people who should create laws to protect workers are our democratically elected and accountable government, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en8
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report because it called on the unelected EU Commission to initiate new legislation monitoring the spending of taxpayers’ money. The report calls for things like interfering with Member States’ social protection, tax policies and tax rules, welcomes the EU Commission’s initiative on the long-term unemployed, calls to enhance the Youth Guarantee Scheme, calls on the Commission and the Member States to work together on removing the obstacles to fair labour mobility and calls for better coordination of the European Semester, specifically for the Eurozone."@en8
"UKIP voted against this report today because it opposes in principle any requirement that a Member State of the EU must obtain authorisation from the EU before signing certain international treaties."@en8
"UKIP voted against this report, because it creates legislation. UKIP is against the EU having any power to legislate so as to make the laws of the United Kingdom. UKIP opposes the operation of the Schengen Agreement which is causing so much long-term harm to the peoples of the Member States. This is permitting and causing the current crisis in respect of largely economic migrants from Africa and the Middle East and thereby exacerbating the problems of migration from the EU into the United Kingdom."@en8
"UKIP voted against this report. The UK’s place on the UN Security Council, and our ability to act independently on the Security Council in the interests of the British people, is a corner stone of British security and of our position on the global stage. This report seeks to impede that ability, primarily with the ultimate goal of giving the EU a permanent seat on the Security Council and by the assertion that, until this goal is reached, the UK must represent EU common positions decided by the High Representative and other Member States on the Security Council. UKIP believe that the British Government is elected by the British people to defend their interests on the global stage, not those of the European Union."@en8
"UKIP voted to waive the immunity because at the time that the alleged offences took place he was not a sitting MEP."@en8
"We abstained on this vote due to the sensitivity of the issue at hand. UKIP does not believe that the Commission should be creating overarching integrating schemes at all. But we also recognise that ostracising marginalised communities that come from disadvantaged backgrounds is also a negative thing. Therefore we decided to abstain."@en8
"We in UKIP oppose the EU Commission proposal ‘towards a thriving data-driven economy’. We oppose new EU prescriptive legislation. We believe that Europe can achieve competitiveness by creating incentives and removing obstacles. It can achieve it by setting free the entrepreneurial spirit of business and industry."@en8
"We now continue with the vote."@en8
"As with the majority of my constituents in Wales, I do not feel that it is the place of the EU to decide who can and cannot come into my country. I voted against."@en7
"I welcome the positive reports on the European External Action Service, Court of Auditors, Court of Justice, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor. I note that the Council sees itself on the same level as the two arms of the EU budgetary authority and as such has failed to provide relevant information required for the discharge process. I urge the Council and the Parliament to negotiate an agreement on this issue."@en7
"The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was set up to provide additional assistance to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. It is a means by which the EU can give valuable help to local economies hard hit by company closures, and so I voted in favour of this application. I regret that the UK Government has not taken advantage of this fund in Wales."@en7
"The budget now looks to be restored to EUR 157.4 billion in commitments and EUR 146.5 billion for payments; this is due to the opposition relating to the proposed cuts. There is major support for all EU programmes such as strengthening the European Neighbourhood Instrument plus Social and Territorial Cohesion. In addition to this there is added pressure to increase the budget to deal with the on-going refugee and migration crisis relating to the mismanagement of the disaster in the Mediterranean. A further EUR 1.6 billion is directed to the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund; this includes Global Europe Security & Citizenship. We cannot support programmes that have already been badly managed and expect the taxpayer to fund initiatives that are not valid or reliable in relation to meeting objectives of the citizens of Europe. These EU programmes do not serve the people of Europe but promote ‘more Europe’ and meet the political agenda of the Commission."@en7
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at noon."@en7
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015."@en7
"The substance of this report is something we could primarily agree on: that long term lessons should be to prevent more crises like the Ebola outbreak from happening again. But UKIP firmly believes that this should not be dealt with by the EU. Instead this should be dealt with by the appropriate NGOs and other international organisations. For this reason we abstained on this vote."@en7
"This motion for a resolution calls for the EU to provide access to education for children in emergency situations. This motion for a resolution is in light of certain situations such as the Syrian civil war, which has completely demolished infrastructure in the region and has left children without education. The EU perceives this lack of education infrastructure to be a thriving ground for extremism; therefore the motion is calling for funding and an action plan for the situation. Even though we agree that education is important for children in emergency situations we do not feel it is within the remit of the EU to do this."@en7
"This proposed legislation seeks to harmonise indices across the EU, but doing so will not reflect the various cultural differences in economic activity between different Member States, and accordingly UKIP voted against."@en7
"This resolution, ‘A new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020’, seeks, under the guise of protecting animals, massively to extend EU regulatory control. Even if some of the proposals are worthy, the unintended consequences would be horrendous and the legal and behavioural ramifications divisive and damaging."@en7
"This was a single vote on an interim report calling for dialogue between this EU institutions to coordinate a compensation scheme for victims of hazardous and noxious substance spilling at sea. It seeks to protect coastal communities and fishing communities beyond the liability limits of the ship owner which is an important development. It was for these reasons that I voted in favour of this report."@en7
"UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative consent vote. UKIP does not support the EU concluding agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the movement of people."@en7
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report because we do not oppose actions to tackle the very serious issue regarding child poverty. However, we do oppose calling for any more EU initiatives and interference as the EU is completely undemocratic and the only people that should decide how we tackle child poverty should be our own elected government, not bureaucrats in Brussels. The EU’s own policy on this is a failure, as they have admitted they are very unlikely to hit their own target by 2020 on poverty and social exclusion. Also, if the UK didn’t pay £55 million a day to the EU, we could do so much more to help children who are in poverty. The EU is one of the problems, not the solution."@en7
"UKIP has always championed national democracy and state cooperation, but we have always argued against EU overarching policies on any region, especially a region that includes non-EU members. In order to have an effective economic strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region, Member States should decide the best action for themselves through intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore we voted against this report."@en7
"UKIP is in favour of repealing EU legislation but the rapporteur on this report has arbitrarily included amendments that not only call on the Commission to produce reports and further legislation, but also encourage it to negotiate tax treaties on behalf of Member States. Repeal of the Directive, as proposed, would reduce disclosure requirements and would thereby undermine tax transparency. For these reasons UKIP is against the proposals."@en7
"UKIP is in favour of tax transparency as a means to prevent secret tax deals being done between large multi-national corporations and countries like Luxembourg. However, the report includes amendments that would force Member States to provide the information to the EU Commission (rather than simply making it public) and would have retroactive effect – for these reasons UKIP abstained."@en7
"UKIP is in favour of tax transparency but not of the Commission being involved in negotiating tax treaties – something which could just as easily be done on a bilateral basis by Member States in their own capacity. For this reason UKIP is against the proposals."@en7
"UKIP opposes the EU exercising its legal personality to enter into international agreements in its own capacity. Treaties concerning tax evasion can be easily conducted on a bilateral or multilateral basis without the need for the involvement of the EU. Accordingly UKIP voted against the EU entering into the agreement for measures on taxation of savings income."@en7
"UKIP voted against this legislation. EURES is an EU website that advertises British jobs across Europe. It creates a clear obligation for ‘Public Employment Services’ to post all publically advertised jobs on to EURES. In the UK this means that UK JobCentre Plus will have to advertise all its jobs across Europe. The new rules allow private employment services to apply and advertise across Europe and also create an automated job matching to CV which will fast track the process of British jobs being taken by EU nationals. The ‘opt-out’ for employers as written in the rules changes the current system. At the moment in the UK an employer has a voluntary opt-in to EURES. These rules say they can only exempt a vacancy if it is ‘duly justified’. However there is no justification for this term. In any case, this new legislation will increase the amount of UK jobs advertised across Europe."@en7
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is against the further expansion of the EU. The system of annual reports on the progress of candidate and potential candidate countries towards alignment with the acquis communautaire is part of this process. As such we voted against."@en7
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is against the further expansion of the EU. The system of annual reports on the progress of candidate and potential candidate countries towards alignment with the acquis communautaire is part of this process. As such we voted against. However, we recognise the importance of information sharing for British policing and are supportive of such measures, with appropriate safeguards, on a bilateral basis."@en7
"We abstained because the objection, whilst criticising Commission behaviour, recognises and enshrines their power on a topic which should be a choice of Member States."@en7
"We do want school-children to be well nourished, but we opposed this because, even if you think taxpayers should contribute, these things should not be done centrally by Brussels."@en7
"We in UKIP believe that a responsible use of all veterinary medicines in British livestock farming is vital to maintaining our high standards of food safety, animal health and welfare. We believe that all veterinary medicines should be used responsibly, under veterinary care and according to licensing conditions. With regard to economic incentives provided by pharmaceutical companies, whilst recognising the issues surrounding commercial practice and the specific use of incentives in the human and veterinary healthcare sectors, UKIP is concerned about a negative impact on the provision of cost benefit analyses and other health economic data and studies by neutral and independent academic research institutions. This is an area where the UK and USA institutions are world leaders and thus unnecessary EU interference has the potential to adversely affect their investigative work and its applications. UKIP believes that the EU should have no jurisdiction in what is a global arena for drug development and cannot enforce the removal of products from the market in this manner – this would penalise leading drug development companies including world-leading UK corporations."@en7
"We in UKIP voted against the EU Commission proposal to create an EU legislative framework on the European digital market as we believe our national representatives would do a much better job deciding whether to implement such legislation for the UK. We believe in the importance of maintaining the freedom we currently enjoy on the internet. We believe that all internet traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference. For this reason, we object to the creation of new EU regulation on net neutrality and roaming. With regard to roaming, we believe that this proposal is deeply regressive, favouring well-heeled frequent travellers and disadvantaging typical users. Some telecom operators have in fact admitted that the loss in revenue will be pushed onto domestic users. Non-roaming customers will be subsidising frequently roaming customers and this will increase costs for the majority."@en7
"We oppose this agreement as Euro-colonial exploitation benefitting the political class at the expense of ordinary Africans."@en7
"Although we do not approve of this Parliament legislating for 500 million people, as this repeals defunct legislation, we abstained."@en6
"As this was a technical vote, not involving any changes to the substance of the Regulation, I voted in favour. The codification process is triggered when a Regulation or Directive has been amended by other legal acts 10 or more times. In simple terms, codification brings together all versions and amendments to the Protection Regulation."@en6
"EU rules on postal services guarantee all citizens the right to affordable and regular postal deliveries, and this review of the EU postal market makes clear that such rights need to be protected. The review also recognises the continued growth in online shopping options and alternative postal services. It is vital that EU rules on post and parcel delivery are fit for purpose, ensuring reliable delivery options for consumers and businesses whilst also protecting those working in the sector through safe and secure employment conditions."@en6
"I opposed this measure because of the impact upon the EU Budget, and therefore on taxpayers’ money."@en6
"I supported this discharge as I had no problems with the report."@en6
"I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund, as I support giving assistance to reintegrate workers in the labour market made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns, due to globalisation and the economic crisis."@en6
"I voted in favour of this recommendation concerning the short-stay visa waiver programme which allows EU citizens and citizens of participating countries to travel to the EU or the participating country without a visa for stays of 90 days or less. The agreement takes into account the situation of the Member States that are not part of Schengen such as Ireland and the UK."@en6
"I voted in favour of this report and all the reports contained in this harmonisation package. It establishes rules to improve the safety of consumers and professionals, contribute to reducing the number and seriousness of accidents and harmonise safety rules in all the Member States while ensuring the free movement of products within the EU. These reports will help to maintain or improve high levels of consumer protection. This is, of course, of concern to my constituents in Wales that work in such circumstances."@en6
"I voted in favour of this report which will mobilise resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund."@en6
"I voted no because I disagree."@en6
"I voted to postpone discharge on this report today because the European Court of Auditors did not give the EU budget as a whole a positive statement of assurance. The level of error for the year 2014 was estimated to be 4.4%, which, whilst a slight improvement on 2013, is still too high. It is the job of the Parliament to verify that the EU budget was spent in accordance with the rules and in line with the principles of sound financial management, and unfortunately the Court of Auditors found that was not the case for the year 2014. We need more simplification of key areas of financial management in the EU budget and a stronger focus on tackling parts of the budget with a higher risk of problems."@en6
"I welcome the positive reports on the European External Action Service, Court of Auditors, Court of Justice, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor."@en6
"I welcome this agreement which will allow EU citizens and citizens of participating countries to travel to the EU or the participating country without a visa for stays of 90 days or less. The agreement on the short-stay visa waiver programme takes into account the situation of Member States that are not part of Schengen such as the UK and Ireland."@en6
"Important though small-scale fishing is to many communities, the EU’s CFP approach has too many ulterior motives in its approach so must be opposed."@en6
"In the interests of democracy and transparency, given that the votes of individual MEPs were not formally recorded, I would like to confirm for the record that I voted in favour of the proposal to reject the Council position."@en6
"Regulatory Technical Standards laid before the Parliament by the Commission include a provision that we have learnt will result in misleading information about future performance being published in investment prospectuses. The Parliament seeks to correct this by objecting to the delegated legislation but, because in doing so the Commission is called upon to act, we cannot vote in favour of either the oral amendment, or the resolution as a whole, nor can we vote against them because doing so would approve delegated legislation (and moreover that legislation would knowingly mislead investors). Accordingly UKIP abstained."@en6
"S&D MEPs support the Agencies in their work – they help to keep our food safe, our environment clean or our planes and flights safer and more secure. This is of clear benefit to citizens across the EU and I voted in favour of the proposal made by the rapporteur."@en6
"Seeks to extend the influence of the EU in international organisations like the IMF, OECD, G20 etc. at the expense of Member States’ independence, accordingly UKIP voted against."@en6
"That concludes this item."@en6
"The ECR has always worked constructively to ensure that the eurozone can formulate a lasting solution to its sovereign debt crisis. The defects of the Stability and Growth Pact, in both its substance and its enforcement, have been obvious for some time; it is right that efforts are now underway to ensure a lasting settlement that works. We have contributed throughout the committee and trialogue process to ensure that the Parliament's preferred outcome is realistic, workable, and lasting. Nevertheless, we regret that what has been proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the Parliament is not a solution merely for the eurozone, but one that includes those whose currency is not the euro. Whichever way one looks at it, the package we have voted on is one which increases the powers of the EU at the expense of the Member States. It includes concepts that are innovative, such as reversed qualified majority voting and the fining of Member States, and ensures that national budgets are no longer a matter merely for national parliaments. So while we endorse the long term goals, we cannot endorse the means and have voted against those reports which do not confine themselves to the eurozone."@en6
"The UK already has adequate regulation of indices and benchmarks. The EU’s new requirements will discourage firms from contributing information to benchmarks and increase costs for those that continue to do so – making the service more expensive and less accurate."@en6
"There is a call to increase staff and financial resources to meet EU political objectives in relation to budget and financial management. Strengthening middle management levels is also a concern in relation to the increase of cost. An initial community budget contribution of EUR 308.7 million has helped launch and will continue to support the EIT for the 2008–2013 periods. We cannot support this due to the fact that it is linked with other innovation EU projects that pursue EU political aims and objectives."@en6
"This is a non-legislative and non-binding resolution. UKIP remains gravely concerned by the ongoing conflict in Syria and is fully supportive of efforts to create a lasting and peaceful political solution. However, we cannot support EU posturing on foreign policy issues or any calls for EU action. The United Nations, primarily the Security Council, remains the most relevant forum for achieving a lasting solution. Therefore we abstained on this resolution."@en6
"UKIP MEPs voted in favour of this non-legislative report which highlights the undemocratic nature of the European institutions. UKIP firmly agrees with the overall theme that the European institutions should be more transparent; we believe that this could aid in improving accountability and democracy within the European Union. Likewise, we very much believe in engaging with citizens and have long campaigned for direct democracy, which we believe this report progresses towards. Lastly, we also strongly agree with parts of this report that call for Parliament to be consulted by the Commission at every stage of negotiations on international agreements. We do not believe that the Commission should be negotiating international agreements without Parliament and citizens being able to scrutinise the negotiations."@en6
"UKIP abstained on paragraph 32 because we oppose calling for the EU to meddle with the UKʼs immigration system regarding undocumented migrants and telling countries that they cannot report cases to the authorities. However we absolutely condemn cases where women (whether migrant or not) have been subjected to abuse and would support criminal investigations no matter what the circumstances. The EU call for cases not to be reported to the authorities may help those perpetrating such crimes to avoid being brought to justice. UKIP abstained on paragraph 50 as we cannot support calling on the EU to interfere with the UKʼs immigration system regarding the right to residency. However it is perfectly reasonable for a migrant woman to be granted autonomous residency (meaning that residency is not subject to being part of the family unit she first entered with), especially in cases where the woman has been subjected to domestic violence."@en6
"UKIP does not oppose the concept of sharing intelligence with neighbouring countries. However we have concerns that Europol is an organisation that should not be the agency in charge. Only bilateral deals with sovereign states should govern these arrangements."@en6
"UKIP has voted against this non-legislative report as we believe that the best way to improve single market regulation is to deregulate. UKIP are particularly concerned by aspects of the report that criticise Member States’ lack of transposition of single market legislation. The report further calls on the Commission to launch infringement proceedings against these Member States, which UKIP are vehemently opposed to."@en6
"UKIP is opposed to the very existence of, and to UK participation in, a so-called European Parliament. It is therefore against any proposal designed to consolidate the power and position of that entity. There are proposals for legislation contained in the report and UKIP always votes against legislation, all of which has the effect of draining sovereign power away from the UK. In addition there are specific proposals on the conduct of elections, which are designed to federalise the whole European election process and to produce the illusion of a bogus EU demos, and which are unacceptable."@en6
"UKIP notes that the EU has a track record of economic bullying against countries that refuse to politically obey it. Bosnia is no exception and we feel that the EU should not be using trade as a political weapon."@en6
"UKIP opposes the EU acting in its own capacity to enter into international agreements that could be agreed on a bilateral or multilateral basis between nation states."@en6
"UKIP voted against the discharge votes for multiple reasons. Primarily we are against the EU spending taxpayers’ money, therefore we do not consent to this money being spent. Second of all, the lack of transparency in these procedures is of real concern to us. Finally many of these discharge reports call for a motion for resolution which requires further EU engagement which we are principally against."@en6
"UKIP voted against the resolution on the Mutual Defence Clause because we do not support the further militarisation of the EU. We are also specifically concerned about discussion of the development of a European Defence Union or further activation of other defence provisions contained within the Lisbon treaty. UKIP is in complete support of the French people in their fight against terrorism and offers its condolences for the tragic attacks in Paris last year. However, we do not support the activation of Article 42(7). The UK has strong defence ties with France, through NATO and bilateral agreements between the two countries, such as the Lancaster House Treaties (2010). UKIP supported Amendment 1 to the resolution on the Mutual Defence Clause because it rejects the activation of Article 42(7) TEU. This should, however, not be interpreted as offering support for any other statements contained within this amendment."@en6
"UKIP voted against this because the expenditure of this agency has increased and yet has shown no real benefit."@en6
"UKIP voted against this because the regulation of adoption is a matter of national competence and this should remain the case."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-binding and non-legislative resolution as we oppose any EU interference in our employment policies. The resolution called for EU surveillance of long-term unemployment recommendations and to give instructions to Member States through country-specific recommendations. It is burdensome EU legislation that is costing jobs and preventing job creation. Also the policy of open borders to 500 million people which the Tories and Labour party supports makes it harder for British people to find jobs and supresses their wages. Only the people we democratically elect in our own countries should decide employment law, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report as it calls for yet more EU interference, legislation and agencies. The report included paragraphs such as the principle that ‘foreign fighters’ should be allowed to return to Europe; that national education systems and religious leaders should promote EU values; that the Commission should create EU guidelines for prisons, and also called for an EU definition of ‘hate speech’, which would no doubt mean anyone who criticise the EU or the free movement of people. One of the biggest issues is that the EU’s free movement of people is allowing terrorists and weapons to move freely across Europe un checked. UKIP is not against individual countries working together and sharing intelligence to catch terrorists, but in order to protect our country we must leave the EU and reinstate sensible border controls with European countries to stop this open door immigration."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. As a party we are against the EU deciding where to invest when that decision should be the preserve of Member States. On that point of principle we voted against."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. It contained calls for more EU interference, initiatives and taxpayer funding. Current EU policies have completely failed women, as witnessed by the attacks and rising incidents of assault and harassment in public places. UKIP believes the only people who should decide such strategies are our own elected and accountable government, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. While UKIP strongly supports the correct protections and rights for care workers, it should only be decided through our accountable national governments, not unelected EU institutions. UKIP voted against because the report called for more legislation, harmonisation and definitions of care work at EU level."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding initiative. We do not support the development and practice of an EU foreign policy. Furthermore, we remain concerned that the Global Security Strategy foresees an increased capability for the EU to project power in the near neighbourhood, which would include Tunisia. As such, we voted against. Following the vote by the UK to leave the EU, we support friendly and cordial relations between Tunisia and the UK."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding motion for a resolution. The International Labour Organisation (a non-EU international body) created rules to do with the health and safety of workers in the fishing sector. UKIP is in favour of complying with international law, but believes the EU should not have a say in whether a Member State signs up to such agreements in their own right. The resolution went to call for an EU Council Directive on the issue, the details of which are very vague at the moment. The only people that should decide such issues are elected to accountable national governments, not EU bureaucrats in Brussels. Voting against this non-legislative resolution would in no way obstruct the process of signing up to the ILO agreement."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report, this is another dimension in which the EU are trying to widen its scope and introduce new definitions in order to justify the free movement of people. We oppose calls for additional funding: this report suggests increasing the contributions made by Member States, as well as at European level. We do not support the EU intervening in the national curricula of Member States, the EU has no competency in this area and this is stated in Article 165 of the TFEU."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. We oppose any form of EU interference in Member States’ national curricula, especially with regard to the EU being better highlighted in teaching materials, disseminating EU propaganda and calling for more funding to do so. The EU has no competency in the education systems of Member States and in fact is going against Article 165 of the TFEU which states that the EU ‘fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity’."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding, own-initiative report. Social dumping is of course a huge problem with cheap labour being brought over from other countries by companies to undercut wages and avoid employing local workers. It also covers issues like companies finding cheaper alternatives elsewhere and moving operations abroad. However this report went on to call for more EU action, legislation, monitoring of legislation and data collection. On top of that there isn’t an official legal definition of ‘social dumping’ in EU law, so this report is about an issue the EU can’t even define properly. The EU can never tackle social dumping as the free movement of people is the perfect enabler for it to occur. Also the EU’s Posted Workers Directive actually enables employers to bring cheap labour over to undercut the local community. The only way to stop social dumping is to leave the EU and get back control of immigration."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report because the UK already has an established national regulatory authority (NRA) and has already proven that it is able to monitor the delivery network without the interference of the EU."@en6
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. Although the report seeks to tell the Commission and Member States that more needs to be done to help SMEs and reduce the regulatory burden (which in principle UKIP supports), it then goes on to call for wide ranging Commission action and further legislation. The initial report seeks to tell Member States what their taxation policy should be, calls to create an EU framework regulation for pan-EU crowd funding and welcomes an EU proposal on business insolvency among many other things. If it wasn’t due to the cost of EU regulation and overly bureaucratic EU red tape SMEs would have a much better chance at growing. The only people that should decide these things are our elected and accountable national governments, not EU bureaucrats in Brussels."@en6
"UKIP voted to abstain because this report focuses on reducing the Member State contributions, but it also strongly deplores that the Member States are lagging behind in payments to help with the migrant and refugee crisis. Regardless of the reductions, there is an issue relating to paying out money for the Africa and Syria Trusts. In October, all cuts to the budget were voted against and as a result the budget increased to EUR 157.4 billion in commitments and EUR 143.5 billion in payments. The African Trust Fund amounts to EUR 1.8 billion and this money is allocated to examine the root causes that create irregular migrations and displaced persons. The Trust Fund for Syria is worth EUR 40 million, however already EUR 4 billion has been given to the refugee crisis. We are owed money from the EU due to the additional GBP 1.7 billion that was demanded from the UK Government by the EU, plus any savings that are made by the reduction in Member State contributions will end up back in the budget to promote the Security 7 Citizenship agenda and Global Europe; both of which we do not support."@en6
"UKIP voted to waive the immunity of Mr Siekierski, a Polish MEP (EPP/Polish People’s Party; Chairman AGRI) who is alleged to have committed an offence of speeding (exceeding the permitted speed limit in a built-up area). The alleged offence has no evident link of any kind to his duties as an MEP. In those circumstances the Polish Courts should have jurisdiction over his case."@en6
"We are against the report because we object new EU legislation in this field. We in UKIP believe that the UK should make its own energy policy and exploit and invest in lower-cost, reliable energy sources like coal, gas and nuclear."@en6
"We have opposed this as this report supports the Commission’s proposal to remove the 150 kg threshold. Currently in the UK the CAA is responsible for anything up to 150 kg. This is a further proposal to remove powers from the UK to the EU. This report was proposed by a UK Conservative MEP and voted for by all UK MEPs except UKIP."@en6
"We have opposed this report as it is up to Member States to develop their own tourism sectors. There should not be the requirement to set up an EU tourist agency or to promote Europe as a tourist brand, neither is there the necessity to create an EU-wide quality brand. UKIP is in agreement with the UK Government on these matters."@en6
"We oppose this because even when the objectives are laudable, the reality of the EU policy is a behavioural-economic ‘one-size-fits-all’ disaster."@en6
"We voted against because this goes far beyond consolidation to create a harmonised structure of animal breeding."@en6
"While I understand that this is for aid, which could be used to help victims, the British public are already more than generous with donating funds to charitable causes when natural disasters occur. I do not believe foreign aid to be in the remit of the EU, so I voted against this proposal."@en6
"Whilst the report identifies problems faced by the eurozone, it does not include the obvious solution (namely a plan to disentangle Member States from the straight-jacket of the single currency), and describes free movement of people as ‘fundamental’. Accordingly, UKIP voted against."@en6
"With regard to the motion for a resolution on the EU strategic objectives for the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to be held in Johannesburg (South Africa) from 24 September to 5 October 2016, this vote is not about CITES itself. We support the objectives of the CITES convention, but this vote is about enhancing the status of the European Commission within the CITES structure, which we are not prepared to support."@en6
"Although the measures to repeal old EU legislation only covers Schengen (which the UK is not part of), UKIP will always vote to repeal EU laws. The only people that should create laws are democratically elected and accountable national governments, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en5
"Any attempt to regulate internet virtual currencies on a geographical basis is futile and misplaced. An EU which has created the euro as its single currency cannot hope to lend credibility and reliability to virtual currencies, in fact the EU’s record is so bad that any regulation by it would be bad for confidence. Accordingly UKIP voted against."@en5
"CLEAN SKY, FCH, IMI and ITER obtained a clean opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts."@en5
"Different legal systems, cultures, languages, country-specific credit risks and the potential for capital controls (as used in Greece and Cyprus) in the likely event of euro-break-up make Capital Markets Union a distraction from more pressing matters (such as planning for an orderly break-up of the euro). Accordingly UKIP voted against."@en5
"Given that I have no specialist knowledge of the seeds concerned, and having concerns about the use of delegated acts, I felt it appropriate to follow the advice of officials and abstain on this matter."@en5
"Given the on-going breakdown in relations between the West and Russia, and in particular the humanitarian and military crisis in Ukraine, it is important for all actors to pay particular regard to potential consequences of their actions. The signing of this Association Agreement with Moldova, especially with regard to Transnistria, risks further deepening the crisis. With this in consideration we voted against."@en5
"I abstained. No opinion."@en5
"I am concerned about the safety of GMOs and their impact on health and the environment, but I would prefer the UK Government to legislate on this delicate issue, rather than the European Parliament."@en5
"I cannot vote in favour: this is a field in which the EU should not have exclusive competence. Under normal circumstances I would abstain. The assessment of these statesʼ abilities to fully comply with provisions is important for child safety. These countries will be trusted by us to a great extent. The Commission has not undertaken this kind of assessment. The UK Government believes there are ʽserious risks in returning children to a third country that does not respect rule of law or basic legal procedures in family casesʼ. I therefore voted against as this measure has not been properly thought through."@en5
"I fully support measures that put in place policies that create growth and jobs. However, I do not believe that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is the right tool for putting in place such policies, nor do I believe it is an efficient tool that offers value for money for EU taxpayers, therefore I voted against."@en5
"I rejected this objection as I support the EFSA and the European Commission's scientific GMO authorisation procedure."@en5
"I support this Report which adopts the Parliament's position on the 1st Reading and ensures a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance."@en5
"I supported this file as we support the relaxation of certain travel restrictions providing the state in question possesses a solid human rights record."@en5
"I supported this vote and noted no objections."@en5
"I supported this vote because the agreements will encourage people-to-people contacts, boost tourism, and invigorate business between the EU and these countries"@en5
"I voted against all the reports on the Cohesion, Development and Social Funds that related to the MFF agreement reached in the week prior to the plenary session in November. In order to ensure the austerity deal that was agreed between the majority in the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the President of the Parliament and aspirant President of the Commission, Martin Schulz, abused the powers that are given to him by the Rules of Procedure to introduce an undemocratic way of voting. The future funding introduces the principle of ‘macroeconomic conditionality’ which is a euphemism for austerity. I co-signed amendments that were deleting the threat of macroeconomic conditionality from the text. The President used his procedural powers to prevent these amendments from being voted. This is inacceptable blackmailing and I support the statements the GUE/NGL made in this regard. I voted against to show a clear rejection of this blackmailing tactic despite the general importance of the Cohesion, Development and Social Funds, especially for many deprived and rural regions."@en5
"I voted against this legislative consent vote. UKIP does not support the EU concluding agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the movement of people."@en5
"I voted for this as it is consolidation of legislation in line with recent developments."@en5
"I voted in favour of amending MiFID II and MiFIR because it is clear that the significant IT infrastructure needed to implement these wide-ranging reforms will not be ready in time to meet the original 2017 deadline. It is therefore right that the competent authorities have another year in order to prepare. However, this is the one and only time that this legislation will be delayed. The reforms introduced by MiFID II and MiFIR are vital for stabilising our financial system following the crisis, and it is important that they come into effect as soon as they possibly can."@en5
"I voted in favour of the discharge. The 32 decentralised Agencies of the EU have vital importance in terms of delivering the goals and results of EU policies. There is now good progress being made in terms of the agencies sharing best practice and, where feasible, support services. Their network is strong and they are working with the Commission to implement the Roadmap on Decentralised Agencies. This is of clear benefit to EU citizens and their performance is improving year on year."@en5
"I voted in favour of these objections to GMO authorisations. The European Commission has yet to propose a new authorisation procedure since its very weak proposal was rejected earlier this year. In spite of the fact that the EP called for a new proposal, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs under a flawed procedure which they themselves have admitted does not work. For these reasons I voted in favour of the objection."@en5
"I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the path to energy security lies in the energy transition, putting energy efficiency first, promoting renewables and investing domestically the money currently spent on expensive imports, to develop our green technologies industry and create more jobs."@en5
"I, with my fellow UKIP colleagues voted against this legislative vote regarding the granting of short-term visas. Although this vote only relates to the Schengen area, which the UK is not part of, UKIP opposes the principle that the EU can decide immigration policy for any Member State. The only people who should decide immigration policy and visas are nationally elected and accountable governments, not undemocratic EU institutions in Brussels."@en5
"It should not be the business of the EU to instruct Spain on how to treat its own people. This motion for a resolution calls for the Commission to do all manner of things, including harmonising mortgage terms across the EU, and seeks to grant the Commission the power to decide to blacklist financial institutions. For these reasons UKIP voted against it."@en5
"Labour MEPs voted in favour of the report. EU countries currently face serious difficulties when repatriating migrants back to their home countries due to the fact that the documents used to facilitate the journey are not recognised by the countries of return. Having a single, unified EU document can be viewed as a diplomatic tool which will assist Member States in carrying out safer returns. The UK has opted out of the proposal and will not be affected by this legislation."@en5
"The EU is being hypocritical when it talks about SMEs. Far from helping SMEs, its red tape and over-regulation makes the life of small business owners a misery. Fortunately Brexit means this will not be our problem for much longer, and we look forward to a positive and lighter regulatory climate in post-Brexit Britain."@en5
"The European Commission is determined to revise the ETS and the allowance system in order to distribute the available allowances in a more efficient way. We in UKIP are against this proposal as we reject a revision of the damaging EU ETS system. We believe that the EU Commission should recognise that the entire EU energy project has failed, causing higher energy prices in all Member States. It has caused job losses, plant closures and a massive outflow of industry and investment outside the EU."@en5
"The Greek authorities are proposing to prosecute Giorgos Grammatikakis, in conjunction with others, for failing to comply with certain legal obligations. The proposed proceedings concern a discussion held on 8 March 1996 on the possibility of concluding a new private collective insurance policy – in addition to the compulsory insurance policy – for all employees of the University of Crete and allegedly unlawful payments being made in successive instalments over the period 2000-2002. A previous proceeding on the same case covered the period from 2000 onwards and resulted in the acquittal of all the accused. UKIP would vote to waive the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis, as requested by Giorgos Grammatikakis himself, in order to put an end to this long judicial process."@en5
"The Multi-Annual Financial Framework is the long-term budget planning for the EU, which sets the maximum the EU can spend. The current period is for 2014-2020, set at EUR 960 billion. When the current MFF was agreed, David Cameron came back from Brussels claiming that he had achieved a cut in the European Union budget. Fast-forward three years, and we see the use of a ‘Flexibility Instrument’ and an Emergency Aid Reserve which operate outside these MFF spending limits. Money collected from fines is no longer returned to the Member States, but used to increase the EU budget through the back door. In practice, this has led to an EU budget of over EUR 1 trillion in today’s prices over the seven-year term of the MFF. This MFF ‘review’ adds to the flexibility; unspent money in any area will be used to increase the budget in others. This resolution calls for the MFF ceilings to be amended and for more resources to be given to the EU budget. Anything which costs British taxpayers even more money in EU spending is inappropriate in the light of the mandate received from the British people on the Brexit vote."@en5
"The Report calls for EU agencies to become more involved in international standard setting (inevitably at the expense of national regulators), accordingly UKIP voted against this dilution of national sovereignty."@en5
"The anti-circumvention mechanism would reapply WTO rules to products exported from Georgia to the EU that are believed to violate ‘rules of origin’ requirements, in accordance with the EU’s Association Agreement with Georgia to which the European Parliament gave its consent in 2014. Using the same justification as for the Moldova vote, we abstained."@en5
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken at 6.30 p.m."@en5
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m."@en5
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m."@en5
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon."@en5
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 11 November 2010, at 12:00."@en5
"The discharge report was favourable overall so I voted for it."@en5
"The discharge report was favourable overall, so I voted in favour."@en5
"The economic crisis has hit young people particularly hard. The disparity between certain categories of young people has also grown, while some of them have increasingly lost their place in social and civil life. This situation is further aggravated by the fact that, in some cases, there is a risk of social passivity, exclusion and isolation and even violent radicalisation. I voted in favour of the report which provides a relevant assessment of the actions undertaken by the EU in the field of youth policy and gives positive recommendations on the priorities for the next few years, focusing on education and training, employment and entrepreneurship, health and welfare, participation, volunteering, social inclusion, youth and the world, creativity and culture."@en5
"The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union. It is absurd that the arbiters of whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation. This project may well be of benefit to the people of Belgium, but I am not best placed to judge. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against – even though this may be a worthwhile project."@en5
"The title of this recommendation to the Commission highlights not just transparency but also coordination and convergence of corporate tax policies – in other words the ground is being prepared for harmonisation of corporate taxes across the EU, which will end the healthy tax competition between jurisdictions that is the only brake on ever-growing public expenditure. UKIP accordingly voted against tax harmonisation."@en5
"There have been suggestions that the popular herbicide glyphosate could be carcinogenic – although it has been in widespread use for decades with no evidence of harm, and a number of studies find that used properly it represents no threat to human health. Banning glyphosate would substantially increase farmers’ costs, and could result in the use of other herbicides which may even be less safe than glyphosate. It would also require more cultivation and use of tractors, resulting in increased emissions. And after all that, we should still be importing cheaper foreign food products that had been grown with the benefit of glyphosate. UKIP does not support a ban given the very limited evidence of harm, but would support further research. We also believe that this decision should be made for the UK in the British parliament, not imposed from Brussels."@en5
"There is a call for private investors to contribute to this programme as well as Member States. Lower contributions from Member States were more than compensated by private investment; this is not welcome from our perspective due to the fact that we are concerned that our public and private sectors are not intertwined with EU political aims and objectives. The project will end in 2017 and by that time it is estimated that EUR 3 billion will be spent on R&D projects. The Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities (AENEAS) is also involved in a joint undertaking to contribute EUR 30 million. Member States are expected to make a contribution of 1.8 times that of the EU contribution. We cannot support such programmes that clearly put pressure on Member States at a time of severe financial difficulty with other priorities that are far more essential for the citizens of Europe."@en5
"This is an initiative report and is not legislative. UKIP has voted against this report as we are against further EU governance. We particularly oppose statements in this report that criticise national governments’ transposition of EU legislation. We have, however, voted in favour of Amendment 1 which, although far from perfect, removes the criticism that national regulations create barriers in the Single Market. Moreover, this amendment also removes calling on the Commission to do anything, which we fully support."@en5
"This proposed Directive extends the power of the Commission to issue Delegated Acts, accordingly UKIP is against."@en5
"This report recognises that Sweden has had a higher number of refugees per capita than any other EU nation. This vote allows Sweden to suspend its right to take refugees in for a year. UKIP voted for this proposal to give Sweden the opportunity to adjust to this demand. We also do not believe it should be in the EU’s remit to decide over Member States how many migrants should be repatriated to specific Member States."@en5
"This vote was a series of budgetary amendments to set the spending limits for the EU budget for 2017. The Commission had proposed an original budget of EUR 157 billion, the Council amended that to EUR 156 billion, and the Parliament was proposing to not only reverse the Council cuts, but to increase the budget significantly. UKIP and the EFDD Group submitted 33 cost-saving amendments to the EU budget, as well as voting in favour of cost-saving measures proposed by others. Our amendments, which would have saved in total over EUR 3 billion of taxpayers’ money, related to the cutting of bureaucracy. These proposals were for ‘victimless cuts’ which impact only upon the inner workings of the European Union and luxuries for officials. UKIP voted against any measures which would increase the EU budget, because it would be contrary to the decision of the British people on Brexit. In some cases the additions would have duplicated funding streams already in place in the UK. Exceptionally, we abstained rather than vote against where a new budget line was proposed to help Member States leave the euro. There was no actual funding proposed for this, and we support the principle of Member States leaving the euro."@en5
"Today UKIP voted against the EU resolution on Emission measurements in the automotive sector. We believe that targets should be set at the national level by democratically accountable governments. We do not want new EU regulation in this field and we fear that the unelected EU Commission will want to reform EU emissions testing with a new regulatory framework whilst strengthening the implementation and enforcement of existing EU law."@en5
"Treaties and agreements entered into by the EU could just as easily be entered into by Member States directly, UKIP opposes the authority of the EU to act in its own legal capacity in this fashion, accordingly UKIP voted against."@en5
"Treaties and agreements entered into by the EU could just as easily be entered into by Member States directly. UKIP opposes the authority of the EU to act in its own legal capacity in this fashion; accordingly UKIP voted against."@en5
"UKIP MEPs have voted against giving consent to this agreement. UKIP is opposed to the EU negotiating visa agreements with third countries."@en5
"UKIP MEPs have voted against giving consent to this legislative agreement. UKIP do not support the EU making agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the issue of migration."@en5
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP opposes the ongoing harmonisation practices by the EU. Furthermore, UKIP supports the right for sovereign nations to have control over sanctions on customs infringements."@en5
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP firmly rejects the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. UKIP believe that this mechanism is a severe infringement of national sovereignty. UKIP also vehemently opposes calls in this report for the EU to accede to the ECHR."@en5
"UKIP MEPs voted against this resolution. UKIP does not support the continued accession of any nation to the European Union."@en5
"UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations."@en5
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of or support the EU acting on behalf of the UK in any international capacity. The report calls for a new fund to be created to which financial contributions would be compulsory. It called for a European action plan and that the private sector align with EU development objectives. However we fully support the calls to end sexual based violence and stop discrimination of the LGBTI community, and that more needs to be done to end human rights abuses. While we cannot support the EU acting in the world, we cannot oppose calls to end abuses around the world – so we have to abstain on this report."@en5
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative report. We are strong supporters of any measures to combat the trafficking of people, however we do not support the European Union taking actions on these measures. The free movement of people and Schengen has contributed to an increase in people trafficking within the EU. We think it is hypocritical of the EU to discuss measures outside of the EU when it refuses to acknowledge this. However out of respect for the sensitivity of the subject and our support for measures to combat it we abstained."@en5
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative, own-initiative report. This vote wasn’t on the legislation itself, but on how it was being implemented. The report covered a wide range of sensitive issues such as discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, nationality sexual orientation etc., and rightly condemned aspects such as harassment and violence. However the report then went on to call for wide-reaching Commission action and EU legislation such as data collection, information campaigns, adopting the EU framework on racism and called for further harmonisation of laws regarding secularism. The only people that should decide these things are our elected and accountable national governments, not EU bureaucrats in Brussels. While UKIP cannot support more EU action and spending of taxpayer’s money, we do not want to appear to oppose equality or against fighting discrimination."@en5
"UKIP commends the UAE for its role in fighting extremism and notes the strong ties that exist between the UK and the UAE. We abstained because we feel that the UK Government, and not Europol, should be the body that oversees UK intelligence and data sharing with third countries."@en5
"UKIP decided to abstain on this second reading because the UK has an exception."@en5
"UKIP does not support the principle of the EU having any sort of foreign policy. This report gives an overall look at relations between the EU and China, supporting current agreements and calls for more EU action in several areas. This is therefore an endorsement of EU foreign policy. However it also raises several legitimate concerns, in particular with the attempted interference by the Chinese government in democratic processes within Hong Kong. In light of this balance UKIP abstained."@en5
"UKIP fully supports the fight against the Zika virus. We support the scientific efforts that aim at providing a scientific explanation for the link between the virus and severe brain malformations reported in newborn children. UKIP would not oppose funds designated to study this issue. However, we believe that initiatives of this kind should be decided at the national level, not by the unelected EU Commission, so we have decided to abstain in this occasion."@en5
"UKIP has voted in favour of rejecting the Council position at second reading. Whilst we are great advocates of increasing consumer rights, we are against the full harmonisation that this directive requires. In 2014 a UK government report had stated that this proposal was ‘far from perfect’. UKIP believes that if national governments had the opportunity to update their own consumer protection laws they would be able to pass legislation that is the best fit for their consumers."@en5
"UKIP is very concerned about the health implications of TFAs and believes that the UK Parliament should be free to legislate on this very important issue. For this reason we decided to abstain on this non-binding motion for a resolution."@en5
"UKIP voted against approving an extra EUR 100 million for the EU’s migration policy and EUR 2 million for extra staff at Europol. The EU has helped to create the refugee crisis by encouraging millions of people to come to Europe and make the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean. The EU has no right to make British taxpayers pay for its own failures. Countries should work together on a bilateral basis to solve the refugee crisis and fight terrorism, but not through unelected and unaccountable EU institutions."@en5
"UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way."@en5
"UKIP voted against the Kaufmann report today. As a matter of principle we do not support and will not vote for any report which accepts the right of the EU to make the laws of the United Kingdom, however virtuous the proposals seem in isolation. The report makes it clear that, in whatever form, the process of legislation is going to continue. Its only virtue is that it impliedly damns the method of legislation that has pertained over the last sixty-odd years and which has so damaged the fabric of British trade, manufacturing and business since our entry into the then EEC in 1973 by burdensome and anti-competitive legislation. Sadly, the damage – vast damage – has already been done and is ongoing. Only by returning all legislative power to a newly-liberated UK Parliament with all its sovereignty restored, can the legislative process be made relevant to UK interests and legislators fully accountable to the people."@en5
"UKIP voted against this because there is a necessity for an improvement in the prevention of and the fight against corruption."@en5
"UKIP voted against this budgetary report giving consent to the use of EU funds. This vote was to approve EUR 1 131 358 (60% match funding) for 800 redundant workers in Estonia. The money will be used for things like payments for the cost of training, language training (since there is a large number of Russian speakers), debt counselling, psychological counselling, study allowances and mobility allowances, etc. The application relates to 3 enterprises (which manufacture chemicals and petroleum products) in Estonia that made 1550 people redundant. UKIP opposes this use of EU dole money and British taxpayer’s having to pay for poor economic decisions in other countries."@en5
"UKIP voted against this consultation procedure vote, which is technically non-legislative. It is written in to the treaties (TFEU Article 148) that the EU should coordinate employment policy between all Member States and this is a procedure that is voted on every year. The proposal creates vague goals without specific actions as to what the Member States should be focussing on. This proposal includes things like ‘increasing labour participation and reducing structural employment’ and ‘develop a skilled workforce’. This all sounds ok, but ultimately it is the EU trying to control Member States and tell them what their employment policies should be. The only people that should decide these things are our elected and accountable national governments, not EU bureaucrats in Brussels."@en5
"UKIP voted against this measure because this was a proposal for legislation. UKIP is opposed in principle to the European Parliament making any law which is applicable to the United Kingdom"@en5
"UKIP voted against this non legislative non-binding report. The report includes a call for the ECB to initiate legislation to permit the EU to take as its ‘own resources’ the profits of the ECB – profits which currently are distributed to eurozone Member States. UKIP objects to the activities of the ECB and, as the UK is a shareholder in the ECB, UKIP accordingly voted against the report."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non legislative, non-binding report. UKIP of course believes more should be done to fight poverty and protect people against discrimination and violence. However this report went on to call for many things that were completely unacceptable. Strong criticism of EU austerity policies which has devastated countries such as Greece was removed from the report. The report called for a reversal in the burden of proof, which would rip up UK law on innocent until proven guilty. There was a call for further EU steps and assessment of minimum income schemes in Member States - the EU has no right to interfere in the UK’s minimum wage or other tax policies. The report called for interference in education policy at EU level. It also called for interference with national procedures on the recognition of refugee status. Finally The EU Parliament voted to remove text which called for a reduced rate on essential goods for women such as tampons. For all these reasons UKIP had no choice but to oppose this report. The only people that should decide such matters are our own elected national governments, not unaccountable EU institutions."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding motion for a resolution. The resolution called for the cuts proposed by the Council to be reversed and more resources be given to the EU budget. UKIP voted for amendments which called for cuts to the EU budget, opposed development of an EU military capability and also voted in favour of an amendment which said that no EU funding should go to bullfighting. The EFDD Group (which UKIP is part of) also tabled an amendment which, among other things, called for a reduction in the salaries, allowances and travel expenses of MEPs. However this part of the amendment was ruled ‘inadmissible’ by the President of the European Parliament."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report As a party we are against the EU dictating the regional and economic plans for islands that belong to Member States, it's the individual nation's responsibility to create regional schemes for their Islands."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report as it calls to expand the scope and increase the funding and reach of this EU programme. It calls on the Commission to view refugees and asylum seekers as a target group for this money and that this instrument contributes to the EU’s ‘added value’. While in principle we fully support small business and want to help micro-enterprises gain access to loans, we cannot support this measure which is not very well known and barely used by UK businesses. It effectively takes money off British taxpayers to hand out to businesses in poorer EU countries. The only people who should decide how we spend taxpayers’ money and create legislation to help SMEs are our own elected and accountable national government, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. It included calls for more EU interference and rules on asylum and immigration policy. The report also criticised Member States that have tried to control their borders externally and internally in the Schengen area. The only people who should take decisions on these things are elected national governments in compliance with the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees. None of this should be decided on or dictated by unaccountable EU institutions."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. The report called for the EU to interfere in the education system and national curricula of Member States; it called for propaganda campaigns to be conducted by the Commission; and called for gender quotas – specifically progress on the ‘women on boards’ directive. While UKIP supports the development of the digital economy, we cannot support calls for more EU legislation. With regard to gender quotas you cannot fight discrimination with more discrimination – jobs should be based on merit, not gender. UKIP voted against paragraph 66 as it called for new EU legislation that could interfere with criminal laws in the UK. UKIP of course opposes all forms of violence and bullying, however, initiatives and laws to tackle this should solely be a Member State competency, by our elected national government, not unaccountable EU institutions."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP completely rejects any notion of an EU foreign or defence policy. Friendly relations and trade with Central Asia is something to be supported and encouraged, however we do not believe that the EU should have any role in doing this and take the view that an independent Britain would be able to pursue friendly relations far more effectively outside the EU."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding motion for a resolution. We do not support the EU’s power through the rule of law mechanism to interfere in the democratic processes within Member States. Whilst we take no position on the reforms instituted by the Polish Government, they are exercising a democratic mandate from a free and fair general election. Any issues regarding their compliance with the constitution is a matter for the Polish institutions. We remain concerned at the possible extension of the use of the rule of law mechanism to other Member States. Furthermore, the legal basis for the EU’s interference is questionable. Under Protocol No 30, Poland is not bound by the Charter unless they are recognised in Polish law. As such, we voted against."@en5
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. The proposal grants the regulator (ESMA) and the Commission powers to issue delegated acts, therefore UKIP is against it."@en5
"UKIP voted for this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is extremely concerned about the persecution of religious minorities by ISIS. UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report, given the resolutions lack of calls for EU action, aside from §10's call for the establishment of an EU Permanent Special Representative to which we voted against, we voted for the resolution as a whole."@en5
"UKIP voted in favour of the amendment to reject the Council position on this issue. Firstly, this report would have approved the issuing of a Directive to the United Kingdom to pass laws implementing the approved new legislation. In particular the Directive has as a substantial purpose, the Europeanisation and harmonisation of Trade Mark law and thus would enable the EU to consolidate its power over this important aspect of intellectual property and remove yet more control over it from Member States."@en5
"UKIP voted to abstain this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is concerned by the ongoing military and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, in particular the role played by both Saudi Arabia and Iran via proxies in the conflict. Amendment 1 calls for an arms embargo using the EU Common Position on Arms Exports 2008/944/CFSP. Whilst we are concerned by the role of western arms exports to Saudi Arabia, we cannot support the use of EU mechanisms to address the issue, so we voted against this particular amendment. Overall we abstained."@en5
"UKIP voted to abstain this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP is supportive of the UN backed plan to return Libya to stable and democratic governance and hopes that all sides will fulfil their obligations under the agreement. However we do not support the EU's attempts to get involved in Libya and expand their foreign policy role. We are also mindful of the situation in Libya's impact on the current migration crisis. As such we abstained on the resolution as whole."@en5
"Volumes of imported agricultural products from Moldova have increased significantly in the past several years. The Commission wants to impose the safeguard clause and anti-circumvention mechanism as part of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with Moldova, to protect the market share of EU agricultural producers from Moldovan products. These measures would reapply the World Trade Organisation’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariffs on Moldovan products entering the EU that cause or threaten to cause ‘serious injury’ to EU industry, or that breach ‘rules of origin’ requirements. The proposal is in accordance with the EU’s Association Agreement with Moldova to which the European Parliament gave its consent in 2014. The vote was for a technical matter confirming a power of the Commission under an agreement that has been approved by the European Parliament. Because the Commission’s power in that regard would reapply WTO rules, we voted to abstain."@en5
"We abstained because UNCLOS needs general recognition even when we dispute the EU’s claim to competence."@en5
"We abstained on this as it was merely a technical update to reflect the fact that Croatia has joined the EU since the original agreement was signed with China."@en5
"We believe that national parliaments should be responsible for all investigations related to maladministration in the application of environmental law."@en5
"We feel that the best way for international trade to proceed is for nation states to agree deals with each other, not for the EU to create yet more trouble in international trade with its demands. We feel that an independent Britain, which is now on the horizon of being made official, will be a leader and example in this regard."@en5
"We have voted against this resolution because it is wishing to interfere in the function of the Member Countries when determining the competitiveness of the industry. The resolution is also calling for the Commission to have an input in the efficient running of the airports when the UK has one of the most efficient airport operations in the world. Furthermore, the resolution is looking at increasing the responsibilities of EASA when there is no necessity for this; the CAA has already had some regulatory responsibilities passed to EASA and further responsibilities must not be taken away."@en5
"We in UKIP reject the EU Commission proposal on the achievement of a 10% electricity interconnection target which is designed to facilitate the use of expensive renewables. We oppose EU climate and energy policy that is one of the most expensive and yet unsuccessful policies the world has ever seen. We oppose expensive renewables and believe that Member States should favour the exploitation of indigenous energy, including fossil fuel."@en5
"We voted against because we oppose this standard EU agreement structure."@en5
"We voted against this because this scheme is yet more EU corporate nonsense intended to spread misleading pro-EU propaganda using British taxpayers’ money to fund it."@en5
"We voted against this because we feel EU regional funding is a propaganda tool and shamelessly wastes UK taxpayers' money to fund it."@en5
"We voted against this because we oppose the politicisation of trade by the EU. Trade should be about trade, and not the EU using its financial muscle to force weaker trade partners into obeying its political ideology."@en5
"We voted against this report because it enshrines the EU principle of harmonising everything and refusing to allow different regions and territories to have their own way of developing. This report will not help the situation."@en5
"We voted against this report because we feel that the countries of the Alpine region, not the EU, have the right to make their own decisions. We note that in Amendment 1, the EU orders Member States not to spend on their own priorities, but instead only EU ones. This kind of bullying should not be allowed."@en5
"While I understand that this is for aid, which could be used to help victims. The British public are already more than generous with donating funds to charitable causes when natural disasters occur. I do not believe foreign aid to be in the remit of the EU, so I voted against this proposal."@en5
"After a vigorous debate, some UKIP MEPs voted in favour whilst some abstained. We note Uzbekistan’s significant improvement in the areas of concern, as evidenced by its ratification of multiple ILO conventions. We feel left wing NGOs were calling for a rejection as a spiteful ideological response, rather than due to any meaningful attempt to help. Some MEPs, whilst accepting Uzbekistan’s improvement, abstained due to the principle that the EU should not conduct any law, anywhere, ever."@en4
"Although I in substance support the non-discrimination principle in the context of employment, I have voted against this report in order to voice my rejection of the undemocratic way this file was brought forward – without any substantial or public debate in committee or plenary. An agreement which was at the very root of the escalation of the current EU-Ukraine-Russia conflict should not be rushed through Parliament without any proper political scrutiny. Pushing through an association agreement at this time only serves to escalate the conflict in an increasingly fragile situation. Europe’s citizens are already paying the price for this conflict, and this would only see it intensify. For the sake of our farmers and others who are paying the price for the deepening conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we cannot vote for this association agreement’s progression in any form."@en4
"Although the strategy does not announce any new legislative proposals, we oppose the EU strategy on heating and cooling as it will be used to reinforce the disruptive EU energy and climate policy that has already brought irreparable damage to Europe’s industry and economy."@en4
"Artemis was set up in 2007 for a period of 10 years, the total funding over 10 years is worth EUR 2.5 billion. The purpose of this project is to set up embedded computer systems across different areas of application with the intention to strengthen EU competitiveness and sustainability across Member States. There is a call for the contributions from the Member States to be at least 1.8 times of the contributions that the Union make. The Union contribution for 2013 equates to EUR 181 454 844 and the Member States contribution amounts to EUR 341 842 261. We cannot support this given that there is pressure on the Member States to support this programme, and that competitiveness should be left to the markets."@en4
"Article 23 of the Common Provision Regulations is a destructive mechanism that further entrenches austerity by linking cohesion funding to ‘sound economic governance’ – also known as ‘macro-economic conditionalities’. It allows funding programmes at a local or regional level to be suspended or ‘reprogrammed’ because of factors outside the control of those affected, such as national budget deficits. This would cause significant harm, particularly to vulnerable regions and Member States still suffering from the economic and social crisis. While the report is mildly critical and recommends some safeguards, it ultimately accepts the premise of ‘sound economic governance’ in the context of cohesion funding. For this reason, my colleague Martina Anderson tabled an alternative resolution on behalf of the GUE/NGL group calling for the mechanism not to be used and for its review, which unfortunately did not succeed. I also voted for a specific amendment, tabled by more than 76 MEPs, calling for the decoupling of this important funding from the calculation of national deficits. This amendment was also unsuccessful. As the report therefore endorses - if critically - a mechanism that will impose austerity policies on local and regional communities, I voted against the report."@en4
"Calls on the Commission to become further involved in consumer protection in financial services, accordingly UKIP voted against."@en4
"Discharge is the final approval of how the budget for a specific year has been implemented (following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts). It closes a specific budget year. The discharge is granted by the European Parliament. Before taking its decision, the Parliament examines the accounts and the balance sheet as prepared by the relevant agency, the annual report on how the budget has been spent and any relevant special reports by the European Court of Auditors. The discharge is one of the instruments of the Parliament and the Council to control the EU budget spending. The European Parliament can grant, postpone or refuse a discharge. A granted discharge means the formal closure of the institutional accounts for a given year."@en4
"EU financial services regulators have had three years to write rules to calculate how much capital commodity dealers should keep in reserve under the Capital Requirements Directive, the Commission is asking for another four years. If the rules are so complicated that they take seven years to write, they will be unworkable. Accordingly UKIP is against."@en4
"Even though there has been an international moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982 to protect whales from extinction there is a very narrow exception for strict scientific research permits which Japan has been exploiting since this ban was brought in as a cover for its commercial whaling. In 2014 the International Court of Justice found that Japan was in breach of international law with regards to its use of these scientific permits. Japan halted its whaling briefly but has now resumed activity, most recently killing 333 minke whales, including pregnant females. This motion calls on Japan to cease its whaling activities, especially as there is no scientific research need to capture and kill that many whales. It was for these reasons that I voted in favour of the joint motion for resolution."@en4
"Finland submitted an EGF application for the redundancies of 1 603 employees. As a result of this, Finland is entitled to EUR 2 623 200 million to deal with the redundancies, which in total are costing EUR 4 372 000 million. This allocation contributes towards 60% of the cost. The application was finalised on 6 November 2015. The ICT industry employed 326 000 employees and in 2014 this amount declined to 276 000; the blame is directed towards the massive decline in sales relating to Nokia electronic communications and competition from Asian nations that produce similar communication products. Mobilisation of the workforce and access to British jobs will form part of the package. The European jobs mobility portal known as EURES will be used to access the British jobs market."@en4
"I abstained because the objection, whilst criticising Commission behaviour, recognises and enshrines their power on a topic which should be a choice of Member States."@en4
"I abstained on this vote because I feel we are continuing down a failed road and that what is proposed is a denial of reality."@en4
"I abstained on this vote which was on a framework agreement between the EU and Lebanon through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Euromed). This agreement promotes economic integration and democratic reform across 16 countries to the EU’s south. It seeks greater integration within the region and is linked to the European neighbourhood policy which is aimed at offering its neighbours a privileged relationship. In practice however, this policy has been criticised hugely for its Eurocentricity, hypocritical attitude towards some of the conditionality requirements and damage that can be done to indigenous sectors. As this agreement is foreseen to lead to future trade agreements, I was against it in principle. However, as the Lebanese authorities have taken the decision themselves to enhance cooperation, I abstained on the final vote."@en4
"I am pleased that the Court of Auditors did not find any serious weaknesses in the topics audited and I support the constructive recommendations identified in the report which aim to improve processes."@en4
"I believe in democracy and transparency, and therefore I believe that my vote on this matter should be a matter of public record. In that spirit, I wish to confirm that I abstained on this appointment."@en4
"I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned."@en4
"I oppose these agreements, which have a whiff of exploitation about them. We should not be paying developing countries to plunder their natural resources. I therefore voted against the agreement."@en4
"I strongly support and voted in favour of these proposed ‘Joint Technology Initiatives’ (JTIs) and ‘Public 2 Public Partnerships’ (P2Ps), as they have proven levels of research efficiency and effectiveness as well as attracting high industrial participation compared to other areas of the EU’s research programmes, particularly amongst SMEs. I am particularly pleased that attempts from both the lead PPE and S&D negotiators to reduce substantially the money allocated to them from Horizon 2020 were defeated. I view the programmes as a key priority in driving long-term industry participation, and, as the funding models used under the proposals generate a greater contribution from industry than would be the case under the usual Horizon 2020 funding rules, the cumulative effect is more money spent on research. It was also important to ensure that the work programmes of each partnership met the criteria agreed under the overall Horizon 2020 legislation, in order to guarantee the consistency of research priorities. In order to guarantee full scrutiny and transparency of the public expenditure, Parliament insisted on separate discharge procedures for each programme."@en4
"I support the agreement, but Britain should be signing it not the EU! I therefore abstained."@en4
"I supported much of the content of this resolution which aims to tackle tax avoidance by corporations operating in the European single market. However, I voted against this overall proposal despite many positive aspects as Sinn Féin is determined to ensure that tax sovereignty remains in the hands of Member States. Changes to tax law aimed at ending loopholes for tax avoidance should be made by national parliaments working as part of an effective international framework -– which is currently being led by the OECD. Many aspects of the report aimed to implement the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) plan, which I supported. I supported amendments criticising the role of so-called knowledge boxes as tax avoidance mechanisms. Certain aspects of the Commission proposal and Parliament resolution go beyond the OECD BEPS recommendations, including on exit taxation and switchover clauses, which I could not support. While these may be effective mechanisms for combating tax avoidance, our approach is that we want to implement the OECD BEPS recommendations in Member States and EU law where appropriate now – but that we want to continue seeing countries engaging in an international framework as the primary vehicle for combating global tax avoidance."@en4
"I supported the postponement of this discharge as the Council continues to refuse to cooperate with the European Parliament in the discharge procedure."@en4
"I supported the request as I agree with the reasons for the proposal to waive immunity."@en4
"I supported the request as I agree with the reasons of the proposal to waive immunity."@en4
"I supported the request as it is only a technical vote to allow for consultation."@en4
"I supported this vote because the agreements will encourage people-to-people contacts, boost tourism, and invigorate business between the EU and these countries."@en4
"I voted against the reform of electoral law in the EU for a number of reasons. I believe the introduction of constituency and Member State thresholds to be undemocratic: it clearly disadvantages smaller parties, regional parties and independents. As citizens identify primarily with local, national parties, the inclusion and participation of European political groupings in election campaigns would add an unnecessary and potentially confusing dimension to those campaigns. I also believe that elections are the competency of established national authorities, and that no attempt should be made to create, or move towards the creation of, a single European electoral authority. Whilst the report contained some progressive elements, in relation to female representation and extending the franchise, these failed to mitigate its worst excesses, forcing me to oppose it."@en4
"I voted against this as it is spending vast amounts of UK taxpayers’ money, and this should be decided in the UK Parliament."@en4
"I voted against this report today, I am opposed in principle to the use of this European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and as a result I cannot support this proposal to mobilise it."@en4
"I voted against this resolution, which was a blatant attempt to join in foreign interference in Venezuela, worsening the situation there and increasing tensions. Despite talking about human rights, aid, and helping resolve the political tensions in Venezuela, the resolution was clearly biased in favour of the Venezuelan opposition, reflecting their demands and claims, while failing to give a balanced view of the situation in Venezuela. Failing to acknowledge the impact of a fall in oil prices, evidence of economic sabotage, and the effect of a severe drought on Venezuela’s hydroelectric sector, the resolution blames the government for the situation in Venezuela. The resolution also echoes the opposition call for hundreds of prisoners to be released, included many who were involved in organising violent protests that led to several deaths. Because this was a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal politics of Venezuela, I voted against this resolution."@en4
"I voted against, because I do not believe in the principle of this fund."@en4
"I voted against, on the grounds that I believe bilateral agreements on matters such as aviation should be a sole competence of the sovereign country with which the agreement is made."@en4
"I voted for this report as the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance."@en4
"I voted in favour of amending MiFID II and MiFIR because it is clear that the significant IT infrastructure needed to implement these wide-ranging reforms will not be ready in time to meet the original 2017 deadline. Therefore, it is fair that the competent authorities have another year in order to prepare. However, this must be the one and only time that this legislation will be delayed. The reforms introduced by MiFID II and MiFIR are vital for stabilising our financial system following the crisis, and it is important that they come into effect as soon as they possibly can."@en4
"I voted in favour of the granting of this discharge. This discharge procedure is not problematic and there are no irregularities of importance to highlight, despite the room for improvement in how the Court works. There are no reasons to be against the grant of discharge and the approval of the accounts."@en4
"I voted in favour of the report as it fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down in the EGF Regulation with the exception of two where the number of employees is lower than that specified in the regulation. There is a precedent for this and Parliament supports their applications."@en4
"I voted in favour of the report which supports efforts to collectively tackle the sale of legal highs which have caused a number of death and fatalities in the UK and across Europe. Moreover, the information available suggests that some of the psychoactive substances such as 4-methylamphetamine are produced and distributed by the same organised crime groups that are involved in the manufacture and trafficking of amphetamine. Trafficking occurs across borders and it is essential that Member States work together to disrupt the EU’s trafficking networks."@en4
"I voted in favour of the report. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm."@en4
"I voted in favour of this Report which contained a number of important provisions. Specifically, it highlighted that the European Union is currently facing a number of serious emergencies, notably the unprecedented migration and refugee crisis. This report called for financial resources to be deployed in the EU budget, in order to match the political challenges and therefore enable the EU to deliver and effectively respond to these crises, as a matter of utmost urgency and priority. Whilst of course the refugee and migration crisis cannot be solved by financial resources alone, in these extraordinary times, extraordinary measures are required and a strong political commitment is needed to secure fresh appropriations for this purpose. It was for these reasons, amongst others, that I voted in favour of this report."@en4
"I voted in favour of this Report. It is important to note in the context of this report that the vote was merely based on codification and was not concerned with the actual application of Article 108 TFEU. At this stage it is not the substance of the provisions which is being voted on. It instead concerns Codification. Codification of legal texts is an important tool as it leads to greater legal certainty and clarity. This is important as if you do not codify the text the former several amended versions of the texts stay. Codification, is, in a nutshell a simplification. Any proposal that provides greater legal clarity and transparency should be welcomed as it's the complex nature of such texts which frequently leads to unnecessary legal challenges often at the taxpayers' expense."@en4
"I voted in favour of this objection. It was a motion of objection from the Greens group to the Commission’s delegated regulations on the criteria for setting the minimum requirement for own fund and eligible liabilities (MREL). The resolution says the opinion of the European Banking Authority dissenting to some of the final draft regulatory technical standards (RTS). It was a technical resolution but the key point is that the RTSs have excluded some important aspects for financial stability from the regulations."@en4
"I voted in favour of this regulation, which aims to facilitate the cross-border exchange of information related to traffic offences. The implementation of this regulation is crucial, as it should mean that people who commit a road traffic offence in a jurisdiction where they are not resident can face the penalties for their actions. This is a particular issue in Ireland, as a minority of drivers have used the border as a means of showing disregard for road safety laws on one side of it or the other. We also know that drivers from other EU countries have been basically immune to Irish traffic laws. Hopefully these problems can now be addressed. The priority must be to ensure the safety of all road users."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report as I strongly believe that the Energy Union, if properly implemented, will ensure the energy transition to a clean, renewable future, while putting citizens centre-stage and ensuring a secure, stable and affordable energy system."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report as it forms a key element of the EU’s Clean Air Package and will reduce harmful emissions and improve air quality across the UK and the EU."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report as this report aimed to make access to EU funds simpler, more accountable and efficient whilst also addressing misappropriation and white-collar crime through the introduction of exclusion criteria and a panel to investigate claims. It also aligns the financial regulation with the new directives on public procurement and on the awarding of concession contracts by the EU institutions. Contracting authorities shall be required to take steps to ensure that, when executing contracts, operators comply with the environmental, social and labour law obligations established by the EU or national legislation, collective agreements or the international environmental, social and labour conventions. Regarding exclusion criteria, these were added to counter tax fraud, tax evasion – including tax evasion via untaxed offshore structures – the misuse of corporate assets and the embezzlement of public funds to exclude from participation in the procurement procedures of EU institutions."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report because we need to ensure a market design that is fit for the future, and one which works for consumers and industry, ensuring affordable energy."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report which authorises the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to benefit laid-off workers in the Belgian car manufacturing industry. The EGF can be mobilised to provide support for workers who lose their jobs as a result of globalisation, including the offshoring of jobs and the shifting in production patterns in Europe. It has since been expanded to also apply to workers laid off as a result of the global financial crisis. In this case, 5,111 workers were dismissed at the Ford Genk car plant and 11 suppliers and downstream producers in Belgium in 2014. The dismissals were partly as a result of the loss of market share for the EU automotive industry over the past decade due to the geographical shift in consumption linked to globalisation. I voted in favour of mobilising the fund in order to provide valuable practical assistance to these dismissed workers in job-search and training services."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report which provided a critical view especially on the infrastructure projects. Only this week I have called on the Irish Government to implement funding they have drawn down from the European Investment Bank for the building of social housing in Ireland. In Ireland, our homeless crisis has reached epidemic status and we urgently need the spiralling housing crisis to be addressed as a matter of priority. However, let me be clear that my party retains grave concerns about how the EIB operates in practice. There is a clear democratic deficit which permeates the EIB and it is clear that the EIB prioritises large corporations from the North of Europe, acting as a client-driven bank rather than serving its developing objectives. Sinn Féin will continue to ensure that projects which are supported by the EIB do not contribute to unsustainable development, by fuelling environmental destruction, climate change and depletion of natural resources. Infrastructure and energy projects, which represent an important part of the EIB portfolio, have huge potential to cause environmental and social damage. My party will continue to actively call for reform on matters such as these."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report which was concerned with raising the thresholds for the value of a claim. Previously, the threshold was set at EUR 2 000. The report provides that this limit would be raised to EUR 5 000 if pursued against a natural person i.e. an individual and EUR 10 000 if pursued against a legal person i.e. a company. By way of background, the European Small Claims Procedure applies to all claims with a cross-border element. This includes cases where the parties are both domiciled in the same Member State and only the place of performance of the contract, the place where the harmful event takes place or the place of enforcement of the judgment is situated in another Member State. This provides an important remedy for cross-border disputes which in many Member States is woefully lacking at present. One final positive point is that Legal Assistance can also be provided to parties free of charge, which did not previously exist."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report, calling on the Commission to address the failure by many Member States to tackle the gender pay gap, which stands at an average of 16.4% across the EU. In Ireland, women continue to earn on average 14% less than their male counterparts, a situation which is unacceptable in the 21st century. This is a positive and strong report that stresses the need to introduce binding measures in order to tackle the roots of this discrimination. It calls for pressure on unequal pay practices and for the promotion of wage transparency, as requested by trade unions and gender equality bodies. It also calls for the introduction of mandatory pay audits for companies listed on the stock exchanges, and for sanctions against those companies that fail to implement equal pay, including their exclusion from the public procurement of goods and services from the EU budget. The report calls on Member States to take steps to reverse the burden of proof, so the employer would have to prove that a difference in treatment had not been caused by discrimination. Additional elements include introducing quotas for women at management level in companies, and taking measures to improve work-family balance."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report, which advocates improving auditing processes by implementing quality controls rather than quantitative ones in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and ensure funding is used in the best possible way. I support measures to simplify the CAP and providing clearer guidance to both national authorities and farmers in to reduce error rates."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report, which contained a number of important, progressive provisions. This report emerged from the Luxleaks scandal. The aim is to ensure the mandatory automatic exchange of information between tax administrations regarding advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements and to strengthen existing EU legislation. Furthermore, the GUE/NGL rapporteur managed to further strengthen the Commission proposal in a number of key areas including strengthening reporting requirements – i.e. immediate exchange of information. My Group tabled an alternative compromise stating that all rulings should be publicly available and not only stored somewhere in a central Commission database in an aggregated form. The Greens and EFDD supported GUE/NGL on this issue, but unfortunately it was rejected in committee. Nevertheless, given that the report was still an improvement compared to the Commission proposal and especially compared to the Council position which was adopted even before the ECON vote took place, I voted in favour of this report."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report, which regards an uncontroversial mobilisation of funds."@en4
"I voted in favour of this report. The European Union could work far more effectively and discussion of this is to be welcomed. I believe that Wales could make a huge contribution to a more relevant and efficient EU if nations like ours had a greater and clearly—defined role. It would make the EU more democratic."@en4
"I voted in favour of this resolution, which calls for increased efforts to tackle gender inequality through the renewal of the EU’s Gender Action Plan (GAP I). The resolution specifically calls for further action on two Millennium Development Goals (MDG) – increasing gender equality and women’s empowerment, and reducing maternal mortality rates. The resolution welcomes the Commission’s intention to initiate a transformative shift with GAP II and calls for it to take the form of a Commission communication. I voted in favour of Amendment 1, which calls for access to safe abortion for women and girls who are victims of rape in armed conflicts. I also voted in favour of Amendment 2, which calls for further efforts globally to ensure access to safe abortion services, in the context of addressing the MDG on maternal health by reducing the incidence of high-risk births. Sinn Féin believes that the option of a termination should be available where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a pregnant woman – including where she is suicidal – that would be averted only by an abortion; in the case of rape or incest; and in the case of fatal foetal abnormality."@en4
"I voted in favour of this resolution, which was concerned with the mass evictions currently taking place across Spain and the risky financial instruments which are one of the causes of these evictions. At present, 95 families lose their home every day. This is due to the economic, social and financial crisis. However a majority of the evictions are cause by a combination of abusive practices on the part of financial institutions, a lack of accurate essential information on financial instruments for consumers and insufficient legal protection of mortgage debtors. Regarding the abusive practices, 700 000 citizens are estimated to have been sold risky financial instruments by their Spanish banks in bad faith. In Ireland, where we are also currently experiencing an unprecedented homelessness crisis, we now have 130 000 families in need of housing, and many families forced into bankruptcy. In May of this year, my colleague Pearse Doherty brought legislation to the Dáil which would have allowed the regulator to set a cap on the rates being charged by banks but the Irish Government voted against it. This is a matter on which my party will continue to fight, both on the European front and at domestic level."@en4
"I voted in favour this agreement, which provides for visa-free travel for the citizens of the European Union and for the citizens of Peru when travelling to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of 90 days in any 180-day period. The visa waiver covers all categories of persons (ordinary, diplomatic, service/official and special-passport holders) travelling for all kinds of purposes, except for the purpose of carrying out a paid activity."@en4
"It is customary for UKIP MEPs to vote against such protocols, as we opposed the agreements themselves at the time."@en4
"Labour MEPs voted against a ban on pest-resistant maize as we agree with EFSA's assessment that they are unlikely to pose risks to human, animal health or the environment, while limiting the need for use of pesticides. Moreover, the Commission attached stringent conditions for use of these GMOs in their authorisation decisions. I continue to take the issue of GMOs with the utmost seriousness, and will continue to oppose GMO use that is deemed harmful or potentially dangerous."@en4
"On behalf of the Conservative MEPs in Parliament and as Conservative spokesman for legal affairs, I voted in favour of this report as the 1980 Hague Convention is an effective tool in the resolution of international child abduction cases and extending its application to more countries, as long as they fully comply with the obligations under the Convention, would enhance the legal certainty for those involved in such disputes. However, I strongly support the assessments which many Member States currently undertake in order to carefully assess any third country’s ability to implement the Convention properly before accepting its accession. These assessments prevent any potential risks which may arise from returning children to a third country which does not respect rule of law or basic legal procedures in family law cases, or does not have a competent authority which could verify a child’s well-being. I therefore support calls for the Commission to urgently produce such assessments for these countries, which it has yet to produce."@en4
"Similar to the previous framework vote, this vote concerned greater economic integration between the EU and Lebanon in the framework of the European neighbourhood policy. The European neighbourhood policy is aimed at offering its neighbours a privileged relationship. In practice however, this policy has been criticised hugely for its Eurocentricity, hypocritical attitude towards some of the conditionality requirements and damage that can be done to indigenous sectors. This vote was on a legal text to add the names of those countries that joined the EU in the 2004 enlargement to the official documents. As this agreement is foreseen to lead to future trade agreements, I was against it in principle. However, as the Lebanese authorities have taken the decision themselves to enhance cooperation, I abstained on the final vote."@en4
"Small and medium-sized enterprises form a substantial part of the EU economy. In the UK, they account for 99.7% of all enterprises and 53.3% of the number of employees. Four banks account for 85% of lending to small businesses. I voted for this report because it calls for improvement in bank lending to SMEs and for a diversification of credit sources."@en4
"The ACP (Africa Caribbean Pacific) countries are poor countries which the EU aims to dominate politically and economically. One of the primary tools by which it does this is politicised trade deals, whereby market access is conditional upon submitting to EU political demands. The Economic Partnership Agreements are amongst the most intrusive and formalised means by which the EU gains control over poor countries. We will vote against any attempt to make the EU more powerful towards actors in the Global South."@en4
"The Commission has demanded more information from financial services firms than it can process, the solution is not a delay to make the IT systems ever more complicated but to reduce the information burden on industry."@en4
"The Directive will place mandatory requirements on Member States on sovereign tax matters and personal information that could, just as easily, be agreed at an intra-governmental level, rather than via the EU. Accordingly UKIP voted against."@en4
"The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is a series of trade-liberalisation measures – including, inter alia, tariff reductions and anti-dumping provisions – on which all World Trade Organisation members are seeking binding agreement. Strengthening the WTO in this manner is in the UK’s interest, as it bolsters international trading norms that the UK would enjoy as a fully active member on Brexit. Though the motion for a resolution supports this process and calls for greater democratic accountability in WTO decision making, it promotes an activist role for the EU in advancing its own trade agenda through the WTO framework. On these grounds, UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on the resolution."@en4
"The European Commission’s so-called ‘cornerstone’ of its climate-change policy, the Emissions Trading Scheme, has been an objective and unmitigated failure. Its aim to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner has clearly not been achieved. The surplus of allowances has had a major impact on the carbon price. The intention of the Market Stability Reserve is to reduce the number of allowances in the market if there are too many and introduce new ones in the event of a shortage. It is a vital but insufficient step to improving this deeply flawed scheme. We now need the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a permanent mechanism which will see any unused allowances removed at the end of each trading period."@en4
"The European Court of Auditors is in charge of the audit of EU finances and, as the EU’s external auditor, it contributes to improving EU financial management and acts as the independent guardian of the financial interests of the citizens of the Union. It is vitally important that candidates for the Court are selected based on their suitability for the position, and their professional background, language skills and the ability to exercise independent judgement are important considerations."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken at noon tomorrow."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at 10 a.m."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.00 a.m."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will be tomorrow at 11.30 a.m."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place in two weeks’ time, at the next part-session in Brussels."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 17 November 2011)."@en4
"The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 18 May 2010)."@en4
"The legislative resolution on the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) will give a green light to the Council position at first reading, without making any changes. Some recommendations from the GFCM have been taken over in part by the Council. They concern the environmental protection of red coral, and tackling incidental catches of seabirds, sharks and seals. The restrictions remain in place on paper, but the Council has demanded that Member States themselves can grant derogations to their fishermen. Remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) will be prohibited from harvesting red coral, environmental protection will be stepped up for certain species, and Member States will be at liberty to grant derogations for fishermen. While I support the aforementioned proposals, approval of the Council position had already been given by the Committee on Fisheries, and consequently the plenary did not vote on this matter."@en4
"The next item is the vote. *** ***"@en4
"The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union. It is absurd that the arbiters of whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation. This project may well be of benefit to the people of Finland, but I am not best placed to judge. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against – even though this may be a worthwhile project."@en4
"The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union. It is absurd that the arbiters of whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation. This project may well be of benefit to the people of Greece, but I am not best placed to judge. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against – even though this may be a worthwhile project."@en4
"The recommendation was to vote against this. The report did not go as far as we would like in identifying enough effort being demonstrated to increase transparency, but it was heading in the right direction. One of UKIP’s missions is to ensure that transparency is at the forefront of the operations of the EU institutions. Furthermore this report calls for more implementation of EU law."@en4
"The report largely transposes the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). EFDD amendments 2-7 strengthen the report in order to allow for the full exclusion of public services from TiSA, the right to reverse commitments, and the right to withdraw from the agreement. Since these amendments did not pass as a bloc, UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on the resolution as a whole. The resolution passed as amended. However, UKIP MEPs voted for amendment 3 (25), which calls for a clause allowing withdrawal from the agreement and reversal of commitments by each signatory – and this amendment passed, with those voting against including the entire British delegation from the ECR Group, as well as the entire EPP Group. We voted for amendment 22, calling for a positive-list approach in TiSA (mirroring the existing WTO rules on services and trade). We voted in favour of this, along with other British MEPs Janice Atkinson (ENF), Martina Anderson (GUE), Jill Evans, Jean Lambert, Molly Scott Cato and Alyn Smith (all Greens). All British ECR Group members voted against the amendment, while all British S&D Group members abstained."@en4
"The resolution as a whole and various amendments call for the number of European Court of Justice judges to be increased from 28 to 40 or 56, to which we are opposed in principle."@en4
"The resolution as a whole contains numerous calls for legislation and expenditure by the EU and makes a series of bogus claims that the European Citizens’ Initiative is a significant and effective means of participation by the citizens of Member States in democracy and the legislative processes of the EU."@en4
"There were four reports on the subject of drugs today. UKIP notes two things; firstly, that the UK has an opt-out in this area. Secondly, we note that the UK Government already has very sensible laws and controls in place in the fields of drugs and public health. Therefore, I chose to abstain."@en4
"This agency has been an important agency in terms of delivering the EU’s policy goals and results. There is now good progress being made in terms of this agency sharing best practice with other agencies and it has shown that it will, where feasible, support other services. This agency has proven that it is of clear benefit to EU citizens, performance is improving every year and it receives my support."@en4
"This is a non-legislative and non-binding report, which UKIP chose to abstain on. In principle UKIP agrees with free trade agreements especially with our Commonwealth allies, New Zealand and Australia. However, we are totally opposed to the EU negotiating trade agreements with other countries on the UK’s behalf, therefore we abstained."@en4
"This is the first European Parliament report on the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, focusing on the cohesion policy dimension of the strategy. It examines the progress already achieved, the scope of the review and the challenges to be addressed from a cohesion policy perspective. The report makes some criticism of the results of the Europe 2020 strategy to date and as well as several positive references. However, cohesion policy is presented as a policy at the service of Europe 2020 and it connects cohesion policy with the EU Economic Governance framework and its implementation mechanism, the ‘European Semester’. Moreover, the report links the allocation and effectiveness of structural and investment to ‘sound economic governance’ – so-called ‘macro-economic conditionalities’ – by the Member States, and therefore to austerity politics. I therefore abstained on this report."@en4
"This proposed legislation seeks to harmonise indices across the EU; doing so will not reflect the various cultural differences in economic activity between different Member States and accordingly UKIP voted against."@en4
"This report concerned a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Liberia. Sinn Féin generally does not support Fisheries Partnership Agreements as here, when they are at the expense of developing countries and for the benefit of larger operators of the external fleets. For these reasons I abstained on the vote."@en4
"This report contained a number of justifiable criticisms of Parliament’s President, Martin Schulz, using the European Parliament’s facilities and staff for his campaign during the 2014 elections, an individual who has also meddled in domestic affairs, which is in dereliction of his role as President of the European Parliament. The report also focused on a number of practical matters, one primary one of interest is the road map for a single seat for the European Parliament instead of shifting to and from Strasbourg-Brussels every month. Sinn Féin voted in favour of this point as it would save millions from being pointlessly spent every month. The report also contains a number of recommendations for improving the rights of assistants. The amendments from our Group, which we supported, also called for full transparency on general expenditure, with access for citizens, and greater provision for transparency in terms of MEP-lobbyist interaction. There was also an roll-call vote on multilingualism and the importance of providing MEPs, in due time, with all the documents necessary to conduct their work properly in committees, delegations and plenary sessions in any EU official language. In the light of Sinn Féin’s position on ending the derogation and promoting the Irish language, we supported this. We voted in favour of the resolution granting discharge and the closure of accounts to the EP for the 2014 financial year."@en4
"This report deals with the new EU strategy for forests and the forest-based sector. There were a number of positive aspects to this report. However, I abstained on this vote because of environmental concerns, especially in the context of bio-energy. Moreover, there was no reflection in the report of concerns in relation to biodiversity problems, the multifunctional nature of forests, the creation of specific support measures to prevent and fight fires enabling early intervention or avoiding soil erosion and the recovery of vegetation cover. For these reasons I abstained in the vote."@en4
"This report is regarding a simplification of the procedure in cohesion policy. In simple terms Parliament thinks that there are many faults in the current system that have many negative effects, i.e. the language is too complicated and also lost in translation, the procedure for allocation of cash is too slow and the process of transposition is too slow. This in turn has created a system that is not cost-effective. This motion for a resolution essentially asks for digitalisation of this process and calls for e-cohesion. Even though we are against the Commission distributing money and the processes involved with that, this resolution is essentially asking for a simplification of the current procedure which would make things more cost-effective in the long run. Therefore an abstention was recommended."@en4
"This report is something UKIP supports in essence and would advocate on a national level. The increase in the private sector in developing nations has led to positive results for the poorest nations and people. Unfortunately, due to a matter of principle we cannot support this report because of the heavy inclusion of the Commission and the EU which UKIP are principally against."@en4
"This report seeks to penalise Hungary for its defiance of Commission rulings, in particular its rejection of the Common Asylum Policy. UKIP believes in and is fully supportive of national sovereignty for all Member States of the European Union. We therefore voted against this report."@en4
"This report was concerned with benchmark manipulation. A benchmark is a standard which is used every day to calculate the price – and risk – of financial instruments such as loans, mortgages, interest rates, swaps etc. Prominent benchmarks such as the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate have been subject to manipulation by megabanks, either for market gains or to suggest enhanced financial ‘health’. This aim of the regulation was to improve the overall framework for benchmark—setting. However, the trilogue text did not improve on Parliament’s text and the proposed regulation contains big loopholes which will allow manipulation to continue. It was for these reasons that I voted against the report."@en4
"This report was concerned with emission limits for non-road mobile machinery (NRMM). It addresses type approval for internal combustion engines, given that NRMM engines constitute a significant proportion of the total man-made emissions of certain noxious atmospheric pollutants. In some cities, non-road mobile machinery (which includes construction machines, vessels and railways etc.) is responsible for up to 30% of traffic pollution. The figures indicate that NRMM is responsible for around 7% of airborne particulates and 16% of nitrogen oxides in Europe, causing 400 000 premature deaths each year according to the World Health Organisation. It was for these reasons that I voted in favour of this report."@en4
"This vote was broken into two parts. The first part was a vote to reject the Council’s position and the second part consisted of 12 Amendments, which I co-signed, to reinstall crucial definitions and references to the principle of net neutrality throughout the text. I voted in favour of all parts. My reasons for rejecting the Council’s position were that during the course of negotiations, the text of this report was significantly watered down. The abolition of roaming charges initially foreseen for December 2015 was postponed until June 2017. On top of this, all references to net neutrality were deleted from the text, leaving the door completely open to a two-speed internet, an internet that would allow ISPs to discriminate between internet traffic to the detriment of smaller companies, newspapers and blogs. As the Council’s position was completely inadequate in terms of protecting net neutrality and respecting the need to abolish roaming charges as early as possible, I voted to reject it."@en4
"This was a second reading and no vote was required. The UK has a derogation (exemption) in regards to inland waterways, because there is no international or transit inland waterways transport, only national transport. If, however, the UK was not exempt, UKIP would vote against this legislation because it is allowing the Commission to utilise delegated powers."@en4
"Today UKIP voted against the La Via report on the proposal for a directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to caseins and caseinates intended for human consumption. We believe in preserving the health and well-being of citizens by guaranteeing transparency when it comes to the ingredients of the food they consume. We also support food business operators and understand their need to have all the necessary information at their disposal when labelling the final products, especially when it comes to allergens. However, the reasoning behind this vote concerned the alignment of the powers conferred upon the Commission by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which we are not prepared to support. We do not believe that these issues should be defined at an EU level. We oppose the drafting of further EU legislation and we believe that each Member State should have the autonomy to decide whether and how to legislate on these issues. We believe in the right of sovereign nations to establish their own policies."@en4
"Today UKIP voted against this non-legislative report on EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage. The report urges Member States to fully implement the Third EU Energy Package. UKIP rejects the implementation of EU energy policy legislation, it is the cause of our current damaging and counter-productive energy policy."@en4
"UKIP MEPs have abstained on this legislative report. UKIP supports the right to access to legal aid for suspects and accused persons. However, as the UK Government has chosen to opt out of this directive, we do not feel the need to cast opinion on legislation that does not affect the UK."@en4
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative consent vote. UKIP do not support the EU concluding agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the movement of people."@en4
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP does not support the right for the EU to make agreements with third countries. UKIP also does not recognise the mandate of Europol and therefore has also voted against this report on the basis that it increases its legitimacy and influence."@en4
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative report. Whilst we agree that there are non-tariff barriers in the single market, we do not agree with the parliament approach to dealing with them. More specifically, we are against the further harmonisation of single market rules and we believe many future EU approaches to rectify could breach the principle of subsidiarity."@en4
"UKIP MEPs have voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP do not support the legitimacy of Europol as an institution and do not support the EU concluding agreements with third countries."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted against this consultation procedure proposal, which is technically non-legislative. UKIP rejects the role of the European Border and Coast Guard in the migration crisis. Moreover, UKIP also opposes the compulsory resettlement of migrants across EU nations."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted against this motion for resolution. UKIP does not support the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office which will have powers that greatly infringe on national sovereignty."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on this legislative report. Whilst UKIP supports the accelerated return of migrants who are illegally staying in Europe, we do not support the creation of an EU harmonised travel document that progresses EU integration."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted to uphold the defence of parliamentary privilege as Crocetta was a Member of the European Parliament at the time the incident took place and was fulfilling his role."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted to uphold the waiver of immunity as Ujhelyi was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time the incident took place."@en4
"UKIP MEPs voted to uphold the waiver of immunity as Zarianopoulos was not fulfilling his role as a Member of the European Parliament: this incident took place when Zarianopoulos was a member of Thessaloniki City Council."@en4
"UKIP MEP’s have voted in favour of our group’s rejection amendment which calls for the council position to be rejected and the procedure to be closed. UKIP believes that it is not the competency of the European Union to create and manage entry requirements for third country nationals into the Union. We believe that this is a decision that sovereign national governments should have the ability to decide."@en4
"UKIP abstained on paragraph 29, split 1, because, while we cannot support calls for the EU to interfere in the tax and criminal law of Member States, we of course do not oppose cracking down on tax fraud and illegal activity."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this legislative, consent procedure (single vote) report. This vote was to approve giving EUR 1 651 834 to Greece for the earthquake that hit in 2015. The event was 6.1 on the Richter Scale in which two people lost their lives and 8 people injured. The Greek Government estimated the total damage to be over EUR 66 million. While in principle UKIP opposes the EU spending British taxpayer’s money, as this was for disaster relief and there was loss of life, we will not oppose its use in this case."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this legislative, consent procedure (single vote) report. UKIP objects to the EU dictating our terms of trade, so we would have been minded to vote against, however due to the sensitive nature of the report we did not oppose. There are practical problems in defining ‘items of torture’. Our concern in the future is that conventional and innocuous items could be added the list of restricted goods and may affect legitimate trade. UKIP, of course, condemns any form of torture."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this non-binding and non-legislative report. The report was regarding the implementation of a UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. However the report also called for setting standards of social protection measures at EU level. While of course UKIP supports the rights of disabled people, it should only be for elected national governments, in compliance with international law, to decide social protection policy."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP of course shares many of the concerns highlighted in the report regarding the violation of human rights, discrimination against LGBTI people, sexual violence as a weapon of war and many other cruel and inhumane acts. However we cannot support calls for more EU action on the international stage. These issues should be handled between national governments and at the appropriate and legitimate international level, namely the United Nations. The unelected and unaccountable EU institutions have no right to interfere in the foreign policy of Member States or the domestic affairs of non-EU countries."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. UKIP of course is glad that the violence came to an end and that the victims and innocents caught up in the war should be remembered. However the report goes on to support Bosnia and Herzegovina in applying for membership of the European Union which is something UKIP cannot support."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are pleased to see the successful assault on Mosul and the further dislodgement of ISIS strongholds in Iraq. Appropriate measures must be taken to prevent a further wave of migrants and refugees taking the dangerous routes into Europe. However, the report contains several calls for EU action, which we cannot support."@en4
"UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. While of course we share deep concern over the unstable political situation and killings that have taken place, we cannot support calls for more EU interference. These issues should be handled between national governments and at the appropriate and legitimate international level, namely the United Nations. The un-elected and unaccountable EU institutions have no right to interfere in the foreign policy of Member States or the domestic affairs of non-EU countries."@en4
"UKIP decided not to vote on this issue. Whilst the words mentioned by Mr Borghezio were abhorrent, the Court of Milan has failed to follow due process in staying the proceedings brought against Mr Borghezio until the vote in Plenary has taken place."@en4
"UKIP decided to vote to waive the immunity of Jean-Marie Le Pen, because the decision made by Patrick Bruel – who is a French singer and who is Jewish – not to perform in a town that has a National Front mayor was met by Mr Le Pen with the following comment, ‘That does not surprise me. Listen, we’ll put them all in the oven together next time’. Mr Bruel believes that these words were aimed at ‘the Jewish community’, suggesting that some of its members should be eliminated in the same way as had been practised in the Nazi regime. It is important to maintain an element of free speech, but this comment is unacceptable."@en4
"UKIP fundamentally opposes any attempt by the EU to determine the UK’s immigration policy. This would include involving Switzerland in the process. We note that the Swiss people are much more Eurosceptic than their political class, and suspect this agreement may have something to do with this."@en4
"UKIP has voted against this non-legislative report and we have tabled RCVs for particular areas of the report in which we strongly disagree with the text. In particular, UKIP believes that national sovereign governments should have the right to control their own borders and should not be forced to take migrants under an EU resettlement scheme. Similarly, we are also concerned with segments of the report which suggest that the EU should create rules governing the entry and residence of third country nationals. UKIP has, however, supported aspects of the report which criticise the Schengen Area as a facilitator and accelerator of both the migrant crisis and the movement of terrorists within Europe."@en4
"UKIP have voted against this because it is not for the EU to tell the UK or any other Member State what the criteria would be for insolvency procedures and practitioners."@en4
"UKIP supports country of origin labelling to help producers selling their goods and for consumers to know with certainty where their food is coming from. We believe in the importance of defending the interests of farmers and consumers, whilst preventing large retailers from confusing buyers. We have abstained on the final vote because, as much as we agree with the desirability of mandatory country of origin labelling, this should be a matter for Member States to determine alone."@en4
"UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe."@en4
"UKIP voted against the Pargneaux report: ‘Towards a new international climate agreement in Paris’. The UK represents only 2% of global emissions; the EU only 12%. The European Union has chosen to destroy its economy while the rest of the world is behaving very differently. Whatever we do, global emissions will rise. EU Institutions are planning to spend unimaginable sums of money on mitigation measures which will only further damage our economy. UKIP believes that it is time to question the EU’s hysterical obsession with the new belief of climate alarmism."@en4
"UKIP voted against the appointment of a Deputy Managing Director as we do not support the EU’s EFSI programme or any posts created for it. This ‘European Fund for Strategic Investment’ seeks to raise EUR 315 billion, but is based on taxpayers’ money being used as a guarantee and on wafer—thin assumptions on how much private businesses will put in. It is another grand EU project that will cost billions."@en4
"UKIP voted against the appointment of a Managing Director as we do not support the EU’s EFSI programme or any post created for it. This ‘European Fund for Strategic Investment’ seeks to raise EUR 315 billion, but is based on taxpayers’ money being used as a guarantee and on wafer—thin assumptions on how much private businesses will put in. It is another grand EU project that will cost billions."@en4
"UKIP voted against the non-legislative report on increasing the effectiveness of development cooperation. The EU does not have the legitimacy to order countries, whether they are Member States or third countries, how or when they may use their foreign-aid budget, how much to spend or where it goes. UKIP does not support this growing influence and power of the EU and therefore voted against."@en4
"UKIP voted against the non-legislative report. The EU wants to expand its influence over the less economically developed countries of the African, the Caribbean and the Pacific states group (ACP) with the use of the EUR 30 billion of the European Development Fund (EDF), which is outside of the EU budget. The ACP institutions see low-level attendance and produce few results. The EU finances 50% of the costs of the ACP secretariat. UKIP does not support the growing EU influence and the waste of funds on a failing EU project."@en4
"UKIP voted against the renewal of the EU ISA2 programme: ‘Interoperability solutions for European public administrations, businesses and citizens’. While we recognise the potential benefits of interoperability, we see this expensive EU programme as primarily designed to ‘Europeanise’ public administration, and to prise it away from national control, rather than as an efficiency measure."@en4
"UKIP voted against the report, as the EU now has exclusive external competence in this field, as confirmed by the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/13. The Member States therefore no longer act on their own account. We believe that the UK should be able to act in its own right."@en4
"UKIP voted against this because the EU is once again trying to adopt a one size fits all policy. The UK as a island nation has considerable expertise when it comes to issues relating to shipping and passenger transportation on the sea. The report does touch on some very relevant topics such as reducing fossil fuel requirement, however it goes too far by calling for decarbonisation but does not provide any alternative. The report also goes on to claim that the EU is responsible for facilitating Search and Rescue operations through the introduction of the EU passenger ship safety legislation, however, the UK has had Search and Rescue operations in place since the 1920’s. It just goes to show that this report is both inaccurate and misleading and in addition to the reasons already mentioned I felt that I should vote against it."@en4
"UKIP voted against this budget as it would review the UK rebate. The original revision had a higher estimation for the UK rebate, however this final budget has a much lower allocation. The cost of the collection of VAT which we pay to the EU was not counted towards the calculation, nor was the bill the UK ‘secretly’ paid to the EU of GBP 1.7 billion. UKIP opposes any further money being handed to the EU and we also oppose any moves for the EU to raise funding, which can only be done through taxation."@en4
"UKIP voted against this budgetary (single vote) report. This vote was to approve giving EUR 3 957 918 (60% match funding) for 918 Swedish workers who have been made redundant. This is nothing more than EU dole money. UKIP opposes British taxpayer’s money being used to offset poor economic decisions in other countries and by the EU."@en4
"UKIP voted against this budgetary (single vote) report. This vote was to approve giving EUR 5 364 000 (60% match funding) for 1441 Finnish workers who have been made redundant. This is nothing more than EU dole money. UKIP opposes British taxpayer’s money being used to offset poor economic decisions in other countries and by the EU."@en4
"UKIP voted against this budgetary vote as it would approve EUR 6 468 000 of taxpayers’ money to be given to 557 workers made redundant in Greece. UKIP is totally opposed to the EU spending British taxpayers’ money as dole money for poor economic decisions in other countries."@en4
"UKIP voted against this first reading legislative proposal. While we certainly share huge concern over the actions and independence of OLAF in its current form, we do not believe that handing over administrative control of its supervisory committee to the EU Commission is the answer. Both staff appointments and budgetary control will be managed by the Commission who are hardly neutral and we have serious concerns that this will lead to more political interference in the activities and investigations of OLAF."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non legislative and non-binding report. The report called for the EU to spend more money to spread information on European financing instruments. UKIP opposes the EU spending taxpayer’s money especially to put out such propaganda. There was a call to create an EU award for the best project that combats youth employment – this would be a complete waste of money and nothing more than a vanity project for the EU. It called for Member States to follow EU country-specific recommendations. It also wanted the EU to interfere with Member States’ education and national curriculum, suggesting what subjects should be taught – the EU has no competence in this area. It also called for more money and support for mobility programmes such as Erasmus which advertises British jobs across the EU. UKIP is the only party against open door immigration and will protect British jobs. The only people that should decide any of these things are our elected and accountable government, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non legislative non—binding report. UKIP objects to the powers of the EU to oversee and instruct national parliaments as to their economic policy, as by doing so the EU in effect overrides the democratic will of the peoples of its Member States. Accordingly, UKIP voted against."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-binding and non-legislative report. Although there were some very sensitive issues regarding equality, discrimination and helping disadvantaged people, the report went on to call for more EU action and legislation. It included calls for the reversal in the burden of proof in legal situations which would end the presumption of innocence and irrevocably alter UK criminal law. The report called for the EU to monitor national legislation, it tried to say when schools should close, and wanted changes to national taxation and social security. The only people that should take such decisions are our elected national governments, not unaccountable EU bureaucrats in Brussels."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-binding and non-legislative report. It called for the EU to create a definition for ‘energy poverty’, calls for investigating the possibility of an EU wide minimum income, wants an EU pillar of social rights and use of various EU funds. While UKIP supports more action to help those suffering poverty, it should be done by our own accountable national government, not by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. If we left the EU we would have more money to help solve these problems and not be constrained by EU legislation which is making the situation worse."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-binding and non-legislative resolution. The resolution called for more EU legislation, spending and interference in Member States affairs. Everything from tax, to migration, to increasing EU budgets and expanding EU military action. Only elected national governments should make these decisions and set these policies in compliance with international law, not unaccountable EU institutions in Brussels."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report because it called for the reversal of the burden of proof between employer and employee, which would fundamentally change the UK legal system and end the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. It also included calls for EU sanctions, EU audit regimes for companies and EU-imposed gender quotas for companies. UKIP believes that only the elected and accountable politicians in our own country should decide these things, not un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels. UKIP, of course, support gender equality and equal rights, and opposes any form of discrimination."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report on the EU-Vietnam agreement on partnership and cooperation. We are opposed in principle to EU institutions signing international agreements on behalf of the UK. Only elected and accountable national governments should negotiate and conclude international agreements, not the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission. The EU has no right to interfere in the domestic affairs of non-EU countries."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. The United Nations is an organisation for independent and sovereign states, with very few exceptions. We do not believe that the EU should have a place in the General Assembly. Various parts of the resolution were of concern, in particular calls for the two EU Member States with permanent seats on the UN Security Council to represent the EU in this capacity."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. This report is an unnecessary duplication of efforts already undertaken by the UN, who have already agreed on guiding principles on the matter, unanimously agreed by all members. There are calls within the report for the creation of more EU legislation. We are supportive of the overall objectives in improving human rights, but believe that the EU is an unnecessary duplication."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. Nuclear deterrence is purely a matter for the currently recognised nuclear powers in Europe, namely the United Kingdom and France. We completely reject any attempt at EU interference in this and all other aspects of Member State defence policy. Non-proliferation is supported by a long-standing international regime, legally based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other international treaties, and supported by international institutions such as the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency and others. We see no reason for the EU to potentially displace an already largely successful international norm."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP completely rejects any notion of an EU foreign or defence policy. We firmly believe that both historic and contemporary security within Europe is best secured through NATO. This report was filled with calls for greater development of the EU’s role in these policy areas, including the establishment of common EU forces, an EU military HQ and greater alignment of Member State foreign policy to suit the EU’s interests. With regard to paragraph 6, UKIP is fully committed to the 2% defence spending pledge, to which we are obliged to uphold through our NATO membership and the current government have committed themselves to. There is no need for the EU to make any encouragements or statements in this area, as such we rejected its inclusion in the report. Defence of the realm is the sovereign duty of the state and the whole review process of the EU’s new Global Strategy, to which this report is linked, represents the further erosion of Member State sovereignty."@en4
"UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is basically EU dole money towards which British taxpayers are forced to pay. Where there has been a large and sudden loss of jobs in a region of a Member State, the government can apply for this EU funding which will be used for retraining and education of workers who have lost their jobs. This report looked at how the EGF performed between 2007 and 2014. The report of course says the EGF was a glowing success and calls for the programme to expand and have more resources to be dedicated to it. UKIP opposes the use of the EGF as British taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to pay for poor economic policies in other countries and by the EU."@en4
"UKIP voted against this resolution as paragraph 7 reaffirmed that the budget for the EU Parliament (which British taxpayers pay for) would increase overall. UKIP supported amendments which called for cuts to EU budgets, staffing and the abolition of the MEP chauffeur service. Whilst public services are being cut in the UK it outrageous for MEPs and EU bureaucrats to receive more money from British taxpayers."@en4
"UKIP voted for the rejection amendment on this legislative motion for a resolution. By the EU’s own admission, the EU has spent millions on the ERTMS deployment without any concrete results, due to irregular deployment and delays in the deployment. Therefore, we cannot allow the EU to put legislation in place and still waste the taxpayers’ money."@en4
"UKIP voted for the waiver of immunity because the offence in question took place before Mr Piecha became an MEP."@en4
"UKIP voted in favour of the amendment to reject the Council position subject of this report. Firstly the purpose of the report is to implement a Regulation amending and modernising the Trade Mark regime operated by the EU. Secondly the Regulation would extend and enhance the ‘Europeanisation’ of Trade Mark law and will allow for the further accretion of power over intellectual property issues by the EU. UKIP believes that all intellectual property matters should be the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament deciding the nature of the Trade Marks regime exclusively in the British interest."@en4
"UKIP voted to abstain because this report focuses on reducing the Member State contributions, but it also strongly deplores that the Member States are lagging behind in payments to help with the migrant and refugee crisis. Regardless of the reductions there is an issue relating to paying out money for the Africa and Syria Trusts. In October, all cuts to the budget were voted against and as a result the budget increased to EUR 157.4 billion in commitments and EUR 143.5 billion in payments. The African Trust Fund amounts to EUR 1.8 billion and this money is allocated to examine the root causes that create irregular migrations and displaced persons. The Trust Fund for Syria is worth EUR 40 million, however already EUR 4 billion has been given to the refugee crisis. We are owed money from the EU due to the additional GBP 1.7 billion that was demanded from the UK Government by the EU, plus any savings that are made by the reduction in Member State contributions will end up back in the budget to promote the Security 7 Citizenship agenda and Global Europe; both of which we do not support."@en4
"UKIP voted to reject the proposals at second reading on the Fourth Railway Package because this would inevitably lead to the UK Government and the governments of Member States having their hands tied with regards to the awarding of competitive tenders. It is not for the EU to determine what may be constituted as competitive in a Member State without fully understanding the economic climate of that Member State and what implications any restriction or forced competitive process may have."@en4
"UKIP voted to reject this non-legislative resolution as the EU should not be making decisions that affect the transport policy of Member States."@en4
"UKIP will be voting against this report. There are certain positives in this report that relate to the fact that political (financial) bargaining should be refrained from regarding Member State contributions. There is a call to ensure that Member States pay 3/12th of GNI and VAT resources in the first half of the year to deal with the payment backlog of the previous year; this is directed towards the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and in particular the European Structural and Investment Funds. To boost the speed and efficiency of payments there is a strong point made to eliminate political interference. However, we do need this in order to question what is going on relating to GNI and VAT resources being submitted by Member States. The onus of management includes accounting procedures and practices indicating a uniformed approach to accounting and submitting of contributions. There is no way we can support such measures that take away the rights of our own British regulatory boards and financial ombudsman offices. There is also a call on the Commission to alter its proposal so that it fits in with Article 293(2) of the TFEU and Article 106(a) of the Euratom Treaty."@en4
"UKIP wishes to see peace in Northern Ireland. However, we feel this resolution does not fully grasp the situation. We note with concern the misuse of EU peace money by groups with a divisive agenda rooted in keeping old wounds open. We feel that the peace process would be infinitely more successful if the EU was not involved."@en4
"We abstained on this as it was merely a technical update to reflect the fact that Croatia has joined the EU since the original agreement was signed with Uruguay."@en4
"We are against the report because we object to new EU legislation in this field. We in UKIP believe that the UK should make its own energy policy and exploit and invest in lower-cost, reliable energy sources like coal, gas and nuclear."@en4
"We do want school-children to be well—nourished, but we opposed this because, even if you think taxpayers should contribute, these things should not be done centrally by Brussels."@en4
"We in UKIP are against this recommendation because we oppose the climate change alarmism supported by green lobbies, often financed by the Commission. They are the cause of our current damaging and counter-productive energy policy."@en4
"We in UKIP believe that the safety of food contact materials must be seriously evaluated as chemicals can easily migrate from the materials into food. However, Member States should be free to adopt specific measures at national level so that FCMs can comply with good manufacturing practices."@en4
"We now come to the explanations of vote."@en4
"We oppose the unelected Commission legislating on this matter. We strongly oppose any introduction of restrictions on the market by the EU. The UK Parliament will be able to decide if and how to legislate on this matter."@en4
"We oppose the use of British taxpayers’ money to boost EU propaganda in our own, or any other country. EU regional funds have been some of the most expensive and fraud-ridden parts of the EU budget."@en4
"We oppose this because of its lack of realism in understanding both how markets work and the current fiscal climate."@en4
"We voted against the provision of Parliament’s consent to this protocol because, on a broader point, we do not support the use of Member-State taxpayers’ money, through the European Neighbourhood Policy, being used to support an EU foreign policy in the region, and we are against the waste of British taxpayers’ money through projects administered by the EU overseas. As a secondary point the full financial implications of this decision to the United Kingdom, in terms of our overall net contribution to the European Union budgets and the money available within the UK via these programmes, are unknown. We will therefore not provide blanket support for Tunisia’s access to EU funding programmes when the full financial implications are not fully worked out."@en4
"We voted against this legislative report because we do not feel that British taxpayers’ money should be used to prop up vanity and propaganda projects in Europe. We note that the alleged financial difficulties in southern Europe that are being used to justify this additional support are largely to blame on the EU and its failing and doomed Euro currency. We fail to see how the EU, which created this mess, could possibly solve it."@en4
"We voted against this non-legislative report because ‘one size does not fit all’ and it will extend the EU’s Kafkaesque fisheries bureaucracy to anglers and recreational fishing."@en4
"We voted against this report because as usual, it was filled with buzz words and phrases that sound impressive but which will do nothing to create growth and jobs. The EU’s obsessive interference and over regulation damages both jobs and growth and we fail to see how buzz words and corporate speak will change that."@en4
"Whilst UKIP are not principally opposed to the use of PNR data on a bilateral basis, UKIP have voted against this legislative report. Our main concerns lie with two key areas of this legislation. The first issue is that this legislation will permit Europol, an EU agency that UKIP neither recognise nor respect, to access this data and thus provides an extension of their judicial powers. The second issue for UKIP lies with the length of time that the data will be held; we believe that this length of data retention is far too long and leaves many law-abiding citizens’ data at risk from cyber-attacks. We believe that this risk is significantly higher in certain Member States that do not have appropriate standards for data protection and security. In this respect, UKIP have therefore voted for amendments which significantly reduce the length of period for data retention."@en4
"Whilst critical in parts (on for example TARGET2 imbalances) this non-legislative report nevertheless also calls on the ECB and Commission to act to shore up the ECB system rather than plan to disband it, accordingly UKIP voted against."@en4
"− Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing ()."@en4
"− The debate is closed."@en4
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place shortly."@en4
"According to the Treaties, the Parliament has a right of scrutiny of the legality and regularity of the operating expenditure of the institutions and agencies every year. The main goal of the discharge procedure is to ensure that public funds are used in the best possible way. This vote concerns the discharge reports related to one of the EU's decentralised agencies, the European Food Safety Authority. I voted against this report because, despite improvement of its policies on employing people with conflicts of interest, EFSA recently appointed the current director of Regulation, Science and Sustainability at the UK industry's trade federation (The Food and Drink Federation), as their Director of Communications. They have since refused to disclose this person's Declaration of Interests. Until EFSA regains some credibility on this matter, I did not believe it appropriate to grant discharge. Therefore I voted against."@en3
"Aid through the Solidarity Fund is not an efficient means of assisting with floods. It only represents a small portion of the money spent by Member States and is an administrative nightmare. Far better to reduce Member States’ contributions and to allow them to deal with such matters directly themselves."@en3
"Along with my colleagues in the Socialist & Democrats Group I voted in favour of this report as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund aims to provide support for workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activities have ceased as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, as a result of a continuation of the global financial and economic crisis, or as a result of a new global financial and economic crisis. The UK has never made an application under this fund. UK workers therefore receive none of this support."@en3
"Artificial trans fats are linked to a number of health problems, including heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in Europe. Labour MEPs are seeking to protect consumer health by demanding legal limits on the amount of trans fats in food."@en3
"As a result of the humanitarian crisis facing refugees and the urgent need for funding I voted in favour of this report. The report caters for an extra EUR 401.3 million in EU funding to manage the refugee crisis; funding will go to provide immediate resources to respond to demands from the UNHCR and the World Food Programme and other relevant organisations. This will provide immediate support to refugees. The funding will also go towards helping with the coastguard effort to rescue floundering vessels and reduce ocean fatalities. The passing of this report and increased funding is the right step in tackling the EU’s incapacity to deal with the current refugee crisis in a more humane, efficient and effective way. That includes enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing among Member States."@en3
"As the UK is outside of the Schengen area and this proposal does not impact the UK in any way, I have abstained."@en3
"At present, 16.8% of UK citizens are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Today the EPLP voted in favour of a report which encourages Member States to adopt concrete employment policies aiming at ensuring an inclusive and integrated labour market and at addressing the severe impact of unemployment, create sustainable employment and ensure decent working conditions including social protection."@en3
"Cableways are a common feature in ski and sports resorts across the EU and also play a key role in many urban transport systems. Today’s vote will help to harmonise the rules to make sure that newly constructed cableways meet stringent health and safety requirements, protecting the passengers and workers who travel on them."@en3
"Chaith mé vóta i bhfabhar na tuarascála seo de bharr go n-aithním go bhfuil an Ciste Eorpach um Choigeartú don Domhandú (CED) ábalta cabhair agus deiseanna a thabhairt dóibh siúd atá tar éis a bpost a chailliúint mar gheall ar an ngéarchéim eacnamaíochta. Is cás Éireannach é seo agus baineann sé le 250 iomarcaíocht ó agus 200 duine óg atá dífhostaithe. Tá tionchar ollmhór ag dúnadh an chomhlachta seo ar an gceantar áitiúil i mBaile Átha Cliath, agus cinnte, níos faide ná sin fós. Bhí sé lonnaithe in áit atá faoi mhíbhuntáiste le leibhéal íseal de gnóthachtáil oideachasúil srl. Mar aon leis sin, tá scileanna faoi leith ag na daoine seo a chiallaíonn go mbeidh sé deacair dóibh post eile a aimsiú in earnáil dhifriúil. Leis an aistriú airgid de EUR 2 490 758 áfach, beidh na daoine atá fágtha gan fostaíocht anois ábalta scileanna nua a fhoghlaim, rud a chiallaíonn go mbeidh sé níos fusa dóibh post eile a aimsiú in earnáil éagsúil. De ghnáth bíonn 500 duine ar a laghad de dhíth chun iarratas a dhéanamh chuig CED, mar sin cuirim fáilte roimh an tslí gur cuireadh maolú i bhfeidhm ionas go mbeidh teacht ag na daoine ar an gciste seo."@en3
"Cé go bhfuil feabhas de chineál éigin sa mhandáid i gcomhair 2016, ní féidir a rá go bhfuil go leor athraithe: tuilleadh déine, polaitíocht dhiúltach, agus clár nualiobrálachais atá á neartú ag an mbuiséad. Tá gá ann an treoir dhamáisteach seo a athrú. Ba chóir dúinn díriú ar riachtanais na ndaoine, fostaíocht d’ardchaighdeán a chur ar fáil, agus gealltanas a thabhairt maidir le fás inbhuanaithe, cliste. Is é an rud atá uainn chomh maith ná níos mó tacaíochta don bheartas comhtháthaithe, agus tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go dtugaimid tacaíocht do na tíortha sin atá ag streachailt de bharr srianta sóisialta agus eacnamaíochta. Tá an tinneas póite a leagadh orainn mar gheall ar Chreat Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil 2007-2013 fós le mothú. Ní bheidh cláir AE 2014-2020 tosaithe roimh lár 2016. Ba chóir athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar an gcreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil. Tá sé de dhualgas orainn an rud ceart a dhéanamh ar mhaithe lenár saoránaigh: fíor-infheistíocht i ndaoine, ní brabús. Mar gheall ar na fáthanna thuasluaite, staon mé ón vótáil seo."@en3
"DAB 1 will make EFSI possible. If the UK government is ready to grasp this opportunity it will create many billions of pounds worth of investment into the UK economy; investments in infrastructure, SMEs and green growth. The agreement that no fresh money will be used is also encouraging and demonstrates that the Commission is ready to do more with less. It is with regret however that this money has come from Heading 1a and we hope that at the mid-term review more funding will be found from other headings to reinforce this productive area."@en3
"EPLP abstained on the final vote on the resolution. We agree that countering propaganda and radicalisation requires cooperation between Member States. However, there are elements in the report itself which could be perceived as a propaganda. Russia is not the only state involved in this activity; and putting ISIS on the same footing as a state is not appropriate. Therefore, we believe that supporting quality and independent journalism more actively is the way forward."@en3
"European cinema is at the heart of the cultural development of the EU and touches directly upon the identity of European citizens. The economic weight of the European film industry is also significant. To make full use of its cultural and economic potential, the European film industry needs to thrive in the right environment, spurred on by a stable and adaptable legal framework which encourages investment and diversity, and allows new services to develop online. I voted in favour of this report as I believe it sets up a good foundation to achieve the above."@en3
Skipped 63,544 rows
"− Madam President, I will read out the entire text for paragraph 6 as amended orally: ‘Stresses that the boat people issue which affects Thailand and other countries is essentially a regional one; views positively the efforts of the Thai Government to increase cooperation among regional neighbours to address the Rohingya issue; welcomes in this respect the meeting held on 23 January by the Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Kasit Piromya, with the Ambassadors of India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Burma; and appeals to the members of ASEAN and, in particular, the Thai chair and relevant international organisations, to work on a permanent solution to this long-standing problem;’."@en1
"− Madam President, I wish to thank all the speakers for their valuable contributions. This shows that your contributions can be very helpful, because already some very important points have been made. These include, for example, the question of how we can create the right work environment for workers in order to keep them in their home countries and, also, how we address the very serious problem of the brain drain. I was in Liberia last week and was shocked to hear that for a population of 3 million, they have only 150 doctors. The rest of their doctors are all in the United States of America. This is a very big problem – not only for Third World countries, but also within the European Union, as there is a very serious brain drain from the east to the west. We have to see how we might possibly encourage health workers and health professionals to stay in their home countries. In order to do that, we have to create better work conditions for them. Formal care cannot be addressed without taking into account the need for, and the capacity for, informal care, which we indeed reconcile in the Green Paper. Mrs Sinnott raised the very important question of how to train more people and offer people more opportunities to train. That is the other side of the coin. On the one hand, we want more health workers, but on the other, we do not have the capacity to train them. All these are very important questions which we shall be able to answer and give solutions to once we collect all the important comments that you and other stakeholders make on the Green Paper. At the end of the process, we hope we will arrive at some solutions to the problem before it becomes truly insurmountable."@en1
"− Madam President, I wish to thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I also wanted to say that I have found with everybody who works or has worked at the ICTY a degree of dedication and commitment which I have seldom seen elsewhere. That has been a great pleasure. That was all the more reason to come forward with these proposals."@en1
"− Madam President, I wish to thank you for a very concise but important debate and congratulate Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck on her report and initiative. The ICTY is indeed an expression of European values of justice and the rule of law, and therefore this debate is so important. It is also an essential element of our enlargement policy in the Western Balkans. On dates, I can only agree with the ICTY itself – that the dates in the tribunal’s completion strategy are target dates only and not absolute deadlines, as correctly stated in Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck’s report. For the Commission, the crucial issue is retaining the support of the international community for the completion of the Tribunal’s existing mandate so as to ensure that there will be no impunity for war crimes in the future."@en1
"− Madam President, I would also like to thank the rapporteurs for their diligent and very efficient work in what is a difficult task, and speak specifically on the issue of the Ombudsman’s Office, where there will be an increase of almost 6% in the budget. This, we believe, is appropriate, recognising that half of this may not be required if there is no actual change in the Office after the elections in 2009. I think we should also recognise that there has been some work within the Office of the Ombudsman to reorganise staff and resources in a more efficient way. While I am on my feet, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture I should just like to say that the issue of food aid – and I say this also to the public who are gathered here – is something which touches people really deeply. I think that the public would like us to help in a generous way with food aid. I can understand that there are budgetary concerns, rightly so, about the rules. Perhaps this says something about the work we do in the background, before we pronounce, so that we do this in a good way and send out the proper message to the public that we are supporting the developing world and the hungry and the needy. But it is also worth pointing out that our development aid in the past did focus on agriculture and food production, as other speakers have mentioned, and, tragically, in latter years we have drawn away from looking at the importance of production agriculture in the developing world. Perhaps we are missing that point here too in the European Union. If this food crisis has done one thing, it has alerted us to the fragility of food production and the need to nurture it within the developing world. Finally, on this particular point, a colleague of mine, Esther De Lange, and I are supporting a pilot project to link up young farmers in Europe and the developing world. I think out of this we might see some good results because they need help and we need to understand their plight."@en1
"− Madam President, I would first of all like to thank Astrid Lulling very much because it is very much on her initiative that we are presenting this. As Chair, I will be presenting the report here tonight because we are extremely concerned about the situation regarding bees. What is happening to bees is very important to Europe – to the world, in fact. For the last two years running a third of honey bees in the USA have mysteriously died. In 2007, some 800 000 colonies were wiped out. In Croatia, five million bees disappeared in less than 48 hours. In the UK, one in five honey bee hives is falling and, around the world, commercial beekeepers are reporting losses of up to 90% since 2006. What is happening and just how serious is it for us and the future of mankind? Albert Einstein predicted that man would only have four years of life left if the bees disappeared from the Earth, so we need to take this very seriously. If you look at honey bees, they are responsible for pollinating plants and flowers which provide about a third of all the food we eat. They are nature’s top dog when it comes to pollination and without them we can say goodbye to soya beans, onions, carrots, broccoli, apples, oranges, avocados, peaches and many other foods. There would be no more strawberries. You can imagine how Wimbledon would not be able to survive without strawberries! We would not have lucerne, which is used in cattle feed. We are therefore absolutely dependent on the honey bee. Of course, they also pollinate cotton so we would not have any clothes either. We really do have to take this matter very seriously. In China, for instance, there are virtually no honey bees in some regions and they are having to pollinate a lot of crops by hand. The 90 commercial crops grown worldwide which rely on pollination generate around GBP 30 billion a year. Bees contribute over GBP 100 million a year to the UK economy and around EUR 400 million to the European economy, so you can see quite clearly that there is a huge problem. Therefore I would ask the Commission – and if possible I want to be able to hand over some of my time to add to Astrid Lulling’s because she was very much the driving force behind this – whether it can draw together more money for research. Having talked to the professional beekeepers and others, we know there is some mystery as to why bees are dying, partly because their condition has been very poor in the last few years and they seem to be dying literally like flies. Also there is a problem with having the right chemicals in place to cure the diseases of bees. I think as a Commission you need not only to make money available for research but also to draw together what all the Member States are doing. It is essential that we act now. We cannot wait until all the bees have died out because the problem will be incredibly serious."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have been here, and especially to all those who have stayed for an engaging political debate about the nature of European democracy. It is a timely and important question. I would like to say, very briefly, that the proposed pan-European Members will be extremely accountable to European public opinion, especially to that category of the electorate that is tired and frustrated by the narrowness of national politics. It is desirable to refer the proposal back to the committee for further but expeditious consideration so that we can broaden the negotiating mandate for Parliament as it goes into dialogue with the Council and Commission, and also to enlarge the bipartisan pro-European consensus in the plenary."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur for his profound work. Counterfeiting and copyright piracy are a drain on the economy in Europe and worldwide, and virtually no industry escapes this illegal activity. It is responsible for damaging legitimate business and especially, in the view of the IMCO Committee, it is a source of consumer detriment. The problem is serious and is growing more serious, yet counterfeit and pirated goods continue to be freely available within the internal market. To combat counterfeiting and piracy, we have, firstly, to enhance enforcement, helping customs authorities to detect it, and to make agreements to undermine counterfeiting and piracy at the point where infringement originates. Action is also required to keep the internet from becoming an even more prominent distribution channel for counterfeit and pirated products by strengthening remedies to more effective redress. Secondly, we need public awareness campaigns. Too often, consumers are unaware of the scale and repercussions of the problem. The lives of consumers are put at risk by dangerous products, especially fake medicines. Government-led campaigns should increasingly focus on the social costs of counterfeiting and piracy, such as health and safety. Thirdly, we need more data gathering, assessment and research. Comprehensive and comparable data are vital for both legal enforcement efforts and awareness campaigns. This year, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection agreed the new goods package, which created the new framework for market surveillance and for the enforcement of all EU law to ensure the safety of goods available on the internal market. Earlier in this legislative period, we adopted a modernised customs code and instruments to help create an effective and paperless customs. In this way, we have sought to enhance the operational efficiency of customs authorities at the external borders of the EU – the last buffer of protection – preventing the entry onto the internal market of counterfeit goods. Fighting counterfeiting and piracy is an issue that should continue to be at the top of our political agenda. In Parliament, we call for the Commission to cooperate with governments, customs authorities, industry and consumers in all EU Member States. We must take action together if we are to fight it effectively. With this debate this evening, we challenge the Commission to deliver a coherent and coordinated approach to tackling counterfeiting and piracy. Only in this way can we ensure the trust and confidence of consumers in the products on sale in the internal market."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Tajani for being with us this evening. This question was submitted by me on behalf of Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism, as Members had become very concerned over the summer months by the collapse of SkyEurope airline, and approached me to take this initiative on their behalf. It is worth noting that we have had 77 airline bankruptcies in the European Union since 2000 and, in the sad but likely event that some more may follow in this tough economic climate, we believe it is imperative that we use this question tonight to at least open up the debate now about how we can best protect consumers and air travellers in the European Union. In the case of SkyEurope, it was an airline based in Slovakia. We saw passengers being left stranded at destinations, without accommodation or even a flight home. We also had the problem that many of those people were told that compensation, or even refunds, would not be possible as they had not purchased their ticket with a credit card or booked through a travel agent. These were passengers who had booked online through their own accounts, a practice that has been increasing over many years. It is not an isolated case. We saw similar scenes in my home country, the United Kingdom, last year when Excel Airways went bankrupt, leaving over 200 000 people out of pocket, without compensation and stranded at a whole host of airports throughout Europe, with it costing them even more money to find accommodation and flights home. Many of these people are not regular business flyers or regular flyers like ourselves, and they do not have the financial means to deal with this sort of upheaval. They are normally from those families who spend their savings on a family holiday, only to see their hard-earned money go down the drain through little fault of their own. The status quo here is clearly not acceptable. Here in the European Union and the European Parliament, we should be proud of our record on passenger rights. We have seen the introduction of denied boarding compensation – although we know there are still issues to resolve with that. We have seen the introduction of rights to assistance and tougher laws on ticket pricing transparency, as well as tough compensation measures in the package travel directive. In fact, I believe we have covered most of the bases when it comes to consumer protection in aviation, but there is clearly a loophole here that needs to be closed. If you book a charter with a holiday company you are covered by the package travel directive. If you book with a scheduled airline, you are covered by their system, but if you book online your seat only – the airline flight – then you are not covered. It is an anomaly. It is a loophole which Parliament, with the assistance of the Commission, is seeking to close. In this question we have also floated the idea of establishing a reserve compensation fund, but this must not be seen as a demand on our part or by the Commission. We merely wish to open up the debate as to what mechanisms might be possible to help us best solve this problem, so the idea of the question is to start the dialogue with the Commission in the hope that we can close this loophole and find a solution to what is a serious problem, particularly for those people who find themselves victims of an airline insolvency. I look forward to working with the Commission to try and find a solution to this problem with my committee, and to hearing the views of the other Members."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament for its interest in the Arctic and also say how much we appreciated your resolution on Arctic governance last October. It gave political impetus to the Commission’s own work on the communication that has already been mentioned, ‘The EU and the Arctic region’, which was adopted last November. Fourthly, it is not realistic to propose an international moratorium on the extraction of Arctic resources. The bulk of the estimated reserves of minerals, oil and gas are either on the sovereign territory of the Arctic states or in their exclusive economic zones, and some of them have far-reaching plans for further exploration activities. However, we insist that the extraction and use of Arctic resources must always adhere to the highest possible standards for the environment and sustainability. We share Parliament’s concerns about the urgency of action in this region, and our communication puts forward a set of coherent and specific proposals. Based on this, we look forward to continued cooperation with you as we develop an EU Arctic policy. Let us never lose sight of our common goal, and let us work together with the Arctic states and the international community to find the best and most effective way of preserving and protecting the Arctic for future generations. Now, why is this so important? We share your concern that the Arctic region deserves international attention as never ever before. Scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring much faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. In the past six years alone, the ice cap has lost up to half its thickness near the North Pole and may have passed a tipping point. That is a clear warning sign we would be foolish to ignore. The radical transformation of the Arctic is having an impact on its people, its landscape and its wildlife – on land and at sea. Therefore, now is the time to act. That is why we adopted the communication, which is the first step towards an EU policy for the Arctic, laying the foundations for a more comprehensive approach. The communication focuses on three broad goals: protecting and preserving the Arctic, in full cooperation with its inhabitants; promoting the sustainable use of resources; and beefing up multilateral governance. The proposals in the communication are the outcome of a very thorough analysis made by the Commission. This involved consultations with all main Arctic stakeholders, including both EU and non-EU Arctic states. This was all the more necessary because many EU activities and key developments of global scope, such as the integrated maritime policy or climate change, have an effect on the Arctic. So, based on these discussions and in light of the motion for a resolution tabled for discussion today, let me stress that the Arctic region differs from the Antarctic in a number of key aspects. Unlike the Antarctic, which is a vast, uninhabited continent surrounded by an ocean, the Arctic is a maritime space, surrounded by inhabited land belonging to sovereign countries. So the idea of establishing a binding legal regime specifically designed for the Arctic is, unfortunately, difficult, because none of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states – Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia and the United States – is in favour of such a regime. I therefore fear that such a proposal would at this stage not only be ineffective but could prove to be detrimental to the EU’s role and credibility in overall Arctic cooperation. Rather than expending efforts on that cause, the EU’s interests and objectives are better served by building greater multilateral cooperation and making better use of the existing legal instruments. Through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other general conventions, there is already an extensive international legal framework in place. The UNCLOS is also the basis for settling disputes, including maritime delimitation. We want to see these conventions fully implemented and, very importantly, adapted to the Arctic specificities. For example, we propose a regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management where areas and species are not yet covered by other instruments. Secondly, we will work closely with the International Maritime Organisation, developing and enforcing solid international standards for safer Arctic navigation, respecting human safety and environmental sustainability. This means either extending existing legislation or adopting new legislation. Thirdly, we will also defend the internationally recognised principles of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage. Coastal states should avoid discriminatory steps concerning navigational rules. Any measures will have to be applied in full compliance with the International Law of the Sea."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank first the rapporteur, because Mr Marinescu and his shadow rapporteurs have done very positive and important work. Now we are at the end of the second reading, and the Commission would like to reaffirm once again – and in the strongest possible terms – the political and industrial importance of the subject on which Parliament has to decide. Notwithstanding the adverse economic cycle we are in, there are some clear lessons to be learned: how to revitalise the rail freight sector, because rail freight transport is primarily international, and an indisputable factor in its success is the availability of good-quality rail infrastructure at the European level. That is what the customers ask for. Good-quality rail infrastructure across borders is an essential condition for the competitiveness of many rail freight market segments, and it is primordial if rail wants to compete with other modes of transport. This also explains why the Commission proposed, at the end of 2008, the development of a European rail network for competitive freight based on freight corridors. These corridors link the main industrial regions of Europe, where the most substantive flow of goods originates and terminates along the main international axes. The legislative proposal to which your attention is drawn today contains decisive elements which favour this development of high-quality rail infrastructure at international level. These include cooperation between rail infrastructure managers, reliability of infrastructure capacities allocated to the corridors, good coordination between rail infrastructure management and goods terminal management, and non-discriminatory access to these corridors for all operators. The Council’s position at first reading maintains the basic principle put forward in the Commission’s original proposal but waters down some of the elements. The TRAN Committee has reintroduced, at second reading, important amendments which strengthen the regulation, and they bring back the original Commission proposal. The Commission considers that the compromise obtained during the negotiation is balanced and that the general objectives of the Commission’s proposals are duly taken into account. We are very grateful to Parliament in that it has succeeded in reinforcing the role of the one-stop shop, which had been reduced to a mere mail box in the common position of the Council. I know, rapporteur, that some people want to go back to the common position. I invite you and Parliament to resist these attempts, because they would weaken the compromise that you have been able to reach. For the railway undertakings and for other applicants which wish to have access to the corridor infrastructure, the one-stop shop is a considerable simplification of the present, very burdensome procedure, because the one-stop shop will be able to take decisions itself instead of referring matters to the individual infrastructure managers, which cover only national sections of each corridor. But, of course, the one-stop shop is limited to catalogue or reserve capacity: that is, the capacity which the infrastructure managers themselves have already decided to set aside for freight trains. Corridor managers have also several options as to the way in which the one-stop shop should be established. Let me emphasise that the one-stop shop is a joint body set up or designated by the management board of each corridor: its function is that of a coordination tool. It may be a technical body within the corridor management structure, or one of the infrastructure managers concerned, or the bodies already established by Rail Net Europe. So it is not a supranational body, but it is a tool which speeds up and simplifies, in a very transparent and non-discriminatory manner, the path allocation process. The infrastructure managers have the responsibility to predefine capacity. The one-stop shop just sells paths to applicants on the basis of decisions already taken by infrastructure managers on the predefined infrastructure capacity. Some have gone as far as saying that, with this regulation, the Commission wants to give priority to freight trains over passenger trains, thus threatening the efficient provision of rail passenger services, in particular at regional and local level. Now let me be very frank: this is improper, it is not the right reading of the proposal, and it does not correspond at all to the texts that everybody can read in Article 14, in Article 15. Priority rules for trains are not something the Commission will ever want to decide from Brussels. Freight traffic is systemically discriminated against today because passenger traffic always has priority, even in cases of disturbance. What the text says is that the infrastructure managers themselves must take the responsibility to define transparent, consistent, non-discriminatory rules for both types of traffic so that freight trains which are on time do not have to be systematically delayed in case of disturbance. This is, I believe, a very good compromise, and if you parliamentarians adopt it and if it is also then correctly implemented, the Commission is convinced that it will contribute to the revitalisation of rail freight and will help the European economy to start again after the present crisis."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank the Honourable Members for their support. Let me use this opportunity to inform you of the reasons for the tight timetable for adopting the convergence report to which Mr Scicluna referred. The cut-off date for the assessment depends on the availability of the forecast data, which itself depends on the date of the validation of the public finance data by Eurostat. In fact, to give the European Parliament more time, Eurostat agreed to advance the validation of the fiscal data. Still, the production process of the report by the Commission is very tight because we want to ensure a quality product, and squeezing it further would not be feasible without compromising the overall Union-wide assessment of all Member States, not least as regards the excessive deficit procedures and the overall respect of the Stability and Growth Pact, which is the very foundation of the economic and monetary union. In fact we will use the same raw material tomorrow in the Commission when we take decisions on, in total, 16 excessive deficit procedures – 12 existing and four new excessive deficit procedures for the EU Member States. So it is indeed an overall Europe-wide process and that imposes some limitations on the Commission’s work in this regard. In any case, I appreciate your pragmatism and I might say that I met members of the ECON Committee on 13 April to have an informal advance dialogue on the convergence prospects for Estonia. I would also like to add that the Commission is ready to inform the Parliament at any time regarding the economic and fiscal situation in Estonia. It is clear that Estonia must stay vigilant to ensure the stability of its public finances and macroeconomic development, and the Commission will certainly monitor this very vigilantly. Finally, I count on having Estonia as an ally in pursuing fiscal discipline in terms of exercising peer pressure in the Eurogroup. We need allies to that end, and I count on Estonia in that regard. We need to work together in order to ensure the sustainability of public finances and thus sustainable growth and job creation in Europe. I think it was Mr Brons who referred to Estonia supposedly losing its recently regained independence and its freedom. Maybe I should respond to Mr Brons by saying that perhaps it would be relevant to mention the reasoning followed by my grandfather when he voted ‘yes’ in the referendum in Finland on Finland’s EU membership, some 15 years ago. He said to me that he spent five years on the front to defend his country looking to the East, but since then he had always looked to the West."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for the number of points that they have raised. I will certainly forward your points and the concerns that you have expressed to Commissioner Figeľ. I would, however, like to express some general points and reactions. Mrs Pack spoke about the harmonising of rules at European level and how this impacts on regional diversity. I would like to point out that having harmonisation at European level is necessary in order to ensure a level playing field across the European Union so that its citizens can fully benefit from the single internal market. This would not, however, mean that such harmonisation leads to less cultural diversity. In fact this was also the outcome of the European Year on Intercultural Dialogue. Furthermore, the Commission, through its regional policy, promotes cultural diversity and invests in culture, both directly and indirectly, indeed by involving regional authorities and stakeholders. In a number of policy areas the Commission seeks to promote diversity and take account of regional specificities across the European Union. Concerning the point raised on the issue of culture and the economic crisis and the overall contribution to growth and jobs, let me just recall that the Commission is undertaking a study this year to analyse how the cultural dimension has been integrated into the regional development strategies for 2007-2013. The results of the study will highlight the value of investing in the cultural sector, including cultural and creative industries, and will underline the links between such investment, the specific regional development objectives and the Lisbon Agenda. On the Green Paper I would like to inform you, as I said at the outset, that this policy document is due in the first quarter of 2010 and its aim is to launch an open consultation process. It has three main policy objectives. Firstly, to advance a more strategic approach. Secondly, to unlock the potential of European cultural and creative industries, and, thirdly, to contribute to the development of strategies aimed at encouraging better linkages between cultural and creative industries and other sectors of the economy, and thus to connect culture and creativity with innovation and the wider economy. The regional dimension will of course be fully taken into account in this context. I would like to conclude by referring to the statement made by Mr Posselt that culture is often destroyed by nationalisms. Certainly not by the European Union: it firmly believes in and upholds unity and diversity."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank you all for this interesting debate. I think it is very necessary regarding our future relations with Russia, and a number of important points have been covered in the debate. I can support much of what has been said here. For those who speak of the need for engagement, I think it is clear that a new agreement is of great importance for the further development and intensification of cooperation between the EU and Russia. It is also clear that the new agreement must continue to improve on the current partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA). It has to reflect the realities of today’s cooperation with Russia. Our relations now are a lot deeper and more wide-ranging than they were only a decade ago. For those who speak of energy, we must clearly state that the EU wishes to strengthen cooperation with Russia through the instruments we have – the meetings of the Energy Dialogue and the Permanent Partnership Council on Energy. There will be a meeting of the Permanent Partnership Council on Energy during this Presidency. The objective is to promote trust and transparency in EU-Russia energy relations. We cannot afford another disruption of the energy supply. We should also strengthen the early warning mechanism and make it more operative. To those who speak of human rights, I think that the application of the rule of law, an independent judiciary and full respect for human rights – including free and independent media – are necessary to promote stability and prosperity in Russia. The EU follows the human rights situation in Russia with concern and we raise – and will continue to raise – those concerns at our EU-Russia meetings. For example, the conduct of cases such as the resumption of the Khodorkovsky trial will be a kind of litmus paper for us regarding the rule of law in Russia. For those who speak of leverage, I agree very much that we have to speak with one voice when talking with Russia, and we need this kind of debate to shape the form of this one voice. Unity and solidarity are essential, and we will work very hard to achieve this. It is important that the Member States inform and consult each other as much as possible about bilateral issues with Russia which could have repercussions on other Member States and the EU as a whole. Parliament’s suggestions in this regard are worth considering, although, given the existing Council structures, I am not entirely sure that the creation of a formal consultation mechanism is the most practical way forward. I strongly feel, however, that some kind of mechanism or common approach is needed to complement the existing framework of EU-Russia relations. There is definitely some room for improvement in our policy towards Russia, and unity and solidarity are indeed the key words in this context. We already have quite intensive political consultation in the Council when it comes to showing solidarity, but this is also a question of political will. I agree that we need greater trust and understanding between the EU and Russia. We need to overcome the suspicions of the past and build on the real and substantial relationship which has evolved over the years, but this is certainly a two-way process and we need two to tango. The new agreement is one way to do this. The other is through a better dialogue. Parliament has an important role to play here and I can, therefore, agree with the suggestion that the role of the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee should be strengthened under the new agreement. The parliamentary dimension – like civil society contacts – has much to offer in terms of communicating and promoting the fundamental democratic principles and values on which the EU is founded. We therefore look forward to remaining in a dialogue with you as the negotiations progress."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like very sincerely to thank my high-quality shadow rapporteurs for their help. I am pleased we are debating and voting this directive this week, still under the Spanish Presidency. It is historic, being the first criminal justice measure negotiated under codecision and the first EU fair trial law. I strongly agree with Vice-President Reding about the three-year implementation period. It was very cheeky of Member States to slip this in unilaterally after we had reached a Council-Parliament deal. They will not get away with it again. I say to UKIP that there is no call to get nationalistic about the quality of justice. I am strongly critical of the lower UK standards that developed over the last decade like control orders, which are house arrest, and 20-day detention without charge. I hope the new government returns fully to the rule of law. I am very pleased that my country and Ireland have exercised their opt-in to participate, so this directive will cover 26 countries. This directive is in the spirit of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, whereas UKIP would let bank robbers and terrorists escape justice. Turning to the amendments, Mrs de Brún explained the amendments on the rights to use European regional or minority languages. While having sympathy with their motivation, I have to oppose them because they do not in fact fit the directive. The test in the directive is one of comprehension and ability to express oneself, as Vice-President Reding said. It is not about the right to choose as such, so there has to be a procedure of verification of the person’s ability to speak and understand and, if they do not accept the language offered, the option would be to challenge the decision. Member State national laws specifying minority language rights are unaffected, although in practice those rights are arguably increased in that if the speaker of a minority language is unable to understand the proceedings then the directive’s rights apply equally to them. I ask that the directive be passed unamended and quickly so that it gets on the statute book. I look forward to Commission proposals on the further road map measures – the first expected in about a fortnight – and I know that in the hands of our feisty champion, Vice-President Reding, they are in very good hands."@en1
"− Madam President, I would say to the honourable Members and to Minister Jouyet that, as we approach World AIDS Day on 1 December 2008, this plenary session provides a good opportunity to reflect on some significant achievements in combating HIV/AIDS and to focus on the serious challenges that lie ahead. So what can we as politicians do to address and overcome this situation? Our common humanistic core values and a strong commitment to human values, solidarity and our position against discrimination must be the basis of all policies to fight HIV/AIDS, and should be the foundation for all activities in combating the disease. The European position and response is clear: we concentrate on prevention and raising awareness; we promote HIV testing and access to treatment and care for all in need; we fight for affordable medication; we oppose and fight any form of discrimination or stigmatisation; we seek to identify best practice and support civil society. In areas within our political responsibility, we have to create the conditions for effective actions on the ground, serving both society and people living with HIV and AIDS. Clearly we cannot be complacent. We have to keep up the momentum. The EU also looks beyond its borders to the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries, which represent an exceptional challenge to social growth and development. Eastern Europe and Central Asia continue to experience the fastest growth of the epidemic in the world. In this context, we reaffirm our commitment to supporting partner countries in scaling-up towards universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. On behalf of the Commission, I welcome the resolution on early diagnosis and early care of HIV/AIDS and fully endorse and support the principle of breaking down barriers to HIV testing, treatment and care. The Commission further encourages people to use the possibility of HIV testing and reiterates to Member States the need to establish testing centres that meet international standards and operate according to agreed principles. The Commission is currently developing its second strategy on combating HIV/AIDS in the EU and also our near neighbourhood, which will further concentrate on prevention and will focus on the regions and groups most affected by the epidemics. However, what a successful prevention approach needs most of all is openness and tolerance on a political and societal level: openness to the realities of our lives today, of sexuality and behaviours; openness to means of harm reduction; openness to fight inequalities, discrimination and suppression; and openness to other cultures and habits. In facing up to the challenge of HIV/AIDS, the Commission will continue to play its role to the full. I know that we have Parliament’s support in this endeavour, and we treasure it highly. This year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to two European researchers at the Pasteur Institute – Professor Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Professor Luc Montagnier, who were the first to isolate the Human Immunodeficiency Virus back in 1983. Let us continue together the strong political momentum, together with the Council, to ensure that we all live up to our responsibilities. That landmark discovery paved the way for many important developments and diagnostics, and the treatment of HIV infections, and allowed us to understand more about the pathogenesis of HIV infections and its devastating consequences. However, 25 years later, we still do not have a cure for HIV/AIDS and still witness millions of new infections per year worldwide, including tens of thousands of new infections in Europe. How can this happen? It is well known how HIV transmission can be effectively prevented. Successful campaigns in the 1980s and the early 1990s have shown that awareness and knowledge are essential elements of prevention strategies against HIV infections. Determined political leadership and civil responsibility are two further elementary prerequisites for successfully combating HIV/AIDS – as is an open and constructive partnership with the stakeholders. Today’s plenary session is also an excellent time to reaffirm our political commitment – a time to be ambitious. I should add that I appreciate very much the European Parliament’s commitment in keeping HIV/AIDS high on the political agenda. Indeed, we recently had a very useful exchange of views on HIV/AIDS in a round-table meeting organised by Vice-President Miguel-Angel Martínez Martínez and Zita Gurmai on the need for HIV testing and subsequent early ‘state of the art’ care and support. Experts estimate that an average of 30% of people in Europe infected with HIV are not aware of their status. That incredible figure carries two risks: first for the person concerned, since he or she may not receive treatment and care on time; and second for his or her partner(s), who may be exposed to the infection."@en1
"− Madam President, Iran is notorious for its human rights record, as was noted just yesterday during the debate on the human rights situation in the world. Today we are addressing the case of Roxana Saberi, a journalist who had her trial just three weeks ago and was condemned to eight years in prison for so-called espionage. The fact is that Ms Saberi has had no access to her lawyer for more than a month. There was no chance of a fair or transparent trial, because the trial was held . She was on hunger strike for at least two weeks. It is true that she has ended this, but her health is in a very precarious state. Therefore, we are here today to address a message to the Iranian authorities that we clearly condemn the sentence pronounced by the Iranian Revolutionary Court on 18 April 2009 and ask that Ms Saberi be immediately and unconditionally freed on the basis that the trial was held without legal process. I would like to add that Iran is notorious for its massive, systematic public executions, whether by stoning or by hanging, including of juvenile offenders. That, too, is part of our message."@en1
"− Madam President, Sri Lanka has been afflicted by internal fighting for decades. This tragic situation came about as a result of the armed conflict mainly between separatist insurgent forces in the north and the Sri Lankan army. During this fighting, thousands of innocent people were killed and injured and much destruction to property, infrastructure and the environment has been caused. This sorry state of affairs has been exacerbated in recent months mainly due to the Government’s large-scale military offensive against the Tamil Tigers. Reports coming out of Sri Lanka indicate that the situation in certain areas has, in recent weeks, deteriorated tragically, with hundreds of civilians displaced and caught up in the fighting. According to Amnesty International, there have been violations of international conventions and human rights by both Government and Tamil Tiger forces. Admittedly, it is very difficult in such circumstances to be absolutely sure as to who is to be blamed for some of the tragic events in Sri Lanka, but we must call on both sides to exercise restraint and to pay utmost attention and respect to innocent civilians, and to observe the conventions of war. Since the Sri Lankan Government has the upper hand in the situation and is the internationally-recognised authority in the country, our call must, by necessity and logic, go mostly to them. At the same time, we must call on the Tamil Tiger leaders to abide by the calls of the international community, take advantage of the Government’s offer of amnesty, renounce violence and seek to achieve their aims through political dialogue. We must also once again advise emphatically that fighting solves no problems, and that lasting peace and stability can only be achieved at the negotiating table, which will inevitably happen sooner or later. In these negotiations, compromises will have to be made by both sides and a solution found which will be for the benefit of the citizens of this beautiful country. We hope that through this resolution we will help to lessen the suffering of the Sri Lankan people and to bring about much-needed peace in that country."@en1
"− Madam President, Sri Lanka’s bloody civil war seems finally to be coming to a conclusion. The LTTE, which has been blacklisted by the EU as a terrorist organisation, must now surely lay down its arms and surrender. The EU and other Co-chairs have urged the LTTE to do so. The LTTE’s response will show us whether it really has the best interests of Tamils at heart. The LTTE is using its front organisations in Europe to maximum propaganda effect and raising money by extortion internationally. Some LTTE militants may even try to seek asylum within the European Union. Throughout this ferocious 26-year civil war, the LTTE has pioneered atrocious terrorist tactics, such as suicide bombings, that are now used in many other parts of the world – regrettably. The Sri Lankan army has had, therefore, to deploy all the means at its disposal to counteract this brutal insurgency. However, it is clear that the casualty figures claimed by the LTTE have been exaggerated. Some have now been withdrawn – for instance, the story of 300 civilians killed, after the supposed author denied authorship. Nevertheless, the death of civilians in a war zone is tragic whenever and wherever it occurs. Clearly, the Sri Lankan armed forces cannot claim an unblemished record either, but they have not sought to deliberately exploit civilians and put them in harm’s way, like the LTTE has allegedly done. If the war really is soon to be over, it is essential that Sri Lanka turn its attention now to post-conflict disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. The marginalisation of Tamils, at the expense of the majority Sinhalese, needs to be addressed in an urgent and permanent manner in order to ensure a stable and sustainable multiethnic society with regional devolution. The EU should also ensure resources are put at Sri Lanka’s disposal to support post-conflict development. Although we should support the Government’s offer of amnesty for the majority of the LTTE, it is vital that no one responsible for the most serious war crimes is allowed to get away with impunity."@en1
"− Madam President, after this joint motion for a resolution was agreed and submitted, the news came of yet another disgracefully brutal case of stoning to death of a citizen in Iran. Therefore we thought it was appropriate to add to paragraph 7 the following: ‘in this context insists that the authorities of Islamic Republic of Iran urgently abolish the practice of stoning; condemns strongly the recent execution by stoning of Vali Azad, and expresses great concern over the pending execution of Mohammad Ali Navid Khamami and Ashraf Kalhori;’. I understand that this meets with the approval of the other groups’ representatives."@en1
"− Madam President, allow me first of all to thank you for the opportunity, on behalf of Commissioner Figeľ, to address the place of culture in our policies and its particular contribution to the development of European regions and cities. The importance of culture is taken into consideration in different ways at Community level. In the context of the EU’s cohesion policy, regional and local strategies have successfully integrated culture to support creativity and to promote innovation. Cohesion policy supports, for instance, the protection of our cultural heritage, the development of cultural infrastructure and services, the development of regional attractiveness and its link with sustainable tourism, but also the regeneration of local economies and the development of cross-border strategies. In 2007, the Commission launched the European Agenda for Culture, which is now in its first stages of implementation. This new strategic approach to culture sets common objectives and aims to propel the economic, social and political value of culture by strengthening its transversal role. In this framework, the Commission and the Member States are cooperating under a new open method of cooperation to strengthen joint efforts in areas with a direct impact on local and regional development strategies. This will, for instance, help maximise the potential of creative and cultural industries, in particular SMEs; promote access to culture, and encourage the mobility of cultural professionals. Feeding into the ongoing reflection, the Commission will soon launch an independent study on the contribution of culture to local and regional economic development as part of the European regional policy. The results of this study will help underline the value of investing in the cultural and creative sectors and will illustrate the links between such investment, specific regional development objectives and the Lisbon Agenda for growth and jobs. The study will also contribute to the preparation of a green paper on the potential of cultural and creative industries, which is currently under preparation and is due for adoption by the Commission in early 2010. The Commission regularly organises conferences with representatives from local and regional authorities. Let me simply highlight the open days, which every year bring together in Brussels a large number of stakeholders to debate a wide range of issues relating to regional and cohesion policy. Aspects relating to culture have been regularly considered in the context of these workshops. Moreover, within the context of other European policies, such as the EU’s integrated maritime policy, the Commission also endeavours to involve civil society actors in highlighting Europe’s rich maritime heritage. Thus, next May, during the European Maritime Day celebrations in Rome, stakeholders will examine the links between maritime heritage and sustainable regional tourism, amongst others. Finally, I also wish to mention the European Cultural Forum, which will be organised for the first time by the Commission, in the context of the European Agenda for Culture in Brussels, on 29 and 30 September, and will bring together representatives of the cultural sector and national authorities, including local and regional authorities."@en1
"− Madam President, amended orally as follows for paragraph 5: ‘Welcomes the Thai Government’s cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and calls for immediate and full access to all the detained Rohingya boat people in order to define their protection needs; calls, at the same time, on the Government of Thailand to sign the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto;’."@en1
"− Madam President, animal- and public-health rules applying to the export of poultry meat from China ensure an equivalent level of protection to those of the EU. These import rules guarantee that all imported products fulfil the same high standards as products from the EU Member States, not only with respect to hygiene and all aspects of consumer safety but also regarding animal health status. The principle according to which food must be safe, irrespective of its origin, is at the core of the EU approach. The official control system in China was verified on the spot by three Commission inspections. The outcome was published on the website of DG SANCO. The inspections have shown that the competent authorities, in particular in Shandong Province, are sufficiently well structured to guarantee compliance with Community legislation as regards heat-treated poultry meat products. Furthermore, these inspection missions have also verified that the competent authorities are capable of enforcing the Community’s import requirements. As a result of this exercise, the Chinese authorities have demonstrated to the Commission services that they can certify that consignments of heat-treated poultry meat products being exported to the European Union were produced in accordance with Community requirements and come only from Shandong Province. All approved plants in the Community list of establishments from which imports of heat-treated poultry meat is authorised are located in Shandong Province. This was verified by the three fact-finding missions on the spot: one in 2004; two in 2006. According to the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, any third country may request authorisation for export for the totality or part of its territory to the Commission, which is considered and evaluated according to the relevant Community requirements. If the guarantees given by a third country are deemed satisfactory and are effectively verified, such requests from third countries are accepted and authorisation for export granted. Any risk of distortion of competition towards EU poultry producers is prevented by the fact that the measures in place provide for sufficient guarantees that the heat-treated poultry meat products from certain regions are compliant with the level of protection that the EU deems necessary. Informed choice by consumers would be the answer to competitive pressure. The Chinese authorities expressed interest in the approval by the Commission of the imports of heat-treated poultry meat from Jilin Province. To get this approval, the Chinese authorities will have to guarantee that the sanitary conditions applied to the production of heat-treated poultry meat in Jilin Province meets EC requirements, and the Commission will verify these guarantees by on-the-spot inspections."@en1
"− Madam President, as one of the Tokyo Co-Chairs of the Sri Lanka peace process, the European Commission is closely following developments in Sri Lanka. We are deeply concerned by the current situation and the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict as expressed in the statement issued locally by the Co-Chairs on 3 February 2009. We look with concern at the difficult situation of thousands of internally displaced persons trapped by fighting in northern Sri Lanka. Both Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Michel have already communicated publicly their preoccupation about the consequences of the hostilities on the civilian population and have called on both parties, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities, to protect the civil population, as required under international humanitarian law, and to allow the safe and voluntary movement of people away from the combat zone. The Commission is concerned about the information it has received concerning the conditions in which internally displaced people are living in the so-called ‘welfare centres’ once they have escaped from the territory controlled by the Tamil Tigers into Government-controlled areas. It is also important that international standards be respected in these temporary camps. UN agencies, the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations should have full access to these centres in line with international humanitarian law. The Commission continues to be alarmed about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, against a background of reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and serious intimidation of the media. It is very important that the Government follows up on the most prominent high-profile cases. In her recent meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to take decisive action to tackle human rights abuses, including action against the perpetrators, and to guarantee press freedom. The Commission continues to be convinced that there can be no military solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. An inclusive dialogue is required to agree on a political settlement so that lasting peace and reconciliation can be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place, and to provide adequate space for all communities."@en1
"− Madam President, before going into the content of this proposal, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Siekierski, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their work on this report. Finally, let me stress that the Council is waiting for the outcome of today’s debate and vote before continuing its discussions. I hope Ministers have used the waiting time constructively. And from today’s debate should, therefore, be sent a clear message: do not forget those waiting in line at the soup kitchen or waiting for the next food package. So do not wait too long! We need to put this food aid scheme on a permanent footing for the future. I would like to start by putting today’s debate into context, because this proposal is not about paragraphs, political power or promises: it is about people. Millions of Europeans are hit by difficult economic times and by the rapid rise we have seen in food prices since 2007. There are more people than we realise for whom the lack of adequate food is a daily concern: 43 million Europeans cannot afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day. I think that is a striking figure. The programme for the most deprived targets those in our society who are in need of food aid: people who worry whether they can feed their children tomorrow; people who do not think about what they will eat that night for dinner but about whether they will have anything to eat; people who enter no restaurant but the one carrying the name of . With more than 13 million poor people benefiting from the programme, with 19 Member States participating and with the scheme being a stable outlet for intervention products, this programme has certainly shown its value. Parliament recognised this already in 2006, when it called on the Council and the Commission to place the programme on a permanent footing for the future and to extend the distribution of foodstuffs, without restricting it to the products for which intervention applies. I am pleased to note that the report by Mr Siekierski endorses the Commission’s approach and agrees that it is necessary to keep the programme within the common agricultural policy. This is particularly important at a time when some claim that feeding people has nothing to do with our agriculture policy. Until now, the programme has been financed exclusively by the Community budget. Our proposal now includes cofinancing. That is a significant change, but I believe it is a fundamental improvement of the scheme. Cofinancing will enable the total funds available for this measure to be more in balance with the real needs; it will encourage Member States to take greater responsibility for the programme’s management, and it is also a way to strengthen the cohesive element, since cohesion countries will have less cofinancing. At the same time, I share the view that we should not run the risk of Member States withdrawing from the scheme. Therefore, we proposed a gradual phasing-in of cofinancing rates in order to maintain the difference between the cohesion and non-cohesion Member States. I agree that we should do more to guarantee the nutritional quality of the food distributed. As the rapporteur mentioned, this could mean including fresh produce, in most cases produced locally. But it is not appropriate to outlaw foreign products or products coming from outside the European Union, as proposed in your report. That would mean additional and burdensome controls. It could be seen as a signal of EU protectionism, and it could even be questioned by our WTO partners. That being said, the large majority of the food distributed will in reality be produced in the European Union, mainly from intervention stocks and most probably from the tenders that we are now making, in particular in the dairy sector. Given that charities are heavily involved in the scheme, our proposal gives the possibility to reimburse the transport and administrative costs of the NGOs. You suggest that storage costs should be covered as well. I am fundamentally in favour of this idea, but I cannot agree to your suggestion of leaving it to the Member States to fix the rates of reimbursement. We need to set the same maximum rate for all participating countries, not least to make sure that the programme remains efficient and keeps the focus on supplying food."@en1
"− Madam President, can I first of all say that my colleague Mr Vidal-Quadras sends his apologies? He is not able to take up his slot. He has urgent business elsewhere, but he asked me to say – which was very nice of him – that the two of us agree that I will speak on behalf of our group. I would like to pick up one or two points that have come up in the debate. The first is the colleague who expressed concern that we will end up with a concentration of power in very few utilities. Should that happen, the Commission possesses powers under the competition rules to address that, and we have precedent in other parts of the world, including the United States, where they have tackled entrenched monopoly or dominant market power. So that is the ultimate resort, should this legislation fail. Should we come back for a fourth package? I have to remind the Commissioner that I urged upon him caution in embarking upon the third package: that it would be better to wait and see what the second package achieved once it was implemented. I think now we must allow time for this package to be transposed: to implement it and see how it works before deciding whether anything is needed. I have to say that my disappointment about our lack of success in tackling ownership unbundling is offset by my optimism about the possibility of the Agency imaginatively using the powers that we have given it to deal with the situation, and I would like to thank my other colleague who demands more power for the energy regulators. Market forces are already moving in this direction. Two German utilities are divesting themselves of their transmission systems because they have realised there is better value in doing that. Finally, could I restate the case for competition? It means better value and service for consumers, and it means a more efficient use of resources. That is why it is a good thing to do."@en1
"− Madam President, can I say, as I begin, I think we should really call these not ‘Millennium Development Goals’, but ‘millennium development challenges’. So often the word runs off our tongue – ‘the MDGs’ – but do we ever actually revisit what they are? So we have an interesting debate tonight. I want to thank the NGOs across Europe for supporting my report. I wish us tonight and especially in the vote tomorrow to put aside our political differences. It will not be a perfect report; nothing produced by this House ever is, but let me say this: let us not now use party political differences to take away from ourselves the opportunity to go for a united position at the United Nations and achieve the MDGs by 2015. Back in the year 2000 when we were going through economic boom times, we made promises and we made commitments. Sadly, colleagues, those commitments have not yet been achieved. We are five years away from the date that we set, 2015, when we would tackle these major challenges. Let me restate them: the major challenges are extreme poverty and hunger, access to universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, AIDS, malaria and TB, environmental sustainability and global partnership for development: eight millennium development challenges which still remain challenges. And now, during this week, the EU will come together to hopefully forge a united position ahead of the September plenary at the United Nations in New York. But I have to say the signs are worrying. There is a lack of commitment to that 0.7% of our gross national income that we said we would commit to taking on these challenges. In some of the least developed countries we are slipping way, way away from the targets that we need to be reaching mid-way through. There has been some progress and, yes, the investment that we have made – and I use that term wisely – the investment that we have made so far has paid off. The maternal health improvements are there. Child mortality rates are low, low, low and, yes, the numbers of children dying are gradually decreasing. But our problem is that, not only do we need more money to tackle these commitments, we now need additional finances to tackle the problems associated with climate change which are bedevilling the positions that we are taking in the developing countries and the least developed countries. And that is why in my report I have looked at not only what we have done so far, but how much more we need to do. And that means looking at the big problem we have in the European institutions of policies, on the one hand, that want to deliver positive change and policies, on the other, which contradict and undermine that. Think of trade, think of the common agricultural policy, think of the common fisheries policy. Without policy coherence our investment in these countries will never pay off. And it is investment. It is in our long-term economic interest to get rid of these MDGs, to achieve them and get rid of these problems that curse individual lives across the world. So what I want to see is leadership from the EU. Not the minimum set that they can agree on, but a commitment to that 0.7% of gross national income, a commitment to additional financing; and we do not want a redefinition of overseas development assistance. There must be no tinkering at the edges."@en1
"− Madam President, can I say, as a gay man, I am proud that this House and others are speaking out against this proposed law. This proposed law will clearly breach EU treaties on human rights, particularly Article 6, as well as the Employment Framework Directive and general policies on non-discrimination. It also, interestingly, breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that it encourages discrimination against young lesbians and gay people. So, whom does it protect, and from what? The British Conservatives introduced in Great Britain a similar law in 1988. It was recognised then, and recognised now, that these laws lead to censorship and the promotion of discrimination and homophobia: discrimination and homophobia which destroys people’s lives and blights the souls of those who practise it. The proposed law has been condemned by NGOs, including the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the Council of Europe and Amnesty International, as well as others. It affects young lesbians and gay men – teachers, public officials – and could be used to prevent young people having access to any material – films, books, plays, works of art – created by a gay man or a lesbian. Are they going to try and stop young people studying the works of Plato, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, Tchaikovsky and others, the music of Elton John, or idolising tennis greats such as Martina Navratilova? It will affect the very way young people and others speak, think and act. And why? Young people need education, not isolation; they need to understand the world in all its diversity and be taught respect for those who are different. The love of one human being for another is never lessened by gender or sexuality: it is love. Lesbians and gay men are ordinary men and women made extraordinary by extremists’ preoccupation with our sex lives and the defamation that lesbians and gay men are a threat to society. That is a vile misrepresentation. Any civilised society is judged not by how it treats its majority but how it treats its minorities. So I say to Lithuanians and people across Europe: reject this dangerous step back to the past."@en1
"− Madam President, concerning the next vote, on ‘Venezuela: the case of Manuel Rosales’, the Socialist Group, of course, has withdrawn its signature from the compromise resolution. We have not taken part in the debate and we will not take part in the vote."@en1
"− Madam President, despite being drafted before the current turmoil erupted on our financial markets and the economic downturn became apparent, this report is remarkably timely and also relevant. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on her sound work. It will also elaborate on the constructive social and economic role of social protection in the joint report on social protection and inclusion for 2009. May I assure you of the Commission’s willingness to look again at the various points in this report in close cooperation with Parliament. The report underscores the long-term social demographic and economic changes that are driving the modernisation and reform of our social protection schemes. It highlights the importance of our shared values in the field of social protection. It also shows how they can help to make our pension and health care systems sustainable. More people working more and longer is the key of the long-term adequacy and sustainability of social protection. It is also a win-win strategy. The report links sustainable, adequate social protection with the Lisbon Strategy and our commitment to guarantee sustainable public finances. The renewed social agenda proposed by the Commission gives substance to that link by advocating a broad holistic approach to future social policies and priorities. I welcome the emphasis on promoting women’s full integration into our labour markets and on fighting all forms of discrimination to ensure that everybody can acquire adequate social security and pension rights in particular. The report emphasises the need to combine the move to funded pensions in many Member States with sound national and EU regulatory frameworks for effective supervision and careful monitoring of outcomes for citizens. That is a very timely message. Access to quality medical treatment and preventive care is a cornerstone of EU social models. It is both a goal to be attained for itself and a necessary condition for a productive labour force to exist in a phase of rapid population ageing. The Commission shares your concern about health inequalities and the need to guarantee high-quality health care for all and solidarity financing covering the whole population. These points will be taken up in a Commission communication on health inequalities to come out next year. The report is a strong plea for us all, not only to keep working to achieve our basic objectives of access for all, solidarity, adequacy and sustainability, but also to work to strengthen them through modernisation. The Commission will provide its full response to the financial crisis and the downturn in the real economy in a communication to be published on 26 November."@en1
"− Madam President, first I will summarise the principal parts of the reform package that was agreed so strongly at the committee stage. We want to bring forward a polling day from June to May to allow for the more speedy election of the Commission. We are going to create a modern supranational regime for privileges and immunities. We will initiate a dialogue with the Council on the reapportionment of seats, according, I hope, to a mathematical formula that we will need to agree on. We invite the Commission to come forward with new proposals to facilitate the participation of citizens, wherever they may live, in elections. The key proposal, and the one that has created a degree of controversy, is to have 25 Members of Parliament for a pan-European constituency, elected from transnational lists drawn up by the European political parties. The purpose of this is to transform the European elections by giving the political parties a central role in campaigning by dramatising and personalising the European dimension of the campaign. It is certainly possible that Mr Barroso’s successor as President of the Commission could be found on a transnational list. The time has come to galvanise European political parties. This is a time when many, perhaps most, national parties are neither willing nor able to sustain European integration in a democratic and efficient manner. People tell me that this is not the time for such a radical proposal. Well, when it is ever a good time to do anything in politics? When the popular legitimacy of the Parliament is in doubt is a good time to act. When we are installing an economic governance is a good time to give European democracy a greater profile and a boost. Frankly I doubt whether the demonstrators in Syntagma Square would complain at being offered the choice to vote for two political lists: the national and the European. Some people are also concerned about the necessary change to primary law. But the fact is that small Treaty changes are needed to bring in the Croatian Members and to rectify the situation where the present composition is in breach of the Treaty principle of digressive proportionality. One other complaint, if I might. A criticism that this will create two classes of Member: super ‘Eurostar’ MEPs and other, inferior Members elected from national lists. But the Treaty says we are representatives of the Union’s citizens and we need to provide that essential degree of electoral reform to transpose the Lisbon Treaty in line with political and democratic reality."@en1
"− Madam President, first of all I would like to convey the apologies of my colleague, Louis Michel, for not being able to be here in person, as he is in the Congo. However, it is with great pleasure that I will take up the points, because they are so important. I am pleased to announce that the Water Facility will continue under the 10 European Development Fund and that EUR 200 million has been set aside for that purpose. Member States are invited to participate with additional funding. The Commission’s strategy is based on an integrated framework for collaboration with partner governments, EU Member States and all the stakeholders concerned. The Water Facility complements the national programmes with its capacity to work with decentralised actors and develop innovative solutions. The ongoing preparation of the 10 EDF Water Facility identifies in particular the potential offered by public water operators, who provide over 90% of water and sanitation services globally. Therefore, public-public partnerships potentially constitute a very cost-effective approach in terms of promoting the relevant ‘good governance’ principle in the ACP water sector, with potentially long-term and sustainable impacts on institutional and organisational change. Such ‘twinning’ partnerships – for instance through training and technical assistance – can be efficient ways to promote the principles of good governance in the water sector in ACP countries. Finally, let me confirm that aid effectiveness and the division of labour are discussed with relevant partners within the mechanisms of the EU Water Initiative. A mapping of EU Development Assistance in the water sector has been carried out to improve that ongoing dialogue. The question of donor orphans is an important one in the water sector and the Commission intends to take this into account in the conception of the new Water Facility under the 10 EDF. The Commission fully agrees that water and sanitation service provision is naturally addressed at the local level, through local government, municipalities and communities. We have to recognise, however, that weaknesses exist between those different levels, most notably in weaker countries where the provision of basic services is not a strong priority. Last year, the European Development Days here in Strasbourg focused on the role of local authorities, who are at the heart of access to essential services, as well as on the importance of local governance and the participation of citizens. This is obviously a central issue for the water sector and the Commission, through its different instruments, is working to increase support to local authorities and reinforce partnerships between local actors from the North and the South. At EU level, European water policy is also based on the principle of good governance, encouraging the involvement and participation of citizens, local communities, NGOs and stakeholders. This is reflected not only in the Water Framework Directive but also in initiatives such as the EU Water Initiative launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which contains the reinforcement of the role of local actors among its objectives. In Africa, where the Millennium Development Goals linked to water and sanitation are still not on track, investments need to increase, and the Commission has demonstrated its political commitment by creating a financial mechanism. The Water Facility of half a billion euros has enabled mobilisation of double that amount through cofinancing of a large number of programmes to improve the water, sanitation and hygiene situation of millions of people. It has also improved water governance and management in ACP countries. The focus on the involvement of local actors has been one of the added values of this facility. The EU will be represented at the Ministerial Segment of the World Water Forum by the current Czech Presidency. The statement that is being prepared includes references to the need for good governance through capacity development and institutional reform at all levels. The Commission’s policy, approved in 2002, promotes integrated water resources management in developing countries. It is in this framework that the different uses of water – such as drinking water, sanitation, irrigation etc. – have to be addressed, in order to reach an optimal allocation of benefits among all users. Moreover, the best practices of different experiences of green belts around cities, particularly in Africa, are currently being analysed in the context of the ‘Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel’ initiative as part of a feasibility study supported by the European Commission. Further support to this initiative will be considered within the framework of the Africa-EU Partnership on Climate Change."@en1
"− Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Edward Scicluna for his very balanced and substantive report on Estonia’s convergence and entry into the euro area. In parallel, there is a pressing need to strengthen economic governance in Europe. The Commission’s recent proposals aim at both substantial deepening of economic governance in Europe and prudent widening of the euro area on the basis of the countries’ own merits. That is the way to build up a stronger and more effective economic and monetary union. To conclude, after this week’s consultation with the European Parliament, the issue will be followed by a discussion in the European Council later this week. Should all go as planned, we expect to have all relevant legal acts adopted by the ECOFIN Council on 13 July, thus giving Estonia sufficient time to prepare for the changeover and for the adoption of the euro on 1 January next year. So, once more, many thanks for your support for the proposal, and my warmest congratulations to the Estonian people! I also want to congratulate our Estonian friends on reaching this important milestone. I appreciate the overwhelming support for Estonia’s euro adoption given by Parliament’s ECON committee on 2 June. It is indeed crucial in bringing the Commission proposal further and eventually introducing the Euro in Estonia on 1 January next year. We all know that the convergence assessment and the decision on Estonia’s adoption of the euro will take place against the background of one of the most difficult times for the euro area – if not the most difficult time – since its creation. In this respect this positive assessment on Estonia is an especially important signal, showing that the EMU framework is fully functional. It also underscores that, in the convergence assessment, Member States are examined on the basis of their own performance, on their own merits and with full respect to the principle of equal treatment. The positive assessment on Estonia is also a strong positive signal for the markets as well as for the non-euro area Member States at this current juncture. Let me stress that Estonia would enter the euro area from a very strong position with credible policies, one of the strongest fiscal positions and by far the lowest debt level in the EU, as Mr Scicluna illustrated. While the average in the European Union is currently around 75% public debt, Estonia has a debt level of 7.2%, which is of course a huge difference from the average. While not immune to the crisis, the Estonian economy has also shown its ability to operate and adjust under a fixed exchange rate regime for close to two decades since 1992. Therefore euro adoption itself is not expected to be a major shock to financing conditions as financial deepening is already well advanced. Of course, euro adoption will not be the end of the road; quite the contrary. Should Estonia adopt the euro next year, it will be key to maintain policy discipline and fully gear fiscal, structural and prudential policies towards a successful performance within the euro area. I welcome the willingness of the Estonian authorities to reassure euro-area and EU partners through a formal letter stating their firm commitment to stability-oriented policies and setting out policy priorities accordingly."@en1
"− Madam President, first of all I would like to thank all the contributors to this debate. I would like to reiterate the importance of this proposal in the simplification of the CAP. The concerns you raised seem to be quite similar to those expressed at the very start of the single CMO project. But I think that experience has been quite reassuring. The single CMO is currently working really well. The CMO for wine was never simple, to be quite straightforward. On the contrary. What we are proposing is, in fact, bringing more clarity and credibility – to the extent, of course, it is possible – on the basis of a very complex existing text of the wine reform itself. No substance changes to the CMO wine reform will be done. We are talking about technical – and only technical – adjustments. There will be separate chapters. There will be issues unique to the wine sector which will be kept intact in the appropriate place of the single CMO, like those on production potential, support programmes, designations of origin, GI and traditional terms, labelling and presentation, oenological practices. But there will also be issues which are common to wine and other sectors, such as the provisions on trade with third countries or state aids, which will be combined into a single simple provision. I would also like to add that the possibility of using our search engines was mentioned. EUR-Lex has a search engine that allows extraction of all provisions from the single CMO that mention the word ‘wine’. But, of course, from a technical point of view, it is not yet possible at this stage to provide for a consolidated electronic version of the whole wine CMO extracted from the consolidated single CMO. Of course, however, this should be possible when completed. I should also mention in the context of the questions of the honourable Members of Parliament that there is no possibility that wine issues would get mixed up in reforms with the other sectors. This is not a realistic prospect, simply, in practice. It is hard to see why a proposal on, for example, the dairy sector should somehow attract the attention of wine policymakers. In any event – from a purely legal point of view – integration into a single regulation does not change the situation. What would matter would be the substance of any changes proposed, not the precise legal framework in which they were proposed. To finish, I think we need to take the final step to complete the single CMO. I would therefore like to underline that the determination of the Commission to do so is very strong. But it is truly about simplification; it is truly about transparency; it is nothing more than that."@en1
"− Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture, for the report. I could be very short and just reassure you but I have to read the speaking points. We have been working very hard at simplifying the common agricultural policy (CAP). A single common market organisation (CMO) covering all agricultural sectors is a keystone of this effort. It allows for streamlining legislation across sectors whilst taking into account the specifications of particular products. It has also substantially reduced the volume of CAP legislation. This Commission proposal aims at completing the single CMO project by integrating the wine sector also. Without wine, the single CMO would simply remain incomplete. We would stop part way through the process and lose many of the benefits of the projects. We have always intended to include wine. Indeed, both the initial single CMO proposal and the recent wine reform were drafted and adopted on that basis. I am glad to say that the European Parliament has always fully endorsed the single CMO project, including the integration of fruit and vegetables and wine after the completion of the reforms in those sectors. The single CMO, and its management committee, has been working very well for other sectors and there has been no particular criticism of it. The proposal for integration might seem complex at first sight. But this is inherent in the nature of amending legislation. After incorporation, consolidated versions of the single CMO will become available, which will show very clearly the wine provisions. The integration of the single CMO will not make any substantive changes to the policy decided in the wine reform. The services of my colleague, Mrs Fischer Boel, will work hard with the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that this is the case. We did this very successfully during the integration of the equally complex fruit and vegetables sector. I would therefore ask you to help the Commission, to help my colleague, to continue her and our simplification work and give a positive opinion on this proposal."@en1
"− Madam President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Peterle for his excellent report, and also the resolution, which gives a very good analysis of the situation in Tajikistan and makes recommendations which I can support. I am, of course, very well aware of your concerns on democracy and human rights in Tajikistan and I can therefore assure you that the Commission will take these concerns fully into account in our dialogues with this country. As to the economic reforms, we see progress, for example, on the drafting of a cotton debt resolution mechanism, which hopefully will pave the way for wider agricultural reforms and the implementation of ‘Freedom to Farm’, crucial to tackling poverty in the country. The European Parliament’s assent to the PCA today will help us to continue to work with Tajikistan on a whole range of political and economic reforms, with a special focus on democracy and human rights, and also to ensure their thorough implementation. The reform effort is already underpinned by a relatively large amount of bilateral assistance from the Commission. Indeed, it is EUR 66 million for the period 2007 to 2010 which will even rise to EUR 70 million over the three years 2011 and 2013. Our aid will focus on sector support for social protection and health, public finance management reform and technical assistance for private sector development. This process will be supported by our delegation in Dushanbe. It is my intention that, before the end of this year, our regionalised office there should become a fully-fledged delegation to encourage the reform process and facilitate full implementation of the PCA. In particular, I hope it will help us to maintain a thorough assessment of progress in the key areas I have mentioned which we will then measure against clear benchmarks. Since the EU Strategy for Central Asia was adopted in June 2007, our relationships with all the countries of Central Asia have been deepening to our mutual benefit. The rhythm of contacts between us has gathered pace, and there is now a shared understanding of the benefits of greater cooperation on security matters, border management and controls, education, governance and energy diversification. The strategy is succeeding in forging a new kind of partnership with the five Central Asian republics. Clearly, though, this overarching strategy is underpinned by individual and differentiated bilateral relations that reflect the varying aspirations and orientations of the countries concerned. As you all know, our cooperation with Tajikistan is currently still governed by the trade and cooperation agreement concluded with the USSR in 1989 and endorsed by Tajikistan in 1994. This agreement does not fully reflect our ambitions under the Central Asia Strategy any more, nor does it serve to support the kind of relationship we now seek with Tajikistan. Your assent to the new EU-Tajikistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which is before you for debate today, would therefore represent a major step forward, allowing us to widen and deepen our cooperation with this country. Today’s Tajikistan is confronted, as has been said already, by major economic and social challenges. It is important – and in Europeans’ own interests – that Tajikistan should succeed in tackling its difficulties. This is a country which shares a nearly 1 500 km border with Afghanistan, and which lies close to the Swat Valley in Pakistan. It is a territory vulnerable to spill-over from these conflict areas and to infiltration by Islamic militants. Tajikistan is also key to efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs to Europe from Afghanistan. Greater cooperation with the European Union can therefore play a part in helping to prevent the spread of instability. A key element in Tajikistan’s vulnerabilities is its weak economy. The poorest of the Central Asian republics has been badly hit by a substantial decrease in prices for aluminium and cotton due to the global downturn. This, taken together with a 34% drop in remittances in the first half of 2009, gives rise to concern that poverty levels may be rising, and that a precarious socio-economic situation could provoke social unrest. I believe that we are now on the right track with Tajikistan, supporting and encouraging indispensable reforms. This has also been the focus of EU Special Representative Morel’s frequent visits and of my own visit in spring 2008. There is progress, but clearly more needs to be done. The Government has made it clear that, in addition to greater trade and cooperation, it is willing to implement measures to improve social welfare, health, education, tackle corruption and improve human rights. It is to be welcomed that President Rahmon has created the post of an ombudsman. The ombudsman will be an important interlocutor for us in the next round of the EU-Tajikistan human rights dialogue that you mentioned, on 23 September. Judiciary reform is still making slow progress, but we hope the recommendations of a recent human rights civil society seminar in Dushanbe will be taken into account by the government, particularly in reform of the legal profession and the new criminal procedure code in Tajikistan."@en1
"− Madam President, firstly I would like to underline the Commission’s great concern at the current volatile situation in Madagascar. I would also like to stress the Commission’s continued commitment to the Malagasy people. The situation in that country after the forced removal of President Ravalomanana on 17 March deserves and requires our full attention and, like the European Parliament, the Commission is following events very closely. The Commission has fully endorsed the Czech Presidency statement issued on behalf of the European Union on 20 March condemning the transfer of power and calling on the Malagasy parties to comply fully with the provisions of the Constitution of Madagascar. The Commission considers that there has been a flagrant violation of essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement and that this is a ‘case of special urgency’ within the meaning of Article 96 of that Agreement. The Commission has therefore launched the procedure to propose to the Council to open consultation with the authorities in power in order to examine possible solutions to the crisis, aimed at the re-establishment of constitutional order. The Commission will continue to use all the dialogue means it has at its disposal to find an overall solution to the current crisis. To that end, it is enhancing the political dialogue, based on Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, with all the relevant stakeholders in Madagascar. It is also participating in the main international efforts deployed, notably in the framework of the international contact group set up recently by the African Union. At this stage, the prevailing view is that the relevant Malagasy political stakeholders agree on a road map for a return to constitutional order and the holding of elections."@en1
"− Madam President, in conclusion, I would like briefly to reiterate our full support for the ongoing work of the ICTY as an important part of the healing and reconciliation process in the Western Balkans, now and in the future. Let me just mention that we will be having meetings with the Chief Prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, in Prague tomorrow. I agree that the Tribunal should be in a position to carry out its mandate, complete the ongoing trials and open new ones against the two indictees still at large. I also agree that the legacy of the Tribunal has to be preserved by strengthening the local capacity to deal with the outstanding cases. After all, these are the cases which concern the Western Balkan countries and for which they themselves eventually need to take responsibility."@en1
"− Madam President, it has been recognised by most of us for over a decade that the EU needed to act to strengthen the rights of suspects and defendants throughout the Union and to give safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials. This is in the context of much tighter cooperation on policing and prosecution, the introduction of the European arrest warrant and the fact that many EU citizens take advantage of free movement rights and may have a brush with the law in an unfamiliar environment. To sum up, I believe strongly in the European arrest warrant, but we need the road-map programme to strengthen citizens’ rights and make it work better. Strengthening safeguards and defence rights is not at all about being soft on crime. It is about being tough on crime. Good efficient justice through high-quality decisions means catching more criminals, and cutting corners on costs is not best value since if you get a poor court decision or bad police practice, then people are going to appeal. Cheap justice is no justice. I therefore commend this directive to you. I thank the Spanish Presidency, with whom we have a good process of negotiation as well as with the Commission, and I will deal in my summing-up with the plenary amendments being tabled. There was an attempt at a comprehensive measure on so-called procedural guarantees, one that MEPs strongly supported, but that ran up against a brick wall in the Council in 2007. I was delighted that last year the Commission (and I am delighted to see Vice-President Reding here for this debate), supported by the Swedish Presidency, revived the matter in the form of a road map of half a dozen individual measures. This is the first to see the light of day. This directive says that, if you become a suspect or you are arrested, questioned or put on trial and you do not understand the language of the country, you have a right to interpretation and translation, under certain conditions, for police questioning, hearings, meetings with your lawyer and so on. Broadly speaking, you have to be put in the same position as a local. The basis of cooperation between Member States in criminal justice is mutual recognition, the almost automatic recognition of the decisions of courts in other EU countries based on mutual trust, but it is not sensible just to assume that trust exists. It has to be earned through full respect by all EU countries of certain standards of justice and fair trial. All of us in this debate have probably dealt with cases where we do not believe someone got a fair trial. I have recently dealt with the case of Garry Mann, who was returned to Portugal under a European Arrest Warrant. In the original trial both the charge and sentence were delivered orally. Mr Mann did not know what he was charged with until after he was convicted. The interpreter was a local hairdresser, a friend of the judge’s wife. When he was deported back to the UK he was given a simple letter in English effectively saying not to come back to Portugal for two years, yet years later a European Arrest Warrant was issued to summon him back to serve sentence. Lack of a proper and professional language support has also figured as one of the defects in the case I am dealing with in Greece of Andrew Symeou. The aim of this measure is not only to make sure that Member States are implementing Article 6 of the European Convention, but also to further develop its minimum standards. As the road map last November said, there is room for further action on the part of the EU to ensure full implementation in respect of convention standards and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of those standards and to raise them. I believe Parliament made good use of its newly acquired Lisbon Treaty powers of joint responsibility for legislation. We fought hard with a lot of help from Vice-President Reding, to whom I pay tribute, and her officials, to raise standards on certain key points, including interpretation of communications between the suspect and the lawyer in all phases of the proceedings, the right for the suspect to challenge the decision that there is no need for interpretation or translation, and also the right to complain on quality. We secured the right to limit recourse to partial translation, so all essential material must be translated and oral exceptions must indeed be exceptions, and that the suspect should not be allowed to waive the right to translation without prior advice. Those are just some of the key points."@en1
"− Madam President, it is clear that nobody can be complacent about the issue of drugs. The Commission adopted on 18 September 2008 a proposal for a European Union Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, and a report on the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 was annexed. This is the impact assessment which was mentioned in the question. Both documents were made available to Parliament on that date. The evaluation was conducted by the European Commission in the first half of 2008 in line with Action 45.3 of the subsequent Action Plan. The evaluation provided important input for the new Action Plan. Findings include the following: Regarding the implementation of the new EU Drugs Action Plan, the conclusion can be drawn that progress has been made on nearly all specific objectives and actions with varying degrees of success. The EU Drugs Action Plan is adequately reflected in the national policies of the Member States and has been translated into national policy and/or these objectives were already reflected in existing documents. Member States report that the Action Plan reflects the main policy fields at national level. The evaluation shows that the Action Plan supports a process of convergence between Member States’ drug policies, which the Commission considers quite important. Regarding the drug situation, there has not been a significant reduction in the prevalence of drug use but the use of some of the most prevalent drugs seems to have stabilised and/or fallen slightly. The use of cocaine is showing an upward trend in some Member States. The long-term EU trend in the prevalence of drug-related infectious diseases, especially HIV and AIDS infections, is that these have been reduced in recent years, as have drug-related deaths. New trends in drug use, especially poly-drug use, have emerged in recent years. The numbers and size of cocaine seizures are rising while for herbal cannabis, heroin, ecstasy and amphetamines, seizures appear to be stabilising. Prices for illicit substances in general have fallen, while purity levels seem to be fairly stable. Regarding the impact of the Action Plan on the drug situation, the impact assessment to which the honourable Member refers is, I presume, the evaluation report regarding implementation. The on-going reduction in drug-related infectious diseases and drug-related deaths, on the one hand, and the EU-wide implementation of harm-reduction measures, on the other, suggest a clear correlation with the Action Plans, even though such a link is notoriously hard to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Some Member States have achieved dramatic reductions in drug-related health harm after the introduction of harm-reduction measures. Similar conclusions can be drawn in the fields of supply reduction and European coordination and cooperation in anti-drugs law enforcement."@en1
"− Madam President, it is just to change the wording in Paragraph 93 concerning sound state finance to ‘as soon as possible’, instead of ‘when economic conditions allow’, as agreed with the shadow rapporteurs."@en1
"− Madam President, it is not easy in five minutes to give the Commission response to seven excellent reports, but I should not miss this opportunity to thank all the rapporteurs – Mrs Morgan, Mrs Ţicău, Mr Chichester, Mr Vidal-Quadras, Mr Mussa, Mr Paparizov and Mr Belet – and all the shadows. I also would like to thank Mrs Niebler who worked really hard to let us come to this report in a very limited amount of time. In particular, a functioning internal market is a key element of the EU’s effort to tackle climate change. Without a competitive electricity market, an emissions trading scheme will never work properly, and our aims regarding renewable energy will not succeed. The compromise reached also strikes a good balance between the positions of Parliament and the Council. The rapporteurs have already presented to you the key elements on which the political compromise reached strengthens the common position adopted by the Council in January 2009. I would like to highlight a few key issues. Parliament’s call for stronger consumer protection and the fight against energy poverty is now enshrined in the legislative texts. Smart meters, allowing for consumers to be precisely informed of their consumption and promoting energy efficiency, are provided with a target of 80% of consumers to be reached by 2020. The powers and independence of national regulators have been strengthened, as well as the powers of the agency, and the rules on effective unbundling have been made more efficient. Most importantly, we have also seen developments on the ground. A lot of companies have restructured their business and how they deal with networks and consumers. Today at the Hannover Messe, I saw that smart metering is making good progress and companies are taking these decisions on board. Energy efficiency is definitely one of the key policies of the European energy policy. The building sector still has considerable potential to further improve its energy efficiency, at the same time creating new jobs and stimulating growth. I warmly thank Parliament for its support for the Commission’s proposal on the recast of the Energy Efficiency of Buildings Directive. The discussions and proposals demonstrate that Parliament shares the policy objectives and wishes to vigorously improve current performance. It is not an easy area, as there is a lot of subsidiarity, so we need to strike a good balance. The Directive provides a framework to upgrade the energy performance of the EU’s buildings. There is a lot of clarification, and this reinforces the effect of the directive, like the principles on the ‘cost-optimal’ method, requirements on control mechanisms and many definitions. There is the issue of financing instruments that are very important for stimulating energy efficiency measures, but these need to be tackled in the appropriate legislation and initiatives. Consequently, the Buildings Directive is constrained in what it can do with respect to financial and fiscal issues. Very efficient buildings, whether they are called low- or zero-energy buildings, or next-generation buildings, are a new feature introduced into the Directive by the Commission. I will start with the internal energy market because two years ago we started with an ambitious goal: to create a truly competitive and truly European energy market for the benefit of the citizens of the European Union. The tool to achieve this goal is the third internal energy market package for gas and electricity. It is essential to make this provision ambitious but realistic, and with some flexibility given the EU’s varied climate and economic conditions. Unified requirements like net zero-energy buildings would not exactly fulfil this requirement and would therefore be excessive. Harmonisation is crucial for the internal market. I fully support Parliament’s wish to have a single methodology for calculating cost-optimal levels of requirements. However, prescribing a common methodology for the energy performance calculation itself could be counter-productive, causing delays in the implementation of the Directive by several years due to the complexity of Member States’ building codes. This is therefore very complex and difficult legislation, but I very much rely on Parliament strengthening this legal instrument. The rapporteur also spoke about tyres that can play a significant part in reducing road transport energy intensity and emissions. The combined impact of this proposal together with the type-approval legislation on tyres should bring around 5% fuel savings on the total EU fleet by 2020. This proposal will provide consumers with standardised information on fuel efficiency. It will also give information on wet grip, which is another essential parameter for tyres, and external rolling noise. By doing so, the label will pull the market towards better-performing tyres while avoiding improvements on one aspect being achieved at the costs of others. The report which will be put to the vote this week will add some significant improvements to the initial proposal, such as the change from a Directive into a Regulation, which will reduce transposal costs and ensure that the same application date for the label applies to all. The inclusion of snow tyres within the scope of the label, with the adoption of a specific grading as soon as possible, will also benefit those driving in ice or snow conditions. It is important that we find the best way of displaying the label. There is some discussion on this. We would very much like you to support our proposal to integrate the label on the stickers which are currently delivered with each tyre to indicate their dimension, load index etc. I believe we have really made remarkable progress on the energy dossier during this legislation and, most importantly, it is supported by our citizens and by industry. Having been at the Hannover Messe, we have seen a huge drive from industry for energy efficiency, not only in the areas we have now legislated on, but also in other branches of industry such as different appliances used for end consumption and to produce tools for different types of industry. Energy efficiency, energy and Europe: these are the key words for what we have achieved during this legislation. I would like to thank all those involved and particularly all Members of the European Parliament that supported this. As a final word of apology, I could have another five minutes but I will use only one minute when I am given the floor for the second time. Thank you for letting me finish this speech. Today we are close to the adoption of this package and thus to achieving this goal. The trialogue has now succeeded in agreeing to the compromise. The Commission fully supports this compromise. If adopted tomorrow by plenary, it will give the European Union the clear regulatory framework needed to ensure a properly functioning internal market and to promote much-needed investment. First, it will facilitate cross-border energy trade with the establishment of an agency for the cooperation of national energy regulators, with binding decision powers, to complement national regulators. This ensures the proper handling of cross-border cases and enables the European Union to develop a real European network. Secondly, the new legislation will promote cross-border and regional collaboration and investment with a new European network for transmission system operators. EU grid operators will cooperate and develop network codes and security standards, as well as plan and coordinate the investments needed at EU level. Thirdly, it will provide for more effective regulatory oversight from national regulators that will be much more independent and have all the necessary means. Fourthly, it will ensure effective unbundling of the generation and transmission of energy so as to eliminate any conflict of interests, promote network investment and prevent discriminatory behaviour. This legislation will also ensure greater transparency, thereby guaranteeing equal access to information, making pricing more transparent, increasing trust in the market, and helping to avoid any possible manipulation or any sort of manipulation of the market. This is not just about a properly functioning internal market but more generally about ensuring that the EU can rise to the challenges we are facing in the field of energy: climate change, increased import dependency, security of supply, global competitiveness."@en1
"− Madam President, it was a fascinating debate. I would just take a couple of points that I think require some clarification. The Millennium Development Goals should and can be achieved, and I say this with full responsibility. It is not only my view; it is also the United Nations’ view. It is the view of the developed and the developing world and we need to make an effort. It is also important that this House calls very strongly for commitment of 0.7% of GNI. I know that it is part of sovereignty that every country decides on its budget, but, if Parliament will not call for it, who else will do it with such a strong voice? It is true that we need to be accountable, but Parliament has a lot of power in this issue. You should not underestimate your strength on this issue, and I believe that it is very important that it should be done. I believe that it is important also to strengthen our relations with sub-Saharan Africa. I know that there have been a lot of disappointments, but being new in this job and really looking for all the complex of issues with the colonial past, Cold War years, and development, I believe sub-Saharan Africa deserves particular care and particular attention. The trade issue is important to address and it should be fair trade, but we know that until now these unilateral trade preferences have not helped the countries evolve. They have not been substantial in regional trade either, and our approach now is really to create fair trade conditions, investment for trade and in particular looking for regional trade. I believe that is the right approach and we need to strengthen it. I will work together with my Trade Commissioner. He was, for a short while, also Development Commissioner and he takes these things very close to his heart. Tax evasion and illicit flows are an important issue but I believe that part of the responsibility lies with the G20 and us to make a very strong global system so that tax evasion and illicit flows are impossible. We also pay particular attention in our projects to support a property register, because, definitely, growth is not possible without a strong property register and legal systems that support it. On rural and food security issues, it is true that it is a focus of our policy, but part of the money for food security comes through our budget support and that way statistics do not always correctly reflect them. We need to think how to better reflect them, but a clear commitment is demonstrated by our food facility and the money put towards its construction. I would finish with a call which Michael Cashman made: that this report really deserves cross-party support. I know that some issues are divisive but they should not divide Parliament in strong support for this report. We need this support because society needs it and if Parliament will give overwhelming support for the report, it will be easier for the Communities that care for development cooperation policy really to push forward this agenda and be more successful."@en1
"− Madam President, it was entirely predictable that President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan would respond to his indictment by the ICC with a political gesture, but by expelling NGOs and aid agencies from his country he has reinforced the popular image of a brutal tyrant, without any concern for the plight of the long-suffering people he nominally governs. A few people still argue that what has happened in Darfur is not genocide. Fewer still support Bashir openly, although China – regrettably – has been a lone voice in his defence because of the heavy Chinese involvement in Sudan’s extractive industries. Like most Members, I welcome the indictment of President Bashir by the ICC and the issue of an international arrest warrant. It may not succeed, but it is an important gesture to show the world’s disgust at the horrors he has perpetrated in Darfur without any remorse. I also think that the indictment strengthens the reputation of the ICC, which hitherto has been shunned by some, including the great powers such as the USA, for fear of politically motivated prosecutions. Indeed it is fascinating that the United States, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, has nonetheless used its position on the UN Security Council to facilitate the ICC indictment of Bashir. One possible way out of the impasse that now exists is for the Security Council to strike down the indictment, as it has a right to do under the Rome Statute, on condition that Bashir goes into exile and the killings and repression stop, and in partial recognition that Sudan was never a signatory to the Rome Statute. While this might seem to some like an unjust response to the killings in Darfur and effectively grants some form of partial immunity, it would remove the main protagonist and spare the long-suffering people of Darfur more bloodshed and enable Sudan as a country to move on. Of course, if Bashir refuses, then he should be prosecuted with the full force of international law. The AU, Arab League and China should make this clear to President Bashir before it is too late for him and his brutal regime."@en1
"− Madam President, let me first of all, on behalf of the European Commission, say that we deeply regret the assassination of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira. We condemn this assassination in the strongest possible terms and also the attacks that resulted in the deaths of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces, General Batista Tagme Na Waie and other soldiers. I would like also to send condolences to their families. The presence of drug-dealers and so much crime are more than worrying today. Under the eighth EDF and other instruments, but in addition by contributing to EUR 2 million to the UN ODC, the Commission has signed up to a very ambitious plan in the counter narcotics field. We think this is really very important, as has been shown by what has happened. We urgently call for calm and restraint, and urge the national authorities of Guinea-Bissau to fully investigate these events and bring to justice those responsible. There should be no impunity. Unfortunately, these violent acts follow the successful legislative elections, which paved the way for enhanced EU and international support for the country’s peace-building efforts. These attacks also come at a time of increased international engagement, intended to build a democratic and a stable Guinea-Bissau. Under these extremely difficult circumstances, the Commission remains fully committed to continuing its strong support to the national authorities, aiming to bring back stability but also to sustain development. I am thinking of education, the poorest of the poor, the necessity for basic needs and basic services, and also of economic growth in the country. We are now starting to deploy the wide range of instruments at our disposal, thus aiming to help Guinea-Bissau achieve sustainable peace and, hopefully, consolidate its democratic process. An ambitious country strategy paper for an amount of EUR 100 million, covering the period 2008-2013, was approved last year. This will focus on security sector reform – including the fight against drugs that I mentioned earlier – and the enhancement of the national sovereign institutions. Last year the Council also decided to establish an EU mission supporting security sector reform in the framework of the European security and defence policy. The forthcoming presidential elections – now expected 60 days after the nomination of the new President – will probably take place even before the summer break. Taking into account this extremely tight schedule, the feasibility of the deployment of the electoral observation mission is being carefully considered by the Commission. Nevertheless, the provision of post-electoral assistance to support the required reforms to the electoral framework, following the recommendations formulated by the EU-UN 2008, and the support given to observation of the forthcoming elections by regional organisations remain, among other things, our key priorities."@en1
"− Madam President, let me first say that I understand that our colleague, Rama Yade, has experienced difficulty getting here. Yesterday, I myself had to wait five hours for my flight to Strasbourg. Maybe she is having the same difficulties, so bear with her – this is after all. This review is on-going. It would be a little premature for me to comment on the outcome at this stage because we are not yet at an end result, but the use of the human rights clause is one issue that is being carefully considered. But political clauses in all political agreements, and in trade and sectoral agreements of different kinds, are there and they have to be there. My next point concerns the Human Rights Council. Mrs Andrikienė, I agree that there could be many improvements and, therefore, we will have to insist on having special rapporteurs and perhaps also country resolutions; I think this could help. I also find it very positive that all countries are scrutinised every four years and that there is also involvement by civil society. I must say that, up to now, we have seen that countries have been quite seriously prepared. That is something positive, and the discussion in depth is there and should continue. We all know that things are not perfect, but we can go on and make further improvements. Let me say a word on China and human rights. I am always, as Commissioner responsible for relations with China among other countries, very open to building a strong relationship with China based on mutual respect. However, I also have to tell you that I am concerned by what I perceive as a certain toughening of the Chinese position on human rights, as seen by the execution of Wo Weihan on the day of the human rights dialogue. This has been confirmed by what we have heard today and in recent days, such as the suppression of demonstrations in Beijing on the 60 Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – there was a presidency statement concerning that; the blocking of foreign websites – for instance, the BBC website; and a very negative report by the United Nations Committee on Torture three weeks ago. However, I would also like to take up the words of Zeng Jinyan, Hu Jia’s wife, this morning, who said that China is moving in great steps towards an open and democratic society. I think this movement is going on. There are many other things, much has been done for instance over recent years by China, for example, on labour rights. It is important that there has been some progress, but many other problems persist, particularly concerning implementation. Sometimes, even when things are written, as we have heard today, many of them still have to be implemented. I therefore reiterate that we stand ready, for instance, to provide expertise on further legislative reforms. As President Pöttering said, China is a great country. We have many common interests and need to work together, but I think that we, the European Union, should not take hasty decisions. We have to reflect on the recent negative signals sent by China on human rights that are damaging our mutual trust. I think that it is now for China to send some positive signals to rebuild this trust. As regards Guantánamo, we have called repeatedly in the many debates held here, in which I also participated, for the closure of Guantánamo. Naturally, we also welcome President-elect Barack Obama’s statement that he will take steps to close the detention centre quickly. We are willing to work with the US Administration to find ways to deal with the practical issues which will arise when Guantánamo is closed, such as the resettlement of prisoners in third countries. For instance, the European Union has recently expressed its concerns regarding secret detention, and we hope that the President-elect will then address this issue and Member States will be able to answer. I cannot speak for the Member States as such. On the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Gaza, I very much regret the return to violence in recent days; the five months of calm achieved by the truce were unfortunately too short, but they were very welcome. It has been very difficult to watch the return of violence. We have condemned the recent rocket attacks from Gaza but we have, at the same time, condemned the closing of the crossings. I myself asked the Israeli Ambassador to come to my office. I clearly expressed my concerns about the question in Gaza. We could not give the fuel that we normally fund, we could not enable UNRWA to do what they are normally doing. The day before yesterday I was in New York, and we spoke with Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, on that subject. President of the Council Kouchner and I wrote a letter to the Israeli authorities in order to get funding going. We are very much monitoring the situation. Unfortunately, it is not at all easy, and in all our dialogues and consultations, we always mention these things. I would now like to say something on the coherence that has been mentioned between external and internal policies. Yes, I think it is true. This is a point that we have to take. This has been taken up with Jacques Barrot. He has tried to go forward on the question of migration in a way which pays much more attention to human rights. I think this builds up our credibility, but a lot is also within Member States’ competence which means it is not that easy. I greet State Secretary, Mrs Rama Yade. I can only say that human rights dialogues are reciprocal: that means we also tackle human rights issues in the European Union, and we have JLS experts within the different Member States. There is also a UN Commissioner for human rights envisaging creating an office in Brussels, so we are trying to enhance the coherence between internal and external policies. I shall stop here. I am sorry I cannot say anything on colonisation. That is a matter for the Member States. You know it very well. I am sorry, but it is not within the competence of the Commission to enter into this question. Well, five hours is not normal. I am just saying that I do not know exactly what has happened to her, but that was what happened to me, and I was very glad that I did not have an appointment yesterday, because the same thing could have happened to me too. I just wanted to express my solidarity on this point. Second, this human rights dialogue and the report on human rights constitute one of our basic major concerns. I would just like to show you the new EU report. When I started as Commissioner, we had separate reports from the Council and the Commission and now I am very happy to show you that the Council and the Commission have drawn up this report together. The foreword is by Bernard Kouchner, Javier Solana and myself. I think it is very important to show that here we are really working together. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are trying very hard to go forward on the path of promoting human rights. However, we also know that the glass can be half full or half empty. A lot remains to be done, and it was very moving to see so many defenders of human rights here this morning. I spoke of Elena Bonner, but I could have spoken of any of them, and of course the video of Hu Jia’s wife was very moving: she has shown great courage. I would like to reply to some of the questions. I cannot answer every question on behalf of the Commission, but I shall go into as much detail as I can. First, concerning the death penalty, let me say that I have taken up this issue very forcefully. I am totally against the death penalty, and throughout this year we have given massive support in the UN for the resolution on a moratorium in more countries. But, yes, the problem is still there: many executions are still being carried out by a small number – Iran on the one hand, unfortunately China, and there are many others. We have to go on fighting against that by raising it in every dialogue. It is most important that we do that: every person who is executed is one too many. Let me say in this context that we were all working against the execution of Wo Weihan. Sadly, he was executed on the very day of the EU human rights dialogue with China. This was a terrible example of not listening to each other. Second, let me say to Mr Agnoletto that human rights clauses are indeed very important. At this very moment, Member States and the Commission are currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the EU’s policy on standard political clauses in external agreements in general, in order to strike the right balance between key, ‘untouchable’ principles of the European Union on the one hand and, on the other, the need for a certain flexibility to negotiate on various parts, because we need to try and reach agreement."@en1
"− Madam President, let me just make a few remarks, and one in particular: I think this debate has shown that there is a growing acceptance of the approach Europe follows in crisis management and conflict prevention. The Munich Conference on Security confirmed the comprehensive approach, because security and development go together – you cannot have one without the other. I believe this European approach is a core element of our strategy to promote peace and security in our neighbourhood, but also beyond. It works, but it must be adequately resourced, so we have to work on building our capacities and capabilities in both the civilian and military fields, and we will try at least to play our part as much as we can. But I would also like to answer your questions, in particular that of Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the under funding of the CFSP budget. It is true that the budget has been reduced this year, but this should, we hope, not be an impediment to our political ambitions in civilian ESDP, provided that there are no new significant missions this year. It is important to remember that only certain costs are covered by the CFSP budget – equipment costs, contracted staff, special allowances, for instance, the EU special representatives – but Member States also pay for the cost of their seconded staff. The budget will increase – as you know, not this year but in 2013 – to EUR 400 million. Concerning transfers between budget articles, which Mr Dombrovskis mentioned, the Commission includes information on transfers within the CFSP budget with its quarterly reports to the budgetary authority, and in recent years, all appropriations under the CFSP budget have been committed. Let me comment on two specific issues: firstly, on human security. Human security is something which I am personally very fond of, because it must be promoted: freedom from want and freedom from fear as a good of foreign and security policy. This is also recognised in our 2008 report on European security strategy (ESS), that we both mentioned before. Furthermore, the ESS report recognises that without development and poverty eradication, there will be no sustainable peace. Therefore, this is very important, and the promotion of human rights is also a part of this equation. Finally, let me say a word on early warning and conflict prevention, which Mr Pīks spoke about. I agree in general that as a European Union, we must work more on the early parts of the conflict cycle, which means early warning, conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy. From the Commission side, one initiative we are taking in this field is to strengthen links with NGOs as part of a peacebuilding partnership, and also improving our uses of open sources of information. However, we will try to reinforce the early prevention side in the future. We know this is a very important part."@en1
"− Madam President, let me thank Parliament for the work which has been done, and let me also say that the conclusions which have been presented by the rapporteur will send a very clear message to the Member States and to the stakeholders, because we all know that freight corridors are necessary for the revitalisation and development of rail freight. And we also know that their implementation has to be coordinated and coherent at European level. We see active participation of all the rail actors. In the light of this debate, let me insist once again on two issues. The first: the one-stop shop is not a supranational body but an operational tool to make the path allocation process more efficient. Second, this regulation can be implemented in full respect of the need for capacity of other types of transport, in particular passenger transport. The Commission thinks it will be very good for Europe if this proposal could be voted strongly tomorrow."@en1
"− Madam President, like my colleagues I would like to say that, although it is not perfect, the third energy package is a very good basis for developing our common market, especially in gas, and for enhancing gas security. For countries like mine, which is a small country in the European Union, to reach a compromise on ownership unbundling is very important, because it gives us an assurance that we can still ensure our energy security within the context of the whole package of the enhanced rules, transparency, the third-country clause, and all the other components of the package that will give us the opportunity to put the issue of energy security at the forefront. The package also gives an assurance to consumers that they can pursue their rights, and it creates a better competitive framework for the development of the energy markets and for their efficient functioning. This package depends on implementation, as my colleague Eluned Morgan has just said, and I do not believe that the fourth package is the solution. Rather, the solution is exact implementation and solidarity among Member States in creating the market, especially by developing new initiatives for regional cooperation, especially for countries most vulnerable to energy supplies and to countries that, for the moment, are part of energy islands."@en1
"− Madam President, may I take the liberty of answering Mr Ryan’s comments very briefly? I just want to tell you that you will soon receive a full, legally based answer from the Head of my Cabinet Office. Then you will understand our position. The EU is ready to continue to assist China in customs capacity building, including through the application of the recently published customs blueprints. While we have made considerable progress in enhancing customs cooperation with China, further steps need to be taken, particularly with regard to combating counterfeiting and piracy. Proper implementation of the above-mentioned initiatives, in particular the proposed IPR enforcement action plan, will determine the level of effectiveness of this cooperation. Concerning the second issue, customs cooperation is an important part of the EU-China strategic partnership. The EC-China Agreement on Customs Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance with China provides the legal basis for this cooperation. The EC-China Joint Customs Cooperation Committee meets once a year in order to manage and oversee the implementation of the Agreement. Under the Customs Cooperation Agreement, the EC and China are developing substantial interaction in key customs areas, organised clearly to reflect the interest of the European Community. The problem of counterfeiting is our key priority in relation to China, which is the number one source of fakes entering the EU external borders. During my visits to Beijing in January and April 2008, I agreed with my Chinese counterparts to develop an ambitious Action Plan for IPR enforcement with concrete objectives and measures to be adopted by the EU-China Summit in December. It should include, among other things, an information exchange system on IPR risks, an exchange programme of operational officials, and collaboration on the development of partnerships with business communities in China and the European Union. Securing the supply chain is another essential aspect of EC-China customs cooperation. The joint pilot project on Safe and Secure Trade Lane has been running since November 2007 with the participation of three ports, Shenzhen in China, Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Felixstowe in the United Kingdom. This project aims at strengthening security while facilitating trade between the EC and China through the use of modern technology and the exchange of advance information. At the same time, it will help to better target the traffic in illicit goods. Furthermore, the pilot project aims at preparing the ground for a future agreement on mutual recognition of security measures and the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) and its Chinese opposite number. It involves cooperation in such important fields as alignment of the Chinese security legislation, information exchange and risk analysis. China has, in the meantime, adopted and implemented, as of 1 April 2008, its own AEO legislation that appears very similar to the European Community concept. The EC and China are also enhancing cooperation in other important areas. An EU-China agreement on coordinated controls of trade in drug precursors is expected to be signed at the upcoming EU-China Summit that will allow us to combat trade in illicit drugs more effectively. We agreed to further enhance our cooperation to fight fraud through the established mutual assistance mechanism. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has posted one of its agents in China in order to support the anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit activities of the office, in particular, in relation to cigarette smuggling."@en1
"− Madam President, may I thank all the Members of this House who have, in a very credible and strong way, supported the area of justice which we have started to build. The European Treaty of Lisbon gives us the possibility now – by giving us the tools – to move forward step by step, putting in place the rights of the citizens, be it the rights of the convicted, or the rights of the victims. Everything is in the pipeline and will come quickly. The question related to more proposals forming part of the road map: yes, after the right of interpretation, which I am sure the House will endorse tomorrow, there will be the right of information, the letter of rights which I will put on the table of this House before summer. That will then be followed by the right to legal advice and the right to communicate with people who are dear to the heart. So you see we are going in a direction which aims to achieve the following: the same high level of rights for all EU citizens wherever they are, whatever their problem. It does not matter whether they are travelling for study, for business or for leisure: they should feel at home, and have the same rights as they have at home, wherever they find themselves in Europe. One very important question which has been underlined by several members is the question of language. Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) state very clearly that the accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned has to be provided with interpretation and a translation of the documents. Now this implicitly means that the language into which the proceedings are translated is the language that this person understands. So in fact it does not concern only European Union languages or minority languages. It concerns the language of the person who is in front of a tribunal. I believe that this is only fair because we have to have fair proceedings in order to build the trust of the citizens in our justice system and also, and this is of the utmost importance, in order to ensure the mutual trust of the judges and the prosecutors in neighbouring countries’ systems, which cannot be achieved unless we also have a comparable level of rights. There was one question by Mr Busuttil and other Members about procedures – not about procedural rights, but about internal procedures – due to the coexistence of a Member State initiative and of a Commission proposal. Well I must say that in this case this really did not hamper in any way the swift adoption of a very high-quality and balanced legislative instrument. Why did it happen? We are now in a very peculiar period. We are coming out of the third pillar and find ourselves in a normal codecision situation. I suppose that after some months we will have learned how best to utilise the tools which are at our disposal in order to reach the best solutions very swiftly. And when I say reaching the best solutions, I mean in the way we used to prepare such solutions: by having an impact assessment, by also having a call for people to come in and say what they think about our proposals. These are the normal proceedings which we are used to and which will guarantee in the end, via the codecision procedure and after having a public consultation and an impact assessment, that we achieve sound policy. Sound policy which then can be implemented at national level without creating more distortions than rights, as unfortunately has happened in the past. But we are here with a new Treaty, we are here with a Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are going to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am very confident that, if we should meet together some years from now, we will say, yes, together we have constructed that area of justice and fundamental rights which our continent must become."@en1
"− Madam President, my second oral amendment is very simple as well. It is simply to delete the word ‘Communist’ before ‘insurgents’, and to replace ‘120 000 lives’ with ‘40 000 lives’."@en1
"− Madam President, my thanks to the House for its patience on this, my final intervention. Can I now ask you, Madam President, to write a formal invitation to the Czech Presidency, as well as the incoming Swedish Presidency, to open a formal dialogue with the European Parliament as soon as possible? Equally, as announced in the voting list and for the sake of clarity and coherence of the text that we have now adopted, I kindly ask that you request the plenary services to proceed, without any substantive change, to do the following: to group the articles according to their content under specific thematic titles, to re-order recitals and definitions accordingly and to produce and publish Parliament’s position as a consolidated text as soon as possible. Finally, may I pay due thanks to the enormous and supportive work which I have been given not only by the secretariats, but by the tabling services."@en1
"− Madam President, no, but I am sure I can research that and let Mr Batten know the figure. In return, Mr Batten, can I ask a question of you who, like me, represents London? Hussain Osman, one of the attempted bombers in London in July 2005 escaped to Italy, no doubt hoping to disappear there. In the past, he might have languished for years without being brought back to court. He was brought back within six weeks. He was convicted and he is now serving a sentence under a terrorism conviction. You, I suppose, would have been happy that he would never have been brought back to trial."@en1
"− Madam President, nobody can underestimate the importance of water and the need to manage our water sources well. However, as I said in my introductory remarks, we also need to assist the poorer parts of the world in gaining access to clean drinking water. The Commission will continue to assist these countries. Water is a primary human need, as was recognised and reaffirmed during the Fourth Water Forum in Mexico in 2006. Of course, as I said before, the EU will be represented and will put forward a strong case on all the points I have made at the forthcoming Forum in Istanbul. Mr Bowis referred to another very important question – and I agree with him – namely that, because of climate change, we see other parts of the world being flooded with water. We really have to take action about that. As he said very clearly, forestation is one of the solutions to the problem."@en1
"− Madam President, of course cooperation between Member States in fighting drugs, drug cartels and drug crime is extremely vital and also extremely difficult because of the huge amount of money in circulation. Our first priority, as you have seen in the Action Plan, is really to fight the cocaine supply chain. We have several initiatives which foresee and arrange cooperation between producer countries in Latin America and in Western Africa in order to stop cocaine trafficking. There are special centres such as the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics, and the . Both initiatives target cocaine trafficking. Hence, there is cooperation and there are initiatives, but the field is difficult and the fight is hard. I must stress that there cannot be any complacency. This is more or less an endless fight. However, I am happy to report some positive consequences. Diseases have decreased, as has drug-related death."@en1
"− Madam President, only two weeks after the dreadful disaster on Madeira, the Commission was again shocked and saddened by the death and devastation caused by storm Xynthia in France and other European countries. These are the essential elements for the application, which has to reach the Commission within 10 weeks of the disaster. That means before 9 May. After it is received it will be examined by the Commission as quickly as possible. The Commission services, in particular DG Regional Policy, are granting all possible assistance and guidance in preparing the application. Contacts at expert level are well established with the French authorities, thus allowing effective progress. Please be aware, however, that aid from the Solidarity Fund cannot be paid out immediately. The Solidarity Fund should not be misunderstood as an emergency instrument. It is a financial instrument to help bear the financial burden of emergency operations. As such, a possible grant could be used retroactively for emergency operations from day one of the disaster. The funding for the Solidarity Fund is raised through an extra effort of the Member States outside the normal European Union budget. It has to be approved by Parliament and the Council through an amending budget procedure. As you know, the whole procedure – from the moment the application is made to paying out the grant – inevitably takes several months. The Commission is, however, making every effort to keep this time span as short as possible. As regards the Structural Funds, in particular the ERDF, this can of course not be used for immediate emergency operations. France and the Commission have, however, started discussing the options and possible necessary programme modifications which might be instrumental for longer-term reconstruction and for investment in businesses affected by the flood. One last point, which Members of this House already raised during the debate on Madeira two weeks ago. The Commission will use the current political momentum to attempt to unblock the proposal for an amended Solidarity Fund regulation at the Council. Parliament widely supported this proposal, and I feel this is the right moment to take common action vis-à-vis the Council again. I wish to express my personal sympathy to all those that are suffering as a consequence of the disaster. The Commission’s condolences go in particular to the families and friends of those that have lost their lives. Through the monitoring and information centre for civil protection, the Commission has been monitoring the events caused by storm Xynthia closely and has offered to set the mechanism for EU assistance in action. Fortunately, the French rescue services were able to respond to the disaster with their own means and did not request the activation of the mechanism. Together with the relevant authorities in the Member States, the Commission is now exploring all the possibilities and instruments that could be available at EU level to assist financially in overcoming the disaster and to help return to normal living conditions as soon as possible. Two days ago, Commission President Barroso met French President Sarkozy to discuss the situation. Yesterday he also met with a number of Members of this House from different countries. One week ago my colleague, Mr Hahn, Commissioner responsible for regional policy and the Solidarity Fund, visited the most hard-hit regions in France – La Rochelle and l’Aiguillon-sur-Mer – and met with national and regional authorities. On Madeira, where disaster struck two weeks earlier, the authorities and rescue services have been able to make enormous progress in combating the effects of the flooding disaster. Commissioner Hahn visited Madeira during the past weekend to get a first-hand impression and to discuss with the local authorities the way forward. The European Union Solidarity Fund was set up in 2002 specifically as the instrument at EU level to financially assist EU Member States affected by major natural disasters, if certain conditions are met. France has already declared its intention to apply for assistance from the Solidarity Fund. I should point out that the Regulation governing the Solidarity Fund normally allows its mobilisation only for what are known as ‘major disasters’, where the damage at national level exceeds the threshold of 0.6% of gross national income, or EUR 3 billion at 2002 prices. For France this currently means the damage would have to exceed approximately EUR 3.4747 billion at current prices. However, in exceptional circumstances and if specific criteria are met, the fund may also be used for smaller ‘extraordinary regional disasters’, in particular where they concern outermost regions like Madeira. The French authorities are currently carrying out an assessment of the damage and of its repercussions for the economy and the living conditions of the population."@en1
"− Madam President, recital E should read as follows: ‘whereas the United Nations refugee agency has voiced its concern about the reports of mistreatment of the Burmese refugees and gained access to some of the 126 Rohingya still kept in custody by the Thai authorities’."@en1
"− Madam President, thank you for your explanation, Mr Rehn. I understand the timetable is such. My concern was that Parliament’s role could not be seen as trivialising, which I am sure the Commission had borne in mind. To conclude, I would like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their useful advice and meaningful amendments, which I fully supported and inserted in the report. I would especially mention my fellow MEP Mr Ivar Padar, the former Estonian Minister of Finance, as well as the current Minister, Mr Jürgen Ligi, for their very frank and open explanations given every time I needed their help. I wish the Estonian people well. They have so far succeeded in proving the critics wrong. I now invite them to continue on the spot and keep full vigilance over their economy, especially its competitiveness, to ensure that their success will continue in the future as eurozone members. I therefore commend this report to the House. Estonia’s application deserves our support and I hope that, when Parliament votes on Wednesday, a convincing majority will give the Estonians the credit they deserve and demonstrate that the eurozone is very much alive."@en1
"− Madam President, thank you to Mr Parish and, of course, also to Mrs Lulling for this oral question and resolution on the EU beekeeping sector. The Commission clearly recognises the importance that bees play in the EU’s ecology and its ecosystem. The Commission is also aware of the reports made in several Member States concerning significant losses in bee colonies. Regarding losses of bees, you should know that, since 2004, a new measure on restocking of hives has been added to the list of eligible measures in the national beekeeping programmes. Therefore, it is now possible to compensate for losses of bees (and production) by funding activities to promote queen production, purchasing of bee colonies, or even purchases of hives. I think that the question which you are raising is of course extremely serious and we have to take it with similar seriousness. Let me go straight to your specific questions – there were quite some of them – and try to point out straightforwardly what the Commission is already doing in this sector. As regards bee mortality and research, in February this year the Commission requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) study the mortality in bees and its causes in the European Union. EFSA collected information from Member States and now intends to analyse it in order to provide the Commission with a clearer picture of the epidemiological situation of bee colony collapse, and this would provide the basis for further action in this area. Besides this EFSA action, the Commission is, and will be, supporting a number of research projects relating to honeybees in its Research Framework Programme. If you are interested I can mention some of them later on. Concerning ecological pollen zones, despite the fact that it seems difficult to set up zones as such, I would like to remind you that financial support is already granted for the efficiency of moving of beehives. This measure, which is provided for by Council Regulation No 1234/2007, is intended to assist the management of the movement of hives in the Community and provide locations where high concentrations of beekeepers can gather during the flowering season. This measure may also include enrichment of apicultural flora in certain areas. Concerning your third question, I would like to remind you that the placing on the market and authorisation of plant protection products is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EEC. This Directive provides that pesticides may only be used if it has been demonstrated that they pose no significant risk of unacceptable effects to human and animal health, and the environment. Therefore, this assessment also covers the acute and long-term risks to honey bees and their larvae and the tests applied are based on standards developed by intergovernmental organisations such as, for example, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, in which 47 governments collaborate. It is important to note that the Community legislation is risk based. It is evident that insecticides are, by their nature, toxic to bees. However, their use may still be possible if exposure does not occur or is minimised to levels which do not generate harmful effects. Classic examples of such risk mitigation measures are: well adapted agronomic practices, appropriate rates and timing of the applications (for example in the evening after honeybee flight, or outside the flowering period of the crop and possibly other adjacent weeds), direct incorporation of the product in soil, uses in glasshouses inaccessible to bees or treatment of seeds in specialised facilities. As regards the quality of the surface waters, the Water Framework Directive has established protection of all waters; an obligation to achieve/maintain good water quality for all surface waters and groundwaters, by 2015; plus a prohibition of deterioration of water status; an obligation to establish a monitoring system; an obligation to develop the necessary plans and programmes by December 2009, in broad public consultation with local municipalities, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations. Concerning support to apiaries in difficulty, I would like to tell you that the Commission is glad to see that the number of hives increased between 2004 and 2007 – and this not counting enlargement."@en1
"− Madam President, thank you very much for making it possible for me to exchange views with Parliament at an unusually early stage this year. I am very thankful for the Committee on Budgetary Affairs’ initiative to do this. The Commission has already examined very seriously Parliament’s guidelines for the 2010 budget, and agrees with most of the points. The Commission also appreciates Parliament’s examination of the 2010 Annual Policy Strategy – already reflected in your resolution – and shares with you many of the policy priorities identified. Unexpected challenges, such as the financial, economic and social recovery, will need to be addressed. However, long-lasting solutions to other issues, such as tackling climate change and achieving a sustainable Europe, are essential as well. On this basis, the Commission will, on 29 April, adopt its preliminary draft budget for 2010. The Commission has already indicated that financial efforts in 2010 will be needed, in particular, for the Economic Recovery Plan. The Commission has also noted Parliament’s support for more efficient levels of administrative expenditure, and will continue to act in that direction. As for the pilot projects and preparatory actions, I am sure we will be able to build on last year’s excellent cooperation between institutions. The preliminary draft budget will be based on sound estimates of the needs for achieving our shared priorities and taking up the challenges ahead of us. I am confident that a satisfactory agreement on the 2010 budget will, once again, be achieved through good cooperation and collaboration between all the institutions, and especially with Parliament."@en1
"− Madam President, that is right. Procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the coming years because we need those minimum standards for the rights of the defendants in criminal proceedings. They are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between the judicial authorities of different Member States. Without this trust, mutual recognition will never work properly. Judges and prosecutors must be confident that, no matter where the proceedings take place in the Union, a common core of basic rights will be upheld. Citizens must be sure that minimum standards for procedural rights will enforce their trust in our justice system and also in the EU as an area of freedom and security and justice. That is why I warmly welcome the agreement reached by the two co-legislators. I would like to give specific thanks to the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, and the whole LIBE Committee for their excellent work on this file. As Commissioner, I am pleased that many of the compromise solutions take inspiration from our March 2010 proposal. The proposal was meant to reach what Parliament has now reached, namely to ensure high standards for defendants and to avoid any risk of falling below the European Convention on Human Rights . The directive, as it is now on the table, will increase the minimum standards. Consistent provision of interpretation throughout criminal proceedings and translation of essential documents will simply result in the right to a fair trial being upheld in a more systematic and streamlined way. I fully agree with the rapporteur that cheap justice is no justice and leads to more costs in the end as well as to a lack of trust from both judges and citizens. I am also very glad that it was possible to have a very swift adoption of this directive. This is the first step on the road map which indicates that all institutions are living up to the pledge they made to treat this file as a matter of priority. There is only one element with which I have to disagree, and that is the request by some Member States to extend the implementation period to 36 months. The Commission considers that three years is excessively long because none of the Member States submitted any evidence that the implementation of this piece of legislation would be very difficult. In addition, the Member States also knew that this legislation would be adopted and have already known this for several years. Having said that, in a spirit of compromise, I will accept the solution. What I say now is very important for the future. On the understanding that this will not set a precedent for future road map measures – and I would like to underline this three times – I will say ‘yes’ this time but not again. I would also like to emphasise that the Commission will deploy all the necessary resources at its disposal to enforce the Member States’ obligations concerning the timely and correct implementation of the decision. This is in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty and with the Stockholm Programme. As you know, the Commission is already working on the subsequent road map measures. I will very shortly be putting forward a proposal on the right to information – the letter of rights. This will be presented in the coming week, so what we have initiated today will be work in progress."@en1
"− Madam President, the Commission is aware of the Brazilian Justice Minister’s recent decision to grant political asylum to an Italian citizen, Cesare Battisti, condemned in absentia to a life sentence by the Italian judiciary. We have carefully considered the Commission’s role in this situation, especially after Italy’s European Affairs Minister, Andrea Ronchi, called on Vice-President Barrot last week for the EU to support Italy’s extradition request to the Brazilian Government. As was also explained to the Italian Government, there is no scope for an involvement of the Commission in this case. The EU Treaty is very clear on this matter: the European Union’s and Commission’s legal powers in the field of cooperation in criminal matters are restricted to the legal space of the EU-27. The European Union can facilitate extradition between Member States, but has no competences regarding Member States’ relations with third countries on criminal cooperation matters. Italy’s bilateral relations with Brazil on this matter are governed by a bilateral agreement signed in 1989."@en1
"− Madam President, the Commission is following closely the case of Ms Roxana Saberi, including the preparations for the appeal process that will begin early next week. The Commission is concerned about Ms Saberi’s health, weakened by a hunger strike that, according to Ms Saberi’s father, she started after she was sentenced to eight years in jail for alleged espionage by the Revolutionary Court of Tehran last month. The Commission considers that Ms Saberi’s trial, held behind closed doors, did not meet the minimum standards required for a fair and transparent trial. The Commission fully supported the declaration issued by the Czech Presidency of the Council on Ms Saberi’s case on 22 April 2009. We hope that the Iranian judiciary will ensure a fair and transparent appeal trial without any delay, with all the guarantees provided by the Iranian legislation. The Commission is deeply concerned at the steady deterioration of the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran. The recent execution of Ms Delara Darabi, hanged on 1 May for a crime she allegedly committed when she was a minor, is another confirmation of this dismal situation. Also in this case the EU issued a statement strongly condemning the execution. The Commission has repeatedly urged, and will continue to do so, the Iranian authorities to respect their international commitments on human rights, including in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The improvement of the human rights situation in Iran is, for the Commission, essential to enhance its political dialogue and cooperation with Iran in the near future."@en1
"− Madam President, the Commission really welcomes the European Court of Auditors’ special report on EC support to health services in Africa. The debate on this oral question gives us an opportunity to discuss our health support to Africa with you, the European Parliament. I therefore hope that our debate today will contribute to further clarifying these issues and to helping ensure that Europe fulfils its promises to Africa. I am not going to repeat here the formal reaction the Commission has already made regarding the Court of Auditors’ special report, which has already been published on the Internet. Unfortunately, this report has not received wide coverage in the press and, when it was mentioned, things were sometimes oversimplified by saying that ‘Europe has not kept its promises in Africa’. Let me therefore just clarify a few essential points before we enter into the debate. The Commission remains fully committed to supporting the Millennium Development Goals, the health-related Goals 4, 5 and 6 being an integral part of these goals: reduction of child mortality by two thirds, reduction of maternal mortality by three quarters, and halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is what our development cooperation stands for, but our commitment must not be measured by budgetary allocations to the health sector alone. Doubtless, child mortality will be reduced by effective health service interventions, vaccinations in particular. Therefore, we monitor vaccination coverage not only in our health programmes but also in many of our general budget support operations. However, child mortality also depends on other factors such as nutrition, housing, access to safe water, sanitation and education. Therefore our contribution can, and will, frequently be outside the healthcare sector itself. When deciding on sectoral allocations and modalities of our development assistance, we agreed in Paris and Accra to increasingly respect basic principles of aid effectiveness. Here are just two examples. The first is leadership by partner governments. This means, after an in-depth discussion with the partner country, accepting the sectors proposed for support. It might not be the health sector but education or water and sanitation. Second: alignment on national systems. This means channelling our aid, preferably as budget support (provided that the basic criteria are fulfilled). If the country has a sufficiently well formulated poverty strategy, our support may preferably be channelled as general budget support. Although this support will not then be earmarked as health sector support, it is linked to targets for health, such as vaccination coverage rates or proportions of births assisted by skilled health personnel. Such targets are usually part of the poverty strategy and are monitored, and budget support disbursement is often linked to progress on them. In addition to the global commitments on aid effectiveness made in Accra and Paris, we, the European Union, have collectively agreed on a code of conduct that foresees, for example, a reduction in the number of sectors in which each and every donor is active, in order to reduce the administrative and managerial burden on our partner countries through the multiplicity of donors. This is the meaning of the division of labour approach that EU Member States and the European Commission have agreed upon. We know that it will not always be easy to agree on this at the country level, particularly as health scores high in public opinion, and all donors and donor countries want to be present and to be seen. We will, at times, have to resist such a tendency and leave it to the other donors to do the job."@en1
"− Madam President, the Democratic Republic of Congo is something of a misnomer, as it is certainly not democratic, nor is it really a functioning republic. If it was, we could perhaps hope to see the government take action to prevent the mass rape of women and to prosecute those responsible for that heinous crime. But in reality the government has little authority over vast swathes of this anarchic country. The latest mass rapes in South Kivu province are another sorry chapter in the violent and troubled history of the DRC, which is verging on being a failed state. Those crimes were allegedly committed by former rebels who had been integrated into the national army but then deserted. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this appalling case is that the perpetrators are unlikely ever to be brought to justice. Nevertheless, that should not stop us trying, as impunity is completely unacceptable in the modern world. Having the International Criminal Court as a body of global jurisprudence for such vile crimes offers us at least some glimmer of hope for the victims of this savagery to see some justice – victims to whom we say today that we in this Parliament will not ignore what has happened to you."@en1
"− Madam President, the ECR has no collective view on the death penalty for murder, leaving it to MEPs to decide individually according to their own conscience. India, as a democratic country, reserves the right to impose death sentences on those convicted of the most heinous capital crimes. We in the ECR agree that the EU has a right to request clarification of the controversial circumstances of the arrest, police custody and apparent confession made by Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, including the issue of his deportation from Germany and the fact the conviction was based on a majority decision, leaving some doubt as to whether the conviction is totally safe. India is a democracy with an independent judiciary and by and large has an adequate appellate process. It is also important to note that Mr Singh Bhullar is allegedly linked to the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is committed to carving out an independent Sikh state in India by armed force. In the past its followers have allegedly committed many terrorist atrocities and assassinations of high-level political targets. The EU’s position on the death penalty is of course well known in India. However, we also need to understand the enormous internal security pressures facing India, not only from the Khalistan armed movement but from the Naxalite insurgency and more generally from Jihadi terrorism emulating from extremists in Pakistan."@en1
"− Madam President, the European Commission is deeply concerned – like you – by the Sudanese decision to expel 13 international, as well as to suspend three national, humanitarian NGOs and two national human rights NGOs, following the ICC indictment of President Bashir. Six of these international NGOs operate with EC humanitarian funding amounting to a total of EUR 10 million. Those organisations provide essential services to millions of Sudanese in Darfur and in other areas of Sudan. The suspension of their activities is, therefore, not only highly regrettable but will also seriously affect the humanitarian situation, as many of you have said. In a statement, Commissioner Michel has already expressed our deepest concern and urged ‘the Government of Sudan to reconsider the value of their decision and to urgently restore these NGOs to their full operational status’. If the full impact of the Sudanese decision is still being assessed, it is clear that the lives of hundreds of thousands of people might be at risk in Darfur. Appropriate measures need to be taken urgently, as the approaching rainy season and the yearly hunger gap will soon exacerbate the humanitarian vulnerability of the 4.7 million people directly affected by the conflict. We know that the Government is not going to reverse its decision under further international pressure calling into question its decision to expel the NGOs in question. If we cannot persuade the Government to reverse the expulsion orders, we have to engage the Sudanese authorities in order to put in place the appropriate delivery mechanisms. In this respect, we must certainly hold the Sudanese Government fully accountable for its assurances that it takes full responsibility for delivering humanitarian aid. It is also our duty to take the necessary contingency measures with respect to our assistance. Sudan is the Commission’s single largest humanitarian operation: EUR 110 million in 2009. The Commission, together with other donors, like the United Nations and the NGOs and other humanitarian partners, is currently looking into how best to redesign the humanitarian response in order to avoid dramatic consequences. It is not an easy task, as the expelled NGOs were among those very capable of working in such difficult and remote areas. These contingency measures will clearly require some cooperation and agreement with the Sudanese authorities. In this respect, it is essential to insist on strict separation between the humanitarian activities and the political agenda. On the political front, we will have to maintain maximum diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese authorities and the rebel movements alike to reach peace in Darfur. We will also have to press for the full implementation of the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The stakes are very high, and it is our responsibility not to let Sudan be engulfed in a nightmare scenario of country-wide instability. The EU as a whole will respect the ICC’s guidelines and maintain only essential contacts with Sudanese President Bashir. However – and here it is crucial that, as I said before, we maintain dialogue with Khartoum – we should ensure that the Government’s reaction to the ICC indictment is as restrained as possible. If we cut off all relations, the hardliners among the Government may retaliate against civilians, humanitarian workers and UNMIS personnel. The recent decision to expel several NGOs is, we think, the first step, which could be followed by many more situations like the present one, and we have to monitor that carefully. A worst-case scenario of a halt in the implementation of the CPA and an attempt by the Government to find a military solution to the Darfur crisis must be avoided. With regard to the African Union, I can just tell you that we are maintaining contact with them, but I cannot say any more at this stage."@en1
"− Madam President, the European Commission, as a matter of priority, is following the situation in Myanmar and Thailand, including the recent incidents where refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar were stranded in Thailand. Thailand hosts approximately 140 000 refugees in nine camps along the border. More than one million Myanmar citizens constitute an important part of the workforce in Thailand in the agricultural sector, in textiles and in the tourism sector. The Rohingya boat people trapped in Thailand are part of the multi-faceted, forced or voluntary emigration from Myanmar. Moreover, Thailand has other refugee issues to settle as well, such as the Hmong people from Laos. The complexity of these issues requires a comprehensive political, humanitarian, economic and social solution. The Commission is conducting an intensive debate with the international community and the Thai Government, in a search for possible solutions. Recent political uncertainties in Thailand interrupted the dialogue with the Government on this issue, but that is temporary. Thus, the Commission expects that the EU’s initiative vis-à-vis the Government will result in a constructive approach. On 29 January 2009, the EU Troika, at ambassador level in Bangkok, expressed its concerns to the Thai authorities. It welcomed the Thai Government’s intention to investigate the incidents fully, and to share its findings, and urged the Thai Government to treat boat people arriving in Thai waters according to international humanitarian and human rights standards. The Commission welcomes the Government’s intention to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees access to the boat people. The Commission encourages the Thai Government to seek regional cooperation, involving also the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as the Rohingya issue and the other displacement issues mentioned earlier need a comprehensive response. In conclusion, a sustainable solution cannot be the result of short-term security considerations, but must take into account long-term humanitarian, political and socio-economic concerns. Despite the fact that Thailand is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Royal Thai Government has, in the past, displayed a measure of humanitarian concern. The Commission will continue to remind the Thai authorities to strictly adhere to international human rights standards as a prerequisite for any solution."@en1
"− Madam President, the Philippines, as many honourable Members have just said, still faces very strong challenges: on the one hand, the question of minorities in Mindanao, and on the other hand, many extrajudicial killings. We are well aware of that. However, the Philippines has made considerable progress in its international obligations to ensure and to protect human rights, ratifying 12 international human rights treaties and abolishing the death penalty, largely thanks to the advocacy role played by the European Parliament, the Commission and the Member States. So there is a mixed picture, but we have to see both the positive and the negative sides. But the human rights situation remains very difficult and we use the opportunity of our regular, senior official meeting to raise these issues. Human rights warrant particular attention for our relationship with the Philippines, also in the run-up to the presidential elections in 2010, and we are already going in this direction. I would, therefore, like to focus on the long-standing issue, as I have already said, of the extrajudicial killings. These assassinations of journalists of human rights and land rights activists have certainly decreased significantly in number in the past two years. But, from time to time, they have flared up and there has been a flare-up very recently. Most unsettling is that the majority of the perpetrators remain at large. It has become a very sensitive political issue and it has eroded confidence in the Government. We are about to launch an ‘EU-Philippines Justice Assistance Mission’ under the Instrument for Stability. What we have in mind is capacity-building for the Philippine judicial authorities, including police and military personnel, to help them investigate cases of extrajudicial killings and to prosecute those guilty of murder. We have also ongoing projects at local level to promote respect for human rights, funded by the EU Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. These include monitoring the implementation of international commitments in the field of human rights, actions to support the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC and electorate education. We are currently in the process of reviewing our cooperation with all our partner countries in the framework of the Mid-Term Review and there are good reasons to step up our efforts in the area of good governance, justice and the rule of law in the Philippines. As far as the Peace Process in Mindanao is concerned, the Government appears ready to re-launch talks and we encourage an early resumption of negotiations between the parties and, of course, every discreet mediation that might be there. Meanwhile, the civilian population has once again borne the brunt of the long-lasting conflict, and ECHO has supplied significant assistance. Finally, current priorities of our relationship with the Philippines include the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) negotiations, which started last month in Manila. In this framework too, we are looking for common ground on human rights."@en1
"− Madam President, the Socialist Group in this Parliament is formally refusing to take part in this vote on Sri Lanka. Last month, Parliament held a full debate, with Council and Commission statements, on the situation in Gaza. On this side of the House, we attach the same importance to Sri Lanka and believe it deserved equal and proper discussion, but I regret that not one other group supported us in this stand. A short debate this afternoon with a handful of people on a Thursday is an insult to the thousands of people under attack and dying in the north of Sri Lanka. We wanted to call, as in the joint USA and UK declaration from Washington earlier this week, for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire by both sides, but the PPE refused to include that in the text. We wanted to condemn, unreservedly, the bombing of hospitals and aid workers, but Mr Van Orden, negotiating for the PPE, refused to condemn it. That is why it is not in the resolution before you. To him – and presumably to Dr Tannock as well – everything the Government of Sri Lanka says is a fact and just about every aid organisation on the ground, from the Red Cross to the UN, can be dismissed. Amnesty International today suggests the Sri Lankan army could be guilty of war crimes for its use of cluster bombs on a hospital – a 16-hour bombardment, according to Amnesty International. The PSE also wanted to condemn the murders of journalists and other media workers by government agents. Paragraph 4 of the resolution asks the Government – the very same Sri Lankan Government – to investigate their own serious human rights violations. Colleagues, some of you may want to associate yourselves and your groups with those kinds of sentiments, but we do not. Vote for this text and you are condoning attacks on hospitals and ignoring allegations of war crimes. I note that Mr Van Orden has not even had the courage to stand here and defend his bloody handiwork, but I am hardly surprised. In our negotiations, he just dismissed and laughed off as propaganda allegations of rape by Sri Lankan soldiers, so what you can expect? In the Middle East, millions of people – including many Jews – were outraged at what Israel did to Gaza, but that did not make them supporters of Hamas. Sadly, anyone who does not support the Sri Lankan Government is labelled an apologist for terrorism and a supporter of the LTTE. However, our motion was critical of the LTTE and their tactics. We do condemn their attacks and we do want them, the Tamil Tigers, to sit round the negotiating table, but this war must be stopped immediately. The Government must end its military campaign that has brought – as others have said – humanitarian disaster to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in the north of the island. Sadly, this resolution does not call for an immediate end to the fighting, so we will not endorse that approach by taking part in today’s vote. We dissociate ourselves, President and colleagues, from this motion and I urge anyone else with the same views to do likewise."@en1
"− Madam President, the active interest of the European Parliament in the important area of internet governance has helped to consolidate and underpin the position of the European Union. In recent years the public policy dimension of internet governance has become more visible and more important as internet use has grown and its governance has taken on wider implications. The rapporteur Mr Sosa Wagner – and I pay tribute to him – and his colleagues are to be congratulated for addressing the relevant public policy issues in the report. Parliament and the Commission share many similar ideas and goals in this respect. You will have noticed that, when I presented the digital agenda for Europe to you, many of the issues raised in this report are reflected in its actions. The principle that I would like to highlight is the need to ensure that European values, as you have underlined, are enshrined in the global debate. We must ensure that the interests and rights of EU citizens and enterprises are taken into account in the international debate in managing this global resource. We will be interacting with some of the global internet governance stakeholders at the next meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) later this month in Brussels. Another major event this year which has already been touched upon will certainly be the Internet Governance Forum in Vilnius in September. I warmly welcome the European Parliament’s intention to participate again this year with a strong delegation. Of course I am aware that you, as the Presidency, will decide who is in that delegation but I sincerely hope that we will be privileged to have Mr Sosa Wagner and his ideas in that delegation. Your active involvement in this forum over the last four years has indeed promoted European values and I can only thank you as Members of Parliament for this, as well as for the excellent cooperation between our institutions. I hope we can continue to work in this spirit in the area of internet governance. What I would like to underline, with reference to the remark that your rapporteur, Mr Sosa Wagner, made – and this is a very emotive question – is that we are responsible for the protection of minors from abuse over the internet and that we have to combine our efforts to be successful. This is not easy, not because we are not aware of the need to tackle this problem but because those who are involved in this process are people who will use every means they can. You can be absolutely sure of this. If you read the key action plans, you will see that they talk about safety, protection, security and trust. Key Action 6, for example, is worded already but there are a number of other key actions that are very relevant to the problems you have mentioned. I could not agree more with those who were saying that the role of the EU in ICANN cannot be underestimated. We should take our responsibility and fulfil our important role. Of course with such a huge challenge as that presented by the internet there is also a downside, and we should do our utmost to tackle the problems involved in that downside. In any case we can do more together than each on his own."@en1
"− Madam President, the brutal regime governing Burma has, for some time now, been causing thousands of civilians to leave that country in search of a more secure future and a better standard of living in neighbouring Thailand or, via Thailand, in other South-East Asian countries. Amongst these destitute people are the indigenous Rohingya community of Western Burma who, in recent years, have been the victims of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Burmese Government. Unfortunately, the Thai authorities have not provided those refugees with the humanitarian assistance they so clearly deserve. Instead, it is reported that these people have been fiercely persecuted. We call on the Thai Government to respect the human rights of Burmese refugees and to treat them with respect, compassion, dignity and humanity. This resolution also gives me the opportunity to deal with the issue of the 41-year-old Australian writer of Cypriot origin, Harry Nicolaides, who was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in Thailand for allegedly insulting the country’s Royal Family in a novel he wrote in 2005. Mr Nicolaides was teaching English at a Thai university at the time, and in his novel he only makes an anonymous reference to a member of the Thai Royal Family, and the incriminated work is clearly fictitious. During his trial, Mr Nicolaides was paraded in front of the international media in chains and told reporters that he had endured unspeakable suffering. Mr Nicolaides has apologised to the Thai Royal Family and has made an appeal for royal grace. We believe that Mr Nicolaides has been subjected to enough punishment and ill-treatment by the Thai authorities, who have handled this case most insensitively and inappropriately, and we call on them, as well as the Royal Family, to effect Mr Nicolaides’ immediate release and return to his home in Australia. To not do so would be most unwise, pitiful and damaging to Thailand."@en1
"− Madam President, the case of Manuel Rosales is another example of the arrogance and paranoid behaviour sometimes exhibited by the increasingly more authoritarian Government of Venezuela. The political persecution of Mr Rosales and many others is regrettable and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We will call on the Government of that country in earnest to start behaving sensibly and democratically and to stop violating the human rights of its citizens. Madam President, since this is the last time I will be making a speech in the plenary, permit me to take the opportunity to thank you and all our colleagues who have faithfully attended the Thursday afternoon human rights debates and have contributed towards making our world a better place to live in. Let me also take the opportunity, as I have so often done in the past, to remind my colleagues of the plight of my own country, Cyprus, which for the past 35 years has been suffering under the military occupation of its northern part by Turkey. The citizens – EU citizens – of areas such as Kyrenia, Famagusta, Karpasia and Morfou have been living in exile since the devastating Turkish invasion of 1974. We are looking towards the EU for the fulfilment of their humble wish to return to their homes and live there in peace and security. I hope the EU will not let them down."@en1
"− Madam President, the positive result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty brings us one step closer to that moment in time when the European Parliament will not only be consulted by the Council, but will have codecision powers on matters which are now under the third pillar. The question then is: why is the Council so keen to adopt legislation a few months before that date when, moreover, that legislation does not represent a step forward in establishing a genuine European area of freedom, security and justice? The truth is that this proposal does not help prevent any conflicts of jurisdiction, and does not provide for any settlement when such situations arise. This could be done, for example, by reducing multiple jurisdiction and by allocating jurisdiction to Member States, as was done through various regulations on civil law, with the obligation to mutually recognise the decisions that followed from that allocation of jurisdiction. Instead, this Framework Decision is limited to a duty of Member States to inform one another and to enter into direct consultation in order to reach ‘consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arriving from parallel proceedings’. That is why I was not surprised when, during the exchange of views in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs a few weeks ago, the Commission – although supporting the current proposal – mentioned it would come up with a new proposal at a later stage. That is also why I am not surprised by what the Commissioner has said this evening. I thank the Commission for being so honest about the proposal, but have to say that I consider this proposal and the entire procedure for its adoption a good example of how we should not legislate within the European Union. I strongly believe that what is important is to protect our citizens’ rights and not just to tick boxes. By the way, the Council is not present today, although the Presidency was one of the initiators of the proposal. I have to stress that within the European Parliament, we took our work very seriously. We worked in good faith during the last mandate and this one, and would hope to be sending a message on our views on having more effective legislation. What I welcome about this proposal is that the current text explicitly refers to the principle of . This was due to the exchange of views we had with the Council and the Commission, as the original text proposed did not mention it at all. The report I drafted pays particular attention to three aspects. Firstly, I believe that the protection of persons formally charged must receive the highest attention and consistent procedural safeguards have to be provided for. These should include the right of the formally charged person to receive enough information for him or her to have a basis upon which to challenge any solution which does not appear to be reasonable. Secondly, with regard to the details concerning the person formally charged, which national authorities exchange through the notifications, I support the idea that it is important to ensure an adequate level of data protection and that it should be specified in this Framework Decision what kind of personal data is exchanged. Last but not least, I strongly believe that the involvement of Eurojust in the decision on the choice of jurisdiction is of the utmost importance. In my opinion, Eurojust should be involved from the earliest stage because of its coordinating role and because of its more and more relevant tasks. I am among those who consider that we created this Agency not only to show that we are concerned with combating transborder crime, but because we need strong instruments. Eurojust has already proved in the years since its establishment that it deserves our trust. That is why I am surprised by the reluctance shown by the Council and by some colleagues in the European Parliament. Having said that, I would like to call on the European Commission to present at the earliest opportunity a proposal completing this Framework Decision on the conflicts of jurisdiction. I will finish by thanking the shadow rapporteurs for the way they worked on this report."@en1
"− Madam President, the power and the importance of the MDGs come from being a collective commitment to shared development goals. They stand as a common framework to coordinate and check international development activities. They help galvanise development efforts and help deliver opportunity to millions of people around the world. Despite impressive gains, however, overall progress has been uneven among the different goals, across regions and within developing countries. 2010 really is a milestone. It is necessary to consider what we got right and what went wrong, and what have been the key successes and failures since the signing of the Millennium Declaration. It is important to reflect on how best to approach the next phase and how to accelerate progress in areas that are lagging behind. It is also critical that progress towards meeting the MDGs is robust and sustained. Strengthening country-owned institutions, policies and service-delivery systems will be essential, as will avoidance or mitigation of shocks and the promotion of broad-based economic growth. Mr Cashman’s excellent report responds to the issues mentioned and gives powerful guidance for the European Union in preparation for the United Nations high-level meeting in September and beyond. I am pleased to see a strong convergence between Mr Cashman’s report and the Commission’s communication, a 12-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals. We need to respect our aid commitments of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 at the latest. We need to turn aid effectiveness from a good concept into tangible reality. We need to ensure that policy coherence for development becomes a strong tool to guide EU decision-making. We need to pay special attention to countries most off-track, including those in situations of conflict and fragility. We need to pay particular attention to the MDGs that are most off-track, at the same time maintaining an integrated comprehensive approach to the MDGs. I very much agree that governance is central to the successful achievement and sustainability of the MDGs. The commitment to govern effectively is a basic condition of any pursuit of public development strategies and policy. With the delivery on other commitments we need improved predictability and effectiveness to support country-led developments that foster inclusive economic growth and increase public investments in education, health and infrastructure, enhance success to clean energy and promote low-carbon development. Our aid should act as a catalyst to accelerate domestic resource mobilisation to finance MDGs. I shall also say a brief word on the discussions we had in the Foreign Affairs Council today. I am broadly satisfied with the conclusions we have reached. There is a clear commitment to meet the 0.7% ODA commitment by 2015. Council adopted gender equality and women’s empowerment in the development plan of EU action for the years 2010 to 2015. Also, the 12-point EU action plan on MDGs proposed by the Commission is reflected rightly. The Council has agreed to make a real step forward in terms of aid effectiveness, inviting concrete proposals from the Commission. I believe that, whilst we should not be complacent, it represents a package that will enable us to lead by example in New York. It is by no means perfect, but provides a basis for progress. Once again my congratulations on Parliament’s MDGs report."@en1
"− Madam President, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, so we look forward to the Commission actually delivering on what it is saying, because we will need this in an electronic form in the future so that we can access it. The Commission is promising that it will bring everything together in the one CMO, meaning that when we want to look into wine, we will be able to do so and will not be accessing the milk CMO at the same time, thereby reducing bureaucracy. We have had all these assurances tonight, and most of us will vote in favour tomorrow because we have had those assurances. As I said, we then look forward to checking what happens. We take the assurances of the Commission in the good faith in which they have been presented tonight, and look forward to working together on these CMOs – or rather on the one CMO – in the future."@en1
"− Madam President, the situation in Darfur is desperate. Can you imagine the human suffering behind the United Nations statistics? According to the UN, up to 4.7 million people – including 2.7 million internally displaced persons – are in need of assistance. We cannot allow this situation to deteriorate even more, and I urge the Sudanese Government to step back from the decision to expel 13 leading non-governmental organisations from Darfur. The aid agencies in Darfur run the largest humanitarian operation in the world. Only today we have discovered, I believe, that three people who work for Médecins Sans Frontières are missing. The departure of the NGOs could lead to even more loss of life, due to the break in medical services and outbreaks of infectious diseases such as diarrhoea and respiratory infections. Children are greatly at risk. The United Nations has said that kicking out the humanitarian groups puts more than one million lives at risk. I stress the overriding humanitarian need to allow the agencies to continue with their lifesaving work. As President Obama said, it is not acceptable to put that many people’s lives at risk. We need to be able to get those humanitarian organisations back on the ground. I urge colleagues to support this resolution."@en1
"− Madam President, the situation in Mindanao is grave, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons living in desperate conditions. The long-standing insurgency is a factor in this sorry state of affairs, but so is the not-so-democratic status of successive Filipino governments with the latter being widely held responsible by international agencies, such as the UN Human Rights Council, for showing remarkable impunity from extrajudicial killings and the forced disappearances of hundreds of Filipino citizens whose activities were thought to have been in disagreement with official government policy. Such impunity must be terminated. In addition, the Government of the Philippines must urgently resume peace negotiations with the MILF and both sides must renounce violence and solve their differences at the negotiating table."@en1
"− Madam President, the treatment and discrimination of the Rohingya people appals us all. As a Muslim minority in Buddhist Burma, they are not recognised as one of Burma’s ethnic minorities. They have few legal rights and, as Amendment 3 tabled by Glenys Kinnock highlights, they face deliberate impoverishment, denial of citizenship, denial of freedom of movement, arbitrary taxation, land confiscation and the denial of permission to marry. It is no wonder that many attempt to leave Burma as they have no other option. The shocking reports that a thousand Rohingya boat people over a 12-day period, who, instead of being brought to safety by the Thai authorities who discovered them, were instead towed into international waters without navigational equipment, food and water and left to fend for themselves, sickens anyone with an iota of human decency. Only yesterday, an article in highlighted other incidents. The latest case involved 220 men, who were discovered in an open craft by fishermen. These refugees claimed they were detained by Thai authorities on a remote island for two months, and that they were beaten before being forced onto boats and left to their fate. The abuse and lack of international coordinated action to help the Rohingya must be addressed. Thailand must also take responsibility. The Thai Prime Minister must act. The problems of abuse at the hands of Thai officials must be seriously addressed. The Thai Government must sign the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol. As Joel Chamy, Vice-President of Washington-based Refugees International, said, the Rohingya need protection and asylum. Thailand has said it is unwilling to grant that, but that is a problem that will not go away. There are ongoing reports of the treatment of Burmese refugees who enter Malaysia. Many of these people are sold as slaves, the women and children are forced into sexual slavery and the men are sold as forced labour onto fishing vessels. Some of this fish may even enter the EU market. I hope that today, we can highlight the plight of Burmese refugees and particularly the plight of the Rohingya."@en1
"− Madam President, this House is very concerned about the decision by the Sudanese Government to expel humanitarian organisations from Darfur, a move which could have catastrophic results for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We understand that Commissioner Michel, the EU Presidency, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, President Obama and many others have involved themselves in trying to affect a reversal of this decision. Since this is a very sensitive matter requiring very delicate handling, we consider that, before any resolution is passed by this House, every possible chance of success must be given to these efforts. Therefore, we will vote against this resolution, not because we disagree with its contents but because we must wait to see the outcome of the aforementioned efforts. This we consider to be the most sensible and wise thing to do at this point in time and under the present circumstances."@en1
"− Madam President, this case highlights the plight of a minority in a country where minorities are at best marginalised and at worst brutalised. The Rohingya people have suffered double discrimination for years. As Muslims, they are being denied the right to practise their faith freely, a right that we in the EU recognise as fundamental, and their mosques have been damaged and desecrated. As an ethnic minority, the Rohingya people are systematically denied civil rights that most of the rest of the world take for granted: the right to marry, the right to move freely, the right to citizenship of the country they live in, and the right to a proper education. In praising our own progressive achievements in the field of human rights, we in the EU can tend to lose sight of the fact that many people in the world lack even these basic entitlements. We in this House are well aware of the plight of the people of Burma generally, but since the riots by Buddhist monks of 2007, that country has rather faded somewhat from the public consciousness. The appalling fate of the little-known-about Rohingya people, especially those fleeing by boat as refugees that are the subject of this resolution, has renewed our attention on the despotic regime in Burma, a country so rich in human potential otherwise. The brutality of the military junta stands in stark contrast to the action of Thailand, which has only partially, in my view, discharged its responsibility for the Rohingya refugees as it unfortunately alleges that most of them are purely economic refugees which I believe to be highly unlikely, and tried sending them back. Thailand must take more seriously its growing role as a force for stability and humanity in the region. In contrast, we can expect very little from the brutal Burmese military leaders, impervious as they have been to our many pleas for years. I hope that the junta generals’ contempt for civilised opinion one day comes back to haunt them, possibly in an international criminal tribunal, when Burma is finally freed of tyranny."@en1
"− Madam President, this debate has briefly but clearly shown once again our great concern at the situation in Tibet. The interventions have underlined that this concern remains as real and legitimate 50 years after the Tibetan uprising of 10 March 1959. Moreover, I think our discussion has also underlined the necessity for both parties to resume dialogue promptly. I say ‘dialogue’ because dialogue is always the first important step before moving on to negotiations. It is also the best way to avoid frustration and violence among young Tibetans. I think this is a very resonant reason. That is why a more substantial dialogue is in the interests of both sides. The Dalai Lama is a respected religious leader and, amongst other things, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. While individual European leaders have met with him in various, but usually religious, contexts, meetings in a political context are not our policy. Having said that, we have frequent exchanges with his envoys, especially on progress with the dialogue process, and this is how we will continue."@en1
"− Madam President, this energy package is the culmination of years of hard work in which Parliament can be very proud of the changes that will now be put in place. We should, in particular, be proud of the fact that the EU’s energy consumers have now been put right at the centre of the energy debate for the first time and the issue of energy poverty has now been recognised at European level. The inherit conflict of interests that arises when a company owns both transmission and generation of electricity has been addressed, and the regulatory regime governing the energy markets has been strengthened. The Electricity Directive, for which I was rapporteur, is part of a package of five measures which seeks improvements in the way the electricity and gas markets work across the continent, to ensure that the markets are better integrated and operate in a fairer and less discriminatory way. Let me say how grateful I have been for the enormous cooperation from the other rapporteurs on this package, as well as from the shadows, the Commission and the Czech Presidency, for helping us to come to a conclusion on what was sometimes a very challenging debate. The legislation has seen a raft of new consumer protection measures set out, including ensuring that customers are able to switch suppliers within three weeks, the provision in each Member State of an independent and robust complaints system, and the right to compensation if service levels are not met. This legislation will also ensure that every household in the EU will be fitted with so-called ‘smart meters’ by 2022. These smart meters will enable customers to better control their energy use and increase energy efficiency, helping to cut energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. On the European Parliament’s initiative, the new legislation also includes special protection measures for vulnerable energy consumers, and the issue of energy poverty will now have to be taken seriously for the first time. I would like to ask Commissioner Piebalgs if he will now make a commitment that, in future, the energy framework of the EU, in addition to addressing security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness, will also now add a fourth leg – that of affordability – to all future energy policy proposals. An EU-backed report has recently concluded that up to 125 million citizens are affected by energy poverty. Member States now must take appropriate measures which could lead to the prevention of hundreds – if not thousands – of deaths in the poorest households across the continent. We will also see the end to discriminatory pricing on prepayment meters. The most controversial part of the package centred on whether there was a need for full ownership unbundling in the energy markets – in other words, a total separation of transmission systems from generation. The market structure in some Member States means that the monopoly enjoyed by transmission system operators, who also own the means of generating electricity, offers no incentive to encourage other players onto the market, thereby undermining competition. Parliament has now accepted a compromise that will allow ownership of both transmission and generation on condition that we see increased checks and balances to ensure the removal of the inherent conflict of interest that arises. Many of us reluctantly accepted the compromise because we believe that the wind is blowing in the direction of wholesale separations, and these integrated companies are likely to separate regardless of this directive. The Commission’s efforts in exposing the abuses of some companies is starting to pay off, with examples of companies like E.ON and RWE agreeing to sell their transmission networks following anti-trust investigations. We are also going to see a strengthening of national regulatory authorities. I would like to thank everybody for their cooperation, and I think we should be proud of what we have done for the consumers of the EU."@en1
"− Madam President, this is a very broad and, for me, satisfactory, debate about successes, gaps and actions in progress. Roughly speaking, I would say that it is the syndrome of the half-empty/half-full glass, depending on who is looking at it. Some questions were answered at least by the mainstream of those who spoke. Is there progress in this area? Yes. Is it enough? No. Is there more convergence between institutions like Parliament, Council, the Commission and Member States? Yes, there is more progress, although this broadband of foreign policy of the Union is not sufficiently big enough, and here I refer to your words, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, on money. If we had more money, or at least as much as the Commission proposed for broadband in rural areas – EUR 1.5 billion – perhaps Member States, without having to pay, would more willingly participate in CFSP actions. You know well that this House is appealing for the Union budget to pay for that. Do the citizens value this foreign policy? The answer is, again, ‘yes’. Do we make sufficient use of foreign policy to legitimise the Union? The answer is ‘no’. Capabilities: in the broader sense of the term, everything that is crisis prevention management and rapid response, we have what we could get and – I could expect that Mr Solana will nod – more. I have already touched upon finance. In terms of legal and institutional instruments – Lisbon – everyone agrees that we need more and better equipped instruments under the Treaty rules. This convergence is being worked out in a discreet manner, and I would like to pay tribute to the discreet action and diplomacy of the High Representative, not only outside, but also within. How does this like-mindedness come about? When you are able, Mr Solana, to speak on behalf of the whole Union, there has to be, beforehand, action to persuade everybody and to get everybody on board. The question of values was raised. Do we agree on values? Yes, we do, but we have different practices and this axis of values vis-à-vis interest is also present, and the best example is how to deliver it in Central Asia: it was present in the debate on the Central Asia strategy. To close, I would say that I was touched by what Mr Solana said – that, through foreign policy, the EU identifies itself. It gets more identity. What we are adding in our approach in Parliament is that it gives more legitimacy, which means it gives more power. For that reason it can be an integral part of European integration. The dominant debate has shown that there is hunger for more Europe in foreign policy and that more pooling of European political and material capital is needed."@en1
"− Madam President, this package is, I hope, more a case of ‘third time lucky’ than ‘work in progress’. I view the future role of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators as crucial in achieving the long-desired internal market in gas and electricity. During the trialogue negotiations, it became clear to me that the improvements put forward by me on behalf of Parliament are essential for fair and effective energy markets. My objective has been to create an agency with greater independence and decision-making powers. In particular, if it is to contribute effectively to the development of a single, competitive, energy market, the Agency needs more powers to tackle cross-border issues and encourage effective cooperation between transmission system operators (TSOs) and national regulatory authorities (NRAs). However, with greater power there should be greater accountability and transparency. I have in mind the general principle that we should reinforce the independence of the Agency so as to make it both more effective and more credible by increasing the ways in which the Agency is accountable, in particular to this Parliament. I believe this will happen. I should say that a number of the roles we have given to the Agency sound more consultative than concrete, but we have tried to create opportunities for innovative regulation by drawing attention to areas where action is needed but the Agency does not have the appropriate powers to act. Let me first emphasise the increased forms of accountability that we have negotiated. The director will appear before the relevant committee of this House, both prior to appointment and during his or her term of office, to make a statement and answer questions. Likewise, the chairman of the board of regulators can attend the relevant committee and give an account of their work. Parliament has gained the right to nominate two of the members of the administrative board. All of this gives the Agency a forum in the public domain to make its voice heard on issues of its choice. Turning to the roles I mentioned, I believe that monitoring internal markets in gas and electricity, participating in the development of network codes, contributing to the implementation of the guidelines on trans-European energy networks, monitoring progress on implementation of projects to create new interconnector capacity, having the power to decide on exemptions from requirements for investments in infrastructure, monitoring implementation of the 10-year network investment plans and having powers to issue opinions and recommendations to TSOs – along with other aspects that I do not have the time to enumerate – will all give the Agency ample opportunities to bring about change. Finally, we have introduced requirements for streamlined decision-taking. I hope that the Agency will rise to the challenges we have posed. We have also created the opportunity for the Commission to come forward with its report on the working of the Agency and to make suggestions as to further tasks and roles that the Agency might fulfil, in the light of experience. I would like to thank our fellow rapporteurs, the other two institutions and the Commissioner in particular for their hard and constructive work in achieving the final compromise package. I hope the fact that I have been invited to speak second, not fifth, is clear recognition of the true significance and importance of this proposal."@en1
"− Madam President, under Rule 53, I would like to ask the Commission to respond and tell us whether it intends to adopt all of Parliament’s amendments as adopted today."@en1
"− Madam President, we are tonight talking about the single CMO on wine. We actually very much support the idea of bringing all the common market organisations together into one organisation. However, we are concerned that we can identify exactly where the chapters on wine are, that we can access them properly and that, in the future, when we are dealing with wine and Member States are dealing with wine, that you do not open up the whole 20 odd chapters – which are included in the whole single CMO – at the same time. We have now had many meetings with the Commission to get reassurance on this. At the moment, you are probably at the stage of bringing all these CMOs together. We are seeking reassurance that we will be able to get the information we need. The industry itself, of course, is also concerned that it will be able to identify the rules within the single CMO. There is no doubt that the Commission is telling us that this will mean a reduction in bureaucracy. We very much welcome that, but we want reassurance that this is exactly the case. We have been told that the technical organisations that give information on wine to the Commission will be the same as they were previously and this will now work within the single CMO, so – provided this is the case and that we can actually go on to a computerised system in the future and identify all the regulations – we welcome this proposal. But we must be assured, at the end of the day, that this will actually be beneficial for the whole industry. I think there will be Members tonight who will be seeking that reassurance from the Commission. We look forward to the Commission giving us these answers. I actually think that the way forward is to reduce bureaucracy in the Commission and in Europe. What we seek now is those reassurances. I welcome the single CMO. I am sure there will be other Members here who have comments to make. What is absolutely apparent is that we must get this voted on now so that Parliament gives its opinion and the Commission can come forward and conclude this. I therefore recommend this to the House."@en1
"− Madam President, we have firmly believed for a long time that an EU-Central Asia Strategy is vitally important and will have a positive effect on security, stability and prosperity in the countries of Central Asia. As Mr Tannock rightly said, we should not marginalise Tajikistan. On the contrary, I think we should engage with this poorest country of Central Asia. Having said this, yes of course we are also fully aware that there are huge challenges for this country. I think it was Mr Arlacchi who mentioned that Afghanistan remains the first opiate- and heroin-producing country in the world and, of course, the whole transit takes place through Tajikistan and through other Central Asian countries. Afghan opium and heroin are being trafficked out of the country, mainly through Iran and Pakistan on the southern routes and through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan on the northern routes. So we know that this is an extremely important issue. But we also see that drug production has decreased in Afghanistan and now it is really a matter of working together in order to make this decrease still further. For that, we have introduced BOMKA, the border management programme. That is excellent because it works against smuggling. It is helping these countries to trade legally but, in particular, it is also working against drug production. I have visited those institutions myself and I can tell you they are working very well. We are also organising training. Training is among the European Union programmes. Let me say a second word on the human rights question. The new partnership and cooperation agreement will provide us with an instrument to deepen our dialogue with Tajikistan in this field, and there is the human rights clause. This will give us the opportunity and the means for discussing with the Tajik authorities all related issues, such as child labour, women’s rights, freedom of assembly and religious freedom – absolutely, Mr Belder, because there are still some problems. Water has also been mentioned. I have known about these problems for very many years. We have tried to help the Tajiks and now we play the role of facilitator among Central Asian countries. We are convinced that it has to be tackled at regional level, taking countries’ interests and needs into account – both upstream, which means Tajikistan and Kurdistan, and downstream, which means Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. I think only in this context can a permanent solution be found. Therefore we are working with all the countries and, in this context, a national policy dialogue on water is scheduled for 2010 – next year – in which all these issues will be addressed, and then, of course, we will try and come to terms. My final remarks: the time is right to support the final stage of the ratification process for the partnership and cooperation agreement. More intense cooperation with Tajikistan, supported by you, by Parliament, is in the interests of our citizens. A positive vote will send a strong signal to Tajikistan that the European Union honours its commitments under our Central Asia Strategy. It will pave the way for a partnership essential to our own security and help us encourage greater regional cooperation, so vital for the stability of Central Asia."@en1
"− Madam President, we have had a very long but important debate here today. This is a crucial year in the accession process for Croatia and for the whole of the Western Balkan region and we certainly attach importance to and welcome Parliament’s continued support in bringing Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Western Balkans closer to the EU. Much has been said about the lack of progress in Turkey regarding its reform effort. We therefore welcome the reaffirmed commitment of Turkey towards its EU path, as Mr Erdogan said, and invite her to take the opportunity in 2009 to prove this commitment and make further progress in its path towards the EU. Turkey has to deliver on long-awaited reforms. The continuing support of the European Parliament throughout the process is significant, in particular, given the challenges ahead. I will have the opportunity of meeting the Turkish negotiator tomorrow in Prague. At the same time, we should not take lightly the strategic importance of Turkey, in particular, in the current turbulent times, nor should we forget our previous commitments. As far as I know, President Obama, during his visit to Europe, may visit Turkey as a kind of model Muslim country. I think that this is not the time for Europeans to give up in our engagement with Turkey. I think that Joost Lagendijk, rightly, said this. Concerning the border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia, I was listening carefully to what Hannes Swoboda, István Szent-Iványi and many others said, so let me just repeat that we as the Presidency welcome the fact that both Slovenia and Croatia have now agreed to pursue their work on Commissioner Rehn’s initiative concerning this dispute. We fully support this initiative and we are concerned that it has not generated any fruitful outcome yet regarding the specific terms of facilitation. We note that time is running out, and the Presidency is keen to ensure concrete progress in the negotiations based on the work already done. We are therefore considering the possibilities for enhancing our support for the Commissioner’s initiative in the near future. We were just discussing this over lunch. Concerning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bernd Posselt, among others, said that we should support the effort of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and I think he is right. I shall just mention that the Czech Prime Minister Topolánek visited Skopje yesterday and reaffirmed our commitment to the European aspiration of this country."@en1
"− Madam President, we have heard today a clear message that we have a very serious challenge – that of the ageing of society. In many ways, the 21 century is an era of fragility, and we have to deal with this. We all have to do everything possible. As was mentioned, longevity should be a reward and not a punishment. It was also mentioned that it would be consistent to do this in the context of the Lisbon Agenda, and I agree. We can understand the Lisbon Agenda in a simple way, going towards a knowledge-based society and being concerned about sustainability, whether it be in relation to social security, the environment or the economy. What we have learnt from this crisis is that even the profits have to be clearly sustainable. So the present financial crisis should not divert our attention from any of the problems which we have been patiently discussing in recent years, including the problem which we are discussing today. It is only one additional problem. When we have dealt with it, we have to come out of the financial crisis with a structure that is capable of dealing with all the challenges which the 21 century brings us. So it is important that in this context, we are aware of all the possible aspects of sustainability – sustainability of the planet on which we live, between living beings on the planet, between us humans and between generations, which is very much the essence of the demographic question which we are discussing today. Our policies should definitely address this. The demographic forum to be held on 24 and 25 November – which I mentioned in my opening address – is certainly one good opportunity to do so. We should certainly continue the dialogue between the Council, Member States, Parliament and the Commission. Your discussions today prove that the debate is very timely. I would like to thank you on behalf of the Commission for those views. All the things you have mentioned are extremely important – promoting demographic renewal, reconciliation of family and working life, the questions of carers, mobility and anti-discrimination and other policies. All this is valid when we talk about this problem."@en1
"− Madam President, we need to ensure that consumers all over the EU are adequately protected against aggressive selling tactics by rogue traders operating in the timeshare and holiday product markets. The need for action at EU level is all the more crucial because of the cross-border nature of most timeshare contracts. Furthermore, we need to ensure that consumers have enough confidence in the regulatory framework so that they do not refrain from purchasing timeshare abroad from legitimate traders. A healthy market in timeshare and similar holiday products will contribute to boosting growth and job creation in the European Union. It is my firm belief that the compromise package that you will vote on today will make an important contribution to the achievement of these aims. The amendments put forward by the ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE Groups – with which the Council has agreed – are, in my view, fair and reasonable. The package is also in line with the Commission’s original proposal. In my opinion, this package constitutes the best option in the interest of both consumers and traders. A vote for this package is a vote for consumer confidence in holiday products, for clear consumer information, and for a competitive and responsible holiday industry. I therefore look to the Members of this House to vote to support an agreement today on rules for timeshare and similar holiday products which will provide real added value for holidaymakers all over Europe."@en1
"− Madam President, when speaking of the death penalty, two large countries normally spring to mind: China and the United States of America. Judicial executions are cruelly common in each, although thankfully increasingly uncommon elsewhere. In India, with whose people Europeans share many values, the Supreme Court ruled nearly 30 years ago that the death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases; in fact it has been used only once in the past 15 years and that was seven years ago. It is therefore deeply disturbing that decisions have been taken to execute the two convicts Davinder Pal Singh and Mahendra Nath Das, especially at a time when moves in the United Nations for a moratorium on the death penalty gain more support every year. It seems likely that both men’s alleged confessions were extracted under duress and therefore should not be relied on. Mr Pal Singh’s was made without access to a lawyer and was later retracted. Judicial execution, which is a cruel, inhumane and degrading penalty, allows no room for later access to justice should the convicted felons one day be found to be innocent. This House therefore appeals to the people and the President of India, in the name of humanity and of our common commitment to human progress, to commute those sentences."@en1
"− Madam President, I want to particularly thank the Commissioner for coming here this evening and of course Sophia in ’t Veld, our rapporteur, and all the other shadow rapporteurs who are still working hard on what has been a very long journey on these three PNR agreements. I had hoped that in this plenary session we would be voting through the agreements between the EU, Canada, the US and Australia. However, for reasons which you have already heard and explained yourself, Commissioner, there are still outstanding issues. I believe that the swift adoption of these agreements is essential and that such agreements are an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. I think it is right that we use this time to ask the right questions and gather as much information as we can from the Commission as to the compatibility of such agreements with European law, and on their practical implementation. These questions will no doubt be raised once again in my own report on the EU PNR agreement. But, for me personally, the necessity and the proportionality of these agreements have been long apparent from the number of crimes they have helped prevent, and the number of criminals that they have contributed to catching. These are serious crimes and serious criminals: murderers, rapists, drug-traffickers, child-traffickers and terrorists. The questions which we are asking here this evening are incredibly important. Answers to them would make the process of decision-making for this House a lot easier and a lot more informed. There will always be ideological differences within this House, for example as to how long data should be stored, and there are even those who would argue it should not be collected at all. But I believe we have reached a workable and reasonable conclusion on these questions which should satisfy all, with good safeguards and checks and rights for EU citizens. We are at a crucial juncture, at which every negotiation and every process finds itself. A time when we have to move forward and do our jobs; when we have to look at what we have on the table and then make some positive decisions, and I hope that is the way that we will now go forward."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to start by sincerely thanking the rapporteurs, the shadow rapporteurs, Commissioner Piebalgs and Ambassador Reinišová for the excellent cooperation during the first three months of this year. That cooperation has been the main engine of the successful outcome we will be voting on this week. Negotiations have been long, complex and sometimes tough, but I think we have managed to get an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties. Regarding the overall package, as it has been negotiated, Parliament can be proud of the final text. Indeed, our very strong first-reading agreement on ownership unbundling gave the negotiating team a lot of leverage during the talks. This has allowed us to obtain a much tighter regulatory framework, in particular in countries with the ITO model in place, where the competencies of national regulators will be increased, with independence from both governments and industry. This new role will reduce the risk of uncompetitive behaviour, especially in circumstances where vertically integrated companies abuse their position to stop investments in new capacity. Furthermore, agreement has been reached on the review clause that will allow us to check, in a few years, whether all models satisfy our goals of achieving a fully competitive and legalised market. Moreover, we have substantially increased the provisions on consumer protection with regard to, among other things, billing information and improved conditions for switching suppliers. Finally, another big success has been the introduction of a new provision in the third-country clause, whereby the certification of a transmission system operator (TSO) from a third country could now also be denied if the security of supply of the Union as a whole, or that of an individual Member State, other than the one where the certification is requested, is threatened. Concerning the electricity regulation, I would like to make clear that this regulation plays a crucial role, since it gives Member States the tools needed to significantly increase interconnection capacity within the Union by the development and establishment of binding network codes to be applied by all transmission system operators to exchanges, thus removing one of the main physical barriers to the completion of the internal electricity market. The agreed text also enhances the role of the Agency for the Cooperation of European Regulators in this process, in line with the first reading in the European Parliament. I must admit that Parliament hoped for a much more ambitious agency. However, we understand that this is only the first step in a long process of integration of regulatory frameworks. We have managed to include a new provision whereby the Agency will be able to propose the basic criteria to be included in the granting of exemptions for new interconnections. This is particularly relevant since it is one of the main obstacles investors in new capacity face when dealing with different Member States. Having to follow several different regulatory procedures can sometimes lead to confusing results and put off investors – take, for example, Nabucco. This regulation also establishes, and gives a defined role to, the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO), which will be in charge of drafting the network codes to be submitted to the Agency, as well as developing coordinated mechanisms for emergency situations such as the European Union-wide blackouts we have suffered in the recent past. I would like to finish by thanking all the technical staff, whose work has enabled us to obtain an agreement which, at the very beginning of the negotiations, we at times lost faith in reaching."@en1
"− Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues once again for their cooperation. I would also like to thank Bethan Roberts and René Tammist who have been a great help in preparing this report. This is my swan song after 15 years in the European Parliament, and I am delighted that we have made such a significant improvement in the energy markets on behalf of the European public. It is far from perfect but it is definitely a step forward. I think that the energy crisis will become more acute in future years, so getting the right market framework in place, and creating the right kind of incentives for the right kind of investment, is crucial. We need an estimated EUR 1 trillion worth of investment in the markets to stop the lights from going out in future. But there is a huge amount more to do. You know that there are 12 countries in the European Union where one company dominates 70% of the electricity market. What we have at the moment is the worst of both worlds. We think we have competition, but what we have is the massive power of very large companies dominating certain markets. It will require action on the part of national regulatory authorities and competition authorities to make sure that we do not continue in this way. The real challenge in future will be implementation. Let us not forget that there are many EU laws that already exist in the energy markets, and it is precisely because these laws were not being respected that the revision of this law needed to take place. Whether we need a fourth package or not will depend on the Commission ensuring implementation and good policing of these new laws by national regulatory authorities and competition authorities. So let us see a bit of action from the Commission, and also from the national regulatory authorities."@en1
"− Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly thank you for your largely favourable reviews. I wish all my fellow Members who are not standing for re-election all the best for the future and I hope that we will meet again. To all my fellow Members who are standing for re-election and who are re-elected, I should like to say that I hope that we, provided of course that I am re-elected, will continue our good work. What the chairmen of the political groups have said today has encouraged me to continue along the path towards a unified Europe. Many thanks to you all and I hope we will all see each other again."@en1
"− Malta is one of the main EU states with a substantial tonnage on its register books. On the other hand, it discharges its obligations as a flag state, in accordance with international conventions. The thee main obligations are to: (a) apply the provisions of the Flag State Code; (b) take the necessary measures for an independent auditing of their administration at least once every five years, in accordance with the rules of the IMO; (c) take the necessary measures with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue of statutory certificates and exemption certificates as provided for by the international conventions. A new requirement is that, prior to allowing the operation of a ship which has been granted the right to fly its flag, the Member State concerned shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the ship in question complies with the applicable international rules and regulations and, in particular, the safety records of the ship."@en1
"− Members of this House will be well aware of my views in the past with regard not only to Kosovo, but to the whole Balkan region. In my opinion, the issue of Kosovo can only be resolved through a consensual approach involving not only Serbia primarily, but also neighbouring countries. There is a lot in this report that I can ally myself with, but the insistence that every EU Member State should recognise an independent Kosovo is not an area that I can support. Independence for Kosovo is something that can only be achieved by consensus and agreement with Serbia. Failure to recognise this is merely, in my view, harbouring problems for the future and raising an anti-Serbian attitude in this Parliament. Therefore, the passing of Amendment 3 renders this resolution partisan and seriously undermines the rest of the text. This means that sadly, I cannot support it."@en1
"− Most, maybe all, the cases are in the Belgian courts, because the officials are located in Belgium. Therefore most of the cases are in Belgium – and Luxembourg as well."@en1
"− Mr Beazley, I was about to say that Question No 38 will be answered in writing. I, too, am disappointed that we have not got to it but in fact Question Time is always structured in that we have 20 minutes per Commissioner and Commissioner Figeľ has already gone way past that time. So we now have to move to Commissioner Almunia."@en1
"− Mr Hegyi’s own-initiative report emphasises the importance of the protection of wilderness areas in Europe in the application of existing Directives, proposing a definition of ‘wilderness’ as still untouched areas as well as ‘areas where human activities are minimal’. While the report is welcome, certain areas remain unclear; for example, whether existing wilderness areas or potential future wilderness areas are being discussed. I would also like to know whether there are wilderness areas that are currently not listed as Natura 2000 sites which would potentially come under the consideration of this report. Areas of special consideration under Natura 2000 fall under the competences of various DGs in the Commission. While I am appreciative of the work undertaken by these different departments and their different mandates, increasing the levels of cooperation and coherence could greatly enhance the protection afforded by Natura 2000 sites. I am pleased to support Mr Hegyi's report, but regret that due to the application of Rule 45(2), I was denied the opportunity to debate it."@en1
"− Mr President, 70 years ago, Mr Chamberlain came back from Munich waving a piece of paper and saying ‘peace for our time’. Well, we know how wrong he was, and we also know that wishful thinking is a deadly substitute for realism. Today, on this issue, we have to be brutally honest. The EU has been incredibly successful in peacemaking. The events of the Second World War gave birth to the EU. I am very happy that Mr Solana is here today because finally we have this phone number for the EU. Mr Solana has this number, which Mr Kissinger asked for years ago. But what kinds of means are we – Member States and politicians – giving to Mr Solana? That is the question. We have a financial crisis now, which did not fall on us from the sky. It was very much self-inflicted. We are talking about the toxic assets of banks and how we have to clear them. Perhaps this is also the time to ask: what are the toxic assets and what are the obstacles to our peacemaking, our ? We have to move on – the EU has to move on in its peacebuilding. The world is changing so fast around us. The biggest obstacle is that we simply do not have a vision. We are day-to-day politicians who are short-sighted. Immobility is our big problem. The world is changing around us, faster than we can react. What is the result of inefficient and failing security policies? Human suffering, dead bodies, mutilated people and atrocities. Even if those people do not vote for us, we have to care for them because they are our brothers and sisters in the human family. On 2 April 1917, President Wilson said, ‘a steadfast concert of peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations’. President Wilson was awarded a Nobel Prize – which he deserved much more than Al Gore. We in the EU do not realise what kinds of tools we have in our mosaic composition of 27 countries. That gives us a unique tool in peacemaking. Perhaps some people do not like the French, others do not like the Germans, and perhaps some people do not like the Finns, even – but I think everybody likes the Finns! – but, when we are together, 27 countries, nobody can say that they hate the EU. Therefore, the unique ability we have enables us to go to any crisis spot and be a doctor or a referee. But without the military capacity, without military credibility, we are like a dog whose bark is worse than its bite. We have idealism but we do not equip ourselves with the means to reach those targets. Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot: as the French say. Now, Mr Obama is the new President of the United States and he values Europe – he says that we are important allies. What do we have to do? We have to get our act together. Already, 94% of the European population is in NATO, and only 6% are outside. Why do we not use it more efficiently? We owe that to the people, because it is our duty to alleviate human suffering; it is our ethical duty and it is in our long-term interest. Only by following in the footsteps of our forefathers can we be faithful to the EU’s inheritance and make the inevitable inconceivable – and that is what peacemaking means."@en1
"− Mr President, Guinea has had a very troubled past history, with European countries being involved in one way or another in its tragic past. It was taken over by the Portuguese in the 15 century and its citizens were subjected to the European slave trade in the 16 century and beyond. In 1890, it was colonised by France. After independence in 1958, firm ties were formed with the Soviet Union. Its post-colonial period was largely dominated by presidential totalitarianism, with its rulers being backed by its admittedly rather primitive army. Guinea, although blessed with very rich mineral deposits, including iron, aluminium, gold, diamonds and uranium, is nevertheless one of the poorest countries in the world. These minerals are being exploited by companies from Russia, Ukraine, France, Britain, Australia and Canada. Heavy corruption of officials is well known to occur, and the governments of the countries to which such companies belong seem to care very little about the welfare of Guinea’s citizens, and only start complaining about the appalling human rights situation in the country when their financial interests are disrupted or threatened. Be that as it may, presently there is yet another dictator in power in Guinea, a young junior army officer called Captain Camara. He heads a junta that has pledged to rid the country of corruption and to improve living standards for its 10 million citizens. To this end, a 32-member National Council for Democracy and Development was set up to govern the country. I have no idea whether Captain Camara is genuine in his endeavours, or whether he will succeed in improving matters in Guinea. One thing is certain, however: things cannot get worse than they have been for the last few decades, during which Europe and the rest of the world were happy just to sit back, watch and enjoy the benefits of the mineral exploitation of Guinea. So, although I oppose military dictatorships I can only hope that, after a short period of time, a transition to democracy might occur."@en1
"− Mr President, I agree that fire is a permanent threat to consumers’ lives. Research estimates that the number of fatalities per million inhabitants per year is 10.8 in the UK, 6 in Spain, 11.8 in France, 15.7 in Sweden and 7.3 in Germany. So, as Commissioner for Consumer Protection, this is a matter of major concern for me. Thank you for remembering this important issue. The collection of EU-wide data and statistics is a critical point: absence of statistical definitions and homogeneity in the way fire accidents are registered in the Member States makes comparability a very difficult and inaccurate exercise. I would like to move on to the point of standardisation. Standardisation without the support of a legal framework, such as a European directive or even a revised recommendation, would severely reduce its impact, and the ultimate objective of ensuring fire safety in hotels would be frustrated as a result. Coming to the issue of sprinklers: their efficiency in reducing the devastating effect of fires has been largely demonstrated, but the cost of their installation and maintenance is not always compatible with the type of hotels that are mostly present in Europe, such as small, family-type hotels. Next to this, the decision of whether sprinklers or any other fire-fighting device should be compulsory in hotels falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. I would be glad to discuss with the Member States and to support such measures if they are ready to take such steps. Parallel to these developments on the regulatory side, it should be mentioned that hotels are adopting self-regulating performance-based codes and design methods. I think that hotel chains such as Accor should be really supported in their efforts. The Commission is not only dealing with fire safety in hotels under its profile as a service, but is also targeting, in a comprehensive strategy against fire risk, all those products that are largely present in hotels and most likely to be either the source of a fire or its accelerant. The initiatives of RIP cigarettes, on which the chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Ms McCarthy, gave us a very important contribution, flammability of upholstered furniture, and nightwear and child-resistant lighters are the pillars of such a strategy. I am looking forward to continuing our cooperation on this very important issue which is a major concern for all of us. I would like once more again to thank Parliament and especially the President because we are taking concrete measures with what is in our hands right now. Let me recall the tragic case involving a British family whose two children were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning in a hotel room in Corfu in October 2006. I have received several letters from you about this case. We contacted the Greek authorities and they informed us that the hotel where the accident happened had its licence immediately revoked and has not been operating since then. I know that legal proceedings are taking place in Greece and I hope they will come to a clear conclusion very soon. This is an emblematic case, but unfortunately this is not the only one. Fire safety in hotels has been at the centre of discussions with the Member States for the last 20 years. First, the results that have been achieved so far. Council Recommendation 86/666/EC on fire safety in existing hotels has helped to improve safety levels, especially in those countries where no or scarce regulation was available. Furthermore, the Construction Products Directive sets up specific requirements in the event of an outbreak of fire for all construction works, including hotels. Several measures have been adopted to ensure a consistent application of this directive in the Member States, such as a common system for classifying fire resistance of construction products and a number of harmonised European standards in the fields of fire-fighting, alarm and alerting equipment. In addition, the requirements of the Council recommendation addressing the risks linked to electrical lighting have been implemented by the Low Voltage Directive. However, there is still a lot of ground to cover in making all hotels in Europe equally safe, whether existing or new and regardless of their size and accommodation facilities. As we know, the requirements are for the hotels that have at least 20 rooms. In its various discussions with the Member States, the Commission has noted that no common way forward for an EU-wide action has yet been agreed upon and that the proper enforcement of national legislation is, so far, the main priority. This issue of compliance is indeed a problem that should not be underestimated, and I am really sad to say this. This is why I have asked the major hotel chains present in Europe to come to Brussels for a meeting with me on 8 February 2008. Obviously, until we have this legislation in place, we should take our immediate action. We will discuss the hotel safety issue and I will report back to you on the results of this consultation. If we can do it together with Parliament – if Parliament would like to participate in this meeting on 8 February – I will be more than glad to have this meeting with you."@en1
"− Mr President, I also want to react to the initial discussion. I would like to thank Parliament for its many excellent ideas, for its very good proposals and also for the constructive criticism we receive in this House, because it helps us further in our work. Both the President of the European Council and I have been very open in describing how difficult the situation was at the European Council. We have been very open about the differences and divergences of opinion in looking for solutions to Greece’s situation and on the EU 2020 strategy, and we have both said that we might have wished for better solutions. However, at the same time, we have to operate in the real world, where there are very often conflicting ideas, and always have to seek compromises. That is what we did, and in the end we achieved the best solution we could under the circumstances. I do not think we are doing any of us a good service if we belittle what we have achieved, because we have a solution for Greece and we have a solution for the eurozone. We are in very close contact with the Greek authorities and with the international community, and if there is a need and a request from Greece, then I am sure the whole eurozone and the Commission would mobilise and come to the rescue of that country. So we have the mechanism, we have the means, and we are ready to use them if it comes to it. I would like to thank Members of Parliament for their support for the EU 2020 Strategy. I can only agree with the President of the European Council that we are very optimistic about the future of this strategy and about reaching a political agreement on the targets. This is because the leaders in the European Union know that those targets are very important for the preservation of the European way of life. They know that if we achieve them, then we can guarantee that Europe will in 10 years’ time be one of the global leaders on the world stage, with a very competitive economy and with the strong social policies we have in Europe today. Therefore, the discussion we are having at this point is how to better motivate the Member States and how to better calculate the targets so they are more precise and better monitored in the future. I am sure that with the help of Parliament we can achieve those goals, and can achieve a positive outcome at the June European Council. I would also echo one particular element of President Van Rompuy’s remarks, which concerns the preparation for the G20. We in the EU can only do so much. We can coordinate, and do better within our European framework. However, it is very clear that if we want to move out of the crisis and to live in a better world in the future, then we need global coordination, especially when it comes to such important matters as macroeconomic stability, economic policy and measures in the very sensitive financial field. That is exactly what the EU is planning to do, and the Commission will come forward with the appropriate proposals shortly. I am sure that we will have a very fruitful debate on those proposals very soon."@en1
"− Mr President, I am certainly aware that the issue of Guantánamo has been a subject of great concern to this Parliament. I am also aware that this Parliament, through the various resolutions adopted since 2002, has consistently expressed its opinion on that particular problem. I therefore believe that you have welcomed, as has the Council, President Obama’s decision to close Guantánamo within a year. The Presidency expressed this sentiment through a statement which was issued shortly after President Obama signed the Executive Orders. Ministers unequivocally welcomed this decision at the last General and External Affairs Council meeting, as you probably know. President Obama has also announced his decision to suspend military commission trials, to reaffirm the Geneva Convention, to end the secret detentions programme and to put a stop to enhanced interrogations. These welcome developments will enable us to strengthen even more transatlantic cooperation in the area of countering terrorism. The decision to close Guantánamo is, of course, primarily the responsibility of the United States. Nevertheless, given our shared interest in countering terrorism, and in upholding human rights and the rule of law, ministers at last week’s Council discussed ways in which the Member States might be able to offer practical assistance to the US and, in particular, whether they might accept former detainees. In his executive order to close Guantánamo, President Obama ordered a review of the status of all detainees. This is now under way. Resettlement of detainees would concern those cleared for release in the light of this review. The question of whether Member States might accept former detainees is a national decision. However, it was agreed last week that a common political response would be desirable and that the possibility of coordinated European action could be explored further. This subject raises a number of political, legal and security issues which need further study and consultation and which – and this is also very important – will require the involvement of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in the Member States. This process has just begun, and the Council will return to this issue once some of these issues have been further clarified. This is a subject of ongoing work and COPS is discussing it today, for example. I fully understand the continuing interest in this Parliament, as reflected in the draft resolution which has been tabled at this session, and which I have read. I would like to assure you that the Presidency will pay great attention to this issue and will keep you fully informed of the outcome of further discussions in the Council, as well as any other developments."@en1
"− Mr President, I am delighted that you follow the Mediterranean diet and see it is very successful for you! What this morning has shown me here, as the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, is that we have a very varied range of subjects to talk about. One minute we are talking about animal transport – a very important subject – and now we are talking about another very important subject: the Mediterranean diet. One of the jobs that has come to me, as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, and which we are particularly trying to get to grips with, is that, on the occasion of the Council of Ministers held in Brussels on 16 July 2007, the Commission reiterated its full support for the nomination of the Mediterranean diet as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO. This nomination will be examined in 2009 – in fact, it now has been – by the responsible UNESCO committee. Is the Commission planning to set up a specific and coordinated strategy to support this nomination, because we are moving on very fast now? I represent, as I said, the Committee on Agriculture here, but I probably represent all Members when we talk about diet, because one of the great things about Europe is its diversity and culture and part of that diversity and culture is, of course, our food. The Mediterranean diet is a very good one. What is the Mediterranean diet? I am sure we could talk a great deal about that this morning, but it is generally a diet rich in oily fish, olive oils, fruit and vegetables. It is without doubt a very tasty diet, and you can see by the size of me that I am a very big fan of it. It is also a healthy diet: it is a rich source of essential fatty acids and antioxidants, a combination that can help improve cholesterol levels and protect heart health. Recent medical research has also suggested it may help cut the risk of conditions such as dementia. When you go to Mediterranean countries, you can see that people enjoy it, and not only those who live there but also many of us who travel to Mediterranean countries, especially when we want some sunshine and also some very good food. It is something that we need to take seriously in a world where everything seems to be uniform. We see the new generations being bombarded by the fast-food chains – I will not name them all here today – which are spreading throughout the European Union. We should remember that, yes, there is a role for a fast-food chain, but it would be a terrible thing if, in years to come, all we found when we travelled through Europe was fast food. Travelling through parts of America – especially on the west coast – there seems to be nothing but fast-food chains, and that is the last thing we want here in the European Union. As I said, we need to support Mediterranean food, and it is a very good idea for culture and diversity. I think that in the future, we will have to look at other forms of diet across the European Union, because what I want to say to you quite clearly this morning is that while I am a great supporter of the Mediterranean diet, I do not come here as the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture just to support the Mediterranean diet, because there are other diets across Europe that are equally as good but have different qualities and different food. So this is the start of many things to come and, as I said, I really want to know from the Commission how it intends to actively support this bid throughout this year, because we are looking forward to an award for the Mediterranean diet and we are also looking forward to having some very good Mediterranean food in the future."@en1
"− Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you on the issue of the situation in the immigration and detention centres situated in the European Union, of which you have highlighted two in particular, i.e. Mayotte and Lampedusa. I am very aware of the close interest you have shown in these centres, of the various visits which some of you have made, and of the concerns you have expressed about the conditions in some of them. Honourable Members will be aware that, in the specific case of the French overseas territory of Mayotte, Community law does not apply. With regard to the second category – other third-country nationals who have unlawfully entered the territory of a Member State – the competent authorities of the Member States are entitled to detain those falling into this category prior to the adoption of a return decision, and/or with a view to facilitating its enforcement. Detention may prove to be the only option in cases where it is necessary to seek identification of third-country nationals without travel documents. Until now, the legislation and practice regarding detention in the Member States has varied considerably. The recently adopted European Parliament and Council Directive on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals has introduced specific principles and rules on detention, and so goes some way to establishing a common legal framework in this area. This directive clearly states that detention for the purposes of removal may be used only where less coercive measures cannot be applied in a particular case and only on specific, very limited grounds. Furthermore, the directive provides that detention shall be for as short a period as possible, shall require a decision in writing with reasons in fact and law, and shall be subject to judicial review at regular intervals. It should also be stressed that the directive provides for clear upper limits of detention and the grounds on which – in limited specific cases – a detention period may be prolonged, but not longer than a maximum term. On the conditions of detention, the directive makes clear that detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities – or, in any case, away from ordinary prisoners – and that the rights of the detainees – especially those of vulnerable status including minors and families – shall be observed. As far as the return of illegal immigrants is concerned, the recently adopted European Parliament and Council Directive on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals is already in force. Its provisions now have to be transposed by Member States into their national law within a deadline of two years. This overall legal framework underlines our strong commitment to ensuring that third-country nationals who are held in detention for the purpose of removal are treated in a humane and dignified manner, and that their fundamental rights are fully respected. It also, through the most recent legislation, sets commonly agreed standards on return policy. This framework is not only in line with the principles I set out at the beginning of my statement, but actually gives them legal force. Our asylum and migration policy is thus rooted in the rule of law. It ensures respect for human rights and for the dignity of the individual. I should like to begin by underlining two fundamental principles which lie at the heart of today’s debate. The first is the need, in the case of third-country nationals requiring international protection, for full compliance with the commitments which we have given, as enshrined in various international instruments. The second is that we respect fully the human rights and the dignity of migrants and members of their families. We are all very aware of the pressure resulting from migrants entering the European Union, as well as those seeking asylum here. This pressure is particularly great along the Union’s southern and eastern borders. We have responded by developing, over the last 10 years, an effective EU asylum and migration policy. However, the significant increase in the level of arrivals underlines the need for this policy to be strengthened and further developed. We need to do this internally in order to establish our own common standards and rules in the area of asylum and migration, but we also need to act externally, in partnership with countries of origin and transit, in order to manage migration flows more efficiently. All parties stand to gain by such an approach. The development and shaping of an EU asylum and migration policy depends on your input too. I am grateful to Parliament for its positive contribution and I am sure that we can work constructively on further developing this important policy area. You have specifically raised the situation on the islands of Mayotte and Lampedusa. We should take care to distinguish between the two types of migratory flows in these two cases. The migratory flows affecting Lampedusa and Mayotte can be characterised as mixed ones: some of the third-country nationals concerned have claimed international protection, others certainly fall into the category of economic immigrants. Regarding the first category – those who claim international protection – I would draw your attention to the existence of minimum standards for the protection of asylum seekers, set out in Directive 2003/9/EC, which was adopted in 2003. This Directive has already been transposed into the national law of the Member States and it is for the Commission to ensure that the provisions set out in this Directive are properly and fully applied. In December 2008, the Commission presented to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal to amend and update this directive. Since the codecision procedure applies here, the European Parliament will be fully involved in the negotiations on this new proposal. The Council will shortly begin consideration of this new proposal and looks forward to working closely with you."@en1
"− Mr President, I am moved by your proverbial patience. Thank you very much and my humble apologies. The current economic crisis has hit the developing countries hard – and harder than the countries in the developed world – even though they are not responsible for the causes of this crisis. The same applies to climate change: developing countries have little to do with the causes of climate change, but they are suffering the most from its effects. It is therefore of great importance that the EU makes sure that money meant for development goals actually serves this purpose and this purpose alone. First of all, it means that the budget aimed at supporting developing countries in their fight against the effects of climate change should be additional money. The ‘fast-start’ climate finance package should not come at the expense of existing development cooperation programmes. Secondly, I support the principle of financial assistance to the main ACP banana-producing countries. However, this should not be financed via the margins, and I strongly oppose the draft proposal by the Commission in which funds from the development cooperation instruments are redeployed for this assistance. Funds used under the DCI must target poverty alleviation, and although I support the creation of an instrument for cooperation with industrialised countries – ICI+ – that instrument should not be financed by the DCI either."@en1
"− Mr President, I am not a lawyer, and I am not well versed in law, but I know that one should avoid stretching the interpretation of legal texts. That is my fear if we use Article 181a, because it talks about economic and technical cooperation, whereas we are talking about students who go abroad on exchanges between universities. It is a bit hazardous. I am not against this if the Commission sees it as a way out for the non-ODA activities we all deem necessary and important, and I will go along with it. Perhaps I am concerned because I am a journalist. I like texts and I take words seriously, which is the essence of Europe – its humanism, taking texts seriously and taking language seriously. You have to be very careful when using words, so Article 181a is a maybe, but I am not very happy about it. I was happy, however, with the comment made by Mairead McGuinness, to the effect that she needed to be convinced. She is Irish, she has her convictions and she is firm in her principles, as indeed we all are. If it is impossible tomorrow to reach agreement on the right legal basis, then I would prefer to refer this back to my committee and to take time to decide on a proper legal basis, because we all know that non-ODA actions are necessary. I thank the Commission for its comment that non-ODA actions will, over time, become more and more important in developing countries and in middle-income countries, etc. We all agree on their necessity, and we all agree on the need to find a legal basis. Some of us agree that Article 179 is not the basis we are looking for. If I cannot reach agreement with the PPE-DE Group before we vote tomorrow at noon – which will be a pity – I shall ask for a referral back to my committee. I am ready to do that and I will do so when the amendment is voted on tomorrow. I would be very sorry if this is the position of the PPE-DE Group, because we all agree on the need to maintain development aid at the level it is today, and we all know that it is shrinking with the economic crisis."@en1
"− Mr President, I am now speaking about the aspects relating to economic and monetary affairs rather than legal affairs. There are two prongs to this legislation: first, clearing derivatives through central counter-parties. So there will not be the situation that prevailed after Lehman went down, where it took a long time to sort out who owed who what, although it is worth pointing out that matters were, by and large, sorted out. The second aspect is reporting of all derivatives to a central registry. So, in future, there will be a much better understanding of the level and ownership of derivative contracts, and an alert will be given if it seems there is a build-up of systemic risks. The comparison with US legislation has and will be taken seriously in order to avoid regulatory arbitrage. Equivalence, not sameness, is the key, as we are not the US and there are important differences between our legislative processes and theirs. For instance, the powers of rule-making devolved to ESMA cannot be as wide as for their US counterparts, and conduct of business aspects in the EU belong to MiFID and MAD. I support exemption of foreign exchange from clearing, since there are already settlement procedures through CLS Bank that cover the risk. I also support the exemption of pension funds from the clearing obligations. This should continue until the collateral problem has been solved. Here we do have a difference from the US in that their CCPs accept a wider range of collateral so that their pension funds are not caught in the expensive cycle of asset conversion that would apply under EMIR. We also hear a lot about horizontal versus vertical silos. What is important to my group is open access and the efficiency that competition provides. We need to ensure that there is not unfair profiteering, because the costs incurred in the financial system in general take their toll on the real economy and real people."@en1
"− Mr President, I am very glad to have this opportunity for a timely debate on the Eastern Partnership. It is one of the flagships of the European Union’s foreign policy, and its strategic rationale is clear: more security, more stability and more prosperity in our eastern neighbourhood. I hope that today’s debate sends a strong signal to the 27 Member States in the run-up to next week’s European Council and in preparation for the Eastern Partnership Summit on 7 May 2009. The Eastern Partnership goes to the very heart of the challenges we face today. It is in the EU’s direct strategic interest: a new security crisis in our eastern neighbourhood would have implications not only for our neighbours but also for the whole EU and its citizens. I am, therefore, very grateful for the support of this Parliament, and I look forward to working with you on your contribution and in the implementation. The conflict in Georgia and also the gas crisis in Ukraine are just two examples of the periodic crises and the instability affecting this region. These have had a direct impact on the Union and its citizens. To these two crises we now have to add the financial crisis, which hits our eastern neighbourhood particularly hard. While each crisis requires its own immediate response, we also have to provide medium- and long-term action to prevent new problems from arising and, in addition to these immediate issues, our eastern neighbours all want stronger links with the European Union, albeit to varying degrees. They also need reinforced help to consolidate their democratic institutions, statehood and rule of law. The European Union can and must respond to these challenges and the Eastern Partnership is, so to say, our political answer. Increasing our support for reforms and helping our partners to align with the EU acquis will help stabilise our eastern neighbours. On 3 December 2008 the Commission put forward an ambitious communication on the Eastern Partnership on my initiative. It built on prior ideas by our Czech, Polish and Swedish friends, and it built on many of the European Parliament’s suggestions, including deep free trade agreements, more mobility of people and greater funding. As part of the Eastern Partnership, we also proposed upgrading our political relationships through association agreements with each partner – but only once they have fulfilled the relevant political reform criteria. We proposed measures to enhance cooperation on energy security and, importantly, increase support for economic and also social development to address the imbalances within countries that are so often a destabilising force. We also recommended setting up a multilateral framework for the Eastern Partnership with four thematic cooperation platforms: firstly, democracy and governance stability; secondly, economic integration and convergence with EU policies; thirdly, energy security and, fourthly, contacts between people. We suggested making the European Parliament’s Euronest initiative an integral part of the Eastern Partnership and setting up an Eastern Partnership parliamentary troika for the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. To implement all these proposals and step up support for internal reforms, the Commission asked for EUR 350 million additional funds over four years. That is only 3.1% of the total ENPI envelope and, for example, much less than the additional allocations to the occupied Palestinian territories in 2007 to 2009 alone. In short, this is not an excessive sum: it is a necessary investment in our long-term security. I know some of you would like to do even more for our eastern partners. You have said that the Commission proposals do not go far enough or fast enough, particularly for the mobility of people, but other voices have said the opposite. We need to strike the right balance, therefore, between ambition and realism, and we need to move fast. I am glad that we all share the goal of bringing our eastern partners gradually closer to the Union and also tackling the threats to their stability. The Eastern Partnership is a key tool to accomplish that."@en1
"− Mr President, I am very grateful to be here today and to have the opportunity to address the European Parliament so soon after the positive result in the referendum in Ireland. I pay tribute to Brian Cowen and his associates; I also say to all of those who have been engaged in the campaign, whatever their party or background, who contributed to this successful outcome: thank you for all your efforts. This was a good decision for Ireland; it is a good decision for Europe. I think that we can say that Europe has listened to the criticism; I know that the legal guarantees offered by the European Council were decisive in the referendum campaign. I can also say that the French and the Czech Presidencies made efforts that were crucial to find a way to meet the concerns of the Irish people. I think we should also say that it was very positive to have the very strong majority that was shown in the referendum, a convincing majority of 67.1% and with a high turnout, as high as 59%. So, all of this is very good news for Europe. And, of course, I do not have to explain to this Parliament the need to put the Lisbon Treaty in place. It will allow you to be more democratic, to be more efficient, and to be more transparent. It will, in fact, increase the influence of the EU in the international arena and make us stronger in meeting global challenges, and I know that you in this Parliament will also be given a more significant role in the overall decision-making process. I welcome this development. Therefore, it is very important to put this Lisbon Treaty into force. The European Council is united in its wish for the Treaty to enter into force by the end of this year and the end of the Swedish Presidency. With the number of countries that have ratified it – we are now at 24 with full ratification – country number 25 might actually be Poland, given the signals that we are now getting from the Polish President. I spoke on Saturday, after the referendum result from Ireland was known, with the Taoiseach Brian Cowen, who said they would need a couple of weeks to secure full parliamentary ratification, and therefore we can also say that country number 26 will finally be Ireland. That leaves us just the Czech Republic to have the full 27 ratifications. To that end, we have had a meeting with the three institutions here in Brussels today: the Presidency, the head of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. The Czech Prime Minister, Jan Fischer, was also with us and we tried to asses this situation. You might know that 17 senators have appealed to the Constitutional Court in the Czech Republic with a complaint concerning the Lisbon Treaty, to see if it is in accordance with the Czech Constitution. Jan Fischer told us that this is an independent court which is now working quickly to take the decision whether or not to bring up this petition. We do not foresee today an exact date when they will give this decision, and we are, of course, awaiting that signal. We hope to see it in just a week or a couple of weeks. That is the message from the Czech Republic today: an independent court taking a decision in maybe a week’s time, or it may be two weeks before we know how they will proceed. As President of the European Council, I am responsible for moving the work of the Union forward. I strongly feel that we have no time to lose. Therefore, I have decided that while awaiting the clarifications in the Czech Republic, firstly we will continue the preparations for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and secondly, when there is clarity on when the Lisbon Treaty will come into force, when there is clarity, I will begin consultations on the nominations of the new President of the European Council and the High Representative and Secretary-General of the Council. Preparing this will not only be a matter for the Presidency: this is a matter for three institutions at the same time. I will therefore say that it is very important for us to work closely and constructively together with the Commission and the European Parliament in this process. I will again renew my offer to this Parliament to cooperate when we are making our efforts to get the Lisbon Treaty finally in place. Let us also remember that despite these institutional matters, this Swedish Presidency – and this autumn – is, of course, very much influenced by the need to move on climate change, the need to move on the financial crisis, the worry in Europe that we need a policy for job creation – a lot of important matters that need to be addressed. That sums up for us the need to be active, to put in place the Lisbon Treaty, as I have just said, and to stay active as a Presidency on these very important matters for our voters."@en1
"− Mr President, I appreciate being able to talk about my own area of responsibility. The Commission welcomes Parliament’s report on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy and would also like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Rosa Miguélez Ramos, and the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent work. The report comes at the right moment with the preparation of the joint call on marine and maritime research under way. It also coincides with the work programme 2010 for FP7 and the launching of the Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which includes a chapter on research. The Commission agrees in principle with the main elements of the report. We welcome the support expressed for the European strategy for marine and maritime research, where priorities are given to increasing capacity building, new infrastructure, new skills and education initiatives, developing integration across established marine and maritime research disciplines, promoting synergy between Member States and the Commission and new research governance. The Commission acknowledges the importance of ensuring that a sufficient budget is allocated to fisheries and aquaculture research in FP7, while maintaining a good balance with the other research sectors, particularly in agriculture, forestry and biotechnology: Theme 2 – KBBE, and Theme 6 – environment. The annual budget for FP7 will progressively increase during the last three years of the programme and both the fisheries and aquaculture sectors will certainly benefit from this increase. The Commission will pursue its effort to support research in line with the report by giving more visibility to fisheries and aquaculture research in FP7, securing a good balance between research in support of policy and more basic research, reinforcing social science in the work programmes, promoting dissemination of results and encouraging more coordination between national research programmes. Finally, the Commission will facilitate the integration of fisheries and aquaculture research in the broader context of its strategic research agenda, the European Research Area and the new European Union strategy for marine and maritime research. Bearing in mind the initiatives I have just described, I feel that there is now a solid base upon which we can improve our fisheries and aquaculture sectors through innovative research within the framework programme. They, in turn, will also benefit from improved cooperation and coordination of national research, through the different European Research Area initiatives and within the direction of the common fisheries policy. If I can add a sentence of my own, I can guarantee to you that it is not more complicated than it was before, simply because the same people are working on it and the cooperation which we have with my colleague, Mr Borg, is really excellent. I think that is how research should be done in the future. We are cooperating across sectors and this is really bringing better results, which could hardly have been the case if this were done in a more sectoral way. I honestly thank you for the great work you have done."@en1
"− Mr President, I appreciate this opportunity to participate once again in this comprehensive debate on foreign and security policy matters. This flexibility in our policy mix is emphasised in the report on the European security strategy of last December and referred to in all three reports that we have before us. In the ESS report, it is rightly said that the links between internal and external EU policies have become more pronounced, which is clearly essential when we are considering issues such as energy security and climate change, or the focus on the security and development nexus and recognition of the importance of long-term poverty reduction as a means to reducing security threats. The report recognises the need to communicate better with our citizens on all the aspects of security which are of particular concern to them so that we can maintain support for our global engagement, and emphasises that everything the EU has done in the field of security is based on our values and principles and has been linked to UN objectives. We must continue to bring this message to the people, also on issues such as terrorism, and we have to say that it is firmly founded on respect for human rights and international law. We also recognise the role of civil society and NGOs and of women in building peace, thereby reflecting a truly European approach. I was pleased to note that the EP report on the ESS stressed the need to further implement UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women and conflict. Turning to energy, the gas crisis affecting the EU this year was unprecedented in its effect. With regard to energy security, it is clear that we have lessons to draw. For instance, the need for a functioning EU internal energy market, for interconnection and infrastructure projects, for the development of mechanisms to handle supply crises and for the EU to have a strong external energy policy is now clear, and we support this broad approach. The report calls for a greater role for the European Union in its neighbourhood, but I shall not talk about that now. Our relations with Russia, which have been tested lately, play an important role and have a great security impact. The transatlantic link remains fundamental to our common security, and here we will soon be working with President Obama on issues that are of high priority. Let me conclude with a few words on a particular element of the Commission’s contribution to the EU crisis response, namely the Instrument for Stability. The first two years of the new instrument have been successful, both in terms of budget implementation, operational quality and political coordination with Council and Parliament. So far, EUR 220 million have been committed for 59 actions worldwide in 2007 and 2008, with the main share in Africa, followed by Asia and the Middle East, plus Kosovo and Georgia. Our priorities for 2009 will, as Javier Solana has already said, certainly include Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. Let me say that we, through the Instrument for Stability, and in close cooperation with the Council secretariat, are engaged in a number of activities and are playing an increasingly important role in providing training for mission staff on procurement and financial administration and on ESDP-related training for civilian response teams. We have trained 600 police experts on civilian crisis management in line with UN training standards, so that the robustness, the flexibility and the interoperability of the EU police elements have been improved. Let me thank the authors of the three reports, which are the basis of today’s debate. I would like to say that Javier Solana’s services and my own worked very well together on the report on the European security strategy (ESS), and I believe that this shows in the result. The report reflects well the new security challenges the EU faces and gives a broad definition of security. I would like to add – and I think it is a very important point, for instance on Afghanistan – that we also need to ensure that the terms and conditions of service for seconded staff from Member States and contracted staff are sufficiently attractive to bring forward qualified candidates in sufficient numbers to staff our missions. I think we will have to work in that direction. That means that our input into crisis management is increasingly in demand, and expectations of what the EU can deliver are high. But we will try to go and do what these expectations require from us. Let me first say a few words on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The reports before us today, and the European security strategy report, all conclude that the European Union can make a difference if everyone works together to ensure that we have a fully coherent policy, one which embraces the CFSP, the Community dimension and, of course, actions by Member States. Not only do we need to speak with one voice, but we also need to act together in a coherent and coordinated way. This requires bringing together the best mix of EU policy instruments, from ESDP operations to conflict prevention and crisis response measures through the Instrument for Stability, development assistance, humanitarian aid, or democracy and human rights tools. Let me give you a few examples: Afghanistan, Georgia, Kosovo and Chad could show how we do this in practice. In Afghanistan, we have given a prominent place to security sector reform and governance within our overall assistance strategy. Since 2007, the Commission has embarked on a new programme reforming the justice sector. On policing, the EUPOL mission of the Council is doing the mentoring and training on the ground, whilst the Commission supports the Afghan national police through the Law and Order Trust Fund (LOTFA). The Commission is also the main paymaster for the running costs of the Afghan police – over EUR 200 million to date since 2002. In Georgia, additional EU post-conflict financial support is being provided. Up to now, a total of EUR 120 million – out of a EUR 500 million package from 2008 to 2010 – has been provided to the Government. This exceptional EC assistance has contributed to preventing a major humanitarian crisis. In Kosovo, the Commission has played its role in getting the EULEX Kosovo mission staffed and equipped in time. In addition to ongoing assistance, we will this year prepare a study, which should identify means to advance Kosovo’s political and socio-economic development, and its progress towards integration with the European Union. In Chad, we have committed a total of EUR 311 million under the 10 European Development Fund. There, our goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty and facilitate economic development. Our priorities are good governance, including the judiciary and police, infrastructure and rural development. Furthermore, we are supporting the training of 850 Chadian police by the UN mission MINURCAT through the Instrument for Stability with EUR 10 million. We are also facilitating the voluntary return of Chadian IDPs and refugees and providing EUR 30 million in humanitarian assistance. I think this is the right approach, and it needs to be pursued systematically each time the EU is faced with a new crisis."@en1
"− Mr President, I congratulate the European Parliament and its rapporteur, Ms Tzampazi, on this own-initiative report on mental health. The report quite rightly underlines the great impact mental health has on general wellbeing, on education, on learning, and on social cohesion in the European Union. We will seriously consider how we can best put such an idea into practice. Once again, I would like to thank Parliament and its rapporteur for this very supportive report and its very important recommendations. The fact that Parliament is adopting this report only two years after a resolution responding to the Commission’s Green Paper on mental health signals the urgent need for more action in this field. In my view, there is some reason for optimism. There is more awareness of the importance of mental health and wellbeing across all sectors, compared to a few years ago. This was evident from the great support for the Commission’s high-level conference ‘Together for mental health and wellbeing’ and the European Pact for Mental Health and Wellbeing, both of which were mentioned by the rapporteur. Further positive developments include the fact that many Member States have revised their mental health strategies or are setting up action plans, for example, in Finland and Hungary. Socio-economic learning has been included in school curricula. In the United Kingdom, life issues are now a subject in their own right in many schools. Employers are increasingly aware of the links between wellbeing and productivity. CSR Europe has even created a toolkit for wellbeing in the workplace. However, let us be clear. There can certainly be no reason for complacency, and much more remains to be done. There could be new risks for mental health as a result of the current financial and economic crisis. Member States could be tempted to reduce budgets for mental health or to reduce their efforts to build up modern mental health systems with community-based services instead of outdated asylums. The economic downturn worsens the future prospects of young people, especially school leavers. Job insecurity in the workplace, and its ensuing concerns over the stability of incomes and rising levels of unemployment, create new major threats for mental health. Over the next two years, the Commission will organise a series of thematic conferences on the five priorities of the mental health pact. These will be joint events with Council Presidencies and Member States. A first international conference on stigma and psychiatric care will be organised by the Czech Presidency on 29 May this year. The first thematic conference on mental health in youth and education will take place in Stockholm on 29-30 September, in cooperation with the Swedish Presidency. The second thematic conference on the prevention of depression and suicide will be organised with Hungary in December. In the first semester of 2010, the Spanish Presidency will host a thematic conference on the mental health of older people. Furthermore, we are in contact with Member States regarding two further conferences on mental health in workplace settings and on combating stigma and social exclusion. Parliament’s report includes many concrete suggestions which constitute a valuable contribution to future debates in these conferences. The report not only highlights the relevance of mental health in the European Union, but also demonstrates that there are many opportunities to act in the area of mental health at European Union level. One of the suggestions in the report is to set up a structure to oversee the implementation of the European Pact for Mental Health and Wellbeing. I agree that there would be significant added value in periodically reviewing progress against the objectives of the pact."@en1
"− Mr President, I could not agree more with what Ms Hieronymi has said, and those 10 years of working together with her and with other Members of the Committee on Culture and Education were very efficient and, from a personal point of view, very enriching. So, thanks to you all, from whatever parties, who have really been working for culture to become important and culture to be able to speak to the people. I am very glad that Parliament made some proposals on the report, which are clarifications and simplifications, so they improved the proposal which I had put on the table. As you know, the preparatory action MEDIA International has been the basis in order to develop MEDIA Mundus and, in this context, I am also grateful to Parliament for giving me EUR 2 million in 2008 and EUR 5 million in 2009 to finance preparatory action. MEDIA Mundus will start in 2011 and will follow on from MEDIA International. It aims at strengthening cultural and commercial relations between European film industry professionals and those from all over the world. The concept of MEDIA Mundus is new, ambitious and innovative, because it promotes cooperation between professionals, which is not done normally by European programmes, and, unlike existing programmes, it is also based on mutual benefit, not only for our film-makers but also for film-makers from third countries, in different fields. The first one is training, including trainees and trainers from European and third countries. It will improve access to third-country markets and build trust and long-term commercial relationships: this is normal. When you have been sitting together at school, training for the film industry, with somebody from Asia, somebody from Africa or from the Americas, it is clear that, later on in your professional life, you have an impetus to work together. That is also why we support the organisation of forums for international co-productions. We train them together, and then we expect those professionals start to work together. So we need the forums for international co-productions. Then we have to improve the distribution, circulation and visibility of European audiovisual arts in third countries. That is always a win-win situation for people from third countries within Europe. Here is a very good example of a Europe which is not a fortress Europe but an open Europe, a Europe which gives, which takes, which shares. We have to improve public demand for culturally diverse audiovisual content, which will be very important, so we have to get the youth, the young public most of all, to see European films. I am very confident that MEDIA Mundus will increase consumer choice, so that people will have the possibility to watch European films. It will bring cultural diversity to European markets by getting more quality films from smaller markets outside Europe into Europe, and it will give a chance to European films on the international market. So it will create new business opportunities for professionals from Europe and around the globe. This is, of course, a very important economic contribution. It is a question of competitiveness, but it is most of all a question of cultural diversity – our cultural diversity – which is our most precious good, and the cultural diversity of those who live in other continents, which is their most special good. To share those is a wonderful chance, which will be built up by MEDIA Mundus."@en1
"− Mr President, I fully agree with the remarks of my colleagues from the EPP and S&D, as there is strong cross-party agreement on this matter. I, on behalf of ALDE, strongly regret that the Swiss authorities have decided to re-establish these quantitative restrictions – these quotas – on residence permits for nationals of the A8 Member States a year after the transitional restrictions expired. I absolutely agree with Mr Trzaskowski that the decision to target these quotas only at eight Member States is discriminatory, and therefore unlawful. There is absolutely no legal basis, as Ms Gebhardt said, for any national differentiation in the existing treaties between Switzerland and the EU, and specifically in the 1999 agreement safeguard clause. I agree with Catherine Ashton’s statement that the quotas are in breach of the agreement on the free movement of persons. There are approximately one million EU nationals in Switzerland among a total of nearly 1.8 million foreigners, but my understanding is that until last year the Swiss Government had only awarded 2 000 residence permits to nationals from the A8, so I really do not see how this is a massive problem. This is on top of the fact that it is illegal to differentiate. I am sure that Switzerland appreciates that the free movement of persons is of huge advantage to the Swiss economy, making a crucial contribution to the creation and preservation of jobs. ALDE believes that this measure is neither economically justified by the labour market situation, nor by the number of EU citizens actually seeking residence in Switzerland. Mention has been made of the wider problems of free movement of service providers, implementation of the free market and burdens on SMEs, so I am afraid there is much to discuss with Switzerland."@en1
"− Mr President, I fully agree."@en1
"− Mr President, I have no objection to this oral amendment by Mr Swoboda, which refers to the original text. In any case, I was told by the Tabling Office that this amendment is valid only for the amended one. If that is not so, I am in favour of this oral amendment being part of the original. Therefore, those who are following my advice will vote against the first part in this fifth vote and then we shall have an extra vote, which is not on the voting list, on this oral amendment, which I support."@en1
"− Mr President, I have to say at the outset that I very much welcome the communication which has been prepared by the Commission. I think it is both comprehensive and ambitious. In my report, Commissioner, I recommend which practical actions, investments and processes are needed if we are to identify that very special place for children in external action. The Commission and the Council communication and conclusions on external action will build upon the external dimension of the EU strategy on the rights of the child. I believe that this is essential work for the European Union. Commissioner, I now look forward very much to seeing actions intended to match the ambition which I see. We need to see substance backing up the rhetoric. That means that resources must be available and, of course – as I am sure you will agree – there must be no backtracking by the European Union Member States on the commitments they have made to fund the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). What we know is that, for most of the world’s two billion children, it is a daily struggle against poverty and vulnerability. As we know, 98% of the children in our world living in extreme poverty are living in developing countries. Furthermore, it is now clear that the impact of the financial crisis will be severely felt by children and young people, for instance when the budgets are cut back on health and education. That is why I think it is right that we make a political commitment, at the highest level, on behalf of and with children. The EU must see in its partnership with the developing countries the opportunity to influence public policy to save children’s lives. Priority actions for children must be promoted when the European Commission negotiates the country strategy papers’ regional and thematic strategies, when they are drawn up, and subsequently when they are reviewed. When there is budget support, including MDG budget contracts, specific objectives and indicators on children must and should be included. I welcome the Commission’s intention to draw up partner national action plans for children. We need assurances that even the most marginalised children – including children with disabilities and orphans – have access to equitable health, welfare and judicial services. I believe there needs to be more and better training of Commission staff – both in Brussels and in delegations – particularly in how they manage the participation of children. We need to see a radical rethink in the European Union about how we ensure that we listen to children and invite children to participate, because we understand that it is children themselves who give lives to the values that are enshrined in international law through the Convention on the Rights of the Child agreed in 1989. It is my experience that the children themselves – the young people – have a wealth of understanding and experience – which we must tap into – on how to tackle poverty and environmental degradation. I welcome the fact that the Commission recognises the importance of consultation during the preparation of the EU strategy on the rights of the child. I also understand that this has been planned for the first half of 2009. Commissioner, would the Commission be able to confirm when this process will begin? I trust there will not be any decision that the public consultation – including with children – will be put on hold until a new Commission and Parliament is in place. Finally, to quote Kofi Annan, ‘There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace.’ I think all of us would agree that those are fine objectives."@en1
"− Mr President, I just wanted to say again that last year we clearly said that failure is not an option. We were all hopeful for the Annapolis process and we were hopeful for a peace process. Unfortunately, the military incursion into Gaza after the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel have changed the equation. Now we all know that there is a series of elements that is absolutely necessary so that we can come back to peace agreements. In any case, however, one thing is sure: a military solution is no solution. On this I agree with all of you. Therefore, whatever the cost, we will all have to work in order to bring about peace. Many actors are there: in the European Union, in the international community – be it the United States of America, the UN or Russia – but there are also many Arab friends and colleagues. I can only hope that, when a new Israeli Government is in place, all those actors will want to come together for peace. Our rationale is clear, but whether the emotions will then bring us to the right path, we will have to see. Be assured that we will work for that."@en1
"− Mr President, I look forward to this debate, and particularly to hearing from those who are not so keen on enhancing transparency and public access to documents. The amendments by Mr Nassauer may bring some reassurances to his group and other MEPs who are concerned that some private information may get into the public domain. That will not happen and cannot happen under my report. There is still the space to think that personal and private data will remain protected, so I will listen with great interest as to why those who oppose this regulation do so. I wish to begin by thanking the seven ministers from the EU who have declared their support for my report. In particular, they are, and I quote: ‘therefore, glad to see that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report on 17 February 2009 that shares our vision of a more transparent Union’. I find it staggering that, when we are trying to reconnect to our citizens, people do not support transparency and openness. I find it equally staggering that, when we are trying to connect the institutions back to the public, there is a lack of willingness to enhance public scrutiny and accountability. Some Members have raised doubts about whether all the amendments that my report proposes are within the scope of the legal basis of the regulation – Article 255 of the Treaty. I should like to set their minds at rest: the object of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is: ‘to give the public a right of access to documents of the institution which is as wide as possible. That right of public access to the documents of the institution is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.’ Do not simply take my word for it – I am quoting verbatim from the Turco judgment of the Court of Justice. It is in the spirit of that judgment that we must interpret Article 255 of the Treaty. Take our Amendment 44 on classified documents. It is simply disingenuous to say, as the Commission has, that the classification of documents as confidential has no link with public access to such documents. Under the present version of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, documents may only be classified in order to safeguard the essential interests protected under Article 4(1). So the link is already there. What we have done is to draw the logical consequences from that link and incorporate rules on the classification of documents into the regulation itself. These rules, which are carefully modelled on the rules the Council and the Commission already apply, define limits on the public’s right to access to documents, just as Article 255 requires, and there is nothing in the Treaty to prevent the institutions adopting these in the regulation. Take our Amendment 24, which refers to agencies and bodies created by the institution. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as amended, will lay down the principles, conditions and limits of public access to the documents of those agencies, but it will not, in itself, create obligations for agencies. If you read our Amendment 29, for example, you will see that the regulation applies only to documents held by the institutions, although it does set the standards that agencies will be expected to follow in adopting their own rules on public access to their documents, in accordance, I might add, with the joint declaration adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament on 30 May 2001. Let me also point out for those who cannot witness it, the sadness that the Council is not here to attach the due importance to this extremely important report. I know some of you were also concerned that we went too far in seeking to ensure that Member States did not undermine the level of transparency the regulation aims at. I believe I have come a long way to meet concerns, as you will see from compromise amendments that remind the Member States of their duties under Article 10 of the Treaty not to stand in the way of the achievement of the Community’s objectives, including transparency and democracy."@en1
"− Mr President, I regret the signing of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill by President Kibaki. This act disregards the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and echoed by other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This act would give considerable powers to the Kenyan Information Minister to raid media houses deemed to be a threat to national security and to dismantle broadcasting equipment. The act will also give the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by electronic and print media respectively. I welcome, however, President Kibaki’s recent move to revise this media law and his gesture to consider amendments to legislation proposed by members of the media. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I call on the Kenyan Government to initiate a stakeholder consultation in order to build consensus on how to better regulate the communications industry without interfering with press freedom and without infringing rights contained within the Universal Declaration. Finally, I would like to underline the need to adjust the culture of impunity in Kenya in order to bring those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago to justice. I call for the setting-up of an independent commission consisting of local and international legal experts who would carry out investigations and prosecutions into the violent events following the flawed elections in December 2007."@en1
"− Mr President, I rise here today to ask this oral question on behalf not only of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development but also of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, because I believe that we have a very strong agriculture in the European Union. However, in order to have a strong agriculture, we must also have a strong welfare policy, because I believe the future of European agriculture is very much of a high-quality product and one that has very good welfare standards. We can use this to promote our products in a positive way, and this is why transport of animals is not only a motive but it is essential to have the right legislation in place. In many ways, I want to concentrate this morning on the fact that we have legislation in place. We can argue whether this is sufficient or not, but the main thing at the moment is to check this legislation and be absolutely sure that Member States are complying with it, because we know, for instance, that there are problems in some Member States between national governments putting the legislation in place and the regional governments having to implement it. Then there are problems. At the end of the day, it is the animals that suffer. I could highlight many things, but one particular thing we have problems with in Europe is horse transport. A lot of horses at the end of their careers land up in salami in Italy and they do not travel under the best conditions in any respect. We have had many of these vehicles followed through our own Member States of the European Union where the rules have not been complied with, the lorries have not stopped at the right times, the vehicles have not been of the right type and they have not had proper air conditioning or proper water, and these things cannot be allowed to go on. I often stand up and tell the Commission not to add costs, but in many ways, when animals are going to slaughter, if the cost of transport is greater because they have to do a good job, they have to have the right vehicles and they must not overcrowd those vehicles, then I say, well, so be it! Because many times, instead of the animals for slaughter travelling long distances, they should be killed in the Member State and travel as chilled meat. Therefore, we have much to do on this. I also would say to you that Mr Kyprianou, the previous Commissioner for DG SANCO, also gave us the reassurance when he was Commissioner that not only would he implement the present legislation properly but also he would revisit the situation at the end of the term. We are moving very fast now towards the end of this parliamentary session and the end of this present Commission and I would call on Ms Vassiliou, who has been a very good replacement for Mr Kyprianou, to honour that commitment, because animal transport is one of those things that we have to take incredibly seriously. We have made these points many times before, but we are a civilised society and in many ways a civilised society is judged very much in the way it treats not only its people but also its animals. Therefore, I cannot, as I have said, emphasise this enough. My final points are on the oral question itself and that the Animal Transport Regulation has been in force since 2007. The Commission should, therefore, have received the first annual reports from the Member States on the enforcement of the regulation. Can the Commission give an account of which Member States have forwarded their reports? Has the Commission already carried out a preliminary analysis of the reports which would allow some statements to be made on the shortcomings and difficulties, but also on the major achievements, in the enforcement of legislation? Will the Commission consequently prepare a report on enforcement processes of the regulation in the Member States? Such an analysis would be essential in the context of planning a revision of the Animal Transport Regulation. Therefore, Commissioner, I would like answers to these questions."@en1
"− Mr President, I see that the debate from the Irish referendum still lives in this plenary and there is a lot to say about democracy. Is it democratic to let the Irish people vote once again? Well yes, it is. It is very democratic. If you listen to the people, you ask them: Why did you vote ‘no’? You find out the reasons. You clarify these things by giving legal guarantees to the Irish people on taxation, on neutrality, on certain ethical issues and also making a guarantee that all Member States, including Ireland, will have a commissioner when the new Treaty comes into force. With this clarification you have a new referendum. The people answered ‘yes’ with a two-thirds majority and with a higher turnout than last time. This is democratic, and I think we should rejoice and congratulate the Irish people for this. I also see that there is a clear domestic debate from the UK in here; it would be tempting to go into that, but I will not do so. I just want to say that, independently of who is in Downing Street next year, Britain needs Europe and Europe does need Britain. I also sense a certain frustration in here about the timetable now. I can understand that and I share it, but I want to assure the House that we move as swiftly as we can. We have guarantees or promises that the Polish President will sign within a few days. The timetable in Prague is still a little bit unclear. I will go there tonight, if I catch the plane, and will meet with lots of people tomorrow in order to get a clearer picture of the different scenarios, the different timetables that we can expect. We need a few days to grasp and to assess the situation in the Constitutional Court. The Treaty is in the Constitutional Court and, until it has left there, the President cannot sign. I am quite optimistic: I think this will be ready within a short time, but we need to wait a few days for this clarification. Meanwhile, the Presidency is working, of course. There are lots of working groups going on in order to prepare for the full implementation of the Treaty. There are discussions going on with the European Parliament, with the Commission, in order to put everything in place that we need to do so that the Treaty can enter into force very swiftly. I received a question from Madame Flautre about the extra MEPs; that is an issue that will have to be dealt with as soon as the Treaty enters into force, and I want to assure her, if she is listening now, that we are doing whatever we can to ensure that the decision can be made as soon as possible. I want to thank Parliament for having decided to give these MEPs observer status while we wait for the formalities once the Treaty is adopted. She also named many men who are being mentioned for the top jobs, but those are men named in the media, in the press; there are no official candidates from the Council yet. There will be. But all those names mentioned are named in the media. I would very much welcome if one of those top jobs could go to a woman. I cannot guarantee you that we will succeed with that because a Presidency has to listen to all the capitals and find candidates who can achieve a consensus among the 27 Member States, but I would very much welcome the candidacy of a woman; it would make Europe much more representative than today. I also feel, Mr President, a very strong sensation in this House that Europe should move on to be a stronger, bigger player in the world and to show resolve when it comes to the economy, the fight against unemployment, tackling the challenges of globalisation and the climate issue. We need to do that. The Lisbon Treaty is an important tool for us to do so; but we also need to move on independently of what Treaty we have, to show concrete results and to deliver. Only when we do that, when we deliver what the citizens expect of us – and this goes for the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament – will we gain legitimacy and the confidence of our citizens. I can assure you that the Presidency is doing everything it can to move the processes on on all these issues, with the help of the European Parliament. Thank you very much for an interesting debate, Mr President."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like to start by saying how relieved I am that, at long last, we finally have before us a proposal for legislation to tackle the problem of illegal logging. Parliament has been waiting for this for an enormous amount of time and I warmly thank my colleagues for their persistent efforts to see it brought forward. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their outstanding cooperation in bringing us to the point of tomorrow’s vote; shadows and staff have truly pulled out all the stops so that we could complete Parliament’s first reading in the shortest possible time, so as to be in a position to seek a first-reading agreement and thus to avoid any further delays. Sadly, however, the painfully slow rate of progress in the Council has put paid to that idea. So it seems that we will have to be content with concluding this work in the autumn, following political agreement by the Council in June, and that is very disappointing both to myself and to many colleagues who have worked so hard. Had the Council been here I would have liked to have asked them for a guarantee tonight that they will do everything possible to reach a common position before the summer, because this situation is incredibly urgent. Illegal logging is a hugely serious problem, against which the EU has preached for many years, yet all the while continuing to provide one of the world’s biggest markets for illegally logged timber and timber products. Between 20% and 40% of global industrial wood production is estimated to come from illegal sources, and up to 20% of that finds its way into the EU. That depresses timber prices, it strips natural resources and tax revenue, and it increases the poverty of forest-dependent peoples. The longer-term effects are even more serious, as Commissioner Dimas indicated, since deforestation, of which illegal logging is a major driver, accounts for nearly one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. With the Copenhagen Climate Conference now on the horizon, credible EU action on illegal logging is ever more important. But credible action means effective, binding legislation. While the voluntary partnership agreements conceived under the 2003 FLEGT Action Plan have the potential to drive positive change, to date only one has been signed and, as long as their coverage is not universal, the risks of money-laundering and circumvention are just too high. The good news is that we do finally have EU legislation; the bad news is that the Commission proposal is distressingly weak and will need comprehensive improvement in order to become meaningful and effective. In spite of Commissioner Dimas’ good words about the importance of tackling illegal logging, the Commission proposal as it stands simply is not up to the job. The preamble to the proposal states that ‘weak rules to prevent trade in illegally harvested timber’ are at the root of the prevalence of illegal logging, but what the Commission has come up with, I am afraid, will do nothing to change that. Quite simply, the Commission proposal as it stands will not achieve our aim of ensuring that the EU no longer provides a market for illegally logged timber. The most glaring, gaping hole in the proposal is that it does not actually prohibit the import and sale of illegally logged timber – perverse as that sounds. It requires only that operators at one particular point in the supply chain put in place a due-diligence system while everyone else is immune from any obligation as to the legality of the timber or the timber products that they trade. Now that stands in stark contrast to the revised US Lacey Act adopted in May 2008, which does enact an explicit prohibition on the import and sale of illegally logged timber, and there is absolutely no good reason why the EU cannot emulate this. So, while my report maintains the Commission’s suggestion that only operators who place timber and timber products on the EU market for the first time should be required to put in place a full due-diligence system – since they are clearly the actors with the most influence – it makes clear that all operators in the market share responsibility for trading only legally sourced wood and that failing to do that may constitute an offence. I should like to say to Commissioner Dimas that I really do believe that our proposals are supplementing due diligence: they are making it more effective, they are making it operational and there is no problem at all with WTO rules. If the US can do it, we should do it, and that is why Parliament is seeking to amend this proposal."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like to thank my colleagues, and Commissioner Dimas, very much for their comments. Having heard again your comments, Commissioner, on the Environment Committee’s report, I am afraid I do maintain my view that the Commission’s proposal as it stands is disappointing and weak and simply will not do what it claims to do. I fail to see how you can have legislation aimed at preventing the sale of illegally logged timber which does not actually make doing so an offence. The way in which the whole Commission proposal is written is very patchy and it is very timid. I think most European consumers would be genuinely shocked to realise that the EU does not already have in place legislation against illegal logging, and I suspect that all those who concluded, in response to the Commission’s own consultation, that legislation was the only way to really address the problem would not see the particular proposals by the Commission, the due-diligence system on its own, as sufficient to be able to address the problems that we face. I will end my comments tonight by seeking – maybe via your good offices, Commissioner – to put some pressure behind the Council to speed up their work, because we really do want to make sure we get a common position from the Council before the summer so that we can move swiftly on with this in the autumn. As I said earlier, we had really hoped to get a first-reading agreement. Parliament did everything it could to enable that to happen. It is, frankly, deeply disappointing that the Council has not acted with equivalent seriousness and speed, but I hope I can ask you once again, Commissioner, to do all you can to ensure that the Council does move swiftly on this. One important point I would like to make is that great care has been taken in our amendments not to reinvent the wheel. I have learnt from meetings with numerous industry representatives and other stakeholders that many countries, and also many companies, already have in place excellent systems which would fulfil most, if not all, requirements of the due-diligence system. It makes sense, then, that all the work that has gone into establishing those systems does not go to waste and that we do not create unnecessary extra administrative burdens; that is far from being our intention. That being so, we have been very careful and have made use of good advice on including wording which would enable good existing systems to qualify under the regulation without the need to establish whole new structures. So we have taken very seriously the message that we should not be disproportionate, that we should not be putting too much burden on the different players in the trading system, and that is exactly what our report aims to do: to make sure that all players in the trading system have a responsibility, that we do not put everything onto those who first put the products onto the market. That is what seems disproportionate. I think it is much more sensible that everybody has a role to play. I would also add that many elements of our proposals are actually supported by industry. It is rather ironic that in many senses industry seems to be far more ambitious in this area than even the Commission itself. I have heard directly from industry how much they appreciate not only the fact that the Committee on the Environment’s report provides them with much greater clarity on what will be expected of them, but also precisely this fairer and more effective sharing of responsibility across the different parts of the supply chain which I have just described. As far as European operators are concerned, I would like to say very clearly that the regulation as we have amended it should do nothing but benefit responsible European operators, since the vast majority of them already do most of what is being asked, and the existence of the regulation will prevent them from being undercut by other, less scrupulous, operators. So we should be very clear that there is nothing in this report that makes life difficult for European operators. We have also got some special measures for smaller operators, so we have taken very seriously the risk of being disproportionate; I think we have addressed that very sensibly in the report that we have put before you."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for an interesting debate and for their many valuable comments. Finally, I shall just comment on the ‘space to think’ under Article 4(3). If we think carefully, I guess most people would agree that Parliament, as well as the Commission and the Council, needs a certain space to think. Documents related to decisions that have not yet been taken, or reflecting internal discussions, are not the same as other documents. What about the records of political group meetings or preparations? You have yourselves identified a number of problems and limitations arising from refusing a space to think, considering, again, what would benefit citizens most and what would be most helpful. I must say that I would have preferred the Council to be here – as many of you have said – just as I would have preferred a fuller House, because these are absolutely crucial issues for all of us. The big task for us all in the next few weeks or months is to find common ground. That is also true within this House, and today’s debate has shown that it is not always that easy. The more divisions there are, the more difficult it will be when the three institutions hold discussions. Parliament, the Council and the Commission each have their role, which should be respected, and I hope Parliament will speak with one strong voice, because that will benefit us all and benefit the end result, which I hope will be a balanced and workable compromise text. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will now be updated to ‘version two’, one might say. It is important to point out again that we are not starting from scratch: we already have a good basis, and it is just a matter of improving on that. This will also be a version for the age of the Internet, as was mentioned in the debate. Electronic registers will now be included, and add to that active dissemination, as examples of these improvements. The ideal situation would, of course, be for us to disseminate information so actively that no requests for access have to be made since everything is already out there – with some exceptions, of course. I can give you one example of what can be done, which is that I have already made my own correspondence register available on the Internet, so you can see my correspondence and documents. It is not possible for me to go through all the comments that were made during the debate, but I want to comment briefly on a few crucial points, one of which concerns the definition of documents under Article 3. This is one of the articles of the Commission’s proposal that have been most discussed and, I admit, most criticised. We maintain that the current definition leads to ambiguity and a risk of unpredictability and bad practice. Is this Post-It note a document, for example? Mr Cashman is saying it is, and according to the wide definition in the Regulation, it could very well be so – as could the other scribbles I have here. Sometimes it is not helpful to make a definition too broad. We still maintain a wide definition, but we will reduce the discretionary non-disclosure of documents. The definition that we propose is much wider than the notion of official documents often used in national legislation. It comes very close to the concept of information in the UK Freedom of Information Act and in the Dutch law on transparency, for example. The registration of documents is an obligation under internal Commission rules, but these do not determine whether a document falls within the scope of the regulation. So we clarified and helped with the definition of documents. This will also help citizens to know what is it you can and should ask for in order to get full information. A more precise definition of documents means safer administration and more clarity for citizens. The Court has ruled that documents relating to an ongoing investigation are manifestly covered by an exception to the right of access and, therefore, that those files are currently not acceptable and this does not constitute additional restriction of the right of access. In no Member State do citizens have access to the files of the competition authorities – I just wanted to make that point. I also acknowledge that we could have explained and phrased things better in Article 3. I believe we share the same goal, and thus it should also be possible to find a clear and unambiguous wording. This is an example of an area where we should be able to achieve a good compromise text. Another fiercely discussed point is Article 5(2) concerning access to Member States’ documents. Let me be clear that the Commission’s intention has been to implement what the European Court of Justice has ruled, and Member States must effectively justify why they refuse access to one of their documents, just as the institutions do regarding all other documents. The bottom line will always be the rules in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. However, it is equally important that the Commission can have correspondence with Member States, for example, in the field of infringements of EU law. We need to have the possibility to quickly find satisfactory solutions from the perspective of both the Commission and EU citizens, as codified by EU law. Those kinds of contacts need to remain confidential, and that is also what the Court has said."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like to thank you for a very constructive and helpful debate. There are things the Council can do; there are other things which the Council is not obliged to do or which do not fall within its remit. Let me start with the negatives – the limitations. As has already been stated, it does not fall within the Council’s remit to monitor the implementation of Community law by the Member States; that falls to the Commission, and my colleague Commissioner Barrot talked about that, and we are certainly working closely with the Commission on many issues. It also does not fall within the Council’s remit to implement national provisions of the Member States. A lot has been said during this particular debate about the countries most involved: Italy and France. On the other hand, we certainly have the will and the instruments to act, and the Council is willing to act in the future. I think we all agree – I was listening to you carefully, because you were talking about the further need to improve EU action in the area of migration and asylum policy – that a lot was done last year and I think we are all grateful to the French Presidency for taking the initiative in promoting the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which specifically mentions some instruments of solidarity. Now is the time to gradually implement that step by step. Certainly Parliament, together with the Council and the Commission, will have the possibility to work together on that. I can just promise you that our Presidency, as well as the upcoming Presidency – because this issue will not be resolved within the next few weeks – will be working hard on that. There are strategic issues. There are also issues that required more immediate reactions, such as reducing the risk of humanitarian crisis and the negative impact. I come from the Czech Republic, which is not under the media spotlight, but we have had our own experiences too: after the division of Czechoslovakia in 1992, there was a huge inflow – hundreds of thousands – of the Roma peoples from Slovakia into Czech territory. Perhaps it was not like the situation in Malta, where I understand the situation is particularly difficult, but I think everybody in the EU has some experience of that and, without a doubt, there is a need for us to work together."@en1
"− Mr President, I take due note of Mr Cottigny’s report on what is an important directive which consolidates at European level a fundamental social right of employees. The Commission attaches great importance to informing and consulting employees at both national and transnational level, particularly in the current difficult context of the financial crisis. We proposed the recasting of the directive on European work councils. This has been successfully completed. We are continuing our work on the anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring and the questions arising at European level from the negotiation of transnational agreements. As explained in its communication of 17 March 2008, the Commission’s prime concern for the implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC is that it should be comprehensive and effective in collaboration with the Member States and the two sides of industry, which have an extremely important role to play, as you know. It should be borne in mind that the directive only establishes a general framework that can be implemented and expanded by the two sides of industry, particularly at company level. The Commission conducts and supports activities for raising awareness, promoting the exchange of best practices and boosting the capacities of all the parties involved by means of seminars, training courses, studies and financial aid for projects particularly under a specific budget line. The Commission also monitors the correct application of the directive in its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties: for example, if complaints are made by trade union organisations. So far, however, the Commission has received very few complaints concerning the implementation of this directive."@en1
"− Mr President, I thank honourable Members for their remarks. I can only say that during these five discharge procedures I have enjoyed and been very happy with our cooperation. The process has always been complicated, but always constructive and very professional. So thank you all for this contribution to the complicated discharge machinery. Just two remarks. To Mr Liberadzki I would say that the EDF accounts were successfully transferred to ABAC in February 2009. We raised the issue, but these are now merged. Jan Mulder’s question as to why these radical proposals come so late was very good. Four years to see this kind of proposal maturing is not too long. In Europe things take time, and in this case we are trying to use all possibilities in the framework of our Action Plan since we see that something really serious must be done to get rid of this problem. So I do not think this is too late, but I regret of course that this has taken so much time."@en1
"− Mr President, I think it is fair to say that we are now in a new era of energy policy, where there is a need for energy policy to be consistent with a policy for stopping climate change, and at the same time to be combined with a policy for energy security. Those three legs – energy policy, climate policy and energy security – must function together. From my perspective this highlights the importance of nuclear power. It is important that the existing nuclear power plants are managed in as safe and secure a way as possible, but it is also important that we have clear rules to ensure that the future power plants of the European Union are as secure and safe as possible. This is not only a matter of preparing the ground for more nuclear power. I think that there is rather large support for such a policy in the European Union, that it is growing and that we need to live up to the responsibilities that this gives us all. I respect those who are hesitant about or are against the use of nuclear power, but whatever opinion and whatever view we have on nuclear power, there can be no disagreement on the need for the rules to be as safe and secure as possible for the nuclear power we have. It is from this perspective that I would like to present this report on the Community framework for nuclear safety. There is a legal basis for this and there has been a debate in committee on whether all the procedures have been fulfilled. A letter has been sent from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy saying that if it is a new proposal then there is a need for a new opinion from the group of experts. My view, and the view of the majority of the committee, is that this is a revised proposal which we have been working on in the European Union for nearly seven years. It has been changed because of an opinion from the group of experts and because of the opinion given by Parliament and I must say that now is the time to reach a decision. I hope that Council will be able to take this decision this spring. If we do not and if we delay this process, we will see in reality that new nuclear power plants will be planned and constructed without this Community framework. So this is the time for action. Those who are trying to hinder this because of their attitude to nuclear power are in reality preventing the European Union from having a Community framework establishing as safe and secure rules as possible. I have tried to position my report in three ways. First of all to give a clear structure on the responsibilities of Member States and governments, licence holders and national regulators. Secondly, I have been very clear about the independence that the national regulators will have and I am strengthening the requirements on national regulators, meaning that they must be able to act when they see any risk of a nuclear power plant not fulfilling the security rules. Thirdly, we are including in an annex the rules of the IAEA as binding rules, thereby making this Community framework clear, strict and firm, and that is the note on which I end."@en1
"− Mr President, I think it is important for us to support human rights defenders, whether we think that governments are going to be listening to us or not. People have often told us they take great courage from external voices recognising the threat that they are under. As has been said, this is a serious case, because an attack on such an internationally renowned defender of human rights signals that people questioning the state or exercising their fundamental rights, such as those to the freedom of belief, will not be safe, so they have to conform to the state or face the consequences. Shirin Ebadi herself has faced death threats on many occasions, not least because she has defended the seven-member leadership of the Bahá’í faith in Iran, who themselves face significant persecution. We have seen further arrests in the last 24 hours of people who have worked with her and indeed other members of the Bahá’í faith. When we look at what we do here, we also need to realise that we are actually seeing a shift in the recognition of human rights by certain governments throughout the world, and that this has an impact on countries with which the European Union has dealings. They now feel that they do not have to pay so much attention to human rights because they can trade and work with countries that really do not care. I think, therefore, that makes it even more important for us to make sure that we try to uphold those standards and that, as has been said, we do not look to increase trade with countries whose human rights records are abysmal, but make every effort to support those working for human rights and those democrats opposing the undemocratic forces."@en1
"− Mr President, I think this discussion on the ENPI has in fact already pre-empted the next Commission communication on the Eastern Partnership. Many of the ideas that you have put forward are in the Eastern Partnership communication and I am sure that when you get this, you will, hopefully, be quite satisfied. Let me just say a few things. I am, of course, very thankful for many of the suggestions. In this Eastern Partnership, the idea is that we want to work with our Eastern partners – Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus – if necessary on democracy and human rights, but also with the three Caucasian countries, on trade, to try to make more profound association agreements, secondly, on energy, and thirdly, on more mobility. With regard to your suggestions on being visa-free, we will start with visa facilitation, although even that is not easy, as many Member States here are still very reluctant. Then, of course, there are all kinds of different platforms which I have already mentioned – for instance a platform for civil society, on energy and on transport – or indeed where best practices can be exchanged. With regard to financing, I can only tell you that, unfortunately, I do not have more funds available. Of course – as I always say as a mother of the neighbourhood policy – I would love to have more. You are a very important budget authority so please give us a chance in the future and really support us on that. This goes for both the Union for the Mediterranean in the south and for the Eastern Partnership and the ENPI in the east. The funding figures are currently EUR 3.6 per capita per annum to the east and EUR 3.4 per capita per annum to the south. So, as you can see, we are nearly at the same level. At the same time, however, it is never enough, because there are huge necessities and challenges. Therefore, we have also established the idea of a so-called NIF – the Neighbourhood Investment Facility – that can be used for bigger projects. This is all I can tell you at this stage, but perhaps at a later stage, when we start to discuss the Eastern Partnership, we can go into all the details. In any case, thank you for this debate and for your suggestions. They are very much in line with the direction in which we are going."@en1
"− Mr President, I was asked to make a statement to this House ahead of Friday’s meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the euro area. The Commission is, and will remain, central in assessing Greece’s compliance with the package’s conditionality. The Commission will also manage the bilateral loans from the Member States. By the end of the week we will already have a critical mass of Member States that have completed the process to provide those bilateral loans to Greece. It is my firm conviction that the unprecedented financial support given to Greece – EUR 110 billion – and the adjustment programme are an adequate response to the Greek crisis. We have no reason to doubt that it will be firmly implemented both by Greece and by the euro-area Member States. This view is shared by others who matter. I noticed, for instance, the supportive statement of the past, current and future Chairs of the G20 Finance Ministers, issued just now. Regrettably, not all market players seem convinced already. We have to say loud and clear that the doubters are wrong. I will come back to this in a moment. At the meeting of the euro-area Heads of State and Government on Friday, we will look beyond this deal to what we need to do to draw the right lessons from this situation. The debate will of course be a starting point, because decisions need to be debated further and ultimately taken with all the 27 Member States – the euro-area Member States but also all the other Member States of the European Union. Let me say this very clearly: discussing and taking decisions at 27 is a source of strength. Whilst we have to speed up our processes, the fact is that the joint action of the 27 – unparalleled anywhere in the world – provides the best possible foundation for our joint future in an ever more interlinked world. I see two main strands for reflection and action: first, a reassessment of the rules for economic governance, including the Stability and Growth Pact, and second, financial markets reform. The Commission has been working intensively on economic governance and is ready to present its proposals on how to improve this next Wednesday. There are three main building blocks to be considered. First, responsibility: we need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact and, above all, Member States’ compliance. The case for reinforcement of both the preventive and the corrective arm of the pact is obvious. I am pleased that most of those who have previously questioned – or even suggested weakening – the pact now accept the need for stronger rules and – most importantly – for their strict implementation. Second, interdependence: we are all in this together. I think the crisis has clearly shown that we need to address the imbalances between our Member States, in particular within the euro area. This includes divergences in their competitiveness, as this is one crucial element that causes other types of imbalances. This cannot, of course, mean that some become less competitive so that others look relatively more competitive. We are all competing on world markets. What we need is to enhance our overall competitiveness in a balanced, mutually reinforcing way. I also believe we need to look at the other causes of imbalances. To make progress, we will propose increased surveillance and increased economic policy coordination. I am also happy that I see more openness now when it comes to the Member States for this purpose. Third, coherence: we have to ask ourselves whether our system of fiscal rules is complete. I see merit in creating a permanent mechanism for dealing with disruptive situations. After all, it is better to be safe than sorry. Let me first say a word of condolence for the families of the victims of the violence in Athens today. To disagree and protest is a right of citizens in our democratic societies, but nothing can justify the recourse to violence. I hope that we can seize the moment – and I count on you to help us deliver these reforms. I believe from a political point of view that, in terms of European integration, we are at one of those moments where, if we do not build up Europe, we will fall behind. We cannot have a standstill. It is a very special moment, the moment we are living today in Europe where our solidarity, our responsibility, is being tested every day. I hope the leaders of our Member States will be able to rise to the occasion, not just to help the others but to show their responsibility to our common European project. These reforms will be introduced against the background of unprecedented efforts already under way. That deficit and debt levels in some Member States need to be corrected with determination, and faster than targeted before the crisis, is undisputed. But it must also be said that we cannot ignore the fact that the budgetary deterioration in 2009 was largely due to the working of the automatic stabilisers in the face of an unprecedented decline in economic activity caused by a financial crisis not originating in Europe. In other words, the overall situation in the euro area was largely the result of anti-recession policies advocated all over the world. It was always clear that the situation would subsequently be corrected, and most euro-area members have already undertaken bold reforms, for example of their pensions systems. The responsibility shown by the governments needs to be matched by financial-market players. This is why it is no less urgent to continue delivering a sustainable and responsible financial sector, at the service of the economy and its citizens. One must bear in mind that financial-market players are key actors in driving market sentiment. Psychology also matters in markets. The financial crisis was born out of short-termism, pro-cyclicality and a lack of responsibility. That is what we must urgently correct. We need strong and stable European financial services markets to deliver the investments needed for future growth in line with the Europe 2020 vision. We need responsible behaviour from all our market players. We have already been doing a lot as regards financial markets reform. I count on this House to make this clear to all. European institutions are acting, and must be seen as acting together: Parliament, the Council and the Commission. We have prioritised work on responsible risk management, safer derivatives markets, better financial supervision and ensuring that banks hold adequate capital to cover their real risks. This work must be speeded up. In the coming weeks we will need to complete the reforms already under way. As I said to this House only two weeks ago, I hope to see a breakthrough soon on our proposal for hedge funds and private equity. I would also like early agreement on effective new European supervisory arrangements. The European Systemic Risk Board and the three supervisory authorities should start working at the beginning of 2011. But they must not be mere paper tigers: we have a shared responsibility to ensure they have the tools they need to do their jobs. This includes binding decision-making powers to deal with genuine emergencies, to enforce European rules – and I insist on European rules, not only national rules – and to settle any disputes within the colleges of national supervisors. It is high time to deliver these decisions and make sure they are ambitious. Let me address the financial support package for Greece endorsed last Sunday. Then I will give you some of my views on what needs to be done to prevent a repetition of a crisis of this type. More proposals are on their way this year to improve depositor and investor protection, to strengthen measures against market abuse, to further improve the quality and quantity of bank capital and discourage excessive leverage. Over the past three months, and paradoxically still this week, the situation on the sovereign debt markets has brought new concerns to light. The Commission is already working on a fundamental overhaul of derivatives markets to increase transparency and safety in these markets. In a first stage, we will present legislation to standardise eligible derivatives contracts, putting them through central counterparty clearing that is properly regulated and supervised. We are also now considering whether further specific measures are needed for sovereign derivatives markets. The crisis has also once again brought the role of credit rating agencies to the fore. These agencies play a pivotal role in the functioning of financial markets, but ratings appear to be too cyclical, too reliant on the general market mood rather than on fundamentals – regardless of whether market mood is too optimistic or too pessimistic. Because credit rating agencies have such a key role and influence over the markets, they also have a special responsibility to ensure their assessments are both sound and comprehensive. That is why in 2008 the Commission quickly put forward new legislation for these agencies, which will come into force in the next few months. These rules will ensure that credit rating agencies act more transparently, publish their methodologies and avoid conflicts of interest, but we need to go further. To strengthen the supervision of these actors of Europe-wide dimension, the Commission believes they should be put under the direct supervision of the future European Securities Markets Authority, and that is exactly what we will propose. We have also launched a reflection on whether further measures may be needed to ensure the appropriate rating of sovereign debt in particular. We must get our own house in order while pushing others to do the same. The Commission will do whatever is necessary to ensure that financial markets are not a playground for speculation. Free markets constitute the basis for the functioning of successful economies, but free markets need rules and compliance, and rules and compliance need to be tightened if irresponsible behaviour puts at risk what cannot and should not be at risk. Market behaviour must rest on sound and objective analysis, and financial services must realise that they are exactly that: a service, not an end in itself. They must not become detached from their economic and societal function. In fact, financial-market players are still in business because regulatory authorities and democratic institutions – ultimately the taxpayers – stabilised the markets in the financial crisis. We acted swiftly then, and precisely for that reason, we will also act swiftly in the future. So the message from this Friday’s meeting of Eurogroup Heads of State and Government should be clear, and it will be clear: we will do what is needed – on all fronts. As regards Greece, a multi-annual programme of fiscal consolidation and structural reform has been agreed by the Greek authorities. This was jointly prepared with the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The Greek Government has put forward a solid and credible package that will steer its economy on a sustainable path and restore confidence. It is important that we acknowledge the courage that Prime Minister Papandreou and his Government have shown. Greece will undertake painful efforts, but we all know that there are no alternatives to such efforts. In return, following the recommendation of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, the coordinated European mechanism for assistance to Greece has been activated. This is an unprecedented act of solidarity, unmatched anywhere in the world. This assistance will be decisive in helping Greece to get its economy back on track and will preserve the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. Allow me to stress that the Commission has made sure that the mechanism, whilst being based on bilateral loans, is a European one. The Commission was instrumental in setting it up and will play an important role in its management and implementation."@en1
"− Mr President, I was expecting two disconnected issues: Guantánamo, on the one hand, and the secret detentions and renditions on the other. As we are all aware, during his first days in office, President Obama in fact made three decisions. The first one I have already told you about, i.e. Guantánamo, but there were two other important ones as well. Firstly, he ended the CIA secret detention programme. He ordered that in future, all detainees held by the US must be registered with the ICRC. With this decision, he addressed an issue which has been of concern to both the Council and the European Parliament. This is why the Council has also warmly welcomed this decision. I am sure that it is equally warmly welcomed by this Parliament. President Obama also ended the use of ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques by the CIA. The US investigators can no longer rely on the legal opinions concerning torture and other interrogation techniques written since 9/11. This decision is important. The European Union is committed to the absolute prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. As regards the third decision, President Obama has also ordered a review of transfer or rendition policies to ensure they are in line with US obligations under international law. In future, policies must not – I quote – ‘result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the US to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody and control’. We believe that these decisions, taken together with the decision to close Guantánamo, which I have already mentioned, will further strengthen cooperation with the US in countering terrorism. I think it can also restore a better climate in transatlantic relations and can respond to feelings which were articulated very strongly in this Parliament, as well as among a substantial part of public opinion in Europe. I think here we can all agree on one point from the outset: that the context of today’s discussion changed immeasurably. I am also aware that the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners has been a source of deep concern among many Members of this Parliament. You have been following these issues very closely, not least through the activities of the Temporary Committee. The position of this Parliament was clearly expressed in your resolution of February 2007. I want to underline to you that the Council has always reiterated its commitment to combating terrorism effectively, using all legal means available, because terrorism itself is a threat to a system of values based on the rule of law. The Council has also stated repeatedly that the existence of secret detention facilities, where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum, is not in conformity with international humanitarian and human rights law. That remains our view today and we are committed to it, but the change of context with the current developments in the US means that I would also like to focus primarily on the future. Let us look forwards rather than backwards. The Council very much welcomes the recent decision by the US President on this issue. The transatlantic community has been a community of shared values and must remain one if we are to be able to defend our interests in the global world. There is no doubt that human rights and support for the rule of law in the fight against terrorism belong to this shared heritage."@en1
"− Mr President, I was unable to reach Strasbourg and so I thank you very much on behalf of my colleagues who contributed to the debate. I was pleased that the Council was represented, as the discharge process is one which concerns not only the EU institutions, but also the Member States, which the Council represents. The real meat of my report is the number of proposals that aim to reduce error rates, to pinpoint problems and to improve the matching of information from the Commission and from the Court of Auditors, allowing us all in future to identify and tackle the real problem areas in our expenditure. With the Lisbon Treaty in place, it is time for a review of the discharge process itself. My report calls for a higher-level debate involving the EU institutions and, of course, the Member States, which are responsible for managing around 80% of expenditure. Although my report is about the 2008 discharge, it contains many issues that are highly topical today. We all want to make sure that Greece can overcome the problems from the past. The section on Turkey has attracted attention and, whilst we must ensure pre-accession funds are used more effectively, let me stress that we are not about to change the nature of the EU’s relationship with that country. All the improvements I have highlighted are essential. The current financial difficulties mean that every euro must be used wisely and bring benefits to the people across our various countries – including the euros in the Structural and Cohesion Funds. I look forward to working with the Commission and the Court of Auditors over the coming weeks to bring the calls for action in my report to fruition, and I look forward to reporting back to you on their implementation in the coming months."@en1
"− Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to address this part-session of the European Parliament covering, inter alia the subject of the Commission’s assessment of the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs), which was presented in the Second Strategic Energy Review package in November 2008 and the earlier Commission communication of January 2008. Mr Gyürk’s report also rightly indicated that financial support must be increased. Financial issues relating to energy savings were recognised by the Commission in the European Economic Recovery Plan of 26 November 2008, and in other coordinated efforts which aim to help create jobs, which are often in small and medium-sized companies, since investments in energy efficiency, and especially in buildings, are mostly related to small-scale renovation projects. In conclusion, I would like to recall that during the mandate of this Commission, EU leaders have given a real commitment to promoting energy efficiency. Boosting investment in energy efficiency and related new technologies offers an essential contribution to sustainable development and also to security of supply. Energy efficiency has a wider impact, far beyond energy policy. It has a positive effect on the European Union economy in general: increasing efficiency helps create new jobs, stimulates economic growth and improves competitiveness. As you rightly mentioned, that is exactly what we should be doing in these difficult and challenging times. A more detailed technical synthesis of the Commission’s assessment of the NEEAPs will be presented in the Commission’s NEEAP document this spring. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gyürk, on his work, as well as the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) for its valuable discussions and comments. In the past few years, the Commission has stated very clearly that energy efficiency is the first priority of the European Union energy policy and a very important cornerstone to meeting the 2020 by 2020 targets, and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans play a central role in this respect. The Directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services sets an obligation, as you know, for the Member States to present these, and to show how, in practice, they are going to achieve their national targets for energy efficiency. The original deadline for their submission by the Member States was 30 June 2007 but, as you know, many Member States unfortunately were late. The last NEEAPs arrived at the Commission in June 2008. At this stage, the Commission has completed all the individual assessments and sent letters with the results of those assessments to all Member States. As a follow-up, a number of bilateral meetings took place, and a number of Member States declared they would themselves like to improve their NEEAPs in the coming few months. As has been noted by the members of the ITRE Committee, the first National Energy Efficiency Action Plans have proved to be a really useful exercise. Indeed, many Member States have, for the first time, prepared comprehensive plans of action on energy savings. Many of them confirmed that they found the cross-sectoral effort needed to prepare them very useful. Under the Energy Services Directive, NEEAPs have only a limited role. However, the Commission, in its communication of November 2008, and in other recent statements has always encouraged Member States to broaden their role. The Commission will prepare a new European Union Energy Savings Action Plan that will strengthen and better focus European Union actions, helping EU Member States and EU businesses and EU citizens to save energy in a cost-effective way. In your report, you urged the Commission to propose a binding target for energy savings. The current energy savings objective of 20% of primary energy saving in 2020 today represents a non-binding target, as you know. However, the Commission believes that, with the climate and energy package, as well as the proposals in the Second Strategic Energy Review, we can reach 20%."@en1
"− Mr President, I will just make some comments on the comments made by the group leaders, and I thank all of them for their contributions. These institutional issues of transitions between two treaties are very difficult from a legal and political point of view, and they require wisdom from all institutions. Of course, we would like to have the new Treaty approved as soon as possible. The majority of Members of this Parliament want it, all the governments want it, and the Commission certainly wants it. The point is, as the Prime Minister has just pointed out, that the Treaty will not be approved before the end of the mandate of this Commission. The Commission’s mandate lasts until the end of this month, so we will inevitably have a period where the Commission is a ‘caretaker’ Commission. That is why I think Parliament took the right decision some time ago in already deciding on the President of the Commission, because that gives the President of the Commission the authority, the political authority, to represent the Commission in very important international obligations. That was a wise decision of the European Parliament. The important point now is to see how to deal with this transition. Today we have discussed this in the Commission, and our opinion in the College is that we should, if possible, already bring in the new Commission under the Lisbon Treaty. That is our opinion because this is the Treaty we want; this is the Treaty which gives you, Parliament, more rights in terms of the formation of the Commission itself. For instance, the High Representative will be Vice-President of the Commission, and so you will vote on the High Representative. That will not happen if we implement the Nice Treaty, and so it is our opinion that we should, if possible, bring in the new Commission under the Lisbon rules. But that, of course, is a question of wisdom and of timing as well. We have, in the past, namely in the first Commission that I took part in, also started with a prolongation of the previous Commission for three weeks. So the question is: how long does it take? And that is why I stated very quickly – and Prime Minister Reinfeldt knows what I think about it – that it is one thing to wait for some weeks and another thing to be waiting we do not know until when. That is a question of judgment, political judgment, and I hope the European Council will take the right decisions based on the information we get from our Czech partners. This is the question which has to be decided in the European Council at the end of this month. Certainly we do not want – I think it is in nobody’s interests – to have a Commission that is without full legal competences. It is not in the interests of the Commission and I am sure it is also not in the interests of the European Parliament. That is why I have said I am ready: I am ready to start the formation of the new Commission as soon as we have the legal clarity and the European Council starts the process. For that, I need the Council to take some decisions. I need the European Council to propose a High Representative because the High Representative, according to the Lisbon Treaty, has to be approved by the President of the Commission as Vice-President of the Commission. Regarding some comments, I want to underline certain points, and to reassure some Members of Parliament. Some of you said that there will be a ‘President of Europe’. I am sorry: there will not be a ‘President of Europe’. If we have the Lisbon Treaty, there will be a President of the European Council: it is different. There is a President of Parliament, there is a President of the Commission, and there will be a President of the European Council. It is important to underline that point because sometimes, I think there are ideas about certain and I will not accept, and the European Commission will not accept, the idea that the President of the European Council is the President of Europe, because it is not in the Treaties. It is not in the Treaties and we will have to respect the Treaties. We have to respect the institutions. There is a President of the European Parliament; there is President of the Commission. If we have Lisbon, there will be a President of the European Council. It is very important to understand that all our decisions have to be taken in the framework of the current treaties. That is why I now believe that, as soon as the Czechs verify their situation, we should move forward. That is why I think we should work on those points I made before, from the Citizens’ Initiative to the External Services, with that spirit of cooperation between all institutions so that, when the decisions are formally taken, we can implement with determination everything that the Lisbon Treaty brings, which I believe is more accountability, more democracy and more efficiency for our Union."@en1
"− Mr President, I will start with issues of policy, then politics if I have the time. Regarding Mr Hughes’ questions, I think it is important to clarify those issues that are very important for your group and for me, and for our commitment to a social market economy. On the posting of workers, my commitment to a regulation is intended to address the very problem you highlighted, Mr Hughes. The implementation and interpretation issues that have created uncertainty are the problem. I remind you that a regulation is directly applicable and will take less time than overall revision of the directive. In any case, I have said that, if necessary, we can look at revising the directive. On Laval, Commissioner Špidla, a member of your Socialist family, has, in agreement with me, conducted a very complete search for practical solutions. You must be aware that the problems you raised do not arise in all Member States. The diversity of labour law in the Member States means that a Laval situation can arise in some Member States but not in others. You, of all people, know that Member States, social partners and trade unions stick to their labour law . We needed to fully assess the situation to make sure that the remedy was not going to create a bigger problem than the one it set out to solve. Mr Špidla has carried out that analysis, and that is why I can now propose a solution, trying to get a broad agreement in this Parliament. On public services, Mr Hughes asked why the Commission has not yet proposed a framework directive. I will point out that my Commission has done very important legal work on clarifying the application of state aid rules to public services. That was the most important issue five years ago, and the truth is that these clarifications have taken much of the heat out of the age-old debate on public services in the internal market. I did not say that there are no more problems. On the contrary, I recognise them. I am committed to completely assessing the situation and I will not hesitate, if necessary, to go further. I have made an honest and loyal offer in discussions with your group, and I look forward to working on it with you, including on the appropriate legal instruments. On gender balance, I am committed to this and my Commission has a record number of women. I can tell you very frankly that it was a very hard fight to get some Member States to send competent women to the Commission because they did not want to send women. As you know, the initiative on that comes from the Member States. I am committed to doing my best once again. I remember the first Delors Commission had no women and the second had only one. At one time I had nine women members of the Commission, which I believe is very important. I nominated the first woman ever as Secretary-General – the most important civil servant in the Commission – so I am very committed to that issue and I need your support there. Once again, however, please also work with your Member States so that they do not resort to this routine, because for 50 years, some Member States were incapable of making one single proposal for a woman for the Commission. Regarding the issue of social matters, let us put this bluntly. If you want to attack the caricature of Mr Barroso, then do so, but you know very well that I have often made proposals that were refused by the Council – including, by the way, some governments from your family. Let us be honest about it. At the last European Council, I proposed that we no longer have cofinancing for the Social Fund for those countries that do not have this possibility, namely the new Member States that are having difficulties. I made that proposal. It was refused by several governments, including some whose leadership, or whose finance minister, is from your party. So I completely disagree. It is not intellectually honest to attack the Commission all the time. You are missing the target. It is easier for you, but the reality is that we are pushing hard. After that Council, I put a proposal on the table – that is now being considered by the Council – to suspend the Social Fund cofinancing rules for countries that are in difficulties. I am committed to social cohesion. How could I not be committed, coming from a country like Portugal that benefits so much from the European Union? I am committed to social and economic cohesion, and that is why I believe this caricature that some try to present is damaging Europe. I agree with what Mr Lambsdorff said before. I would prefer to have the support of the main pro-European political families, but some are excluding themselves from that. That is your choice, not mine. I want to bring the broadest possible consensus and exclude nobody. Let us be frank: in the history of European integration, it is not only the EPP, not only the Socialists, not only the Liberals, who have made great contributions. From Lord Cockfield, a Conservative, to a Communist like Altiero Spinelli, to the Green movement, there have been many contributions to our European integration. After the election, and with this diversity of views, it is important that we work together for Europe. We need a strong Europe, but there is a contradiction there. On the one hand, you say that you want a strong Europe, you want a strong Commission, you want me to stand up to some Member States that are going national, but at the same time you say ‘We are not going to vote for you. We are going to reduce your influence. We are going to weaken you in front of the Member States’. There is a contradiction there, so let us be honest about it. If you want a strong Commission that has all the rights and initiative to defend European interests, at least give me the benefit of the doubt. We are living in difficult times and I have made an honest offer to you, a loyal offer to all Members of the Parliament, in full transparency. You cannot say that I am saying different things to different groups because this is the same programme I am presenting to all of you. Today I have added some complements and clarifications, but it is the same programme. Of course it is a compromise, but Europe only works as a compromise. Europe cannot work on fanaticism, or on dogmatism. I thank the EPP for the support it has given me. I am really grateful for the support you have given me, but the EPP was the first to say that they do not want this because it is alone. No party has a majority alone, so we have to build a consensus in Europe. Building this consensus in Europe is critically important. Of course we keep our ideological differences and keep up the political debate, but we make an effort to have a stronger Europe. I am committed to that. Are you? That is my question."@en1
"− Mr President, I wish to thank Parliament for its work on this issue. In particular I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lynne, for her excellent work in drawing up the motion for a resolution on the Commission’s proposal and for her efforts over a number of years to improve health and safety at work for workers in the hospital and healthcare sector. I am aware that this is a long-standing concern of this House. Parliament’s resolution of 24 February 2005 on promoting health and safety in the workplace called for a revision of Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents at work. Again, in July 2006, Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive amending that directive. In response to the European Parliament, the Commission initiated a two-stage consultation of the European social partners, in accordance with the Treaty provisions. In response to this consultation two European social partner organisations acting in the hospital and healthcare sector, the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association and the European Federation of Public Service Unions, negotiated with success a framework agreement in July 2009. As you know, the Commission proposal aims to implement this agreement. We all know that injuries caused by needles and other sharp instruments are one of the most common and serious risks to healthcare workers in Europe, in particular in certain departments and activities, such as emergencies, intensive care and surgical operations. I am more than happy that your resolution recognises that the Commission’s proposal incorporates the major points in Parliament’s resolution of 6 July 2006. It was indeed the Commission’s wish to have these points in the agreement. I also agree with you that the entry into force of this agreement will represent an important contribution to the protection of workers active in the hospital and healthcare sector. With this agreement, and hopefully the forthcoming adoption by the Council of the proposed directive, workers in the hospital and healthcare sector will benefit from an integrated approach, establishing policies in risk assessment, risk prevention, training, information, awareness-raising and so on. Such measures, which are also minimum requirements, are not only much welcomed but above all absolutely necessary. Let me just conclude by thanking you once again for supporting the Commission’s proposal, which I hope the Council will adopt very shortly."@en1
"− Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for their speeches, questions and proposals. I would like to answer telegraphically some of those questions. When it comes to SMEs, the heart of the strategy, and what we are hearing from them, is that they are asking us for is a level playing field across Europe and for a reduction in the administrative burden. That is exactly what we would like to achieve. When it comes to the agriculture, this has certainly been present in the European 2020 strategy from the outset, but we should not view EU 2020 as an exhaustive list of everything we should do in the future or an exhaustive list of how we should treat agriculture in the future. Very soon we will have a very important debate on the budget review, and that would be the right moment to discuss the future not only of agriculture, but also of other policies, in greater detail. I agree with those MEPs who have been calling for respect for the rules. I am sure that, if we respected them better, we would not be in this situation. We work very hard on agreeing the rules, so once we have them we definitely should respect them. The Commission will do its utmost to enforce them even better in the future. When it comes to the division of labour – what the Commission and what the Member States should do under the EU 2020 strategy – we now have a quite detailed description of the level on which the EU should act, and on what level the Member States should act. We will elaborate a bit further on this when we come forward with a concrete proposal on how to deliver and put in place the flagship projects. This will be quite detailed. It will be a measure-by-measure description. I can assure you that it is the Commission’s utmost ambition to deliver on this very important strategy. Part of this, of course, involves getting rid of unnecessary barriers and better using the potential of the single market, and using what Europe can offer in a much more efficient and better way. We will be doing this at the level of the Commission, but at the same time we also expect input from the Member States as to where they see that the single market could be used better and where they see that there are barriers still in place which we should work on to erase. When it comes to economic governance and better economic coordination, we intend to use fully the Lisbon Treaty provisions and will be coming forward with initial proposals in this area this spring. When it comes to governance and EU 2020, we are looking for an adequate balance in how to motivate the Member States in a positive way, and at the same time how to ask for better, stronger, efforts from their side. We believe that this time we have found an adequate method and that its delivery should be much better than it was before. We will, of course, be working on monitoring and evaluations, together with Parliament, so will have a very good opportunity to discuss this in detail. When it comes to transatlantic cooperation, the Commission is committed to further advancing the Transatlantic Economic Council and its work. At the same time, we are also committed to the Doha Round because we believe that the conclusions of the Doha Round will open new doors for improved world trade and for improved situations in developing countries. A lot of Members spoke on the issue of Greece. Here again I would like to underline that we have created a eurozone mechanism – with the IMF, but it is still a eurozone mechanism, and we have to stress that. This was the best solution we could find under very challenging circumstances. When it comes to another argument that I have heard, which is that EU 2020 is too much on the side of I cannot agree. We are trying to find a way to mobilise and activate the different levels through which we can achieve the most efficient actions and the best possible course of events. We would like to do this in a complementary way, so that each level supports the others."@en1
"− Mr President, I would also like to start by expressing gratitude and feelings similar to those stated by Jan Andersson in his introductory comments on the importance of the EQARF recommendation with regard to the very excellent work and cooperation between the institutions. The committees and the Commission hope to come to very close first-reading agreement on two important instruments. Mr Mann stressed the voluntary participation of the Member States. This indicates the diversity of our systems, but also maturity in finding common instruments as a result of our work together and willingness to create conditions for compatibility and transferability between different systems. During this process, we could see how a bottom-up approach helped to analyse and form the instruments in both cases. In this connection, I would also like to say that the compromise achieved is acceptable and very important, not only for the conclusion but also for the satisfaction of all sensitivities or concerns. I think it even improves the text. Specifically, I appreciate the contribution on a stronger role for national and regional authorities and also on highlighting the importance of a testing period or results during the process of implementation. So the Commission supports the proposals and compromise achieved. Firstly, I would like to show my appreciation of the work of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. I would also like to mention the contribution made by Ramona Mănescu and the Committee on Culture and Education and, on the second item – because we linked together two items – that of the same committees: Culture and Education, and Employment. I should also like to mention Dumitru Oprea for the contribution of many interesting points which both Jan Andersson and Thomas Mann have already highlighted. People and Member States have spoken a great deal about the Bologna Process but now more and more is being said about the importance of skills, vocational education and training and the Copenhagen Process. This year we had the first EuroSkills competition, which will help to increase popularity, attractiveness, quality and exchange of best practices in the very important area of VET. I would like to make some remarks on the importance of the two instruments which will be voted on in this plenary tomorrow through your reports. On the EQARF recommendation: vocational education and training were overshadowed by reform processes in Europe, but if we really want to make our Union more competitive and socially cohesive, as outlined in the Lisbon Strategy, it must be about the importance and quality of both general education and vocational education. The rather technical nature of the first recommendation should not detract from the importance of this instrument. Quality assurance underpins every VET policy initiative. It helps to build mutual trust and to modernise VET systems by improving the effectiveness of training. The Quality Assurance Framework is designed to continuously improve vocational education and training. It is based on a quality cycle which establishes links between the four phases: planning, implementation, evaluation and review. It includes ways in which the performance of VET can be monitored and it measures the improvement of VET at both system and provider levels. The approach to quality assurance is reflected in the general principles contained in the Annex to the 2007 recommendation on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework, so it is already part of the established EQARF. Quality, the learning outcomes approach and the qualifications framework go hand in hand. We need these instruments in one mosaic. Quality assurance is a precondition for trust between the systems and countries in order to transfer learning outcomes as results. I think the compromises achieved in the process are very important. The Commission supports the text as proposed. Your contributions improve the text; for example, the new deadline set for designing a national approach, an explicit reference to the involvement of local and regional authorities. In explaining the so-called toolbox nature of the framework, your contribution also helped to clarify the meaning of the original text. On the other instrument, I would just like to say that it is also necessary if we really want to promote lifelong learning and to facilitate real mobility. As I like to say, we are citizens, not tourists, in one European Union. We need this mobility for both learners and for workers so that people can take advantage of the richness offered by different European education and training systems at national or even regional levels. This is only possible if individuals’ learning achievements are adequately appreciated when passing from one learning context to another. This is to be opened much more now by ECVET, the European credit transfer system for VET. The objective of ECVET is twofold: firstly, to support and promote transnational mobility and, secondly, to give access to lifelong learning to respond to the real needs of individuals, the labour market and our societies. I do not want to say any more, but I will just assure you that this instrument is and will be compatible with the other one, the European credit system for general higher education (ECTS), and with the various qualification systems which already exist in Europe. It will be implemented according to the rules and legal instruments of each participating country."@en1
"− Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Doris Pack for her excellent report. I welcome the opportunity to discuss Bosnia and Herzegovina with you today at a very crucial moment for the country and its European aspirations. Your resolution underlines that closing down the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and strengthening the role of the European Union should remain our ultimate objective. I agree. The future of the OHR is a matter for the Peace Implementation Council to decide, but it is clearly in the interest of Bosnia and Herzegovina to reach a point where the OHR will no longer be needed, thus paving the way for a stronger EU presence and for realising the EU perspective of the country. In other words, as we move into the next phase of our relations, Bosnia and Herzegovina itself must assume full ownership of the reform process that underpins its EU perspective. The signature of the SAA this summer provided an opportunity that should not be wasted. The challenge for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s leaders is to achieve a degree of political consensus such as has delivered progress on EU integration elsewhere in the Western Balkans region. They have done it before so they can do it again. I hope our messages will now be heard. The signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) last June was a significant step forward for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Together with the start of the visa dialogue, it gave a clear signal to the people of that country that their future lies in the European Union. The EU was able to initial the SAA last December and sign it in June because the country’s political leaders pulled together and reached consensus on the main conditions, particularly on police reform. This proves that progress can be achieved and crises overcome when the political will exists, as Mr Jouyet rightly pointed out. However, this consensus has since collapsed and reforms have been halted. Nationalist rhetoric ahead of the local elections in October was one factor in this deterioration. Yet the country’s political problems run much deeper than that. The lack of a common vision among the country’s leaders about its future and the absence of consensus on EU reforms seriously harm its European prospects. There is also open disagreement on most political questions, while there is no sense of urgency or responsibility to overcome this political stalemate. I expressed my serious concern to the Presidency of the country during my visit to Sarajevo a few days ago. I underlined that Bosnia and Herzegovina now needs to put EU-related reforms at the top of its political agenda and address the priorities of the European partnership, including state- and institution-building. Your resolution sends a strong signal to the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to get on with the reforms and to get their country back on the road to Europe. Likewise, Bosnia and Herzegovina must be able to speak with one voice to advance in European integration. Another litmus test of the country’s ability to deliver on EU integration is the census. From an EU perspective – as we all know – census data are vital for social and economic planning and development and for most Community policies. The Commission will offer its assessment on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Progress Report on 5 November. Like you, we shall also point out the fact that the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina can either continue to quarrel and fall behind their neighbours, or get on with reform and move forward towards the EU."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Szymański, on his very good report. On behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, I welcome the inclusion of cross-border cooperation within the scope of the ENPI Regulation as an instrument to develop common projects and to strengthen relations between ENP countries and EU Member States. At the same time, I would like to highlight the necessity of regularly monitoring the management and implementation of joint operational programmes on both sides of EU borders. Cross-border cooperation should contribute to integrated sustainable development between neighbouring regions. We ask the Commission to prepare a detailed overview of all joint operational programmes approved for the current financial period, with an assessment of how the principles of transparency, efficiency and partnership have been respected. Such an assessment, together with an inventory of the most frequent problems faced by the managing authorities, should contribute to finding more appropriate solutions for the next programming period. I would also encourage the Commission to facilitate the exchange of experiences and best practices in cross-border cooperation between ENP programmes and projects, on the one hand, and actions taken under the European Territorial Cooperation objective and under the already completed Interreg IIIA Community Initiative, on the other. Finally, the Regional Development Committee considers that ENPI should focus on a balanced strategy between the east and the south, with specific approaches for both areas."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to move an oral amendment in the form of an addition to paragraph 64a. That addition reads as follows: ‘where this does not require statehood, for instance, in the ILO’. So the last part of paragraph 64a will read as follows: ‘supports Taiwan’s participation as an observer in relevant international organisations where this does not require statehood, for instance, in the ILO;’. I would ask colleagues not to oppose this oral amendment, because it is important for the Socialists to give their support to this resolution, and broad support is very important in order to send a strong signal to the Commission and to China."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to say that the debate did not, in a sense, at all surprise me, because the concerns that colleagues have raised have indeed been raised over the months. I am not interested in closing down jobs or industries in Europe at all, and this deal does not do that. And those of you who think that you have evidence to prove it, I ask you to supply it to me, because the rhetoric is one thing, the reality is a different thing, and we really have got to get beyond the rhetoric and into the reality of what this deal provides. Indeed, I would argue that what we have got before us is very important for all the industrial sectors. The question about duty drawback is, for me, a very simple one. Duty drawback is designed so that our response to it will prevent a particular problem. The question is, is it the only way of solving a problem? If there are other ways that equally solve the problem but, in fact, invite us to get a better trade agreement, then I will explore them. But I still want to solve the same problem, and I believe the mechanisms we have in place in this agreement do precisely that. It is not some thing that we hold up as being for ever enshrined as the only way of achieving what we want to achieve – to prevent, effectively, imports via the back door – and I believe we have resolved the problem in a different way. So I am not going to make apologies – politically, economically or in any other way – to Parliament for having gone out and invested in negotiating this important trade deal. I make no apology for that, and I make no apology for putting forward to this Parliament what I believe is a serious, 21st century free trade agreement of enormous benefit across the economy of the European Union. I especially make no apology for doing it at a time of economic crisis because, if ever there was a time when my responsibility was to provide as much support for the businesses and the workers of Europe, I believe that time is now, and that is what this deal does. I do urge colleagues, as I said earlier on, to look at the reality of the deal. You will be lobbied – I have been lobbied – but actually, when you look at what we have achieved, I believe it is a very concrete result that will hugely benefit the economy of Europe. That, in the end, is what we set out to do, and that, in the end, is what we have achieved. I want to pay tribute to David Martin, just to begin with, for the work that he has done in the committee. It is very important that I recognise how much the Committee on International Trade has worked with me over the months that have proceeded it, and of course I am very well aware that colleagues have not had the benefit of seeing the detail of the agreement so far. So I will try and address the concerns. But, more importantly, we will make sure that we give you more and more detail, because it is important that you look at the facts rather than the assertions that will have been made. Let me just make some general points about the approach on this deal first. This deal was put in play in order to achieve the best for European industry – including, I would say to colleagues from the UKIP, British industry. It is absolutely in the interests of Europe, in my view, to move forward with this deal – otherwise I would not be standing here suggesting that we move forward in the way that I have. Now, in doing so, there was a clear a clear approach that the Commission took which, as has been said, was supported by Parliament, by the Commission and by the Council, and that is indeed the way we have gone forward. My colleague, Mr Arif, will not mind, I think, if I say that to suggest that I would sacrifice any industry, I find alarming or perhaps a little depressing, because that is certainly not the approach that I would take. Do I think that if you want a serious trade deal you have to recognise that actually it is a deal where both sides benefit? Yes, I do. If you want to have trade agreements, if we do believe – which I think we do – that trade is the engine that will take us out of recession, then it means you have serious, tough negotiations with industries and with countries that we care about having a deal with. Otherwise, we can just do deals all day long with countries we do not much care about, and we can open markets because we are not really interested. Korea is a serious market. It provides real opportunities for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, other industries. We need to recognise the value and importance of doing this if we want serious trade agreements. We are, in fact, an economic superpower. I could not disagree more with my colleagues from the United Kingdom when they talk about Switzerland and try and equate that, somehow, with the relationship that we are trying to form in Europe with Korea – or maybe I just missed the point. This is about serious negotiations to get a serious outcome and, as the details of this unfold, I hope that colleagues will look at it in the spirit that we have tried to set it up. The car industry gave us at the beginning a list of things that they wished us to achieve. They were genuinely very concerned to keep the market in Korea open, and we have achieved all that they asked at the beginning. The textile industry: I am confident that there is little to worry about. The textile industry safeguards that we have will indeed make sure that we retain European jobs."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Parliament for having included the new strategy for the Baltic Sea region on the agenda of its plenary session. Responsibility must rest with the relevant Member States and other stakeholders directly involved on the ground. This is the only way to ensure that the ownership of a strategy is in the hands of the Member States and other stakeholders. So what are the next steps? Once we have conclusions from the Council and the European Council, we will take forward the implementation phase of the strategy. Here we expect to see a wave of coordination meetings to kick-start the various priority areas and individual projects included in the action plan. The first formal assessment of progress made will be presented under the Polish Presidency in the second half of 2011. However, prior to that, the first annual forum of the Baltic Sea Strategy will take place next year. This will give all stakeholders an opportunity to consider how the first months of the strategy have gone and what lessons might already be drawn at that stage. I would like to conclude by saying that I look forward to continuing to work closely with Parliament on all aspects of strategy. The Commission very much expects Parliament to be actively involved in events such as the annual forum. Your backing is crucial to maintain widespread visibility for the strategy to maintain high-level political support for the strategy and to maintain pressure on the Member States and the regional actors to deliver results. The high visibility this provides for the strategy is extremely welcome. Of course, it is not a complete surprise to me that Parliament is taking such an interest in the strategy. The pioneering work undertaken by Parliament through its Baltic Interparliamentary Group in particular was very much one of the catalysts for the whole macro-regional strategy approach. The Baltic Sea Strategy has required a completely new approach from the European Commission as it is the first time that we have prepared an integrated strategy for a group of Member States who have to face the same challenges and who may benefit from the same opportunities. I will not hide the fact that the preparatory work has brought challenges of its own, but these have been overcome successfully. The four pillars of the strategy provide an overarching framework for improving the overall situation of the Baltic Sea region. By addressing the environment, the economy, energy and transport and safety and security issues, the strategy provides an integrated approach covering several policy areas while ensuring close interaction among the fields concerned. Since the Commission adopted the strategy in June, the Swedish Presidency has led positive and constructive discussions in Council which are to lead to conclusions already in October. This rapid progress is important if we are to maintain momentum as we enter the implementation phase of the strategy. I would like to underline this point as it must be clear that all our preparatory work on the strategic framework that I have just described will count for nought unless we start to deliver genuine visible concrete results on the ground, hence the importance of the strategy’s action plan which has also been drawn up during the preparatory work. The implementation of an action plan will require real cooperation, commitment and leadership from Member States and regional stakeholders to deliver the 80 or so projects included at this stage. In financial terms, although there is no additional financing from the EU budget, the strategy proposes a more coordinated use of existing funds and a more imaginative approach to other funding sources such as the European Investment Bank or the Nordic Investment Bank. I would now like to say a few words about the planned governance system which is proposed for the operational implementation of the strategy. This is one area where there has been much discussion among the Member States, but the overall approach is that policy orientations will be taken by the Council. The coordination monitoring and reporting is done by the Commission and the implementation on the ground is led by the Member States or organisations of the Baltic Sea Region. In addition, the Commission proposes to play the role of a facilitator in the case of difficulties. However, I would stress that the Commission has neither the capacity nor the desire to lead the delivery of the action plan itself."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for giving us the opportunity to address, during this session, the issue of the relationship with Russia. As you certainly know, the Council discussed the relationship with Russia in depth some time ago, when we established the grounds and the rationale for the new EU-Russia agreement, and thus we consider it important that the negotiations for the new agreement are back on track. After all, Russia is our biggest neighbour, one of our key partners and an indispensable player on the international scene. Nowadays, when the economic crisis is hitting both of us equally hard, it is clear that confrontations will make neither of us any stronger. We are grateful to Janusz Onyszkiewicz for his report and the recommendations made in it. In general we share many of your concerns as well as objectives. I would now like to make a few remarks on the external security part of the new agreement, where the Presidency also plays a role in the negotiations. It is of the utmost importance that the new agreement should contain provision to ensure effective dialogue and cooperation with Russia, and should be based on common values, compliance with the existing international commitments, the rule of law and respect for democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is particularly important in relation to our common neighbourhood. Indeed, it is essential if we are to see a solution to long-standing conflicts. Conflict prevention is also an important objective. It needs to be pursued through both political dialogue and joint initiatives. There is already some movement with Russia on the scope of the political dialogue and external security part of the new agreement. But of course the devil is in the detail. The most interesting and challenging part of the negotiations is now beginning, as we begin to discuss concrete text proposals. Given that negotiations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to give you the details here. I can, however, assure you that we will seek to obtain substantial provisions on strengthening dialogue on the international scene, on the fight against terrorism, on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, on crisis management and on civil protection. It was agreed at the EU-Russia summit in Khanty-Mansiysk that our shared aim was to conclude a strategic agreement that will provide a comprehensive framework for EU-Russia relations for the foreseeable future and help to develop the potential of our relationship. This remains our objective and one that the Presidency, as well as the successive Presidencies, will continue to work towards. We stand ready to keep this Parliament informed of the progress and are grateful for the input which you have provided, in particular through the text of your resolution. Constructive, rational and mutually beneficial cooperation and fulfilment of international commitments by Russia, on the other hand, certainly could. Moreover, a dialogue and a constructive engagement are important means of defending our interests and promoting our values vis-à-vis Russia. This, in a nutshell, provided the main impetus for our decision to resume the negotiations on the new EU-Russia agreement, despite what happened in Georgia last August. The crisis and its implications continue, certainly, to overshadow our relations. The negotiations in no way legitimise Russia’s conduct in Georgia, including in the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the EU has its red lines clearly set in this respect. Our support for the territorial integrity of Georgia is clearly one of them. We continue to expect Russia to behave responsibly and to honour all its commitments. This in particular means that we will pay special attention to our common neighbourhood with Russia throughout the entire negotiation process. The crisis in Georgia has demonstrated how unresolved conflicts can remain volatile even after many years, and that military action is not a solution. We have to remind Russia that it has much to gain from behaving constructively towards its neighbours, and that it has much to lose if it continues on the path of confrontation. Russia has, after all, already proved that it knows how to behave towards central European neighbours that are now part of both the EU and NATO. We will continue to insist that Russia must abide by its international commitments and respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and other eastern European countries that make up its common neighbourhood with the EU. Full cooperation will also be expected from Russia as much as from Georgia at the Geneva talks. I do not intend to set out in detail the current state of negotiations with Russia on the new agreement. The Commission as the negotiator for the agreement will certainly be in a better position to update you on the process. I should also recall that we are only at the beginning of the process, which could take some time. We should not be discouraged if it only moves slowly at first. I am sure, however, that by the end of our Presidency we will have greater clarity on what both sides want the new agreement to cover."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members who have participated in today’s debate. They have made a constructive contribution to it. I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Krahmer, for his excellent hard work. Before I close, I would like to say a few words on some of the key amendments that have been discussed today. The Commission can support fully, in part, or in principle, Amendments 1, 5-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21, 27, 34-37, 40, 42-44, 46, 48-56, 58-62, 64-66, 68, 69, 71-73, 75 and 79. The amendments which the Commission cannot support are Amendments 2-4, 9-11, 15, 17, 22-26, 28-33, 38, 39, 41, 45, 47, 57, 63, 67, 70, 76-78, 80, 93, 97, 114, 115, 117, 129 and 133. Firstly, I welcome your broad support for the thrust of the Commission’s proposal and, in particular, for the strengthening of the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and the status of the BREF documents. This is the cornerstone of the Commission’s proposal. There are many amendments that are acceptable to the Commission, at least in part or in principle. In particular, many of the amendments help to clarify the text of the Commission’s proposal or to improve transparency in the development of the BREFs and in the permitting and enforcement practices of Member States. Better information and participation of the public in these decisions is very welcome. I also share the concerns expressed on the need to avoid the misuse of flexibility in setting permit conditions. As I mentioned earlier, minimum requirements can be very useful and necessary tools to tackle specific problems where certain sectors have not taken the necessary steps to implement BAT. However, the systematic setting of minimum requirements is not necessary and risks creating an additional administrative burden for little environmental gain. Therefore, I consider that minimum standards should only be set where needed to achieve a better implementation of BAT. In considering minimum requirements on large combustion plants, it is important to keep in mind the significant impacts that such operations have on the environment and on the health of European Union citizens. BAT for large combustion plants was agreed in 2006 and it is the Commission’s view that the minimum criteria should be applied from 2016. We need to ensure that the measures put in place for the sector bring it into line with BAT at the earliest opportunity and facilitate the achievement of the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. Another key element to ensure that the legislation is effective in its objectives is that of the provisions for compliance and enforcement measures. In the past, we have identified some shortcomings in this regard and it is, therefore, of paramount importance that the new legislation sets clear provisions to ensure the law is properly implemented. For this reason, the Commission’s proposal introduces minimum provisions for inspection, review of permit conditions and reporting of compliance. These changes will ensure the proper implementation of BAT and reduce distortions in competition. The Commission will be extremely vigilant on this issue. I would like to say a few words about the thresholds for intensive agricultural farms, mainly poultry. The same threshold is currently applied for all poultry, without taking into account the different types of species. The rearing of different species leads to different environmental impacts, in particular, due to the different weight of the animals. The proposed new thresholds have been set on the basis of the environmental impact of the species concerned. The new thresholds would include a limited number of additional farms compared to the current scope, and would reduce ammonia emissions in a cost efficient manner to meet the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, in some areas. I will provide Parliament’s secretariat with a list detailing the Commission’s position on the amendments."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their remarks, and shall now reply to some of those remarks. First of all, on the question of safety, safety of feed is guaranteed by the negative list of feed materials which cannot be used in feeds. The proposal contains the list of feed materials which are forbidden. The Commission will extend that list every time it is convinced that it is necessary to add to that negative list. On the other hand, I wish to remind you that there is a large list of maximum levels of contaminants, such as dangerous micro-toxins, heavy metals and dioxins, which has been in force, under the Directive on undesirable substances, since 2002. I would agree with all those who said, as I confirmed, that European food is safe. However, as I also indicated last night during our discussions, laws and regulations are as good as we make them, and we therefore have to remain vigilant and see to it that Member States, feed dealers and, indeed, the Commission, ensure that everybody sticks to their obligations in ensuring that laws really are enforced and that they are good laws. The recent Irish meat incident highlights the need for stringent enforcement and controls on legal requirements, and my services will continue to examine how that can be improved. I am confident that, once the new rules come into force, regulation of the feed market will be significantly improved, in the interests of both feed manufacturers and users. Last but not least, I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent contribution, and all Members for their constructive and positive role in reaching an agreement on this important initiative."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and its Chair, Mrs Berès, for this debate. The Commission welcomes Parliament’s support for SEPA, which is not only a self-regulatory initiative, but also a major public policy initiative reinforcing economic and monetary union as well as the Lisbon agenda. Parliament and the Commission clearly share the same vision and the same goal for SEPA. Let me, however, recall three important points. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the Commission has been very active in helping to drive forward the SEPA migration process, in particular, by putting pressure on public authorities to be early adopters. We will relentlessly continue our efforts as a SEPA catalyst. Secondly, although we share Parliament’s interest for an end date for SEPA, we do not believe that the time is right to carve an end date in stone. We have put a process in motion and are convinced that a lot of ground work is needed before such a commitment can be envisaged. Thirdly, I can confirm that the Commission will provide guidance on the compatibility of multilateral, interbank remuneration with competition rules. We know there is little time left before the entry into force of the SEPA direct debit, and that our guidance should therefore be available before November 2009. However, let me insist on one point: that guidance can only be provided subject to the industry supplying us first with concrete ideas for possible business models."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for what has been a very important debate, even if it was short and took place late in the evening. Since the beginning of this Commission’s term of office, as a Co-Chair, I have been very much preoccupied by Sri Lanka. There were moments when we had some hope – rather more at the beginning – but hope has now faded away. I wanted to take part in the Geneva Process, but it seems that was difficult for the Government of Sri Lanka. In any case, this process unfortunately broke down. I was also ready to go up to the north to start mediation, like my predecessor, Chris Patten. But the north was not ready – officially Mr Prabhakaran had measles or chicken pox. In any case, I am in complete agreement with Mr Gahler, who said – and this is also my own concern – that we should put people and humanitarian concerns first. As is so often the case, we have been the largest humanitarian donors in Sri Lanka. In 2008-2009, we allocated EUR 19 million for humanitarian assistance, which was then channelled through partners like the ICRC, the United Nations and also some international non-governmental organisations. These organisations are ready to help the affected populations, but they have real problems – which they tell us about – in gaining access to the conflict area. Since September 2008, the ICRC has been the only agency allowed to operate in the LTTE controlled areas in Vanni. The World Food Programme has been allowed to send some food convoys, but this has only been sufficient for around 50% of needs. Since 2008, we have provided another EUR 7 million in humanitarian assistance to the two organisations. We have also been pushing consistently, in both Colombo and Brussels, for better access to these populations by humanitarian organisations. Therefore, I can only say – together with the other Co-Chairs and also particularly with Norway – that we have used every opportunity to press the parties in conflict to implement the 2002 ceasefire agreement and to solve the conflict using peaceful means, but nothing has worked. Numerous calls for a return to negotiations have always been totally ignored and unfortunately, the military route has prevailed. The scope for intervention by the international community has narrowed more and more over the last three years, but not one of the Co-Chairs has abandoned the mission. We have all remained committed to contributing to a peaceful solution to the conflict, as can be seen from the last Co-Chairs’ press statement released on 3 February, of which I am sure you will all be aware. Therefore, what we must do now is again press for humanitarian access, get the humanitarian and civilian population out, and then try, when the time is right, to start to foster a political dialogue with the parties in conflict and try to persuade them that a political solution is the only way out. Otherwise, there will be a guerrilla war, which will not solve anything for this beautiful island. It was once a paradise and could become a paradise again."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur very much for all the hard work which she has put into this report and the close cooperation that we have had on this. We have worked very closely together, not just on this report, but, as she knows, along with other people, we have both been working on this issue for many years now, for the 10 years since I came into the European Parliament. I remember that we sat together on Article 13 hearings all that time ago. Now, eventually, we have got to the situation where we are debating an anti-discrimination directive, a possibility at long last that we might push through anti-discrimination legislation on all grounds not covered – disability, age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. We have waited many years for this. Let us just hope that we get that large majority. I have campaigned on disability and age for many years, but I was convinced quite some time ago that we could not leave anybody behind. We could not just go forward with a disability directive, and then an age directive, because I thought sexual orientation and religion would be left behind. That is why, in the own-initiative report last year, I asked for a single directive to cover all areas that were not yet covered. I am delighted that has happened. I am also very pleased we got such a large majority in Parliament for that own-initiative report. I know from the Commission and the Council that this was one of the reasons they thought it was safe to bring this proposal forward. That is why we have to get a very large majority for this report tomorrow. I would also like to say a very great thank you to Commissioner Špidla. I have thanked him at other times, but I wanted to thank him in the plenary because, without his support and help, I honestly do not believe that we would have this proposal on the table at present. So, Commissioner, a sincere thank you from a lot of us, for pushing this forward. I know you have been doing a lot of work on this yourself. We got it through the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We now need that large majority. Everyone should be treated equally across the EU. A wheelchair user or a guide-dog user should have free access anywhere within the European Union. Somebody of a different sexual orientation should be allowed to use any hotel room that they want to, and stay at any hotel when they go on holiday. All older people should have the right to have access to health care, whatever their age. People of a different religion should not be discriminated against. I urge all of you who are thinking of voting against this, please do not. This is the bedrock of the European Union. We were founded on human rights and anti-discrimination. Please vote for it."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank you all for some very clear and concise remarks. As I mentioned at the beginning, I will ensure that all your comments and considerations are transmitted immediately to Mr Lewandowski. As always, the Commission will try to act as an honest broker. We heard in the discussion today how many different wishes there are and how many political priorities you would like to have, so there is no question that this is a difficult exercise. I think it was Mr Garriga Polledo who said that, on the basis of his 16 years of experience, we have probably never had such a difficult situation. The same is true for the Member States. It was mentioned that the money will have to be spent wisely. I think it was Mr Lamassoure who said that it must be better spent. I can assure you that the Commission would like to work very closely with the European Parliament to ensure that the money that we get is spent as well as possible. Thank you for all your input. Just a few factual points: Mr Berman, on behalf of the Committee on Development, mentioned that development money – and particularly the fast-start money for climate change – should be additional. I am very glad to be able to say that the Commission’s fast-start money will be 100% new and additional. That is very important. Also, in response to what Mr Färm was hinting at – the necessity to ensure that this money will be aimed at the most vulnerable and least developed countries – that is also the case with the Commission money. I think those were the only factual matters. I will bring the whole wish list and all the priorities, as they have been expressed here, to Mr Lewandowski."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank you for this debate. I think it shows that there is a problem which needs to be fixed. The Council, under our leadership, did what it could in January. It took seriously this initiative to build the contingency or alternative plan and to push for a solution by setting the deadlines. That is what we can do. As regards the financial issues, I shall leave the floor to the Commission to respond. We now have excellent cooperation between Minister Langer and Commissioner Barrot, so we believe that we will be able to deal with that. Concerning the question of whether this is a political or a technical problem, we believe that this is just a technical problem. It is not a smokescreen, as has been suggested, to cover some political problems. No – the system must be operational as soon as possible. Regarding the comments by Mrs Grabowska: yes, we remember what it means to be in the waiting room. We were discussing this a year ago. All the countries that are interested in seeing some progress here are suddenly sharing experiences similar to ours. We are committed to setting out a technical solution which will allow participation by industries of additional countries, in accordance with the particular calendar. I shall limit myself to these few concluding remarks. I said a lot at the beginning. Now we will move on."@en1
"− Mr President, Members of Parliament have been extremely worried about the recent clampdown on the freedom of the press by the Venezuelan regime. As you know, media freedom is one of the foundations of a democratic society. It certainly includes the right to receive information from multiple pluralistic sources. Recently there have been attacks on media freedom by President Hugo Chávez. In August last year he ordered the closure of 34 radio stations through a refusal to renew their licences. This January President Chávez ordered off the air RCTV International and five other cable and satellite TV channels who failed to broadcast his official speech. Furthermore he has described using Twitter and the Internet to pass on anti-government information as terrorist activities. We protest against the death of two Venezuelan students who protested against this shutting-down of the free media…"@en1
"− Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, I thank you for the privilege of addressing you today, and I thank you even more for undertaking this vital initiative of intercultural dialogue. I salute you all, but in particular your visionary, wise and deeply humane President, Hans-Gert Pöttering. May I – in what I hope will be today my only breach of the separation between church and state, religion and politics – give my prayer and my blessing that God will bless all of you and all you do. Thank you. That is the first point the Bible makes: identity is dialogical. The second occurs soon after, in the first great tragedy that overcomes the first human children Cain and Abel. We expect brotherly love. Instead there is sibling rivalry and then murder, fratricide. And at the heart of this story in Genesis, Chapter IV, is a verse that is impossible to translate and in every English Bible I have ever read the verse is not translated, it is paraphrased. I am going to translate it literally and you will see why no one translates it that way. Literally the Hebrew means as follows: ‘And Cain said to Abel, and it came to pass when they were out in the field that Cain rose up against Abel and killed him.’ You can see immediately why it cannot be translated because it says ‘and Cain said’ but it does not say what he said. The sentence is ungrammatical. The syntax is fractured. And the question is, why? The answer is clear: the Bible is signalling in the most dramatic way, in a broken sentence, how the conversation broke down. The dialogue failed. And what do we read immediately afterwards? ‘And Cain rose up against his brother and killed him’. Or to put it simply: where words end, violence begins. Dialogue is the only way to defeat the worst angels of our nature. Dialogue therefore testifies to the double aspect of all human relationships, whether they are between individuals or between countries or cultures or creeds. Our commonalities, on the one hand, and our differences on the other. What we hold in common and what is uniquely ours. Let me put it as simply as I can. If we were completely different, we could not communicate, but if we were totally the same, we would have nothing to say. And that is all I have to say about dialogue, and yet I want to add that dialogue may not be quite enough. You see, between the late 18 century and 1933, there was dialogue between Jews and Germans, just as there was dialogue and even friendship between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or between Serbs and Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Dialogue brings us together, but it cannot always keep us together when other forces are driving us apart. Therefore, I want to add one other word, which played a significant part in healing fragmented societies. The word is ‘covenant’. It played a major role in European politics in the 16 and 17 centuries in Switzerland, in Holland, in Scotland and in England. Covenant has been part of American culture from the very beginning to today, from the Mayflower Compact in 1620, to John Winthrop’s speech aboard the in 1631, all the way through to the present. I do not know what Barack Obama will say when he makes his inaugural speech but he will either mention or allude to the concept of covenant. Covenant is, of course, a key word of the Hebrew Bible for a simple reason: biblical Israel was formed out of 12 different tribes, each of which had insisted on retaining its distinct identity. I speak as a Jew from within the oldest continuous cultural presence in Europe. I want to begin by reminding us that European civilisation was born 2 000 years ago in a dialogue, a dialogue between the two greatest cultures of antiquity: Ancient Greece and Biblical Israel – Athens and Jerusalem. They were brought together by Christianity, whose religion came from Israel but whose sacred texts were written in Greek, and that was the founding dialogue of Europe. And some of the greatest moments in European history in the intervening 2 000 years were the result of dialogue. I will mention just three. What is a covenant? A covenant is not a contract. A contract is made for a limited period, for a specific purpose, between two or more parties, each seeking their own benefit. A covenant is made open-endedly by two or more parties who come together in a bond of loyalty and trust to achieve together what none can achieve alone. A contract is like a deal; a covenant is like a marriage. Contracts belong to the market and to the state, to economics and politics, both of which are arenas of competition. Covenants belong to families, communities, charities, which are arenas of cooperation. A contract is between me and you – separate selves – but a covenant is about us – collective belonging. A contract is about interests; a covenant is about identity. And hence the vital distinction, not made clearly enough in European politics, between a social contract and a social covenant: a social contract creates a state; a social covenant creates a society. You can have a society without a state – that has happened at times in history – but can you have a state without a society, without anything to hold people together? I do not know. You can hold people together in many different ways: by force, by fear, by suppressing cultural difference, by expecting everyone to conform. But when you choose to respect the integrity of many cultures, when you honour what I call – as the President reminded us – the dignity of difference, when you honour that, then to create a society you need a covenant. Covenant restores the language of cooperation to a world of competition. It focuses on responsibilities, not just on rights. Rights are essential, but rights create conflicts that rights cannot resolve: the right to life against the right to choose; my right to freedom against your right to respect. Rights without responsibilities are the subprime mortgages of the moral world. What covenant does is to get us to think about reciprocity. Covenant says to each of us: we must respect others if we expect others to respect us; we must honour the freedom of others if they are to honour ours. Europe needs a new covenant and the time to begin it is now. Now, in the midst of financial crisis and economic recession, because in bad times people are aware that we all share a fate. The Prophet Isaiah foresaw a day when the lion and the lamb would live together. It has not happened yet. Although there was a zoo where a lion and a lamb lived together in the same cage and a visitor asked the zookeeper: ‘How do you manage that?’. The zookeeper said: ‘Easy, you just need a new lamb every day!’. The first took place between the 10 and 13 centuries in al-Andalus, in the great cultural movement initiated by the Umayyads in Spain. It began with an Islamic dialogue on the part of thinkers like Averroës with the philosophical heritage of Plato and Aristotle. The Islamic dialogue inspired Jewish thinkers like Moses Maimonides, and the Jewish dialogue inspired Christian thinkers, most famously Aquinas. But there was a time when the lion and the lamb did live together. Where was that? In Noah’s Ark. And why was that? It was not because they had reached Utopia but because they knew that otherwise they would both drown. Friends, last Thursday – six days ago – the Archbishop of Canterbury and I led a mission of the leaders of all the faiths in Britain, leaders of the Muslim community, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Jains, the Zoroastrians and the Baha’i, and together we travelled and spent a day in Auschwitz. There we wept together, and there we prayed together, knowing what happens when we fail to honour the humanity of those not like us. God has given us many languages and many cultures, but only one world in which to live together, and it is getting smaller every day. May we, the countries and the cultures of Europe, in all our glorious diversity, together write a new European covenant of hope. The second great moment of intercultural dialogue took place at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance when a young Christian intellectual, Pico della Mirandola, travelled to Padua, where he met a Jewish scholar, Rabbi Elijah Delmedigo, who taught him the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud and Kabbalah in their original languages. Out of that dialogue came the most famous statement of Renaissance values: Pico’s Oration on Human Dignity. The third and most poignant of them all has been the dialogue between Christians and Jews after the Holocaust, inspired by Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue and by Vatican II and Nostra Aetate. The result has been that, after almost 2 000 years of estrangement and tragedy, today Jews and Christians meet in mutual respect as friends. But I want to say more than this. As I read the Hebrew Bible, I hear from the very beginning God’s call to dialogue. I want to draw attention to two passages. I am not quite sure how this will go down in translation, so I hope anyone who is listening to me in translation will get it. I want to draw attention to two passages in the opening chapters of the Bible whose meaning has been lost in translation for 2 000 years. The first occurs when God sees the first man isolated and alone and He creates woman. And man, seeing woman for the first time, utters the first poem in the Bible: ‘Now I have found bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Aisha, woman, for she was taken from Aish, man’. Now this sounds like a very simple poem. It even sounds rather condescending, as if the man was the first creation and women were a mere afterthought. However, the real meaning lies in the fact that biblical Hebrew has two words for man, not one. One is Adam, and the other is Aish. This verse that I just quoted to you is the first time the word ‘Aish’ appears in the Bible. Listen again. ‘She shall be called Aisha, because she was taken from Aish’. In other words, the man has to pronounce the name of his wife before he even knows his own name. I have to say ‘you’ before I can say ‘I’. I have to acknowledge the other, before I can truly understand myself."@en1
"− Mr President, a large potential for new exporting opportunities lies in the Asian markets that have high growth rates but also, of course, high barriers to entry. Apart from the multilateral talks, an important way to overcome these barriers is through the leverage available to us in free trade agreement negotiations. Concerning the car industry specifically, I want to signal first of all that we also have an interest in enhancing market access for European cars in Korea. Our car exporters are by far the strongest importers on the Korean market, with strong growth rates. They can develop this further since they will benefit from the combination of elimination of tariffs – EUR 2 000 saved on a car worth EUR 25 000 – and the removal of technical obstacles. The agreement negotiated includes the most ambitious disciplines for non-tariff barriers ever negotiated with a third country. Korea will accept from day one that a car that conforms to international standards will be considered as complying with those Korean regulations that have been signalled by our industry as representing significant obstacles. There are also provisions by which Korea accepts the equivalence between European and Korean environmental regulations. Indeed, even before the agreement enters into force, Korea has agreed to apply certain transitional derogations from the Korean environmental standards important for our exporters and we are monitoring very closely discussions in Korea about new regulations to limit CO emissions in order to make them show that they are not an impediment to trade. We are aware of the sensitivities of the car sector. We defended long transition periods for the liberalisation of our most sensitive car segment, namely small cars. Tariffs will only be eliminated in year five of the agreement, and that allows time for adjustment. We should remember the significant Korean investment in the car sector in Europe. Moderately, we have changed the rules of origin by increasing the permissible limit of foreign value in Korean cars from 40% to 45%, and we agreed a bilateral safeguard clause which lets us put up tariffs in case of a surge of imports and a threat of injury to our industries. On duty drawback, my final point, this is nothing new. Such policies are legitimate under the World Trade Organisation. Duty drawback also does not create a significant competitive disadvantage for our car producers since our tariffs on car parts are generally very low and will be further reduced. And we have negotiated a special clause that would enable us to limit duty drawback efficiently. I underline the strength of support from European manufacturing sectors, as well as agriculture and service organisations, for this agreement. This is important, and it is a clear signal of our determination to pursue market access interest in key emerging Asian economies. That is why Member States have asked the Commission to launch a new generation of trade agreements with key Asian economies. These free trade agreements should be ambitious in creating new exporting opportunities for many sectors. With Korea, this is what we have achieved after two intensive years of negotiations. This is the most ambitious free trade agreement ever negotiated by the European Union. There is consensus in that in two of the three main sectors of our economy, the benefits from the free trade agreement are overwhelmingly in our favour: first of all, our competitive service providers will gain massively from the agreement. For example, in areas such as telecoms, transport, construction and environmental services, doing business in Korea will be much easier in the future. Secondly, for agricultural products, Korea will eliminate almost all of its particularly high tariffs – they average 35%! That will give a boost to farming exports of, amongst other things, pork, wine, whisky or dairy products. We will also secure the protection of European geographical indications, such as Parma ham, Rioja or Tokay. But the free trade agreement will also bring major benefits to European manufacturing exporters. Overall, European manufacturing exporters will save some EUR 1.2 billion of tariffs annually, of which EUR 800 million are saved on day one. For example, exporters of machineries would save EUR 450 million annually on annual duty payments while exporters of chemicals would save over EUR 150 million on duties. Duty elimination will also allow our exporters to strengthen their foothold in the Korean market, and thus expand sales. Korean customers buy some EUR 25 billion worth of EU goods every year. This makes Korea one of our most important export markets in Asia. In addition, there was a special focus on rules. The agreement includes transparency on regulation, efficient enforcement of commitments, better protection of intellectual property rights and ‘WTO-plus’ rules on subsidies which will all be to the benefit of all manufacturers selling in Korea. Moreover, ambitious disciplines have been established on industrial technical barriers to trade, notably for cars, electronics and pharmaceuticals based on the regulatory model of Europe and they respond to longstanding demands by European business in these sectors. Korea will need to changes its domestic regulations to comply with these commitments, whereas no such change would be needed in Europe."@en1
"− Mr President, according to the list someone else should be speaking, but thank you for calling me at this point. I was delayed coming to Strasbourg, as many can be, but I did see much of the countryside on the way. As you know, there is much pressure on farmers and the rural community. I want to thank the budget rapporteur for her work and for her commitment to keeping her colleagues informed at every stage of the process. There are some concerns around agriculture. I hope that the Commission’s optimism over market developments comes to fruition and is accurate, because if it is not I would be worried about the budgetary pressures in 2011 should the markets not evolve in the favourable way that the Commission anticipates. There have been problems in the past and we fear that these might happen again. It is important to mention in this budget debate the difficult situation around agriculture payments as we look beyond 2011. It is good that there will be no financial discipline required next year, and indeed I hope that position prevails, although it will be tight in 2012. However, this House needs to know that in 2013 we will be facing a situation where there will be reductions in payments to farmers where modulation applies, and that is before we have reform of the common agricultural policy. A simple message to the Commission is that agriculture is vulnerable and it is important for food security, for environmental protection and because it is the very heart of the European Union. It needs an adequate budget and that must be reflected in the resources that are made available to it. Market support measures are vital when we have a crisis, and that is why I stress my concerns that you need to be cautious about how the markets emerge in terms of agriculture. Looking today at the countryside looking at its best, I would say there is a price to be paid for a countryside and a rural fabric that will survive and thrive, and this needs to be reflected in the budgetary resources we make available to agriculture."@en1
"− Mr President, after hearing all the different contributions, it is clear that the Members’ main concern is the choice of the legal basis. I stated in my introduction the direction in which the Commission seeks to go, but I will certainly be very happy to take up your suggestions also. You know that we want the best development assistance for all countries, and this is the main thrust of our thinking. So let us work together in order to find the right solution."@en1
"− Mr President, again my thanks to the European Parliament for putting this on the agenda. It is a very serious subject and, as I hope you understood from my introduction, we share your concerns about the horrible breach of human rights that has happened in Conakry. There are concerns and worries about people still being detained, and we have asked for a complete investigation of what has happened and the release of the prisoners. I think we can say that the European Union has been extremely clear. The events have been condemned by Mr Solana, Mr De Gucht, the Presidency and now, as I know, also by a declaration of the ACP Group in the European Parliament. It is very good that the European Union is unanimous, concrete and concise in its condemnation of these horrible events. We are also acting in very close cooperation with other actors in this, so that the international community can condemn and act in a very coherent way. That is the only way we can really exercise pressure. We have the international contact group. There has been the appointment of the mediator, the President of Burkina Faso, which is very good, and he is a member of the contact group. Together with the contact group, of which the EU and the US are members, we have – in answer to your question, Mrs Lövin – called for Captain Camara’s resignation. The whole world community has asked for that to happen. We are also open to answering other questions and to discuss sanctions. We think it will have more effect if we do it together with the international community. There are different options on how you can target individuals and so on in this, and we need, in the coming days, to further discuss with international actors how we can coordinate those sanctions in order for them to have the maximum effect: with the African Union, with the contact group, with the US, etc. We have also, as I said, opened consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, and we have frozen all EU development aid, apart from the humanitarian aid and the assistance to the democratic transition. On fisheries – whether that can be part of it or not – I hear very clearly what you say. I can only encourage you to continue the discussions with the Commission. It is the Commission which is responsible for EU fishery policy. We are also discussing this with the Commission, and I am sorry they are not here right now. But you can be assured that we will keep on working with the international community to continue with the pressure and to push for a full investigation and, hopefully, also one day for free and fair elections in Guinea. My thanks to you and to the Members for this debate."@en1
"− Mr President, as one of the Tokyo Co-Chairs of the Sri Lanka peace process, the European Commission and I personally have been following the developments in Sri Lanka very closely. We are deeply concerned about the current situation and the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict, as expressed in the GAERC Council conclusions of 23 February and the Co-Chairs’ statement, issued locally on 3 February. We are particularly preoccupied about the plight of thousands of internally displaced persons – you are right – trapped by fighting in Northern Sri Lanka. We are no longer facing a crisis but what I think is already a humanitarian catastrophe. This was confirmed to us by a wide range of independent sources, including the UN and the ICRC. The Government’s recent announcement about opening two evacuation roads at the north and at the south of the safe zone is a positive step but we want to know how this will work in practice. We have called on the parties – the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan authorities – to protect the civilian population as required under international humanitarian law and to allow the safe and voluntary movement of people away from the combat zone. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army are responsible for the dramatic increase in civilian casualties during the past months. There is an immediate and urgent need to act to save lives in Sri Lanka, as was also confirmed by the UN Under-Secretary, Sir John Holmes, who drew attention to the high casualty rate, and also the ICRC. The Commission is convinced that the outcome of this crisis will have lasting consequences for peace, for reconciliation and for the unity of Sri Lanka and, in this context, strongly supports the call issued by Sir John Holmes to the Government of Sri Lanka to interrupt hostilities to allow time for the civilian population to get out safely and to the LTTE to let the civilians go and agree on a peaceful end to the fighting. The Co-Chairs have also appealed to the LTTE to lay down their arms but unfortunately, this call has been rejected, even ignored. We feel that the Government of Sri Lanka has an obligation to protect all its own citizens and agree to a humanitarian ceasefire – this was also said in the Council conclusions last time – to allow sick and wounded people to leave Vanni and to arrange for food and medicine to be let in. This is also what India suggested last weekend. We continue to be alarmed about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, against the background of reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and serious intimidation of the media. It is very important that the Government follows up the most prominent high-profile cases. There cannot be any impunity for such crimes. At the end of the day the European Commission continues to be convinced, as I myself would say, that there is no military solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. An inclusive dialogue is required, leading to a political settlement. Lasting peace and reconciliation can only be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place and by providing adequate space for all the communities. As a Co-Chair, I have always said there can only be a political solution by means of some sort of devolution package, which has been on the table, has been taken off the table, and now has to come back on the table."@en1
"− Mr President, as rapporteur, I had wanted to speak before my report, but I thank you for the opportunity to speak now, because it is important for all our sakes that a couple of things are put on the record. There is probably one issue that would unite all of us in this Chamber here this morning, and that is that first-reading agreements do justice neither to respecting parliamentary procedure nor to the substance of the legislation, especially when the issue is very complex and technical. First-reading agreements must, therefore, be rare and the exception, and only exceptional circumstances deserve such an exceptional response. My second procedural point is that there is no legal provision for the involvement of Heads of State in the codecision process. While aspects of the climate package were on the agenda at last week’s summit meeting, and a requirement from that summit that any future revisions on amendments to aspects of EU ETS be available to be considered by future summits, at the subsequent trialogue on Saturday morning in Brussels, I added, with the full support of all the shadow rapporteurs, a new recital to my report – subsequent to the summit – which was then accepted by COREPER on Saturday afternoon. That recital emphasised the unique and transformative nature of EU ETS legislation, but stated that this consultation with Heads of State and Government must in no way be taken as a precedent for any other legislation. It has been an epic legislative journey. I should like to thank Commissioner Dimas and his team, Minister Borloo and his team, with particular thanks to Ambassador Léglise-Costa for his enormous body of work. I should like to thank the staff of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – and allow me to single out Virpi Köykkä for her Trojan work – all our group staff, my personal assistant, Kavi, for her untiring work but, above all, my fellow shadow rapporteurs and their staff for a very good cooperative body of work."@en1
"− Mr President, as we did not have a plenary debate on this item and there was no possibility to table amendments following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, you either have to trust your rapporteur – myself – or reject the whole resolution. In my view, it is not a good system, but that is the current tool. Many aspects of the Natura 2000 Directives should be reopened in the near future in any case and hopefully, the legislative act will cover the wilderness areas as well, giving full opportunity for the next Assembly to go further on this beautiful topic. I hope that my resolution will become a basis for further legislative actions providing the possibility for members to improve it in the future."@en1
"− Mr President, before I address the subject of our debate today, let me start by expressing my deep condolences to relatives of the victims in the tragic incident in Baden-Württemberg today. I am sure that the Commission will be able to provide some additional information in response to the questions raised. I would simply like to assure you, the Members of this Parliament, that the Presidency will follow this issue closely and ensure that the way forward agreed last month by JHA ministers is strictly respected. Now let me turn to the subject of our debate today. Firstly, we are grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. This is an important issue, as you all know well. A number of operational difficulties have led to specific problems in getting SIS II up and running. The Presidency wishes, as you request, to be completely transparent with you about the history of and the background on this issue. Because of the negative results of the original tests on the system, further tests were conducted in November and December 2008. The final results of these operational system tests were only known in the second half of January 2009. At their informal meeting of 15 January 2009 in Prague, Justice and Home Affairs Ministers were informed by the Commission that the outcome of these tests had been less than satisfactory. The ministers agreed immediately on the need to implement a new global SIS II management approach, involving Member States working together with the Commission. The new management approach will provide for closer monitoring of the project, thereby allowing for early warning of any potential difficulties. It was also agreed that measures would be taken at a subsequent JHA Council, which took place on 26 and 27 February 2009. At that meeting, the Council agreed in its conclusion to invite the Commission to keep Parliament and the Presidency of the Council fully informed about problems related to SIS II and the way forward. This Parliament has asked whether the problems identified to date will require the system to be rebuilt. According to the information received by the Council on the status of the SIS II project, a number of problems persist. However, we understand that the view of the Commission is that all outstanding issues can be resolved without a major redesign of the SIS II application. At its February meeting, the Council endorsed the implementation of the SIS II analysis and repair plan, which will allow for the identification of all issues and their immediate solution, as well as the evaluation of the technical architecture so as to ensure a stable and flawless SIS II system. Nevertheless, the Council also agreed that the contingency plan should be followed in case serious problems emerge which could not be resolved. As far as an alternative to SIS II is concerned, the JHA Council in February welcomed the completion of the feasibility study serving as a basis for creating a workable, alternative technical scenario for developing SIS II based on SIS I+ evolution as a part of the contingency plan. The Council also requested that as soon as possible, and by May 2009 at the latest, a report containing an in-depth assessment and comparison of both scenarios should be submitted to the Council by the Presidency and the Commission. The Council will assess, on the basis of this report, the progress made on SIS II development and, as far as the alternative scenario is concerned, will examine the prospect of achieving the objective of SIS II as set out in the legal framework governing the establishment, operation and use of SIS II, on the technical basis of SIS I+ evolution. This examination will be carried out as soon as possible and at the latest by the Council meeting on 4 and 5 June 2009. As to the details requested by Parliament on the resolution of the outstanding problems and, in particular, the financial aspects, the Council invited the Commission not only to inform the European Parliament about the problems related to SIS II, but also to inform both Parliament and the Council fully and on a regular basis about the expenditure figures related to the central SIS II project and to measures taken to ensure complete financial transparency. On the basis of the report requested from the Presidency and Commission, the Council will, at the latest by its meeting in June 2009, discuss the calendar for entry into operation of SIS II. This will take into account the provisions on time schedules set out in Parliament’s resolution of 24 September 2008 on the draft Council regulation on immigration from the Schengen Information System – SIS I+ – to the second-generation Schengen Information System – SIS II. This was incorporated into Article 19 of the Council Regulation of 24 October."@en1
"− Mr President, before we vote on the resolution I tabled on the accession process for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I wish to make three technical remarks so that everybody can decide on the correct texts. First remark: where it speaks about the Macedonian negotiator in paragraph 12, the text should be ‘the negotiator of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. This is entirely in line with what we decided on when voting on my reports of 2007 and 2008. Second remark: in paragraph 18, the Macedonian Orthodox Church is the official name of the biggest religious community in the country. This is mentioned in order to distinguish it from the Serbian Orthodox group. This use of the word ‘Macedonian’ cannot be replaced by any reference to any state name. As it is the official name of an institution, I propose surrounding the name with inverted commas. Third remark: as regards the translation of the word ‘pending’ in paragraph 10 in the phrase ‘pending full implementation of the key priorities of the Accession Partnership’, the French and Italian versions – at least – differ from the texts in English, German and Dutch. For all final translations I propose using the original English version."@en1
"− Mr President, behind the Commission consultative paper on debtors’ assets is the concern that late payment and non-payment of debts jeopardise the interests of businesses and consumers. This is particularly the case when the creditor and the enforcement authorities have no information about the debtor’s whereabouts or his or her assets. The problem can be resolved where the debtor has assets in the EU and it is possible to trace them and bring legal proceedings. The Commission, in its report, suggested drawing up a manual of national enforcement laws and practices and highlighted the possibility of increasing access to population registers. It also raised questions on whether enforcement authorities should be given better access to social security and tax registers. The proposal suggested that the cooperation between public enforcement bodies might be improved and, lastly, it put forward the idea of a European assets declaration, which would oblige debtors to disclose all their assets in the European judicial area, possibly backed by sanctions. My report, as voted by the committee, suggested that creditors would benefit from the introduction of a simpler, more flexible procedure, effective throughout the EU, to obtain an order to disclose information about assets which may then be made the subject of a judgement. Such measures could take the form of an interim payment order, giving the creditor immediate payment pending resolution of the underlying dispute. The report also calls for a study into how the present national systems work, with a comparison between common-law countries, such as Britain, and other European jurisdictions, and how existing arrangements could be improved. It also highlights the need to consider areas in which further cooperation with Member States could have a positive effect and how the proposals will work alongside existing data protection and human rights legislation. We have endeavoured to shape the report along these lines and the compromises arrived at by the committee have already ironed out some of the discrepancies between Member States’ legal systems. Many of the additions we have made are designed to make the proposal more transparent and easier to use for the creditor. It will therefore be imperative to ensure that the proposed manual of national enforcement laws and practices is kept updated and that the information is provided in easy-to-use format and that it should be written in an accessible language. It will also be crucial for the initiative to act in tandem with – rather than replacing the work of – national courts. This will require the legislation to be restricted only to cross-border cases. By bearing this caveat in mind, the enforcement of this legislation will made to work efficiently and proactively. Overall the report will do much to help small businesses and enterprising individuals to overcome a significant obstacle to their success because they lack the resources of large enterprises to track down debtors and bring legal action against them. Small businesses are affected disproportionately by people defaulting on payments. If companies are thereby discouraged from trading abroad, this represents a real threat to the very functioning of the common market. It will be vital to protect the activities of small businesses at this difficult time because SMEs make up a large proportion of our economy. I would like to thank the Legal Affairs Committee secretariat and to praise the excellent support they have given me on this report. Thanks must also go to colleagues from other groups who have made very constructive suggestions. What is key, I believe, is for this legislation to be brought forward as soon as possible. I call on the Commission to act on Parliament’s recommendations with urgency. Much of the good work that the Member States have been doing in responding to the market downturn has to be focused for large-scale enterprises."@en1
"− Mr President, by its very nature this report contains a great deal of statistics. You can look at, read and analyse those, but obviously the work of the committee throughout the last 12 months is there on view. This committee that I sit on is a peculiar committee of Parliament. It has very direct links with citizens and it deals with problems raised by individuals and groups. Yes, people come to this committee with problems that we very often cannot solve, but at least they have a port to call on and, where cases are inadmissible, we try to redirect. We deal with many, many problems from across Member States but, as the statistics show, some countries use the services of the committee more widely than others, perhaps because there are members of the committee who are from those countries and therefore they attract problems from their constituents. I am always fascinated by the reality, particularly in an Irish context, that sometimes people complain that Europe is too powerful and yet, when they have a problem and turn to Europe for help, they sometimes complain that Europe is not powerful enough. I think that is quite significant. The Petitions Committee works, in my view, on the basis of ‘soft power’ and I think the work of the last 12 months has been about trying to influence Member States who are not implementing legislation in the manner that they should to change their ways. But we can only work by virtue of the people who come to us with problems and address them and their particular needs. I want to talk about some of the issues we dealt with, not in detail but just to give a flavour. Obviously, the environment is the major area where complaints come to us from citizens of the European Union. Some of the major ones relate to water quality. The Baltic Sea issue was a very contentious one dealt with by the committee in harmony with other committees of the Parliament. Property rights are a very major concern for citizens and one that I fear will become increasingly so, if I judge by the complaints coming into my own constituency office from citizens who have purchased properties across Member States of the European Union. Our powers in this regard are limited but this does not mean that we cannot speak on these matters and try and make improvements. In relation to business directories – where companies, individuals, schools, have been trapped into paying money to companies that publish names and then require payment, where people initially did not believe payment was necessary, or indeed required, or worse still, where people did not want the service at all – we are still inundated by individuals who are trapped and feel powerless to resist the pressures of these unscrupulous business directory companies. We have called for the Commission to take action in this regard. We also stress in this report that we are concerned about the lack of progress on Equitable Life, on which the Petitions Committee did some work in 2007 and on which I chaired the Committee of Inquiry. We would urge the UK authorities to take on board all of our recommendations: apologise, yes, but also compensate those who were so severely affected. In my final few seconds, let me talk about the committee itself and the procedures under which we work. We would rather only admissible petitions came our way and we need to work very hard with citizens so that they know what we can and cannot deal with. I want the timeframe in which complaints are dealt with to be improved as we go forward. As one who has served on this committee in this parliamentary term, I believe that, because it deals directly with citizens, it has a great role to play in reducing what I discussed in a school in Ireland yesterday, the so-called democratic deficit. At least people come here to the Parliament and they are heard and listened to. I think that is extremely important. As we move to another year, let me thank the secretariat of the committee, the group staff and my own staff for their assistance in this report."@en1
"− Mr President, can I start off by first of all thanking the Committee on the Internal Market’s shadow rapporteurs from all the groups, their staff and advisers? I think that in the Internal Market Committee we can all be proud that we have reached a consensus on increased transparency and ways to finally eliminate the problem of bill shock. Bill shock was not good for the reputation of the mobile operators but more importantly, bill shock was not good for consumers. However, when it comes to price capping, I still have some concerns. We need to ask which consumers will benefit from the Soviet economics of price caps. Given that at most only 35% of consumers actually roam and that the figure for regular roamers is much lower and, as the Commissioner herself admitted, given that this legislation will mostly benefit a narrow group of privileged consumers such as Commission officials, MEPs, lobbyists and businessmen, let us hope that we are not robbing the poor to pay for cheaper phone calls for the rich."@en1
"− Mr President, could I start by thanking all my shadow rapporteurs, and indeed the French Presidency for facilitating an early second-reading agreement? It allowed the extrapolation from a major species to a minor species of the same family, ruminant to ruminant, fish to fish, chicken to other poultry. In 2008, after eight years’ experience, the CVMP issued a new guideline. The Risk Analysis approach for residues of veterinary medicinal products in food of animal origin. This describes a risk-based approach of extrapolation of an MRL for a substance from one or more species to additional species. This guideline allows the extrapolation of MRLs from data on the three major species to all species, provided the MRLs set for the three major species are similar or identical. The text of this review before us simply provides a legal basis for the current practice of extrapolation in the interests of veterinary medicines availability and animal welfare. Two amendments specifically target the lack of availability of species-specific medicines for equidae (I must declare an interest) across a range of therapeutic and welfare needs, including the concept of ‘clinical benefit’ and not just the requirement that it is ‘essential’ to have a medicinal product added to the positive list of substance for equidae referred to in the Veterinary Medicines Directive. In clearly defined circumstances, certain products used for equidae will not have to have MRLs but will have to respect a six-month withdrawal period. Perhaps there is a declaration – may I ask through the Chair – that the Commissioner is going to put on the record: I recall a discussion in relation to this issue some months ago concerning a review of the Veterinary Medicines Directive. This is a rather technical proposal as it aims to update the existing EU regime, the main purpose of which is to protect public health by limiting the exposure of consumers of food of animal origin to residues of pharmacologically active substances present in veterinary medicines and biocidal products. This is achieved by setting safety thresholds or maximum residue levels (MRLs) for approved substances and by banning substances which are either found to be unsafe or in respect of which a safety profile cannot be scientifically established. MRLs alone do not protect consumers. Consumers are directly protected by setting an appropriate withdrawal period before slaughter and by having controls in place to monitor it. In practice the withdrawal periods are set using a high safety factor which will reflect the amount of data available at the current stage of product development. We have reached an agreement on the key issues. First of all, extrapolation of MRLs set for one species to another; secondly, adopting within the EU MRLs set internationally within the Codex Alimentarius; and, thirdly, creating a framework setting MRLs for food imported from third countries. We managed to clarify the measures which need to be taken when unauthorised substances are found either in EU-produced food or in food imported from third countries, as well as clarifying the basis for reviewing these reference points for action (RPAs): that is, the maximum level established for control purposes for any unauthorised substance in the light of any new data. The question of setting MRLs for certain biocidal products such as disinfectants used in the animal environment was also agreed on, particularly in regard to the financing aspects of their authorisation and their dossiers. The establishing of an MRL for a pharmacologically active substance requires an expensive data package of toxicology and metabolism studies. This is too costly for certain less common food species, so-called ‘minor species’, as the market for veterinary medicines for these is small – so-called ‘minor uses’. Setting an MRL is the first step that must be accomplished before an application can be submitted to the regulatory authorities for authorisation of a veterinary medicine for a food-producing species containing a pharmacologically active substance. So this Minor Use/Minor Species (MUMS) issue is a problem urgently in need of resolution as it creates potential animal welfare and food safety issues. Vets have a duty of care and will always try to treat a sick animal. Under present legislation they are often forced to resort to unlicensed medicines. The lack of an MRL also prevents authorities from being able to establish a proper withdrawal period for a medicine. The current MRL Regulation does not require MRLs to be set for individual species. The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) sets MRLs for individual species, following an initial cautious approach. In 1997 and following five years’ experience, the CVMP reviewed all the MRLs that had been set and concluded that it was not necessary to set MRLs for individual species as the MRLs for a particular substance are nearly always similar or identical. That same year, the CVMP issued a guideline on the establishment of MRLs for minor species. It defined minor food-producing species as all species except cattle, pigs and poultry, and they included salmonidae."@en1
"− Mr President, first and foremost, I wish to express my gratitude to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and particularly to the rapporteur, Ms Riera Madurell, for supporting our proposal for the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure. Listening to you was music to my ears! Your unwavering support in this issue could be of great importance! Let me also thank the ITRE shadow rapporteurs for their constructive support. Together, we are coming an important step closer to a legal framework which will allow Member States to collaborate on the construction of new large research infrastructures, which are becoming increasingly complex and expensive, and which can only be built if several European countries work together. You have discussed the new legal instrument in depth, and you have made many amendments which will help to clarify the text and give it a better structure, notably regarding definition, scope and status, and by introducing references to the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). The Commission will make all possible efforts to support the implementation of these amendments by the Council. We are especially glad to see that we agree on the most vital aspect of the discussions taking place right now in Council, and which risks blocking adoption – I mean the VAT issue. As you know, all Member States agree that it is necessary to exempt research infrastructures set up by several countries from taxes in the host country. Many times, for working purposes, it is addressed as a tax exemption issue, which creates some confusion. In reality, it concerns only the implementation of the existing VAT Directive, which has already been agreed and adopted by the Council. The real question is whether European research infrastructure should be given the status of international organisations, as defined in the VAT Directive and, as such, be exempt from the VAT payment. Therefore, we are not talking about fiscal harmonisation but about setting up the legal entities related to research infrastructures. Both the legal services of the Commission and of the Council have clearly stated that this is the right place. This is consequently purely a political decision on how important Member States consider the setting up of new world-class research facilities in Europe to be."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I think it is important to say that no one should be against increasing the level of safety and strengthening the safety rules. There must be no tendency, just because one dislikes nuclear power and is against its use, to underplay the importance of the rules we need. In that sense, I think it is a step forward that we have a common Community framework because it creates a consistency, a transparency and an opportunity to ensure our common development towards higher standards. This directive really does apply to existing power plants because it increases the importance and the independence of national regulators – which is crucial – and it paves the way for us to secure higher and higher requirements in order to have, as it were, a ‘race to the top’ regarding safety. Let us be very frank about this. We will have nuclear power in the future, whatever all of us here today agree about on this issue. In my view, it is important that we can lay the ground for having more nuclear power plants. They must be credible and there must exist a credibility in public opinion, but – even more importantly – there must be a substantial, real safety in managing nuclear power, as there should be in every other thing we do. The existing rules are good and strong, but we are making them more consistent, and that is a step forward. I would like to thank you for your cooperation and for the discussion. I think that we have achieved a better result, and I hope that the Council will listen to this opinion."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for its work on this dossier, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, as well as all the shadow rapporteurs, who all played an important role. Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has managed to steer discussions during the negotiations with great skill, and we are very grateful to him. The compromise package maintains the high level of feed safety achieved in the EU. It strikes the right balance between consumer protection and intellectual property rights. It removes the burden of the pre-market authorisation procedure for bio-proteins, modernises the labelling of feed through proper information for the customer and places coregulation at the heart of legislative procedures. It improves market transparency through the notification system for new feed materials, facilitates innovation and competitiveness in the EU feed business and marks a concrete step against the misleading of feed users – be they farmers or pet owners. The result of the negotiations is the compromise package submitted for your vote, which amounts to simplification and modernisation of the current legal framework. The provisions concerning the so-called ‘open declaration’ allow for a more modern type of labelling. Feed materials incorporated into compound feed for food-producing animals will have to be labelled by weight, in descending order. On top of this, the exact percentage of weight has to be indicated for highlighted feed materials, and in the case of voluntary labelling. Furthermore, the provision that certain information concerning compound feed can be transferred from the competent authorities to the purchasers on grounds of urgency improves the appropriate information to the user in cases such as feed contamination incidents. In this context, the Commission makes the following declarations. First, in order to adapt Annex III on the tolerances for the compositional labelling of feed materials and compound feed to scientific and technical development, the Commission and its services envisage taking up examination of that Annex. In this context, the Commission will also consider certain feed materials with a moisture content in excess of 50%. Second, with regard to the labelling of additives, the Commission will study whether the principles of information through labelling of feed could also apply to the additives and premixtures authorised under the Regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition. Finally, the Commission understands that any urgencies relating to human and animal health and the environment may include urgencies generated, among other things, by negligence, international fraud or criminal acts."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Members of Parliament for their comments and remarks on different aspects of the strategy. Your level of commitment demonstrates that the strategy will be a subject of interest in the forthcoming years, which is good. I will be unable to respond to all comments and issues raised in the debate or in your statements. I would like just to refer to three broad groups of issues. First, the shape. I would like to say that the strategy has been designed in line with the objectives and intentions of Member States. The Commission did not interfere in the selection of priorities. The Commission did not shape the priorities, so the ideas of including certain projects or modifying certain priorities is, of course, possible. However, it is to be agreed in the future work related to the implementation of the strategy. I want to assure you that the strategy is a kind of living animal and it is, to a great extent, exposed to future modifications should Member States and stakeholders wish so. Second point: on management and governance. Here I would like to underline that there is a need for a clear division of tasks, for a clear division of labour and responsibilities. I think that we should not delude ourselves. The responsibilities of Member States, of the Commission and of other organisations involved in the management. At this moment, I would also add that we want to involve local governments in the process of implementing the strategy as well as third countries, as was already mentioned by the Minister. Of course we foresee reporting concerning progress made in relation to implementation to Parliament. Finally, the last issue is financing. Several Members mentioned the need for additional funds for new projects etc. I want to explain that the principle of no new additional financing was adopted at the very beginning of the creation of the strategy. At present, we have more or less three options. We can regulate the use of existing EU funds, for example, by changing criteria for selecting new projects. The second possibility is having recourse to other sources like international financial institutions and finally, although it is difficult at a time of economic recession, we can still try to use national resources. In this respect, I look forward to the work of the conference to be held in Stockholm because this is the conference which may shape the future approach of Member States and the Commission to the macro-regional approach in the future and it should also embrace the financing of potential future strategies. That is why I feel that it will be a good moment to look at the overall macro-regional approach in Stockholm in the forthcoming days."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this debate. I believe it was very useful. If you had listened to the debate in the last Council meeting during lunch, you would have seen a similar will to cope with the problem, but also an appreciation of the complexity of the problem we are discussing. It has a moral and political dimension, but also a security and legal dimension. We all agree that President Obama’s decision to close Guantánamo was an important and good one, which we all appreciate and which is applauded by practically all of you here. But now that we are discussing the consequences and what we can do to express solidarity – and our interest here is to act in transatlantic harmony – we, of course, see that the problem is a complex one. Martin Schulz has said that we cannot fight terrorism and, at the same time, get into a conflict over fundamental rights. He is perfectly right, but Hartmut Nassauer has said that there are two dimensions: one is the moral one and the other concerns security. He is also right, and that is exactly why the Ministers for Justice and home affairs have to discuss this as well. From the political perspective, it is not just a flexing of moral muscles, nor should we approach this problem just out of guilt. It is certainly more complex than that. Graham Watson spoke of the need to approach this with one voice. Again, he is certainly right but, at the same time – because this also concerns the legal problem and the competence issue – we cannot force Member States to invite the detainees from Guantánamo on demand. If you had to solve this problem by deciding to invite those detainees to your homes – imagine taking on the responsibility of the Ministers for the Interior – you would certainly think twice about how this problem is to be handled. I certainly do not think it should be approached by the Council and the Member States as an issue of horse-trading – not at all. It is not about washing ourselves but not getting wet. At the core of the problem is simply the fact that the decision to close Guantánamo is, of course, the primary responsibility of the United States, the country which built the facility. But we have – and have to have – the goodwill to express solidarity and to be cooperative in solving the problem. There is also the tactical debate. Should we offer this on a gold plate now, or should we wait until a request has been made? But if we do receive a request, we need to be prepared to react. Therefore, the Council started to discuss this seriously on the second day after President Obama’s decision. I do not think we can underestimate the security issue – as you have pointed out – as it is a simple fact that some of the inmates who were released re-engaged in terrorist activity, and it is a simple matter of fact that one man, Mr Said al-Shihri, is now the deputy head of al-Qa’ida in Yemen. So the US has to start the serious work of clearing up who those people are, and we have to break with them. Legally, I think we have to be aware that the decision on the admission of foreign nationals to EU Member States is the national competence of the Member States. This is one level. However, on a second level, there is the agreement that we should now work towards a European framework in which to embed the national decision. Both the Schengen and the Dublin Agreements call for a European approach because the security of all Schengen members will be affected in some way by the decision of the individual Member States. So there is an internal imperative for a coordinated approach. Furthermore, the EU is looking into the possibility of assisting the US with the resettlement and rehabilitation of former detainees in third countries. Some of you have raised the question of speed: can we act faster than we are doing now? I think we should be aware that the discussion has only just begun. It has only been one week. The questions that have to be addressed are really complex and will need some time, although President Obama himself has requested a review of the prisoners’ files and has set a one-year deadline for the closure of Guantánamo. One should not expect the Council to be ready to fix all these complex problems in a matter of a few days. Furthermore, it has to be kept in mind that the primary responsibility for Guantánamo rests with the US. Although the Member States express their readiness to work on a coordinated approach, the issue has a bilateral dimension as well as the multilateral one. A clear position of the respective Member States on the resettlement of detainees is not yet known. The meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, which is to take place later this month, will be very useful here. In the meantime, the anti-terrorist coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, is also working on various option papers here. So that is my summary on Guantánamo, which occupied most of the time. On the other issue of illegal detention, Mr Fava’s favourite issue, I will just repeat what has been said several times by my predecessors: the allegation concerned the involvement of national intelligence agencies; the supervision of those agencies is the responsibility of individual Member States, and the Council has no power here to act beyond what was done."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all may I convey the regrets of Commissioner McCreevy for not being able to attend. The Commission also supports the continued legal validity of existing national direct debit mandates under SEPA migration. However, this is a legal matter for national authorities to solve, for example, by using the opportunity provided by the Payment Services Directive’s implementation. The fifth question related to how the Commission is tackling the MIF issue for card payments. This work is progressing primarily through the Commission’s assessment under the competition rules of the two major international card schemes, namely MasterCard and Visa. On 19 December 2007, the Commission decided that the MasterCard MIFs for cross-border card payments with MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer credit and debit cards were not compatible with the competition rules. MasterCard is appealing the Commission’s decision. In March 2008, the Commission opened proceedings to establish whether Visa Europe’s MIF constitutes an infringement of Article 81. Discussions with Visa are ongoing as well. The Commission seeks to maintain a level playing field for MasterCard and Visa Europe as well as for the other payment card schemes which might emerge in the future. Your penultimate question asks if the Commission should propose a concrete solution to the MIF issue. In a market economy, it is incumbent upon industry to propose an appropriate business model. In relation to cards, as I have said, discussions are ongoing with Mastercard and Visa. In relation to SEPA direct debit, the Commission is willing to assist industry by providing urgent guidance within the framework of a sustained dialogue with the banking industry and on the basis of contributions by the relevant market actors. This guidance should be provided by November 2009 at the latest. And your final question asks what specific measures the Commission intends to propose to make sure that SEPA migration does not lead to a more expensive payment system. In the Commission’s opinion, this should not happen. Firstly, SEPA should foster competition and increase operational efficiency through economies of scale – both producing downward price pressure. Secondly, SEPA should also increase transparency, which will limit cross-subsidisation and hidden pricing, although optically, some users may perceive the switch from high hidden pricing to low visible pricing as a price increase. Here, clear communication by banks will be important. Well, this is indeed a long question but I believe both the question and the draft resolution on SEPA implementation correctly identify the key issues we need to resolve to make a success of SEPA. Third, the Commission is carefully monitoring the impact of SEPA on customers by launching studies. Finally, we agree that there is concern that efficient national debit card schemes may be replaced by more expensive alternatives. However, there are initiatives that could develop into a new pan-European debit card scheme and an overall backstop is provided by the existing powers of EU and national competition authorities. Therefore, in conclusion, SEPA should result in a more efficient payment system and adequate safeguards under EU and national competition policy exist. I therefore very much welcome this Resolution and Parliament’s strong support for SEPA. The first question asks how the Commission intends to promote and foster migration to SEPA instruments. SEPA is primarily a market-driven project, but given the substantial benefits to the wider economy, the Commission has sought to encourage SEPA migration, for example by acting as a catalyst to raise the political profile of SEPA through our SEPA Progress Report and by encouraging early migration by public authorities. And, also, by striving itself to be an early adopter of SEPA. And finally, as announced in last week’s Commission proposal ‘Driving European Recovery’, by coming forward with proposals to ensure that the full benefits of SEPA are realised. The second question asks if a critical mass of payments will have migrated by the end of 2010. Clearly we favour rapid migration to keep extra costs during migration to a minimum. Although the SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT) has been successfully launched, less than 2% of payments have migrated. Furthermore, the Sepa Direct Debit will only be launched later this year. So the current pace of migration is too slow to attain critical mass migration by 2010. The third question was on the necessity of a clear and binding end date. We see the strong merits of fixing an end date and, of course, 2012 does not seem unreasonable. However, for many Member States this remains a very sensitive question. We therefore favour establishing a clear process to examine this question, by collecting information on the impact of an end date on different stakeholders and launching a meaningful debate with them. This could pave the way for some political endorsement and, if needed, a possible legislative proposal, for example, at the end of the year. Your fourth question asks how to enhance legal certainty for the SEPA Direct Debit in relation to the MIF and existing mandates. We need a temporary solution to the business model problem to provide legal clarity and get the SEPA Direct Debit successfully launched. That is why the Commission fully supports the efforts of Parliament and the Council to find a temporary solution within the context of the revision of the Regulation on cross-border payments."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all, I would like to confirm the undertaking I gave, on behalf of the Commission, to carry out the mid-term review of the financial instruments in 2009. This was in response to Parliament’s request during the final negotiations on the instruments. Given that we want to cover known ODA activities, it seems likely that Article 181a of the Treaty will be the most appropriate legal basis, since it covers economic, financial and technical cooperation. However, before making any proposal, the Commission will consider the question carefully in the light of the position expressed by Parliament. It would be helpful to have Parliament’s position so that we can finalise our proposals before the elections, as we promised. Finally, I see that the report calls for more resources. We will have to look into it. You know the very tight situation of Heading 4 of the financial framework. One could argue that emerging countries are in transition and that the current assistance envelope should accompany that transition – that is, with a gradual shift from the development focus to non-ODA activity. We will examine this as part of the review. These are the Commission’s initial considerations on the report that we are discussing today. We consider it to be a good basis for our common work, and I look forward to hearing what the Members have to say. That review will take the form of a communication, accompanied by legislative proposals where appropriate. The adoption of the communication is foreseen for April 2009 and is included in the Commission’s legislative work programme. The review is about the implementation of the instruments. It should be distinguished from the other mid-term review currently underway – and also foreseen in the regulations – which relates to the programming documents and the strategy papers for 2011-2013. This new programming will give rise to a round of democratic scrutiny, as for the first programming exercise covering 2007-2010. The two exercises are different, but they are complementary. It is important to fix issues related to instruments before the new programming period. The strategy and programming review will take place during 2009 in order to be ready in 2010 for democratic scrutiny by Parliament. As regards the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), our preliminary reflections confirm an issue that will be at the core of the review: the legislative gap as regards non-ODA activities for countries covered by the DCI. What are these non-ODA activities? They are of various natures, but the current four preparatory actions initiated by this Parliament give a good outlook on what we are talking about: cooperation with middle-income countries in Asia and Latin America, which is not covered by the DCI, and business and scientific exchanges with China and India. On these kinds of activities, we agree with you on the need to have legislation to cover measures which promote EU concerns in DCI countries. This could be done either through a new legal instrument or through amending the existing Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI) Regulation. When we prepared the new external relations instruments in 2006, we agreed that they should also cover the external dimension of our internal policies. We agreed that this could be done under the legal basis for external actions. This represented a considerable simplification compared to the previous situation. It will be difficult for the Commission to follow this approach. We consider that the legal basis must reflect the objectives and content of the instrument. We recognise that there is a problem with non-ODA activities. By their nature, such activities do not qualify as development assistance. Therefore, a proposal that deals only with such activities cannot fall under development cooperation – under Article 179, as you mentioned."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Members for their comments and the points that have been raised in this debate, and also for accepting the request for urgency. As I stated at the start, the measures agreed in Marrakesh need to be transposed as soon as possible in order to apply from the start of this fishing season. This year will clearly be a test of our ability to demonstrate our commitment to the sustainability of this endemic stock. I cannot emphasise enough the crucial importance for all contracting parties, not least our own fishers, to respect the newly-agreed measures. This is the only way to provide a chance for the survival of the stock. Not respecting the new recovery plan will have serious consequences and will lead to a collapse of the stock. On the point that was raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, I cannot agree more that, for the recovery plan to succeed, we need to bring about a reduction of capacity, in particular, of the purse seine fleet, which is the one which causes most pressures on the bluefin tuna stock. In this regard, I would like to refer to the fact that last year, we had agreed on a restructuring package which was triggered because of the fuel crisis and we are encouraging Member States to make use of this restructuring package in order to bring about a reduction of the fleet, in particular, of the purse seine fleet. We are hearing some encouraging news with regard to one particular Member State, France, which is undertaking to encourage certain fishers to decommission their vessels in order to bring about a reduction in capacity. We need to see this happening also in the other Member States such as Italy, in particular, which suffers from a significant overcapacity. We are therefore, at this present moment, engaging in discussions with the Italian authorities in order to see whether they can effect something in this regard in the very short term. I need to underline the fact that last year, we closed the fishery early so as not to come under any pressure from any Member State or any group of Member States. We closed the fishery early: immediately when, according to our own calculations, the overall Community quota was exhausted. This year, also as a result of the annual fishing plans that have been agreed on the Community’s insistence in Marrakesh, we are prepared to close the fishery early with regard to particular Member States. If the fleet of a particular Member State overshoots its quota, we will not hesitate to close the fishery for that particular Member State. In that way, only the fleet of that Member State will suffer the consequences of its overshooting, and not the fleet of the whole Community. I hope that will be enough to fine-tune our action even further during the course of the fishing season. If we do not deliver on this new recovery plan, then in the years to come, we will have to face the serious consequence that the whole fishery should not open at all in the coming years. I hope that we will be able to deliver on this plan. Therefore, I do not agree, regrettably, with what Mr Romeva i Rueda said that the recovery plan is a death certificate. I think that the recovery plan, if properly implemented, gives us a realistic and reasonable chance to see to it that the stock does recover. The fact that we have reduced quotas from 15 641 tonnes to 12 406 tonnes in 2009, the fact that by virtue of what we are discussing today and by virtue of the Council Decision which, hopefully, will be taken later in the month, the fact that we are going to implement the Marrakesh Recovery Plan adopted in November, from this very fishing season, is indicative of the fact that we mean business. We are not prepared to accept any abuse of the fishing possibilities that are based on what was agreed in Marrakesh. We have not waited for the natural implementation of the Marrakesh agreement, which would have come too late in the fishing season for bluefin tuna. We have decided to have all the parameters of the Marrakesh plan introduced from the very start. I hope that these will be properly adhered to because, in that way, we will be able together to recover this endemic stock. If not, however, then next year we will have to speak another language."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the group leaders for their comments. I see that many of them want to see some haste in this process, and I can understand that. I think we should be clear that we are moving into more or less unknown territory. If you look at the legal ground, it was actually foreseen that the Lisbon Treaty should already have been in place from 1 January this year. We are now trying to act flexibly in a new situation arising from the situation in Ireland but also in other countries. It is often true in Swedish debates that when you make your point you make a reference to democracy. That is good. That is also what I am trying to achieve here. If a new Treaty is to come into force, it is very clear that it has to be ratified by the 27 Member States. That is what we need to have in place and that is why I am so precise in saying that we are now at number 24. There are three countries still outstanding, and the longest wait will probably be for the Czech Republic. Once the 27th country has ratified, we will move on. Ireland has not ratified. It needs parliamentary ratification before the process is complete. You might say this is easy but you have to be thorough, so you never know. When we have all 27, then the package is clear and we will move over to the Lisbon Treaty. In doing so, it is also very important to say that all the Treaties we have been discussing have come about by balancing different views, and it is pretty clear that I and others present here need to follow these Treaties. It happens very often that you do something else that is not in line with the Treaties. That is what we are trying to achieve here with the Swedish Presidency. That is why I am telling you we will try to act quickly on a situation which, at the moment, actually lies in the hands of a Constitutional Court in Prague, Czech Republic. When they give their say as to whether they are going to take up this complaint or not, that is when the Swedish Presidency will give its next reaction to this process. That is democracy at work, because we are following the Treaties precisely and the reactions from these different countries. My message to you is that with this clear majority, we have to get the Lisbon Treaty in as soon as possible because we believe this will get us a better functioning Europe, but I will do this thoroughly. I will follow the Treaties and also respect the fact that all 27 Member States must ratify before we can make that move. Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for your support."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all, thank you very much for this useful debate, which brought forward a number of ideas. You have prepared a really interesting document. Where are we now? We know why we are doing this: the Mediterranean region is the cradle of our civilisation and therefore it is logical that we in the European Union want to give it special attention. Last year, there was a French initiative, and we need to keep this process in motion and to develop its full potential. So we know why we are doing this and what we want to achieve. Many of you have stressed how important it is that the Mediterranean becomes an area of peace, stability and security, where democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms – including gender equality and the role of women in society – are upheld and fully respected. We also know how we want to achieve that, so we have the Union for the Mediterranean and a broad spectrum of activities. You are very well aware of the most important areas, the emphasis on renewables, the solar programme and the water management programme. I was in Portugal just a week ago and that country could serve as an example of how to develop a sustainable, dynamic programme for a renewable source of energy, which is very important for the Mediterranean region. We just need to move. When we met last year, both in Paris and in Marseilles, we could not have anticipated the situation that would arise in Gaza, but the Presidency, together with the Commission, is doing enough to be able to start with the implementation of all the agreements which we reached last year. So I think we can reasonably expect to move on after the end of March, as I informed you, with the latest activity of the Presidency. The programme of our activities for 2009 is very substantial: about nine sectoral ministerial conferences are scheduled. There are the resources which, as far as I know, come to over EUR 1 billion. So I think we are ready. There are certain realities related to the situation in Gaza which have caused some delays, but I believe we will be able to overcome that. Thank you very much for a useful debate. We are certainly ready to assist you further."@en1
"− Mr President, firstly I would like to stress the importance that the Commission attaches to the sustainability of the bluefin tuna stocks and fisheries, and also the importance of the European Parliament in this process. After its adoption, the Commission is resolved to work closely with the Member States and with other ICCAT contracting parties to ensure and closely monitor the full implementation of the recovery plan. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the constructive approach and the cooperation adopted by the European Parliament in dealing with this sensitive subject, reflecting our shared interest and commitment to ensuring that the Community fisheries policy and our international obligations are fully respected. Within the framework of the 2006 recovery plan for eastern bluefin tuna, and on the basis of an evaluation of its implementation during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 fishing seasons, and in the light of new scientific advice, ICCAT decided to adopt a new recovery plan. The ICCAT Scientific Committee clearly indicated its view that the 2006 recovery plan was insufficient to recover the stock and reiterated its concerns with respect to the level of TAC and excess of fishing effort. Furthermore, ICCAT contracting parties identified certain failures in the implementation of the 2006 plan and so decided to adopt a new plan. This plan addresses the concerns of the Scientific Committee, notably by reducing the TAC level and by introducing new measures to address fishing and farming capacity. It should also be noted that, at the initiative of the European Community, the new recovery plan introduced the obligation for annual fishing plans at ICCAT level. This is an effective instrument to avoid overfishing by identifying the vessels that are over 24 metres which are fishing for bluefin tuna and setting their individual quotas. I am convinced that the establishment of the annual fishing plan is a key tool in ensuring the full respect of the quota. The new recovery plan also improves the existing one and introduces new control measures to address those failures identified by the contracting parties, to which Philippe Morillon referred. The main measures introduced in the new recovery plan are a substantial reduction in the TAC from 27 500 to 22 000 tonnes in 2009 and further reductions to 19 950 tonnes for 2010 and 18 500 tonnes in 2011. The EC quota for 2009 is thus reduced to 12 406 tonnes from the 15 641 tonnes foreseen in the 2006 plan. The fishing seasons for all years are reduced, in particular, for purse seiners, which account for the bulk of this fishery. The measures to freeze and reduce fishing and farming capacity are a brand new and decisive component of the new plan. Overcapacity has been identified for some time as a key driver of overfishing. Now is the time to address this issue in a real manner and the Community, like other ICCAT members, has to share in the effort to do so. The introduction of the fishing plans I have already mentioned is another measure. Furthermore, the derogations to minimum size are adjusted. On the Atlantic, pelagic trawlers no longer benefit from derogations, while the derogations applicable to the artisanal coastal fishery have been removed, except for one case. Indeed, only bait boats still benefit from previous derogations. In the Mediterranean, the artisanal coastal fishery now benefits from a derogation. The control measures are reinforced, in particular as regards joint fishing operations, the adoption of a general prohibition of transhipment at sea and the introduction of a regional ICCAT observer programme. In conclusion, the situation of the eastern bluefin tuna is considered to be extremely serious. The overshooting of quotas, the lack of compliance, notably as regards data collection and transmission, undermine the recovery process. However, I am confident that our agreement to urgently adopt measures to eliminate overfishing and to ensure strict compliance with ICCAT measures can turn around the situation and bring the bluefin tuna stock to sustainable levels. We need to ensure that situations similar to those that occurred last year do not happen again in the future. The best means to achieve this is the speedy adoption by the Council of the new recovery plan for bluefin tuna. Any delay in the adoption of this regulation should, therefore, be avoided, especially if we want to ensure the credibility of the Community at international level and to promote the process of the recovery of this stock. I am convinced that, if this plan is fully respected, it represents a realistic chance for the gradual recovery of bluefin tuna. Consequently, decisive and effective action is immediately needed at the European Community level."@en1
"− Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, and the members of the Agriculture Committee, for an excellent report on the Commission proposal on information and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal and external markets. I would like to stress the importance of the issues addressed in this report. I think we all agree that the promotion of European agricultural products is of huge importance, both internally and externally. I am convinced that trade in agricultural products will continue to grow in the future – even if we have to admit that we face a setback at the present time owing to the economic crisis. However, there will be huge opportunities for our European products in third-country markets, and our promotion campaign should help European producers explore those new markets. Before going into the content of the report, I would like to put it into perspective. In 2008, the Commission adopted 42 programmes on the internal market and on third countries, representing a budget of EUR 128 million over three years. According to the rules, half of that amount was then to be financed by the Community. The aim of the Commission proposal is to make it possible for Member States to launch programmes cofinanced by the European Union in third countries – as described by the rapporteur – because today this possibility only exists for the internal market. It should also be possible for those programmes to be implemented by international organisations. The three most important amendments from the rapporteur and his colleagues are as follows: firstly, to make it compulsory for Member States to consult trade associations about the proposed programmes; secondly, to specify that implementation by international organisations is not only a possibility reserved for the International Olive Oil Council, but a general possibility, for example – as mentioned here today – also in the wine sector; and, on the budget side, to increase the cofinancing rate. With regard to those amendments, I would emphasise that Member States do, in fact, already consult trade associations in order to make sure that they have the support of producers. I would prefer that partnership approach to continue on a voluntary basis. My mentioning of the International Olive Oil Council is only meant as an example, because of the discussions that have recently taken place on the whole olive oil sector. It certainly does not exclude other international organisations, such as the International Organisation of Vine and Wine. Regarding the funding of the budget, there is, of course, ongoing discussion on the level of cofinancing by the Community, but we discussed this issue when merging the two regulations dealing with promotion and information in 2008, so I do not think we should re-open the discussion on this issue. Could I just take the opportunity to say that, when we agreed the wine reform, we did recognise the importance of promoting our products on third-country markets. Therefore, in the interests of spending the budget for wine in a smarter and more intelligent way, we proposed the earmarking of EUR 120 million each year for the promotion of our wine products on third country markets as a special budget line. However, since Member States – and especially the new Member States – did not want to be in a position where that money was earmarked in such a way that, if it was not spent, then it was lost, we included the EUR 120 million in the national envelopes, so that Member States can decide for themselves. In any case, this gives a clear signal that the Community does care and does recognise the importance of strong promotion of our European products. I look forward to the discussion here today."@en1
"− Mr President, firstly I would like to thank you for a very substantive and responsible debate on the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I also want to thank you for your broad and strong support for the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the country. It is indeed essential for the economic development and political stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as for its European objectives. There were two issues in particular which came up in the debate today that I would like to comment further on. The first is the rule of law and its importance in underpinning the whole society and the economy. The rule of law and legal certainty are the cornerstones of the European model. This is, unfortunately, another Achilles heel of Bosnia and Herzegovina today. Despite some progress which we recognise, organised crime and corruption remain a serious concern in the country and it should address these challenges as a matter of urgency. Secondly, on constitutional reform, we all know that it is both necessary and delicate. From the Commission side, I can say that we envisage constitutional evolution rather than revolution, which can be done and should be done in respect of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. The Commission does not have a blueprint for a certain kind of constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina but, at the same time, we are certainly stakeholders as the European Union. We are all stakeholders in this constitutional reform in the sense that it is absolutely essential that Bosnia and Herzegovina be able to speak with one voice as a future Member State, as a candidate country, with the European Union and in the European Union, and that the country needs to have an effective and functional state structure, institutional structure, which is capable of implementing and enforcing European laws and rules throughout the country. This is what its citizens want and what they deserve. It is up to the political leaders and citizens of the country to decide what kind of constitution they want, but I can assure you that the Commission is willing to assist a constitutional reform with both legal and constitutional expertise and with financial assistance. In a nutshell, Bosnia and Herzegovina today needs urgently to overcome the current political stalemate, to move seriously towards the European Union. We cannot do this for them, but we can make the point to the citizens and leaders of the country that we want and expect them to succeed and we support them in this interval. The Commission, and I, will therefore continue to work with the presidency, with Javier Solana, with the European Parliament and all other partners and stakeholders to reinforce our engagement so that next year, 2009, could still, after all, be a year for the Western Balkans, and also a year for Bosnia and Herzegovina to make progress towards the European Union."@en1
"− Mr President, firstly I would like to thank you for your support. I think we all understand how important it is that we talk. I may not follow the order of the questions but will try to respond briefly to what you asked. Ms Doyle, as regards public funding, the experience of the past has shown that, in times of crisis, private financing most likely goes down. That is why public financing should not make the terrible mistake of following that pattern because that would be the way which, after the crisis, would lead us to a completely improper situation. That is why public financing has to act counter-cyclically and that is why, even in Europe, we have had that kind of example. Finland was the case at the beginning of the 1990s. I think we should do something like that and we should follow that path. On the cost of patent application, it is very striking. I think there is no simple answer. ‘Better’ would certainly be an answer which would be more horizontal than anything which we could do. Last year, we tried to do our best by proposing to clarify this patent picture in relations between private and public institutions, but certainly that is not the answer to the depth of the problem which we are facing in patent application. Now I turn to the proposal about the questions about the financing from the Seventh Framework Programme. What we have financed until now is the preparatory phase of the projects which are released. It is not intended that we finance institutionally the infrastructure. This will be done by the Member States and also Member States will decide, for example, where this will be located. When this is finished, however, we will certainly, as for any other infrastructure, finance the grants. That is really the only way ahead. I can remind you that, when we discussed the issue of the budget of the research infrastructure, this was the budget which, in percentage points, was really mostly cut for the Seventh Framework Programme. I am, however, quite optimistic. We are well ahead, and I think that legislation is bringing good solutions. Concerning VAT, I would like to be precise. We do not propose VAT exemption in the legislation. We believe that if more countries are joining in efforts to build a common infrastructure, say between Germany and Slovenia or the United Kingdom or anywhere, then at the end of the day, none of the countries will agree to pay VAT in that country. That is the case also today – but what exactly is the case today? Today, the countries are individually negotiating with the host country on that kind of exemption. What we are trying to do, via that legislation, is to guarantee the status of an international organisation which would, as a consequence, due to the VAT legislation which exists today, guarantee VAT exemption. That would, in essence, be the end of the story anyway, but time was mentioned. Time is the crucial question here, so we are talking about whether we can speed up and simplify how we are building the research infrastructure together. Unfortunately, today’s situation in research infrastructure is so complex that we are losing time and thus money also. In essence, that is the story. I have forgotten cohesion. The answer is yes. To finish, that is exactly the point which we have to underline. We need infrastructure. We need it as soon as possible. This is the step to speed up the whole process. I thank you for understanding that and I thank you for your support in that context."@en1
"− Mr President, freedom of expression and freedom of information represent a foundation of a free, democratic and pluralistic society. That is my firm belief as a former journalist and it is also the firm belief of the European Union. That is why all the EU institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – have signed up to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11 of which states that: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.’ Concerning the written press, the competences of the EU are substantially more limited. The written press is one of those prime examples of national, or even regional, competences and its situation very often reflects the varying cultural traditions in our different Member States. There is thus no EU legislation specifically on the written press, nor can there be legislation under the treaties as they stand. Nevertheless, in the EU institutions and, in particular, the European Commission, we have always flanked the development of the written press across the EU. I recall that in my capacity as EU Media Commissioner, I had numerous meetings with editors-in-chief from all around Europe to discuss the current issues relating to media freedom and media pluralism. In June 2009, this led to the European Charter on Freedom of the Press, drafted by journalists across Europe. I fully endorsed that charter when the final outcome of this work was handed over to me. The Charter on the Freedom of the Press initiated by the European journalist community is an important reaffirmation of the basic values enshrined in fundamental legal texts such as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is also a reminder for all policymakers in their field of competence that, in order to have effective freedom of the press, public authorities do indeed have a role to play: they must be ready to protect freedom of expression and foster its development. The charter is therefore an important step towards reinforcing these basic values and rights, allowing journalists to invoke them against governments or against political public authorities whenever they feel that the freedom of their work is unjustifiably threatened. The honourable Members will see that strong political commitment is being shown by the EU’s institutions, and particularly by the Commission, to fundamental rights and freedom of information, of expression and of the media. We are using our competences to uphold those rights and freedoms in our work, on the basis of the Treaties, and will continue to do so. However, let me also touch on another important aspect, namely the fact that fundamental rights apply to EU policies does not make the EU competent for all matters relating to fundamental rights in one Member State or another. Let us not forget that the Member States have constitutions, many of them with long traditions, and that in all Member States, there are courts, appeal courts and constitutional courts which ensure that fundamental rights are respected and enforced whenever national authorities act. We had an example of this as recently as yesterday in Italy. This is the result of the fact that we have a division of labour, because Europe is not a superstate, but is comprised of 27 sovereign Member States and will continue to operate like this under the new Lisbon Treaty too. I would therefore call on you not to make use of the EU institutions to solve problems which should, under our Treaties, be solved at national level. We should not claim a role that we do not have, and we will not have it under the Lisbon Treaty either. Let us concentrate here on applying effectively the rules, principles, rights and freedoms in areas where the EU is competent. This can lead to very important progress, and I have mentioned several concrete examples of this in my speech. Let me add another example of where we could act. Paul Rübig, a Member of this House, recently proposed in a budgetary amendment a new EU programme called Erasmus for Journalists. Such a programme would, in difficult times for the written press, allow journalists to work for a limited time with editorial staff in other Member States. It would also allow journalists to discover the political, economic and social situation in other Member States and to write about it. It would allow journalists to compare the situation across Europe and to present that to the readers, including the situation with regard to freedom of the press. That is why I encourage the European Parliament to look very favourably on these proposals, which certainly have the support of the EU Media Commissioner. I would like to recall that the EU Charter also states, in Article 51(1), where and when those fundamental rights apply. I quote again: ‘The provisions of this charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States’, but ‘only when they are implementing Union law’. Within the EU’s sphere of competence, which we have to respect, the European Commission has always stood up for freedom of the media, freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of the press, whether within the EU or in our external relations with third countries. I recall, in particular, the important role played by the EU’s ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive which, since 1989, has made sure that citizens in all EU Member States are free to receive, without restrictions, broadcasts from other EU countries; an EU directive which has substantially contributed to the free flow of information across borders and to a more pluralistic media landscape in all Member States. In this context, I would like to thank the European Parliament for having helped the Commission to get a modernised version of this directive which extends the freedom of information across borders, beyond broadcasting, to other audiovisual services and, particularly, those transmitted by Internet. This directive needs to be implemented by all EU Member States by the end of the year and will make important contributions to a pluralistic landscape when it also comes to the online environment. Let me also recall three other very important elements of this directive. Firstly, the promotion of independent TV productions. There is a rule in the directive that broadcasters need to reserve at least 10% of their transmission time or 10% of their programming budget to European works created by producers who are independent from the broadcasters. Secondly, the directive foresees in its modernised version the right of journalists and news organisations to access short extracts across the EU for the purpose of short reporting. Thirdly, and this is of utmost importance, there is a reference in the new directive to the need to have independent media authorities at national level. This is a reference which was proposed by the Commission and which could only be adopted in the end thanks to strong support by the European Parliament. Thus, for the broadcasting sector, the modernised Television Without Frontiers Directive can be seen as a charter for freedom of cross-border information in the EU. Now let me recall another important aspect in the EU’s field of competence where this institution can act and has acted for the benefit of media pluralism. I mean radio spectrum policy. You all know that there cannot be broadcasting without access to radio spectrum, and it is the EU policy to ensure that all players on the market get non-discriminatory access to radio spectrum. National authorities are thus not entitled to freeze, by means of spectrum allocation, the competitive situation on the media market for the benefit of the operators already active on that market. The European Court of Justice, by the way, has confirmed this important principle, which directly results from the freedom to provide services, in its Centro Europa judgment. The Commission welcomed that ruling as a contribution to fair competition and as an important foundation for strengthening media pluralism. On that basis, the Commission has repeatedly acted against Member States where the system of spectrum management has appeared to be in contradiction with this principle. By way of example, I would like to recall the 2006 infringement proceedings on radio spectrum allocation in Italy, which my colleague Neelie Kroes and I opened. Under the pressure of this procedure, the Italian authorities are now changing their approach. The result of this will be a substantial market opening and a win for media pluralism. Spectrum policy is therefore a clear example of an area where the EU can act within its field of competences in order to enhance competition for the resources on which broadcasters depend, and thereby strengthen media pluralism."@en1
"− Mr President, freedom of the press is synonymous with freedom of expression and democracy. This does not, of course, apply in an ideal fashion in our society, in which media barons as well as government and political party media interference are not unheard of, but is rather prominent in some western countries, not excluding the USA and some EU Member States. However, at least as far as legislation is concerned, the media in our societies are given the theoretical protection of the law they need to function as near properly as possible. This is where we beg to differ with the Kenyan Government, which is introducing legislative measures that can be used for possible repression and persecution of the press by the state. We therefore call on the Kenyan authorities to reconsider their stance on the matter and give their mass media the legislative freedom they need in order to try, at least, to function as democratically as possible. The Kenyan Government must understand and accept that the protection of the press is essential for their country’s road to betterment of living standards for its citizens. We hope and trust that the plea we have made through this resolution will not be seen as interference but as friendly advice to the Government of Kenya, that it will be taken seriously into consideration and that there will be wiser reconsideration of what they have been doing so far."@en1
"− Mr President, in agreement with the shadows of the PPE-DE, PSE and Verts/ALE Groups, I would like to propose an oral amendment to paragraph 1(g). It consists of two small changes. The first change is that we replace the words ‘fails to meet’ in the second sentence with ‘may not conform to’ so that the second sentence will read ‘and that as a result, the agreement may not conform to EU and international data protection standards’. The second small change is in the last sentence, where I would like to replace the word ‘leaves’ by ‘might leave’ so that it reads ‘considers that this might leave the agreement open to legal challenge’."@en1
"− Mr President, in order to remove any misunderstanding and to comply with the requests made by Italian colleagues from the new Partito della Libertà belonging to the PPE-DE and UEN Groups, I propose an oral amendment to footnote 1 to recital S, first indent, to delete the last two sentences and insert ‘IT’ (Italy) in the sequence at the beginning of the paragraph. You have this in your voting list."@en1
"− Mr President, it has been an interesting debate, which I am sure, to some extent, repeats the discussions that have been held in Ireland and elsewhere. This is what happened. Civil society also engaged, as I think Mr Kelly explained very well. I am not ashamed of the fact that we made a citizens’ summary of the Lisbon Treaty which was then published in the big newspapers – uncontested by anybody I may add – so that citizens could themselves read a summary in understandable language of the full Treaty, so that they could judge by themselves what was in there, what was true or not. I think the legal guarantees helped, because then it was clarified that they did not have to worry about neutrality or abortion or any of the other concerns. So this was clarified and they got legal guarantees and they got a Commissioner – and thank you, Ireland, because it means that there will be a Swedish Commissioner also from now on, also a German one, and one from Greece etc., so I think we also have to thank the Irish for setting that straight. Of course, we do not debate these things in a political vacuum. The reality will also influence how we think about these issues, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think we should always, in the analysis that follows after a referendum, think very carefully about any fear factors on both sides, because fear is a very strong emotion and it might be misused. So I think that the debate that will follow in Ireland should also address how to avoid using or misusing any fear factor. But the reality showed that the Irish people believe that they have a place in the centre of Europe, and that they will be helped by belonging fully to Europe and not being questioned about whether this is true or not. I also hope that the Commission can continue to play this role of providing factual objective information, but the debate will go on because, remember, the upside of a referendum is that you have to engage with citizens. You have to provide information and a debate and a discussion. The downside is that it also divides the population. You are forced to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and that can stay for a long time in the hearts and minds of the Irish as well. We have a duty, an obligation democratically, to also take the concerns of the ‘no’ side seriously, to continue the debate and make sure that the EU issues are integrated into the normal political debate, including by civil society in Ireland from now on, and in the rest of Europe in the same way. This is part of the reason why we did not have a higher voter turnout: that it is not part of the daily discussions about politics in each and every Member State. That has to be done and I hope that there will be a Commissioner responsible for both citizenship and communication from now on, and hopefully under the new Lisbon Treaty. Could I just start with some facts. It is the Member States’ governments who decide on the method for ratification. There is no way that the EU institutions can force a Member State to choose either a referendum or a parliamentary ratification. I think it is very important to say this. It is interesting that those who speak very strongly in favour of independent nation states are also the ones who would be willing to impose a referendum on all other Member States, which I find a bit strange. Now Ireland decided to carry out a second referendum. Let us be very honest; this always carries a political risk, but it was the Irish Government which decided that they were willing to do so. And why did they do that? Incidentally, it is not unusual to repeat referenda: that has been done previously on domestic issues, and in certain Member States you can come back several times on a domestic issue too, so let us be intellectually honest about this whole procedure. I think we have heard a very good analysis from the Irish MEPs themselves, from Mr Kelly, from Mary MacDonald, from Mr De Rossa: they offered an explanation on why there was a change among the Irish population, on why they moved towards a ‘yes’ vote, and I think we have had good answers. I think some MEPs have a very strange way of looking at democracy as very static and absolute. They maybe prefer to forget that this is a discussion about a reform. It is a process that started in Laeken many years ago and has involved different democratic bodies and discussions over the years to try to find a common way of taking decisions in a more modern, more democratic and efficient way. Member States and their leaders have, of course, invested a lot of time and energy in this procedure and this is why it is not static: it cannot be compared with a football match. I am sorry, you cannot count scores in the same way as in a football match, because we also have to listen to each other. And this is what was done. The concerns of the Irish people were listened to and they did it themselves in Ireland. Why do we have to explain? The Irish themselves, their national parliament, debated in a subcommittee the reasons why there was a ‘no’ vote – because this came as a surprise to many there. So they looked at the reasons. I was there myself. I was at the fashion fair in Dublin, I was at the fish market in Cork, I was at the public meeting in Donegal, and what many people said first of all was: Well, we have not actually read the full text of the Treaty, it is a very complex legal text and it is difficult to understand exactly what this is all about. Some said they were very afraid that what was on the posters might be true, that the EU will decide on a minimum wage which is EUR 1.48: can that really be true? Or is it true that the EU will impose conscription to a European army and send very young people to Afghanistan in a European army: can this be true? What kind of statements are these? Should I believe in them? So there were a lot of worries and a lot of real concerns and mainly, I would say, a lack of information and a need for their concerns to be taken seriously."@en1
"− Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak to you this morning. I know that the first stages of this budgetary procedure – in particular the July conciliation – took place in a very positive atmosphere, and I hope we can build on this cooperation in the coming weeks. We still have some way to go in the 2010 budget procedures, and there are other important issues to agree on, such as the second phase of the European Economic Recovery Plan, so it is crucial that all three institutions work closely together. Turning to the actual situation following the Council’s first reading and the establishment of the draft budget for 2010, the Commission acknowledges that the cuts proposed by the Council are less severe than in previous years. However, there are some particular concerns which I would like to highlight. The Commission regrets the Council’s cut of EUR 1.8 billion in payment appropriations. These cuts are proportionately more significant for Headings 1A and 4, and sent a negative message in the priority areas of growth in jobs and the EU’s international role, not least in relation to pre-accession assistance. The cuts proposed to the administrative support expenditure allowance, the administrative allowance for research and the agencies are particularly harsh. Rather than taking into account the specific situation of each agency, the cuts – with few exceptions – have been general, regardless of the stage of development or tasks of the agency concerned. The cuts in administrative support expenditure will hamper the implementation of programmes, particularly in the field of research and for external actions. I am hopeful that, in preparing its first reading, Parliament will seek to redress this situation. Although the cuts in Headings 1B and 2 are regrettable, I am partly reassured by the Council’s proposed declaration on payments and by the second opportunity to examine the needs for agriculture in the upcoming letter of amendment which the Commission will present at the end of October. As announced, the Commission has now presented the budgetary authority with an amending letter to update the needs for Heading 4. The key elements of this concern: an additional EUR 95 million in commitment and EUR 60 million in payment appropriations to support the Palestinian Authority and reconstruction efforts in Gaza; and the need to consider the establishment of Bananas Accompanying Measures in view of the possible trade agreement that will affect the preferential regime of ACP banana-supplying countries. There is also an additional EUR 50 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 20 million in payment appropriations to assist developing countries in combating climate change, which should help to promote a successful outcome to the December Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Under Heading 5 (Administration), the Commission was particularly modest in its PDB requests with a proposed increase in the Commission’s administrative expenditure of only 0.9% compared to 2009. While this point has been acknowledged by the Presidency, it is rather disappointing that the Council has introduced further cuts to the Commission’s administrative budget. In conclusion I am hopeful that the European Parliament will restore the appropriations cut by the Council and I am confident that our ongoing negotiations between the three institutions will be constructive and that we will achieve a satisfactory outcome to this budget procedure."@en1
"− Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here today to talk about children and also about the report you will adopt shortly. We have to admit that we are still far from achieving anything significant in the area of child participation. In the Commission, we are starting to reflect on how to design and implement proper child participation that is not just tokenism. It should be relevant, meaningful and informed child participation. We have also ensured relevant funding for child participation under the thematic programme ‘Investing in People’. Why is this difficult for us adults? Essentially, because it questions what is fundamental to us: the way we behave. What will the Commission do in its external action to promote this participation? The Commission will make the tools available for our delegations to consult children, but these tools will be used not only by our delegations but also by partner countries. We are also developing a tool kit, together with UNICEF, that should not only address child participation but also overall child protection, legal reform, child budgeting. In addition to the tool kit, we are also recasting and strengthening our collaboration with UNICEF in general in order to be able to improve our support to partner countries in their efforts to ensure that children have a voice at country level. We also cooperate closely with various NGOs to learn from them about possible formats, often involving children and having meaningful child participation. Let me be honest: it is not going to happen tomorrow. This is just the start of a long process. Let me just make one comment on the report. The report underlines how the Commission should pay attention to child participation, but, colleagues, you will also have to do so, and I can assure you that the Commission will be happy to work with you on advancing this. We should build on the collective force of the two institutions to advance this important issue. Let me once again express the Commission’s appreciation of the report and underline that we will do our utmost to carry out these recommendations. We are counting on the continued support of Parliament in this area. In answer to Ms Kinnock’s question, I am happy to confirm that the position of the Commission has not changed. The idea of using 2009 for consultations was launched in the Commission itself and we are working to put in place the conditions for a process of consultation with children that avails itself of all existing tools. Let me also underline that the Commission is keen to ensure a process of consultation that fully respects the rights of the child. Finally, let me thank you, Ms Kinnock, for a very fruitful collaboration on children and child-related issues, not only as regards this report, but also over the years. I know that I was too long, but you can never be too long when you are talking about children’s rights. Let me talk for a few minutes about how we got to where we are today, and what will come in the future, and about child participation, which is most likely our biggest challenge regarding children. Today is an important step in a long process that started several years ago internally in the Commission. We recognise that the EU needs a strategy on children. We need a strategy on how we, the European Union, will implement the commitments. We and the rest of the world have signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The first step was the Commission communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’ in 2006. This was followed in 2008 by the communication package on children in external actions, which outlined a comprehensive approach to children by the EU using all available instruments in external cooperation. Let me digress for a moment, since I am convinced that some of you will be asking the question: what about the EU strategy on the rights of the child, which was announced in the above-mentioned communication? I can confirm that the Commission is working on such a strategy, which will be presented under the next Commission. During the Slovenian Presidency in May 2008, the Council adopted conclusions on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child in the European Union’s external action – the development of humanitarian dimensions. The Committee on Development then started drafting a report. We are now at the end of this process and tomorrow, you will be voting on this excellent report. In addition, the EU’s policy on children is based on the two EU guidelines – the Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts and the Guidelines on the Rights of the Child – both being implemented in a number of selected priority and pilot countries. The Commission welcomes the report – which is an excellent complement to our communication – the Council conclusions and the guidelines. We will surely use it in our work on children. Let me focus my final comments on what is probably our biggest challenge today: child participation. How do we ensure that we involve children in decisions that concern them? How do we ensure that children have access to pertinent information? How do we ensure equal access for children to express their views? We have to recognise that, amongst everything that we all agreed to in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this might be the major challenge."@en1
"− Mr President, it is sad to observe that today, almost five years after enlargement, there is little evidence of Latvia having demonstrated respect for its largest minority. The recommendations of the European Parliament and numerous other institutional organisations have been completely ignored. A large part of Latvia’s population has been alienated from the state and its institutions. No wonder the naturalisation rate is slow. Turning people into aliens and issuing them with an alien passport does not inspire in them feelings of being associated with the state. They do not participate. They do not take decisions. They do not vote, not even in those cities where they represent up to 40% of the population and where political decisions directly affect their lives. Is this situation good or bad for the European Union? This is a question for the Commission and Council. Democracy cannot flourish without civil society, and there is no civil society without participation. Participation begins at local community level. These people were born in the country or have spent most of their lives there, and we are talking about more than 15% of Latvia’s population, or some 372 000 people. The EU must take action on their behalf. Why does the Commission not act on this? Citizens of other EU Member States residing in Latvia may vote and stand in municipal and European Parliament elections, but hundreds of thousands of people who were born in the country or have spent most of their lives there do not enjoy this right. I would like to ask the Commission and the Council what they have done in order to address this issue with the Latvian authorities, and to take further action without any delay."@en1
"− Mr President, last month the European Council had to deal with an important agenda under very demanding circumstances. After intensive and earnest debate, it not only agreed on the essence of the Commission’s proposals for the Europe 2020 strategy on growth and jobs but it also decided on a mechanism to ensure financial stability in the euro area capable of providing financial support to Greece, should the need arise. Following this European Council, we now have precise figures agreed for employment, research and development, as well as climate and energy. The Commission also believes that the case for an education target has been accepted, and that we can be confident that concrete goals will be set in this respect as well – along the lines the Commission has proposed – we hope already in June. I would like to say a word about the target that was most intensively discussed, meaning the one on action against poverty. You are aware that a number of Member States remain to be convinced that setting a target against poverty is a task for our Union. The Commission’s view on the matter is also very clear. First, anyone who has read the Treaty provisions on social policy knows that it is quite wrong to say that this matter should be reserved for the Member States alone. Second, the Commission rejects suggestions that there can be no meaningful target here. We will continue to refine the clear and methodologically sound approach we have advanced. The Commission is confident that a consensus can be built around it between now and June. Third, we always need to be conscious of the risk that our Union could be perceived as being more concerned about banks and businesses than about workers and families. The Commission is determined to ensure that this is not the case. A target against poverty would send a powerful signal that the EU is about opportunities for everyone in society, even the most marginalised and the most vulnerable people. And, as the Commission has repeatedly stated, the issue of poverty cannot be resolved through an employment policy alone. Employment policy is of overwhelming importance, but it can never reach out to all sectors of society. What about children? How are you going to treat pensioners? What kind of solutions are we looking for if it comes to the marginalised communities? Therefore I can assure you that the Commission will be keeping up the pressure to keep a target against poverty as a top priority. In doing so, we will of course respect the distribution of competences as provided for in the treaties. Our flagship initiatives are all construed in a way that means that European Union-level action complements those actions by the Member States. Europe 2020 is not about one level acting at the expense of the other. It is about making all levels work well and together as a whole. Over the next few months, the debate will increasingly switch to the Member States level, as the EU-wide targets are translated into national targets. I would like to ask you to participate fully in this debate, explaining that this is not about a centrally imposed diktat. This is about a common approach to common problems, and a creative way of using the European dimension to encourage Member States to stretch that little bit further in their efforts to reform their economies. A final word on the other issues which have been discussed during the European Council. Over dinner, the European Council discussed the forthcoming G20 summit on the basis of introductory comments by President Barroso. As you know, not all the EU Member States have a seat of their own in the G20. The Commission has been acting and is determined to continue to act as the trustee of the general European interest. Now, as the immediate impact of the financial crisis fades, the G20 faces the challenge of keeping up its momentum for a joint approach to the policy issues that need to be addressed if the world wants to come out of the crisis in a better shape. In the Commission’s view, the European Union must continue to act as a driver for this ambition. The forthcoming Toronto summit must provide a clear message from the G20 on an exit strategy to support recovery – one where all major economies play their part. It should also underline again how concluding the Doha Round would be a huge boost for the world economy. Most importantly, it must drive on with financial market reform: we need to keep up pressure on our international partners to deliver the timely and consistent implementation of the G20 commitments. But let us be frank. There were not many people who would have predicted this outcome. Given the stakes, there were important divergences of opinion between the Member States up to the very beginning of the European Council, both on the short-term issue of the financial stability mechanism but also on the medium-term issue of the Europe 2020 strategy. Let me explain briefly how the solution has been achieved and what this means from the Commission’s point of view. I will start with the financial stability mechanism and then move on to the Europe 2020 strategy. In this respect, it was emphasised that our message will be strongest if we can say that the EU has done its homework. That is why before Toronto we should aim to have agreement on the key financial services regulation files still outstanding, namely the files on alternative investment fund managers and on bank capital, the famous CRD III. And of course it is essential to agree on the supervision package so the authorities can be up and running from 2011. The Commission has never hidden its disappointment at the degree to which the Council proposed to cut back the powers of the authorities, putting their effectiveness at risk. You are now in the process of debating the package, which gives the opportunity for a collective rethink, also bearing in mind the experience of the past couple of months. President Barroso also addressed the burden of bank repair and reaffirmed the Commission’s sympathy for novel instruments, including levies on banks to feed resolution funds. Moreover, he spoke about derivatives, in particular about the problem of naked credit default swaps on sovereign bonds. He stressed that the Commission is looking into this closely and considering what new measures are needed on short selling, over and above the structural reform of derivatives markets that we are already pursuing through legislation we will present to you in June and later this year. The European Council also devoted attention to climate change, endorsing the main messages set out in the Commission’s communication. Member States agreed that this remains right at the top of our list of challenges. This means keeping up the momentum of international efforts – and you know that this is not always easy. But we have the right springboard. We have the track record of action inside the EU. And the European Council reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to fast-start financing to help developing countries. What we now need is to be determined and consistent. Determined in going out and making our case with key partners worldwide, explaining why we cannot let our ambition slip. The Commission acknowledges that Parliament is already engaged in this effort. As you know my colleague Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has already embarked on a programme of outreach. We must be consistent in our commitment to an effective international agreement, if the other most important players are ready to take part. We need to cement the advances made in the Copenhagen Accord. In summary, the Commission has provided strong input into this European Council, the first formal meeting under the successful chairmanship of the permanent President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy. I would like to congratulate him for his successful chairmanship through these very difficult waters and in the complicated circumstances. We look forward to the intensive work of the next months, especially between now and the European Council in June, with you in this House and the Spanish Presidency in the sector Council formations. This work must set the course for a dynamic and focused EU ready to meet the challenges of the decade ahead. Regarding the financial stability mechanism, the truth is we were moving in uncharted territory. But let us be frank about another point as well. Whilst it was necessary to map out the new response to a new challenge, it was unthinkable not to provide a response. The question was not whether there would be a response. The question was what the response could and should be. As I said, there was no initial consensus among the Member States in this respect. Discussions had been going on for quite some time but had not come to a conclusion before the meeting – neither on the principle nor on the details of the mechanism. This is why the Commission, and more specifically President Barroso and Commissioner Rehn, took the initiative, through a mixture of consensus-building work and public advocacy, to help Member States come together around our shared interests. On the one hand, the Commission was at all times working very actively with euro-area Member States in designing an adequate mechanism. In particular the Commission ensured that any mechanism should be placed in a Community context. On the other hand, in the 10 days before the European Council, the Commission repeatedly pressed for a decision for such a mechanism based on two key principles: stability on the one hand and solidarity on the other. If you remember our debate before the European Council: these are the two principles all of you have been calling for. You all know that it took sustained work and complex negotiations to achieve the solution that ultimately proved acceptable. In its essence it is based on the euro-area mechanism advocated by the Commission whilst providing for participation by the IMF as well. With this we now have a workable mechanism in place and ready to use. It is a prudent safety net. This is what we needed and this is what we have got. The Commission is satisfied with the final shape of the mechanism. It may not be perfect. It is surely unprecedented, although designed in full respect of the Treaties. And its core features retain the essentials. The institutions keep the role of triggering the mechanism. The right arrangements have been made to involve the IMF, within the framework of the euro area. At the same time the European Council announced the task force to look deeper into mechanisms for dealing with this sort of crisis. Its particular format is explained by its complex remit, which is rooted in a long-term perspective, making provision for a wide-ranging discussion of all possible options, not excluding possible Treaty changes. Such fundamental debate is of course important and, this being said, already this spring the Commission will bring forward measures to improve coordination in the euro area. For this we will be using the new opportunities already provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Commission knows that Parliament shares its view that it is much better to anticipate the need for coordination ahead of time and to have the right mechanisms already in place when needed. Let me now turn to the discussion of the Europe 2020 strategy. We have already discussed here the urgency with which we should action, the need to galvanise society to change our approach, and the essential role of the EU in obtaining a successful transformation of our economy. Delivery will require a collective effort by all stakeholders at all levels. We all know that strong, clear messages give something for people to rally around, and this is why the concrete targets and the flexible initiatives proposed for these strategies are so important. They exemplify our shared European ambition and provide a point around which collective efforts can be shaped. We know that, if we collectively manage to achieve them, Europe will boost its competitive edge, Europe will preserve its way of life, and Europe will strengthen its position as a global player. Therefore it is also very important to underline that this will be a test of how far the Member States are prepared to commit to national action in pursuit of common goals."@en1
"− Mr President, let me first join you in paying tribute to Jean Monnet. We are in a time of crisis, and I think this is exactly the time when we need a strong institution, and it is a great opportunity to raise the importance of Jean Monnet as one of the founding fathers of European integration. The financial crisis is now affecting the real economy. Member States have launched significant recovery programmes, which are now well under way. The overall stimulus this offers represents, as was agreed, 1.5% of GDP, but, if you include its automatic stabilisers, it comes to 3.3% of the EU’s GDP. Of course, Member States’ responses are different. They face different situations and have different margins for manoeuvre, but they are coordinated and are based on common principles defined in the European Recovery Programme, which was agreed last December. This is important if we are to ensure synergies and avoid negative spill-over effects. Specific and targeted action has been elaborated on in a synergic way between the Commission and the Member States and the Presidency. That enabled us to both keep the level playing field and, at the same time, face in a concerted and efficient manner the aggravations in some of Europe’s key industrial sectors, such as the automotive industry. The European Council will assess the state of implementation of this programme. Here, too, the Commission’s communication of 4 March sets out a number of important principles which should guide the action of Member States. They include the need to maintain openness within the internal market, ensuring non-discrimination and working towards long-term policy goals, such as facilitating structural change, enhancing competitiveness and building a low-carbon economy. As far as the Community part of the Recovery Programme is concerned, the Presidency is working very hard to reach an agreement in the European Council on the Commission proposal to finance energy and rural development projects. As you know, there have been discussions within the Council over the precise list of projects to be supported by the Community and how they should be funded. Given the important role of Parliament, as one of the branches of the budgetary authority and as co-legislator in this matter, the Presidency is committed to close cooperation with you over the coming weeks, with a view to reaching an agreement as soon as possible. In addition to the short-term measures, long-term efforts are needed if we are to ensure the competitiveness of our economies. Structural reforms are more urgent than ever if we are to promote growth and jobs. Therefore, the renewed Lisbon Strategy remains the right framework within which to promote sustainable economic growth, which will, in turn, lead to the creation of new jobs. At the moment, our citizens are particularly worried about the effect of the economic situation on levels of unemployment. Next week’s European Council should agree on concrete orientations on how the EU can contribute to mitigating the social impact of the crisis. This issue will also be the focus of the special summit which will take place in early May. Let me be clear on one point: we will not protect jobs by creating barriers to foreign competition. At their meeting 10 days ago, the Heads of State and Government were clear that we have to make the maximum possible use of the single market as the engine for recovery. Protectionism is clearly not the right answer to face this crisis – quite the opposite. More than ever, our companies need open markets, both internally within the Union, but also at the global level. Which leads me to the G20 Summit meeting in London. The European Council will establish the Union’s position in advance of the G20 Summit. We want this summit to be ambitious. We cannot afford it to fail. Leaders will be looking at prospects for growth and employment and at reform of the global financial system and of the international financial institutions. They will also be looking at the particular challenges facing developing countries. The EU is active in all these areas and should be in a strong position to ensure that the international community takes the right decisions. However, the purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the upcoming European Council. This Council, as we all know, comes at a critical time for the Union. We face very significant challenges as a result of unprecedented stresses on our financial systems and our economies as well. The other major item on the agenda of next week’s European Council will be energy security. The recent energy crisis demonstrated all too clearly the extent to which we need to increase our ability to resist future supply problems, as we could see earlier this year. The Commission has provided some very useful elements in its Second Strategic Energy Review. On the basis of this review, the Presidency intends that the European Council agree on a set of concrete orientations aimed at enhancing the Union’s energy security in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, this means having available concrete measures which can be called on if we are suddenly faced with a new disruption of gas supplies. It also means taking urgent steps to launch infrastructure projects to enhance energy interconnections – this is certainly essential. In the medium term, it means adapting our legislation on oil and gas stocks to ensure that Member States act with responsibility and solidarity. It means taking adequate measures to improve energy efficiency. In the long term, it means diversifying our sources, suppliers and routes of supply. We have to work with our international partners to promote the Union’s energy interests. We must create a fully fledged internal market for electricity and gas. As you know, this is legislation which the Presidency very much hopes can be completed before the European elections. Next week’s meeting will also discuss the preparations for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. We remain committed to a global, comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen next December. The Commission’s January communication is a very helpful basis. It is very clear that climate change is a challenge which can only be tackled through a concerted global effort. Finally, the European Council will also launch the Eastern Partnership. This important initiative will help to promote stability and prosperity on the whole continent. It will also contribute to accelerating reforms and to deepening our commitment to work together with those countries. The partnership includes a bilateral dimension which is adapted to each partner country. It foresees the negotiation of association agreements, which might include deep and comprehensive free trade areas. The multilateral track will provide a framework in which common challenges can be addressed. There will be four policy platforms: democracy, good governance and stability; economic integration; energy security; and, last but not least, contacts between people. You will appreciate from this presentation that next week’s European Council has many substantial issues to address. We are facing many serious challenges, not least the current economic crisis. The Czech Presidency, through the leadership of Prime Minister Topolánek, intends to ensure that the meeting next week demonstrates through practical action that the European Union remains committed to its ideals and that it faces these challenges together in a coordinated manner and in a spirit of responsibility and of solidarity. This issue, together with energy security, climate change and the financing of the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, will be the focus of next week’s meeting. As this Parliament certainly knows, a wide range of measures have been taken by the Union and the Member States in the face of the financial crisis. We have avoided a meltdown of the financial system. Our top priority now is the restoration of credit flows to the economy. We have to deal, in particular, with the ‘impaired assets’ held by banks, since these discourage them from resuming lending. At their meeting on 1 March, the Heads of State and Government agreed that we should do this in a coordinated manner, in line with the guidelines provided by the Commission. We also need to do more to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions. This is a clear lesson from the crisis, and prevention is no less important. Cross-border banks hold up to 80% of Europe’s banking assets. Two thirds of European banks’ assets are held in only 44 multinational groups. Strengthening supervision is, therefore, important in itself. It will help prevent future crises, but it will also send a message of confidence to consumers and markets. Important work is under way in that respect. The Presidency is fully committed to working closely with the European Parliament with a view to the rapid adoption of the Solvency II Directive (on insurance), the revised Credit Requirements Directive (on banks) and the UCITS Directive (on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities). We are also working to get rapid adoption of the regulations on the protection of bank deposits and on credit-rating agencies. However, we probably need to go further. The High Level Group, chaired by Mr de Larosière, has produced, as you know, very interesting recommendations, and the Commission’s communication of 4 March also paves the way for significant reform in this area. So the European Council must send a clear message that this is a priority and that decisions need to be taken as early as June. As you are well aware, Member States’ budget deficits are growing fast right now. Of course, deficits inevitably swell in times of economic recession. Automatic stabilisers can, to some extent, play a positive role. The Stability and Growth Pact was revised in 2005 precisely for that reason, to allow for sufficient flexibility in difficult times. But this flexibility needs to be used judiciously, taking into account different starting points. Restoring confidence also requires governments to give a clear commitment to sound public finances, fully respecting the Stability and Growth Pact. Some Member States have already made efforts towards consolidation. Most will do so from 2010. This will also be an important message from next week’s meeting."@en1
"− Mr President, let me first, on behalf of Mr Lewandowski, ask you to please accept his apologies for not being present. He is unfortunately constrained by the annual meeting of the Commission with the Court of Auditors where he takes an active part in presenting the recently adopted triennial revision of the financial regulation; so he simply had to be there today. I therefore replace him and I will of course transmit to him the comments which you express in this first debate on the Commission’s presented draft budget and the forthcoming trilogue which precedes Council’s reading. Our dialogue this year will go well beyond the 2011 budget, as important political initiatives with far-reaching budgetary consequences are being discussed. But let us not forget that one of the major components for this year is the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in budgetary matters. We need to keep our commitment to ensure good collaboration between the institutions – as good as it has been in the past – within this new institutional framework. This is vital to achieving a successful and timely outcome to the 2011 budgetary procedure. Let me then stress that I do take thorough note of your concerns and can assure you that the Commission shares the view that there is a need for a targeted quota of spending which is becoming even more important in a restrained context. The Commission has presented a draft budget which respects the financial framework and is based on sound estimates. It is important to recall that the draft budget for 2011 has been drawn up in a context of tight expenditure ceilings and national finances under severe pressure. Against such a difficult background, the Commission has proposed a draft budget which responds to the political requirements with a justified and reasoned increase. Yes, in the current difficult economic situation the recovery effort will have to be pursued, and the rapporteur is right also in placing this, as we have just heard and as I can see from the document, at the heart of social inclusion strategies. Its innovative abilities are a key resource for the development and growth of the European Union. I would like to make a call on this House to support our proposal and particularly the increase in payment appropriations, since it constitutes a tangible contribution to delivering implementation on the ground and to supporting European economies. As spending programmes reach cruising speed, increased payment levels for activities under the heading Competitiveness for Growth and Employment, that is +6.8%, and Cohesion for Growth and Employment, which is +16.9%, prove that these policies are implemented vigorously to accelerate the recovery process. Good budgetary implementation remains also essential and in particular the implementation of the structural and cohesion funds. Let me reiterate that the Commission remains committed to maintaining administrative efficiency and, in line with previous commitments, the Commission will not request any new posts. It wants to underline that such commitment goes beyond the establishment plan and also applies to external personnel, for which the Commission is even proposing a reduction. Every year the Commission provides full information on administrative expenditure; it is ready to discuss with the budgetary authority any alternative presentation to ensure transparency on this expenditure. Let me finish by thanking the rapporteur for making available at such an early stage an indicative list of new pilot projects and preparatory actions ahead of Parliament’s reading. This will help our dialogue and ultimately allow for the best implementation of projects which will be adopted at the final stage. I am confident that at the forthcoming trilogue we will have the opportunity to advance in a constructive way, as in previous years. The Commission will continue to do its utmost to help to pave the way for a successful outcome to this budget procedure."@en1
"− Mr President, let me introduce the debate on the progress reports on the three countries Croatia, Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You have rightly highlighted the issue of regional cooperation in your report. Efforts to improve good neighbourly relations must continue. Let me now turn to the issue of Turkey. Negotiations with Turkey continued during 2008, and a total of four chapters – as is almost a tradition – were opened during the course of the year. Despite the EU’s encouragement to Turkey to step up its reform efforts, 2008 did not deliver the expected level of reform. Further work on the political criteria remains key. Significant efforts will be needed in a number of areas, as highlighted by the Council in its conclusions of 8 December 2008 and in the Commission’s 2008 progress report. This is an issue to which you have also drawn attention in your report. At the same time, the Presidency welcomes the recent positive steps undertaken by Turkey, including the recently adopted national programme for the adoption of the acquis and the appointment of the new chief negotiator. It is important that these commitments are now translated into real and tangible actions. We would like to take this opportunity to stress the strategic importance of Turkey. The Presidency shares the opinion of Parliament that Turkey needs to be commended for the progress achieved in the field of energy. We continue to assess ways forward in this crucial area, particularly in terms of full support to the Nabucco pipeline project. As far as Turkey’s progress to accession is concerned, we would like to highlight that progress in the area of freedom of expression is essential for overall progress in the negotiations. Besides the welcome amendments to Article 301 of the Criminal Code, which have had a positive effect, there are still a number of legal provisions that remain in place which could lead to restrictions in this area. Website bans, often disproportionate in scope and duration, remain a cause for concern. Adequate legal solutions are also required to ensure that religious pluralism is brought in line with European standards. A comprehensive anti-corruption strategy needs to be developed. We are concerned also at the increased number of reported cases of torture and ill-treatment, in particular, outside official places of detention. The law on the duties and legal powers of the police, amended in 2007, must be monitored closely in order to prevent violations of human rights. The ratification of the Protocol to the Convention against Torture is vital. As far as the south-east is concerned, we welcome the announcement of the guidelines and general content of the South-East Anatolia Project. We now await concrete steps leading to the economic, social and cultural development of the region. This must include addressing longstanding issues such as the return of internally displaced persons or the question of village guards. As far as EU-Turkey relations are concerned, it is clear that Turkey needs to fulfil its obligation of full, non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is an important issue, as highlighted in your report, and should be addressed as soon as possible, as it clearly affects the pace of the accession negotiations. Issues covered by the declaration of 21 September 2005 will continue to be followed up, and progress is urgently awaited. Furthermore, Turkey also needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Let me begin with Croatia. Your report rightly states that Croatia made good progress over the past year. Since the start of the negotiations, 22 chapters – out of 35 – have been opened, of which seven have been provisionally closed. The Presidency will continue to take forward the negotiations. Two accession conferences in particular are planned: at deputy level in the coming weeks, and at ministerial level in June. Despite all these difficulties, progress continues in a range of areas. Work is currently under way on Chapter 16 on taxation and Chapter 19 on social policy and employment. Despite the fact that negotiations are becoming more complex as they advance, the Czech Presidency is committed to making progress on those chapters where progress is really possible. Moreover, the Presidency puts emphasis on achieving progress in Chapter 15 on energy, in compliance with energy issues, because it is one of our priorities. Finally, let me turn to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is a dynamic country with considerable potential. At the same time, it faces a number of significant challenges. Both these points are brought out admirably in your report. There is indeed much in the report with which the Council is in agreement. Your report places considerable emphasis on the question of a date for the opening of accession negotiations. You also rightly highlight the wish of all sides to find an early and mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the name. As far as recent developments are concerned, the early elections in June 2008 were held in several stages following significant problems both during the run-up, and on the original election day on 1 June. The OSCE/ODIHR/Council of Europe noted that there was a ‘failure to prevent violent acts’ in the run-up to the elections, and that the elections did not live up to a number of key international standards. As a result, we underlined to the government and all political players the importance of addressing these core points in the run-up to the presidential and local elections due in a few days time. It is our impression that this message has been heard and that significant efforts are being taken to prevent any disruption. We shall see whether these efforts bear fruit. The Commission’s 2008 Progress Report is helpful. We have taken note of the blueprint drawn up by the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is a detailed text which represents a serious effort to take on board the Commission’s recommendations. Against the background of the region as a whole, the document and the work that has gone into it should be viewed positively. The internal cohesion of this multiethnic state is, of course, key to its future development. I would, therefore, like to endorse the importance which this Parliament attaches to the Ohrid Framework Agreement This has been pivotal in drawing the country back from conflict and in assisting in its path towards greater European integration. On visa liberalisation, we are currently at an evaluation stage, and I would not wish to prejudge the outcome. On a personal basis, I would simply say that I have much sympathy for the hopes and aspirations of ordinary citizens of the former Yugoslavia who would like to be able to travel freely again. But the essential precondition remains the preparedness of the country to fulfil the specific criteria set out in the visa liberalisation road map. Personally, I hope that positive developments can be achieved soon. This brings me to one of the key points in your report and resolution. The Czech Presidency is fully committed to the European perspective for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Further progress in this direction is achievable. But the key objectives of the Association Partnership have to be fulfilled and we need evidence of well-conducted elections, in contrast to what happened in 2008. These points will be evaluated by the Commission in its next progress report. We look forward to this report, and to further developments in Skopje. Your report rightly highlights the importance of reaching a settlement to the outstanding border dispute with Slovenia. I would like to assure this Parliament that the Presidency will continue to make every effort to help resolve this issue and, in this context, we fully support the ongoing efforts of the Commissioner, Olli Rehn, to find a solution to allow us to continue with the accession negotiations. We had a lunch just before the sitting to discuss this in depth. Concerning the last development, we welcome Croatia’s decision announced on Monday that it accepts the mediation proposed by the group of experts proposed by Olli Rehn. We are encouraging both Slovenia and Croatia to work constructively in order to find a permanent and mutually acceptable solution as a matter of urgency, because it should not be just a prescription for more delays. Apart from this important issue, further progress in the wider negotiations depends, above all, on Croatia itself. The necessary political, economic, legislative and administrative reforms have to be completed, and it has to meet its obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. The implementation of the revised Accession Partnership is also important in preparing for further integration within the European Union. The Council considers that the indicative and conditional road map drawn up by the Commission in its 2008 Progress Report is a useful tool. It will assist Croatia in taking the necessary steps to reach the final stage of the negotiations. That said, despite good progress, much remains to be done. Let me pick out some of the key areas where further progress is needed, beginning with judicial reform. The EU has made it very clear that the establishment of an independent, impartial, reliable, transparent and efficient judicial system is essential. It is a condition for strengthening the rule of law and the proper implementation of the acquis. A professional, accountable, transparent and independent public administration is also key. Significant legislative reforms have been achieved in these two areas, but we need to see how they will work in practice. The same is true of the fight against corruption and organised crime, as outlined in your report. The powers and resources of the Office for the Prevention of Corruption and Organised Crime have been strengthened. This is also the case with the criminal courts investigating cases in this area. The main issue now is to make sure that the expected results are delivered. The full implementation of the anti-corruption programme and action plan is key to addressing this serious problem. The Union has also underlined that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), including access to documents, is essential. We are following very closely developments in this area and we invite the Croatian authorities to ensure that full cooperation with ICTY is maintained. We welcome the recent agreement concerning the missing documents and urge Croatia to deliver on it. On refugee return, we note that the implementation of the convalidation decision for validating pension rights has begun and information on the changes to the rules has been made available to the returnee community. On housing care, the 2007 cases have been resolved, but the 2008 benchmark has not yet been met. Work on ensuring the sustainability of refugee return must continue. This also goes for legislation to improve the rights of minorities."@en1
"− Mr President, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and the shadows, in particular Mr Harbour and Mrs McCarthy, for their political commitment and support, and the teams of the IMCO Secretariat and DG SANCO for their very close cooperation. This will lead us, hopefully, to conclude at first reading. I really appreciate your tremendous efforts and I am grateful that we finally reached an agreement. For the same reasons, I would also thank the French presidency. This proposal would bring about very significant improvements for consumers in the market for timeshare and similar holiday products. There is clearly an urgent need to revise the existing rules on timeshare. Consumers are losing out by purchasing products which are economically similar to timeshare but which do not fall under the definition of the current directive. I am speaking here about products like discount holiday clubs, where consumers often have to pay a substantial amount up front, ranging from EUR 6 000 to EUR 20 000, for membership of a club, which will only give a right to a discount on future holidays. I am also referring to the resale and exchange of timeshare which are currently unregulated. It is my deep conviction that we need to work on the database site for complaints, and data on complaints show that consumers encounter significantly more problems with these unregulated products, in particular, with the discount holiday clubs, compared to timeshare. There is, therefore, a compelling case for applying similar rules to these products in order to achieve more fairness in the holiday market. The proposal to be put to the vote today fills in the loopholes in the current legislation by extending the scope of the directive to cover not only timeshare but also long-term holiday products, resale and exchange of timeshare. With the new rules, traders marketing these products will have to provide a consumer with comprehensive pre-contractual information so that the consumer will be able to make an informed choice. Thanks to amendments from this House, which I wholeheartedly support, this information will have to be provided on a standardised information sheet, which will make it easier for consumers to assimilate the information. The standardised information sheet will also facilitate the life of traders, in particular, since it will be available in all EU languages. Consumers purchasing these products will also benefit from the right of withdrawal and a ban on advance payments, as is already the case for timeshare. It will also be clarified that withdrawal can be notified to the trader by letter, email, fax or other similar means. Moreover, consumers purchasing long-term holiday products will be given additional protection. The total payment for membership will no longer be allowed up front but must instead be divided into yearly instalments. The consumer will also have the right to terminate the contract before each yearly payment. The fully harmonised rules of the directive will be good for consumers. Currently, consumers wishing to purchase a timeshare while on holiday in another country will do so on the basis of that country’s rules, which may not be as protective as the rules of his home country. With the new fully harmonised directive, consumers will know that the same consumer protection rules will apply, regardless of whether they bought their timeshare holiday products in their home countries or while on holiday abroad."@en1
"− Mr President, like Mr Tatarella, I would like to begin by thanking the people closely involved with helping us reach first-reading agreement today on the EMAS report. I would like to thank the shadows, who are here today, the Commission, who have been very helpful in getting agreement, and to the Czech Presidency, who are not here to hear my thanks. Thanks also go to the staff in Parliament and the groups, and to my own assistant, Elizabeth, who played a big role in making sure we were here today. It all went very fast, from the time we started discussing it to today, so we now have agreement before the election. EMAS is a voluntary scheme, which provides a framework to assist businesses and organisations to improve their environmental performance. It started 14 years ago and has had some modest success with about 4 000 participants – which, if you think about it, is not such a huge number in the overall European Union. The Commission set a target of increasing that to 35 000 participants. That is a very ambitious target. It is almost a 10-fold increase. I think it is right that we should try and improve the take-up of EMAS, because otherwise its impact is going to remain limited. But if we are to increase the impact, we also have to retain the environmental integrity of the programme. I think the agreement we reached today does achieve that balance between, hopefully, making it more attractive to people, while at the same time retaining the environmental integrity. We have made some changes which we have agreed with the Commission, and I think they are important. Firstly, corporate registration, so that a company or organisation with more than one site can actually register once in one country, which is very important. This Parliament had to register three times – in Luxembourg, France and Belgium – in order to get EMAS. From what I hear from the staff, it was not an easy thing to do. So that kind of change is important. Also, cluster registration for organisations involved in the same sector; reduced fees, and lighter reporting requirements for SMEs – I think EMAS is a bit too burdensome for small organisations, so it does need to change – and better alignment with ISO 14001. Particularly important to me is the introduction of sectoral support documents. I think the Commission is going to work very hard at this, and this will help organisations to benchmark themselves against similar organisations. Core indicators will also be introduced. These are very important to improve the programme and help people on the outside look at organisations and see how they are doing. I do hope these will encourage people to take part in EMAS, not because I want to play a numbers game and see EMAS competing with ISO, but because I think the scheme is a good one and could help us to meet our sustainability criteria. Today the eyes of the world are very much on London, where world leaders are gathered to talk about the financial downturn and the global banking crisis. There will be some, no doubt, who are wondering why we are sitting here talking about environmental auditing at a time when organisations and companies are feeling the financial strain. They will see this kind of initiative by the Commission as a distraction. But I think that is wrong. For me and my Socialist colleagues, the green agenda is very much part of the solution to emerging from the financial crisis that we are in. We need to invest in energy and renewables, and we need to be cutting our environmental footprint. Although EMAS is a very modest programme in the big scheme about climate change which the Commissioner has worked so hard on, I think it nevertheless plays a role in helping the European Union and the rest of the world to cut our environmental footprint."@en1
"− Mr President, my thanks for all the contributions. It is great to hear such enthusiasm and interest in this important issue. I think that all the comments here are, to a certain extent, very much in line with the Commission’s view on the proposal. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the questions or issues raised here. First of all on the financing – this has been raised by quite a few of you – to increase the cofinancing rate. I think, though, that we have to be very cautious and careful when we try to monitor the benefit of the Community financing because I fear that if we increase the cofinancing, the bottom line will be that there will be less promotion. That would be a bad outcome and that is the reason why we have maintained our proposal. Quality has been mentioned quite a few times today and I agree with you. I think we have a golden opportunity to discuss this quality issue that is also linked to how we promote our products in the Third World, how we explain to consumers what they get when they buy European. Last October, we presented a Green Paper on quality and we have had lots of contributions; there are more than 1 000 contributions on the website from all over Europe. We are now digesting all these different ideas and we will present a communication in May. We should take this opportunity when the discussion takes place here in Parliament on communication to make a link – how do we improve our possibilities to make it visible and make it understandable. Here the labelling issue, which is both difficult and important, comes into the discussions, so I am looking forward to having a discussion with you on this issue in the autumn. Finally, regarding the school fruit scheme which has been raised here today – it is not part of the proposal, but just to keep you updated – we introduced a school fruit scheme with a cofinancing rate of 70% to increase the awareness of young people and to take the opportunity to underline the importance of good eating habits among school children. Once again, my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, for a very good report. I think it is very well mirrored here today by the dynamic discussion that we have had."@en1
"− Mr President, not only have I listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and not only have I paid attention to what was said in the report by the Court of Auditors, but also, as I said before, I have just come back from a visit to Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia and have seen with my own eyes what the needs of these countries are in the field of health. They have needs in terms of infrastructure, needs in terms of the trained health providers we have already talked about, and needs in terms of medication. Those needs are immense, and I cannot but agree with you that we have to intensify our efforts in offering our help, in the field of health, in the poor countries of Africa. I can assure you that I will convey your comments to my colleague, Louis Michel, and I am sure he, too, will consider all your suggestions and comments with great attention, just as I have done."@en1
"− Mr President, on behalf of the Commission and on my own behalf, I want sincerely to congratulate you once again and wish you all the best in your term of office. Your election symbolises not only the reunification of Europe, but also a Europe that is very much attached to the central values of freedom and solidarity. Personally and institutionally I want to commit to close cooperation with you and with the European Parliament. Parliament and the Commission are the two Community institutions at the heart of Community matters. You and all the Members of this Parliament have been directly elected by our citizens and the Commission has the right and the duty to put European interests above any particular interest. I believe that we have a special responsibility for the European project in full respect of the Treaties. That is why I want to reiterate my willingness to work together to advance European parliamentary democracy."@en1
"− Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I would like to highlight the need for financial resources to be available to combat all forms of discrimination against women, in particular inequalities regarding the pay gap. I also stress the importance of appropriate funding for the European Institute for Gender Equality in Lithuania, and would like to highlight the need to set up the necessary funds to establish a European observatory on violence against women, building on existing institutional structures, as was agreed by the Council on 8 March 2010. Finally, we would also urge the Commission to urge the Member States to make greater use of the Structural Funds, within the framework of the European Social Fund, as a way of promoting equality between men and women."@en1
"− Mr President, success has been achieved in the last 10 years, as many of you mentioned, but it is clear that significant challenges still lie ahead. Every year, landmines still leave thousands of civilians dead and thousands more with missing limbs, and they contribute to keeping countries in post-conflict poverty. This is why we will continue to pursue action in support of the Ottawa Convention. The European Commission is determined to continue its efforts to financially assist communities and individuals affected by landmines, through all available instruments."@en1
"− Mr President, thank you for a very substantive report on the Commission’s proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. This is a very important and cherished subject and I appreciate the enormous work that has been done by Mr Cashman, as rapporteur, and also many other active, interested and skilled people in this House. I would also like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions in this House and elsewhere. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the cornerstone of a policy on transparency, but we also need to think about what we can do proactively outside the formal legislation. That is why I announced at the joint committee meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 20 January that I am taking the initiative to prepare an openness action plan. Improved registers, greater user-friendliness and accessibility, active dissemination, and quicker publishing of documents are some examples of what I want to address in this action plan and, of course, continue to discuss with the other EU institutions. This is a pragmatic and efficient way to mainstream transparency into all our policies. We need to lead by example. In this spirit, we should also look at ways to make our institutions and the way they operate more understandable to citizens. We need an active policy of informing citizens and making them aware of how Europe-wide policies affect their everyday life. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is, of course, an important tool but, beyond the legal text, it is how we put this into practice that really counts. To sum up the Commission’s position on Mr Cashman’s report at this stage of the procedure, I would like to say the following. There are some amendments the Commission cannot accept because they go beyond the legal base of Article 255 of the Treaty. There are other amendments we cannot accept because they go beyond the scope of the Commission’s proposed changes, but in some cases, such amendments nevertheless point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. Also, the Commission is always willing to take on board good ideas in whatever context it may be. Once we have Parliament’s and the Council’s positions, you will have the position from the third corner in the institutional triangle. I look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking discussion to come. The subject deserves that, and our citizens are entitled to expect clear and well-functioning legislation on public access to our documents. This is a subject that touches upon fundamental and sometimes conflicting rights of citizens, associations and undertakings. We need to look very carefully at the necessary changes to be made to this Regulation and we need to remain focused on openness. All three institutions have agreed that, overall, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has worked remarkably well for almost eight years now. Parliament, Council and Commission are much more open now than ever before. You could say that the change of rules led to a change of practice and to a change of minds and attitudes. At the same time, Parliament, Council and Commission also agree that legitimate interests have received adequate protection. We should not forget that the EU institutions have granted access to a higher number of documents, while a decrease in the number and rate of refusals has been registered. So I hope you agree that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has proven its value. For this reason, a complete overhaul is not necessary. Having said this, even a good tool can always be improved. The legal base we have as our starting point is Article 255 of the Treaty, as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur. Following that, the Regulation shall define principles and the limits governing the citizen’s right of access to documents. As regards the report at hand, I note that some amendments go beyond the scope of Article 255 of the Treaty and therefore these amendments cannot be accepted. But – and this is an important ‘but’ – they point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. The Commission will certainly look at that with a constructive, pragmatic and open mind. It is good practice to assess from time to time whether legislation works well and achieves its objectives, and it is in this spirit that the Commission drafted its proposal for a recast of the Regulation. The use of the recast technique meets the objective of better lawmaking. Since this Regulation touches upon a fundamental right of citizens, it is of the utmost importance to adopt a single, clear and readable legal text. The recast technique does not tie the hands of the legislator more than the traditional way of amending legislation. Irrespective of the choice of legislative technique, the Community legislator may not go beyond the aim of the proposal. We are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness, and I firmly believe that this is a good way to do it. In this context, however, I have to mention that a number of the amendments concern provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which the Commission did not propose to amend. We are not in a position to accept them because they go beyond the scope of the Commission’s proposal. Having said this, the Commission is, of course, willing to take on board good ideas, although we are at the moment still in the early stages of the procedure. I would like to confirm that the Commission is willing to have discussions with the two co-legislators and that we want to try to find common ground in order to reach a balanced and workable compromise text. However, the Commission prefers to come forward with an amended proposal when the two co-legislators have stated their position. We cannot and will not prejudge or anticipate discussions or negotiations. We should also bear in mind the changes that the Lisbon Treaty – if and when it enters into force – will bring about on this important issue. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will then apply to all institutions, bodies, agencies and offices of the European Union, albeit to a limited extent for the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank. For citizens, the Lisbon Treaty will mean real progress when all EU bodies will apply a common set of rules on access to documents. Such a single set of rules ensures consistency but, at the same time, it must be tailored to fit the great number of bodies with very different mandates and competences."@en1
"− Mr President, thank you for inviting me once again to this important debate on the CFSP. I think that it is becoming a tradition once a year to hold this debate and I am very happy to participate. I would like to thank the three rapporteurs, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Mr von Wogau and Mr Vatanen, for their reports. I found in them a lot of things that resonate with what we are thinking and doing. I have taken note of many of the things said in the reports and I hope very much that they will play a part in updating our thinking, with your cooperation. Let me say a word about structures – internal structures relating to ESDP. As you know, during the last month of the French Presidency, we were working on a document to reorganise and set up something very dear to me. I tried to do it from the very beginning and we have the support to do it now, namely to develop a strategic planning capability which is, at the same time, both civilian and military. This is the modern approach to crisis management. I think that we are relatively new to these actions and because of this, we can be even more efficient, more flexible, and more able to adapt to new realities than others. And so I think that what we are doing, in having military and civilian cooperation at the strategic planning level, is very important. I have to say, and I hope you will agree with me, that military action alone cannot solve the conflicts of today. Civilian action is not possible without a secure environment. This is the equilibrium we have to find and this is what we are seeing everywhere – in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, wherever you look. It is a very important concept of symbiosis between political, civilian and security aspects of our lives. As has been said very eloquently by the three rapporteurs, we need capabilities. Without capabilities we only have documents, and with documents alone we do not solve conflicts. That was stressed very much at the December European Council and I would like to thank the three rapporteurs for having made this point clearly. We have problems sometimes with force generation and this is something that is very important for you to know. Without more rapid force generation, be it police, prosecutors, or military, it will be very difficult to act at the rhythm, at the speed, that is required in crisis management. Let me say a word about NATO-European Union relations because they are covered in the report by Mr Vatanen. As you know, we have a framework for cooperation that we call Berlin Plus. However, not all the operations that we conduct on behalf of the European Union fall within this framework, for cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance. We still have problems, as you know, because this relationship has not been able to overcome some of the difficulties we have in really cooperating in operations with NATO that fall outside the framework of Berlin Plus. We have problems in Kosovo that have still not been resolved and we have problems in Afghanistan. I hope very much that in the run-up to the NATO summit, we will be able to resolve these problems. Let me say a word on Afghanistan. Without any doubt, this is going to be one of the most important issues facing us in 2009. You have seen the position of President Obama on this theatre – Afghanistan-Pakistan – and the appointment of a special representative. We have to deliver and to deliver in a sensible manner. More engagement will be needed. This does not necessarily mean military engagement but we have to engage in a more efficient manner and in a more coordinated manner amongst ourselves and with others – the United States, the international community at large, the United Nations. I have had the opportunity to meet Richard Holbrooke already a couple of times, and General Petraeus. We are going to re-examine this concept in the coming weeks and it will be very good if, by that time, we are ready to respond in a constructive manner to a very important problem on which we are engaged, the European Union is engaged, the Member States are engaged, and I think we should maintain this engagement. We could talk for hours about many other issues – energy, non-proliferation, you name it, but I think the important thing is that we have this fundamental agreement in the three reports that have been presented today on what we have been doing over the last period of time. I would like to finish and say thank you very much for your cooperation. My thanks to those who work with me more intensively on some of the specific dossiers in which we are engaged. As I said, I think how we act in the international arena on behalf of the European Union will also define who we are. At this point, it is very important that we do better because we want to be better. Speaking today, at the beginning of 2009, at the European Parliament, reminds me of where we were 10 years ago, in 1999. That was really when we began working on ESDP. And when I look at where we are today and compare this to where we were on the day that we began to work on ESDP, a lot of progress has really been made. Nobody can fail to see what has been achieved. As has been mentioned, more than 20 civilian and military operations are, or have been, deployed on just about every continent, from Europe to Asia, from the Middle East to Africa. Thousands of European men and women are engaged in these operations, ranging from military to police, from border guards to monitors, from judges to prosecutors, a good range of people doing good for the stability of the world. I think this is the European way of doing things. A comprehensive approach to crisis prevention and to crisis management; a large and diversified tool box where we can take whatever is necessary; a rapid response capability; trying to be what we deserve to be, a global actor, as is asked of us by third countries. Obviously, if the Lisbon Treaty were to be ratified, and I hope it will be, we would, without any doubt, be much more effective. I should like to thank Parliament for the support we have obtained over recent years, for the good cooperation that I have always enjoyed from you, the representatives of the citizens of the European Union. Without the engagement, without the understanding, without the support, not only of the Members of this distinguished House, but also of the citizens of the European Union through other mechanisms – their own parliaments – it would be very difficult to play the role that we try to play with the number of operations that we have and with the number of citizens of the European Union who are engaged in them. The CFSP is more than an instrument. The CFSP relates to our values, to your values, to the values of our people. I really feel attached to these values that are represented in the core of all the 27 Member States of the European Union: human rights, the rule of law, international law and effective multilateralism; all those words and concepts are probably a constructive representation of what we are. But the CFSP also helps shape our internal cooperation among the Member States of the European Union. By working together, by acting together, we define who we are. And so the CFSP is also a way in which the European Union keeps on, every day, defining itself. I think that what I have said will resonate with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This really is what we do and what we are about: values and action and, at the same time, construction of the European Union. We act because of who we are, and who we are is shaped by our actions. I think this is an important concept to keep in mind. The Security Strategy of 2003 was a basic document that allowed us to map the way ahead. The three reports make reference to that document. As you know, we have updated it in cooperation with the Commission and Parliament in 2008. That document does not replace the 2003 document but it certainly reinforces it and brings it up to date, incorporating the threats and challenges that we face in the world in which we are living today, from climate change to terrorism, from energy security to piracy. Let me say a word about piracy because that relates to our youngest operation, Atalanta. I would like to underline that this is the first time that the ESDP has engaged in a maritime operation. It is quite a step forward, quite a step in the right direction to have this type of operation. This maritime operation against piracy is conducted from a European operational headquarters in the United Kingdom. It involves a significant number of countries and a significant number of third countries want to join it. I had lunch today with the Swiss Foreign Minister and they want to participate in this operation because they share our concerns on piracy. This is very important. You probably think, and I agree with you, that this offshore operation is very important but that the problems onshore need to be solved as well as the problems offshore."@en1
"− Mr President, thank you to all those who have contributed to making our cultural diversity, not only in Europe, but also transcending borders. I would like, at the end of this speech, to give you some concrete examples of how this can work and how it has already worked. We have developed 11 training partnerships with Latin America, India, Canada, Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia covering films, TV shows, animation, documentaries. For example, a cartoon connection between the EU and Latin America and Canada for training and developing a cartoon specialist. For instance Prime Exchange, a workshop for authors and producers from India and Europe, to understand better the financing and the marketing elements of films. And the promotion on the distribution has been done, for instance, by the European Producers Club, which organised co-producing workshops in China and in India. Dolma organised a documentary month in Chile, the Paris Project made co-produced productions between Japan and South Korea and Europe, and EuropaCinema has included a network of 230 European cinemas and 148 cinemas in the rest of the world, in order to exchange films between them. So here we can see very concrete action. It is not about big words but about deeds, in order to help the professionals to do themselves what they can best do: that is, to make films, to show films, to make films travel. Thanks to all those who have helped this to become a reality."@en1
"− Mr President, the ALDE Group, the PPE Group, the S&D Group and the Greens/EFA Group propose that we refer the report back to the committee for further informed and expedient consideration."@en1
"− Mr President, the Commission in its role as the EU’s representative in the G20, together with the Presidency, strongly advocates increased support to low-income countries, particularly the poorest, as one of the critical priorities of the G20 commitments. Concerning the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, our role in promoting their reform is, of course, limited. The issue of voice and representation will be discussed at the IMF World Bank annual meetings in Istanbul, which Commissioner Almunia and I will attend this October. In this respect, we welcome the addition of a third seat for sub-Saharan African countries on the World Bank’s Board of Governors, and are looking with interest at proposals on the table for further reforms. Concerning illicit financial flows, I would like to reassure Mrs Joly that I have already given instructions to the Commission services to explore ways of improving fiscal and financial governance in developing countries in order to curb illicit financial flows. This crisis has also shown that we have to strengthen the mechanisms for delivering ODA. The international aid effectiveness agenda embodied in the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action is now more important than ever. In these difficult economic times, we have a particular responsibility towards the world’s poor to make sure our development assistance is being channelled effectively. In its 8 April communication, the Commission also underlined the useful contribution of innovative funding mechanisms as a complementary and mutually reinforcing instrument with ODA. We have urged Member States to use their full tool kit and to leverage non-ODA with ODA, for example, by building on ongoing voluntary solidarity levies such as the airline ticket taxes to finance health programmes. There will be high-level discussions on this subject, including a major conference in 2010 organised by the French, which will involve the Commission upstream. In this regard, it is important that low income countries receive appropriate funding to meet the needs emerging especially from the backlash of the financial crisis. That is why we advocate the need to enhance access by poor and fragile countries, often without institutional administrative capacities, to the facilities and credits made available by the international financial institutions and other donors. Personally, I will defend this approach at the November Development Affairs Council, and the global financial crisis will be at the centre of my political concerns during the weeks ahead. I hope I can count on your support throughout. In this context our ‘Vulnerability FLEX’ instrument is of particular relevance. The Commission has worked with the World Bank and the IMF to identify the most crisis-vulnerable countries and to complement the loan-based assistance provided by these two institutions with timely and targeted grant aid under the Vulnerability FLEX. Between 2009 and 2010, up to EUR 500 million will be spent on those ACP countries requesting assistance to ensure priority public spending, including in the social sectors. Let me reassure you that the frontloading of budget support through the Vulnerability FLEX mechanism will not lead to a funding gap insofar as the Commission is using non-earmarked reserves. Countries not eligible under the Vulnerability FLEX will also benefit from other measures proposed by the Commission in its April communication, for example, reallocations following ad hoc country reviews and the advanced mid-term review, support under the traditional FLEX, frontloading where feasible, etc. Concerning the targeting of the budget support, I am convinced that the flexibility inherent in this instrument already allows recipient countries to use the funds in the manner which they judge will best help them respond to economic and social problems. In addition, the advanced mid-term review of the 10th EDF will provide a good opportunity to identify new needs and assess whether these would be better addressed through general or sectoral budget support. The advanced medium-term review will also provide an additional opportunity to look again at budget support profiles in each ACP country and consider amendments, reallocation or additional funds from the reserve."@en1
"− Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s initiative to formulate an own-initiative opinion on the social economy. Especially in the context of the present financial and economic crisis, this important sector deserves to be promoted more. Social economy enterprises have a unique way of doing business since they combine economic performance mutually between members, and often also the achievement of social and societal objectives, as a business purpose. Thus, they are well placed to contribute to Community policies and objectives, particularly in the field of employment, social cohesion, regional and rural development, environmental protection, consumer protection and social security. Social economy enterprises are an integral part of the Commission’s enterprise policy. Since, in the majority, they are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises, they already benefit from the Small Business Act and all actions targeting small enterprises. With regard to the social economy, our objective is to create a legal and administrative environment, at European level and in every Member State, in which social economy enterprises of whatever form and size can thrive and meet the challenges posed by globalisation and the economic downturn. More specifically, the Commission’s policy aims to guarantee that social economy enterprises can grow and prosper alongside other forms of company. To this end, the Commission pays particular attention to ensuring that all other Community policies in areas such as competition, accounting, company law, public procurement, health, social affairs, agriculture, fisheries, banking, insurance, public and private partnerships and regional development, do take into account the specific needs, particular goals, efforts and working style of this kind of enterprise. To conclude, the Commission services are currently working on a document which will take stock of the progress made since 2004 on the promotion of cooperatives. It will also assess the situation of other social economy enterprises and propose new actions if necessary."@en1
"− Mr President, the EU and its Member States have committed themselves to pursuing gender equality and women’s empowerment as one of the key priorities of the international agenda. Yet, closer inspection reveals that the practical implementation of gender mainstreaming in the EU’s external policies is still weak. For instance, only eight of the 27 Member States have adopted national action plans on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Furthermore, women are still seriously underrepresented in high-level posts in the Commission and the Council. In fact, there is not a single female EU special representative at the moment. For this reason, the report stresses that the EU needs to fully implement its commitments in this field. For instance, the Commission should speed up its work on an EU action plan on gender equality. I am convinced that this is key to strengthening the gender dimension in EU foreign policy. Let me conclude by saying that women’s rights are part of the broader concept of human and civic rights. Without addressing gender equality and promoting women’s rights in the EU’s foreign policy, that policy cannot be effective."@en1
"− Mr President, the Eurodac report is a recast and would make the system work more efficiently. Rapid data collection and transmission can shorten the period of granting, or not, human rights, and that is very important. This is the last plenary session I shall be attending as an MEP. I want to thank you all and say optimistically: goodbye !"@en1
"− Mr President, the Irish people took a very important and historic decision last weekend: a very important decision for Ireland; a very important decision for Europe. The Irish people, by a resounding majority, recognised the importance of the Lisbon Treaty, a Treaty that offers a more democratic and effective Europe, a Treaty that gives us the right platform to deliver the modern, successful European Union our citizens wish to see. One of the most important and the most complex has to be the innovations regarding the European External Action Service. We have been working hard to think through some of the practical details of how we can make the European External Action Service a real success. This work will now accelerate and, in the same spirit as the remarks made just now by the Swedish Presidency, I want to state the European Commission’s determination to work with Parliament to achieve that objective. I know that Elmar Brok has been leading on this subject here in Parliament. I understand that you will debate this at the next plenary. This is excellent timing since this will take place shortly before the same question is discussed at the European Council. I think that report is an excellent basis for discussions between our institutions, and I welcome the strong Community spirit that inspires the report. This is exactly the spirit that I will uphold in the preparation for the important innovation that is the European External Service. Another point is comitology. It is an important aspect of how the European Union does its business. The Treaty of Lisbon introduces new rules making the system more rational and transparent. We need to fix exactly how the new system should work. But let me be clear: many of these decisions are of great political importance and deserve proper democratic scrutiny and real political ownership. So we need to maintain the strong role played by Parliament today. Another important democratic element is the new mechanisms to allow national parliaments a direct say on subsidiarity. We need to put these mechanisms in the broader context of the excellent relations with national parliaments built up by the Commission, and indeed the European Parliament, over the last few years. Finally, I would like to mention the European Citizens’ Initiative. This is one of the most striking innovations on the Treaty’s democratic agenda and one on which this Parliament has already worked in detail. Margot Wallström has been leading our work in developing a green paper to launch a consultation as soon as possible, with the goal of seeing this opportunity in citizens’ hands within a year of entry into force. When I spoke to this Parliament last month, I set out what I saw as the greatest challenges and the great opportunities facing Europe today. With the Lisbon Treaty, we will have the right springboard to help us make those goals a reality, and I am sure that with this constructive partnership between our institutions, we will make it a success. That is the commitment of the European Commission. The Treaty now has the democratic endorsement of all 27 Member States. All the Member States of the European Union, by parliament or by popular vote, have approved the Treaty. This is indeed a major achievement. It shows how the enlarged Europe is able to share a vision for our future and a determination to move forward. It was decided democratically. Now what we need is the ratification procedures to be concluded. I am pleased to see that President Kaczyński of Poland will be signing very soon. As he has always said to me, he will be ready to do it when the Irish have voted ‘yes’. This is indeed very good news. Of course, we have to see the completion of the process in the Czech Republic. We need to respect the constitutional proceedings in that country, as we have done in other countries, but once these procedures are concluded, I see no reason why proceedings cannot be concluded swiftly. This is important for Europe as a whole, but it is particularly important for the Commission. I want to see the new Commission in place, a Commission in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, and I want to see it in office as quickly as possible. A long period with a caretaker Commission is in nobody’s interest. I am ready to start the formation of the next Commission as soon as the Council is ready to clarify the legal basis definitively, and also to nominate the High Representative who will become Vice-President of the Commission. I appreciate all the efforts made by the Swedish Presidency, and personally by Prime Minister Reinfeldt, to reach a swift conclusion to all these processes. The initiative that Prime Minister Reinfeldt took today at a meeting with me and with you, President Buzek, and the video conference with Prime Minister Fischer, was a very good and useful initiative. I also know that this Parliament has worked tirelessly to promote the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament and Commission have worked hand in hand to explain why it is the right treaty for Europe. I am proud of the role that the Commission played in giving the Irish people the information they needed to make up their minds. Now that we have a real probability of having the Lisbon Treaty finally ratified and the whole process completed, we can turn our attention to the work to implement the Treaty. I would like to take this occasion to highlight four areas where we are working hard to ensure that we can hit the ground running when the Treaty comes into force."@en1
"− Mr President, the persecution of Nobel Prize Laureate Mrs Shirin Ebadi is only one example of many that are taking place in Iran currently, and such persecution should come as no surprise to us considering the blinkered vision of the anachronistically theocratic rulers of that country. Nor should we be surprised by the fact that the regime in Iran will take no notice whatsoever of this resolution. They will laugh at it and throw it in the bin in exactly the same manner that they have dealt with all previous resolutions of this Parliament. And who can blame them? They know that our resolutions are just words, not deeds, and in their estimation they are not worth the paper they are written on. If we really want to help bring change in Iran then we must match our words with action. For example, we can remove the PMOI from our terrorist list, or we can stop lucrative contracts between EU Member States and applicant countries and Iran. If we take such action, then we can be sure that the authorities in Tehran will take us seriously and will think twice about continuing with the persecution of their democracy-seeking citizens. So, it seems to me that we should have had a second motion for a resolution in addition to this one, calling on the governments of some EU Member States, such as the UK and France, and applicant countries, such as Turkey, to stop their hypocritical stance on Iran and start taking real action against it immediately and effectively."@en1
"− Mr President, the public financing of Opel/Vauxhall by one or more European governments is the issue that I will address. As you know, last Thursday, the Opel Trust, in which General Motors (GM) and the German authorities have equal representation, announced that it has approved the sale by GM of a majority stake in its European Opel/Vauxhall operations to the consortium of Magna International and Sberbank. This decision by the owners of Opel has been supported by the German Government. The German Government promised to grant public funds of up to EUR 4.5 billion to the new Opel, with the possible participation of other European governments. Mr President, the Commission has kept in touch with all the Member States concerned throughout the process which led to this transaction and the Commission is also aware of the controversies regarding the respective merits of the restructuring plans presented by different bidders, including the doubt publicly expressed by certain members of the Opel Trust. Concerning the public financing of the GM/Magna transaction, we have been informed that the German Government intends to avail itself of a pre-existing approved scheme under the Commission’s temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis. Mr President, I intend to verify carefully whether this scheme can be used in this case and you will certainly understand that I cannot take a position at this stage since the deal is not yet finalised and, by the way, a number of aspects are still being negotiated. However, at this moment, it is quite important that I should outline to you the most relevant considerations. In particular, I have to underline that State aid granted under the temporary framework cannot be subject or to additional conditions concerning location of investments or the geographic distribution of restructuring efforts. Such conditions would create – and I am quite clear on this – unacceptable distortions in the internal markets and could trigger a subsidy race which would significantly damage the European economy at the present, very delicate moment. Moreover, if the restructuring of a European company was determined by non-commercial conditions attached to public financing, there would be a risk that a company would not be able to restore its long-term viability, and that risk to viability is all the greater due to the current weakened state of the entire European car industry. The European car industry, as we are all aware, suffers from considerable overcapacity. So a failed restructuring would result in great damage for the company and for its workers, in negative spillovers for the whole sector, and in a waste of taxpayer’s money. And those principles will be my guidance in my assessment in the Opel case. I will verify whether non-commercial protectionist conditions are attached to public funding or and the Commission will examine not only the legal conditions that may be attached to a final aid package, but also the entire context in which the aid is granted. And I will be particularly interested to find out whether the German authorities have effectively linked the provision of aid to a single bidder and, if so, to find out why they regarded that bidder’s business plan as preferable from an industrial and commercial point of view. In the short term, it is a sad fact that, because of the current state of overcapacity in the car industry, any plan to restore the profitability of Opel/Vauxhall will require job losses across the company as a whole and planned closures; all the plans to save Opel/Vauxhall presented by different potential investors have foreseen both plant closures and job cuts. However, a social restructuring is the only way to ensure viable and stable jobs for the future, and the Commission cannot, and should not, try to dictate where such cuts will fall, nor can it try to prevent them. We will, however, be scrutinising the process very carefully to ensure that it is based on commercial considerations designed to sustain viable jobs and not protectionist motives."@en1
"− Mr President, the situation of Iranian citizens who live under the oppressive dictatorship of Tehran’s mullahs is alarming and has been deteriorating in all areas since 2005. Therefore, I urge the Commission to continue to monitor the human rights situation there and to present a comprehensive report on the situation during the first half of this year. Today, we protest against the harassment of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ms Shirin Ebadi, and her Centre for the Defence of Human Rights. It has often been asked what is the result of these protests. This question should also be addressed to the Council and the Commission. The Iranian regime is potentially the biggest threat to world peace and the rule of law. In all likelihood, in the nearest future, Tehran will have nuclear warheads – it already has the missiles to deliver them. Iran, too, is a big exporter of terrorism – to Iraq for example, it is a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. At the same time, the EU is still hoping to convince this dictatorship through compromises and has, until recently, been helping the terrorist regime in Tehran to tie the hands of the main democratic opposition, ironically labelling it as a terrorist organisation. So we need a clear and forceful stand on human rights and also to have the human rights situation in Iran as a priority in dealing with Tehran."@en1
"− Mr President, the story of Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize-winning lawyer, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to receive the prize, may be well known to most of us here today. She was the first female judge in her country but was forced to resign due to the Iranian revolution. She defended the rights of Iranian women and children, fighting to change divorce and inheritance laws in Iran. She stood up to defend religious minorities and their rights, and most recently she has defended seven members of the Bahá’í faith who have been collectively arrested and who face persecution like many others of faith in Iran. But it is her work on human rights and her courage and determination which has gained her the respect of all of us in the Chamber. She, along with other human rights activists, bravely founded the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights in Tehran. Its purpose was to report human rights violations in Iran, to provide representation of political prisoners and to help their families. However, right from the start, the authorities have tried to close the office down. Those who work there have been threatened, imprisoned and intimidated. Shirin Ebadi has personally faced numerous death threats, and the international community has, for some time, expressed its concern for her safety. Then, just before Christmas, as those at the centre were about to commemorate the 60 anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Iranian security officials closed the centre down. The centre must be reopened immediately. We must put pressure on the Commission, the High Representative, the Czech Presidency and our own Member States to take this case up and see the centre reopened. It is hard for us sitting here in this Chamber to truly comprehend the bravery, the courage and strength required by human rights activists like Shirin Ebadi to function in Iran and stand up to the dictatorship. However, the work of human rights lawyers and activists is needed to shine a light on what is happening in Iran, to give hope to those like the Alaei brothers. Arash and Kamiar Alaei are both doctors helping those with HIV and AIDS who have been charged with cooperating with an enemy, when all they have been doing is trying to help the sick. I hope that we will see the re-opening of the human rights centre and that this Parliament will do all it can to help Shirin Ebadi. After all, as fellow human beings, her struggle is also our struggle."@en1
"− Mr President, there are over one million preventable needle-stick injuries on healthcare workers each year across the whole of the EU. Many of those who are injured, and their families, face an agonising wait to find out whether they have contracted a blood-borne infection such as HIV or hepatitis C. The risks of infection following an accident are not insignificant. Experts tell us the chances of infection are one in three for hepatitis B, 1 in 30 for hepatitis C and 1 in 300 for HIV. Take the case of Juliet Young. Juliet was a nurse who died in 2008, seven years after contracting HIV while taking blood from an infected patient in a London hospital. Juliet accidentally pricked her thumb on the needle after it slipped when she was taking a sample. Or the case of a dental nurse working in a prison who was pricked by a needle that was used on an inmate who had hepatitis A, B, and C and was HIV positive. Imagine the agonising wait that she had; she has now discovered that she has contracted hepatitis C. This nurse, and many others like her, are continuing to campaign on this issue. I first became involved in 2004 when I visited a hospital in my constituency at the instigation of Health First Europe, and then on World Aids Day on 1 December that year I hosted an exhibition with Stephen Hughes in this Parliament. Healthcare workers from across the European Union visited us, visited the Parliament, desperate for our help. Those of you who had the opportunity to meet with those nurses and other healthcare workers could not have failed to have been moved by their plight, and in 2006 we passed a Parliament resolution on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needle-stick injuries. This resolution called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal to amend Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents within three months. This proposal never came, but Stephen Hughes and I did not give up the fight. I personally have amended many reports and resolutions calling for action, spoken in plenary on this issue a dozen times and tabled countless parliamentary questions. Following meetings with Commissioner Špidla, we were told in 2008 that a proposal was being prepared by the Commission and we were on the brink of achieving this. However, at the last minute, this was blocked as the social partners promised they would try, at long last, to reach an agreement, much to our frustration. A comprehensive agreement on the necessary requirements was eventually reached by the social partners in the summer of 2009. My resolution supports the agreement wholeheartedly. The Council must adopt the proposed directive urgently so that the Commission can ensure that it is implemented effectively and without delay. Healthcare workers across Europe are depending on us. Our healthcare workers cannot wait and should not continue to be placed in danger. It is really time now to act decisively."@en1
"− Mr President, this is a really interesting debate, and I wish to thank the Members very much for their overall great support for this Eastern Partnership approach. I would say to Mr Szent-Iványi that we support the eastern partners in meeting our conditions. That is crucial. We therefore have a mechanism for giving them more capacity-building and more institution-building, because we can see that sometimes the institutions are weak. Concerning Ukraine, we are working on the legal framework, but implementation is up to the governments in every democratic country, once the parliament has adopted the legislation. Therefore, with the Eastern Partnerships, we are trying to support and to push, but it is also up to those countries to do their job. As Mr Swoboda mentioned, it is very important that we are also critical when necessary, and there has to be genuine leadership in a country. At present we are not always sure about that, and want the country to move ahead. I am very grateful to Mr Saryusz-Wolski for his support. It is absolutely right to say that differentiation is also key here, because the various countries are very different: Ukraine is in the forefront, in principle, then there are Moldova and Georgia, and then there is a country like Belarus, in which the situation is very delicate. I am preparing for a visit to Belarus, where we have to work a delicate balance, because we want to offer something – particularly to the population. From the very beginning, the Commission has supported the students in Vilnius, and I would like to see more support from the various Member States, because the ones that always speak up about this should also do something. I have always been in favour of that. However, we also want Mr Lukashenko to go on with his reforms, which is what we are saying. It is important to communicate in such a way that this message is clear. On Monday, there will be a GAERC meeting at which the question of what to do about Belarus will certainly come up. The outcome will most probably be along the same lines as now, because we are not yet satisfied but, at the same time, we have seen some positive steps. In reply to Mr Vigenin, I would say that this does not replace membership. There cannot be membership, because neither these countries nor the European Union is mature enough for their membership. Therefore, we have to design. This is a policy designed to give as much as we can, provided the countries want to take it. The difficulty is that it is much easier, as I have already said, to give something if you lay down conditions or if you say: ‘well, try to do this, try to do that, and we will give you opportunities’. In this case there is no immediate goal of having a specific result, but the overall result is better stability, more security and more opportunity. Concerning security questions, I would say to Mrs Isler Béguin that it is absolutely true that we have to work for more security, but many other questions also come into the picture. We are working very hard on Azerbaijan, on the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, on Moldova, Transnistria and on Georgia, and are sticking very firmly to these questions. It is a principal question. We will not recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia but, at the same time, we have to work with Russia and have to engage with Russia. On this point, I agree with Mr Swoboda that we have to be realistic, but also to make our firm position clearly known. These are the major issues, on which all of you have made very valuable points. In a multilateral framework it is very good to have civil society involved, in all its different forms, and also presents a great opportunity for them and for us to work on energy security. Energy security today is one of the important issues where we have a real win-win situation: we are highly interested and they are highly interested. We have to bring that together. Let me say at the outset that it is based on values. It gives support for both political and economic reform. It will require resources – and I wish to thank Mrs Andrikienė for her clear support on this – and, as many of you have said, it will also require political will. It is crucial that, apart from government-to-government cooperation, there be cooperation with the population, which is clearly there, and there is also the parliamentary aspect to things. Therefore, it is very important that you also use the new Euronest and all other means in order to really instil our ideas. That is my first comment. A lot can be said about this Eastern Partnership. The first thing to ask is what the added value is to our normal neighbourhood policy. The answer is ‘quite a lot’! We are going into greater depth: the association agreements are already very broad and deep. There should normally also be free trade agreements, which cannot easily be offered to everybody, because it requires a lot of structural changes in the countries concerned. That is very important. There is a move to more political cooperation and mobility for security, which many of you have mentioned. It is very important to have visa facilitation, but other countries need to do more on border management and documentary security etc. There is an outreach – a greater offer. Then there is the multilateral component because, as I have always said, the neighbourhood policy, along with the Eastern Partnership, is in principle a bilateral offer – as Mr Swoboda rightly said – but it also has a multilateral component that enables countries to work with each other, which, as in the case of the south, is always more complicated. This is an offer, and by that offer we are trying to bring the countries closer to us. We do not have the same instruments as one has with candidate countries, where in order to enter the ‘club’ they have to comply with a certain number of conditions, and if they do not, then they cannot enter. Therefore, we have to work with initiatives, with instigations and with positive momentum. That will take time, because this is also a question of societal change, but it is very important to be there and offer and agree to that. I also agree with those who said that we should not see this as a threat to Russia. That is true, and at the same time this is a small group of six eastern partners, together with the European Union, and on an ad hoc, case-by-case, basis we can here or there maybe associate Russia or Turkey. However, the Black Sea synergy is a very important initiative on projects that reaches out to all partners, including Russia and Turkey. It is a young policy and one has to give it a chance. We cannot implement a strategy in just one year. We have to be patient with this very important policy, which we must continually try to develop."@en1
"− Mr President, this is an important piece of health and safety legislation. Liz has outlined some of the background to it. It has been a long time in the making – six years from the first meetings we had, as she has mentioned. It is good to see Commissioner Andor here this morning, but it is a pity, in a way, that Commissioner Špidla is not here. We have often criticised him here in this Chamber, but we could have congratulated him this morning for eventually taking the initiative to bring forward this proposal on needle-stick injuries, sharps injuries. Liz has mentioned the trauma that people affected by needle-stick injuries face. I have met people during the six years that we have worked on this subject who have suffered needle-stick injuries, and I would really emphasise that trauma. I met a doctor who gave up medical practice because of a needle-stick injury. I met a person who has HIV as a result of a needle-stick injury. I have met people who turned out not to be infected, but only after months of uncertainty as to whether they were infected or not. I have also met garbage collectors and prison officers who have suffered needle-stick injuries. They are not covered by this agreement. That is another area that we need to think about for the future. Nevertheless it is a good agreement, and I think if we have good guidance to accompany it to ensure uniform application across the European Union, we will all have done a good job and hopefully we will radically reduce that figure of one million needle-stick injuries per year. We took a while to persuade him to act. His services, in fact, were the people who kept advising that he should not act, that the directive agreed in 2000 on the protection of workers from the risks arising from exposure to biological agents, combined with the risk assessment elements of the 1989 framework directive, were enough to prevent these sorts of injuries, but eventually we persuaded those services that, with one million injuries per year, clearly something was wrong. We needed specific legislation to address this problem, as they have in the United States and in parts of Spain, and it works there very effectively. Eventually the Commissioner agreed to act and in 2008, as Liz has said, did draft an amendment to the 2000 directive, but then HOSPEEM and EPSU, the public service unions, signalled their desire to formulate an agreement. They formulated that agreement. I am glad that they have. It is a good agreement, but it is a little ambiguous in certain parts. This is why I have tabled an amendment which has been agreed in the Employment Committee, to seek the publication by the Commission of guidance to accompany the directive to ensure the smooth and uniform transposition of this directive into law in all Member States. We fully support the Commission’s proposal for a directive, and we understand that the agreement from the social partners cannot be touched. We cannot amend it. Council cannot amend it. It is their agreement. However, the most important part of the agreement, clause 6, which covers elimination, prevention and protection, unfortunately includes some ambiguity regarding risk assessment and precisely which preventative elements need to be implemented by employers and when. If this ambiguity is not clarified, then we risk seeing dramatic variability in the application of the directive. It is for this reason that we are requesting that the Commission produce implementation guidelines to aid employers’ understanding of the risks and necessary preventative measures to ensure a consistent application of the directive. Needle-stick injuries are the most common and most dangerous form of medical sharp injuries. Whenever a hollow-bore needle is used on a patient there is a risk of a needle-stick injury that could lead to a serious infection of a healthcare worker because the hollow-bore acts as a reservoir for the patient’s blood or other body fluids. There is a huge body of independent evidence that has proven that the introduction of improved training, safer working practices and the use of medical devices incorporating safety-engineered protection mechanisms will prevent the majority of needle-stick injuries. All of these things are necessary, not just one or two – all of those things are necessary. Studies have also demonstrated that failure to implement any one of these three elements results in a significantly reduced impact. Similarly, attempts to implement safety-engineered medical devices only in certain areas or on certain patients would be neither practical nor effective. In those countries where there is existing effective legislation such as America, Canada and parts of Spain, it is clearly mandated that all three of these elements must be implemented to prevent needle-stick injuries. It is no coincidence that all are the same in this respect. So that is the ambiguity in clause 6 that we are seeking to overcome through the publication of guidance."@en1
"− Mr President, this is the first time that I have appeared before you this year, 2009. It is a great pleasure to be here and I hope that the good cooperation we have had in the past will continue this year. Needless to say, the same applies to the Palestinians. They, too, have to get their house in order, including through reconciliation. As everybody knows, we strongly encourage intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind President Abbas and all the efforts by Egypt and the Arab League in that direction. This will be a key to peace, stability and development. As I said, I know that this Parliament has been deeply preoccupied with the crisis in Gaza, and so have we all. Let me use this occasion to highlight some of the most important international efforts, which focused on trying to end the violence and easing the plight of all civilian populations. Egypt’s role in resolving the situation in Gaza, and indeed with the Palestinians themselves, remains crucial. We hope their efforts will soon lead to a durable and sustainable ceasefire, to the opening of the crossings for all goods and persons, and some sort of intra-Palestinian agreement. Without this, it will be difficult – not to say impossible – to rebuild Gaza. We are looking forward to welcoming positive announcements on the ceasefire. The day before yesterday, there were good meetings, and let us hope that they will continue today and in the future so that a ceasefire may be called, without delay. As you know, Egypt will also host an important conference on reconstruction on 2 March and we expect all the international community to make a commitment there. The European Union, too, played its role. We immediately expressed our willingness to contribute in concrete ways to a durable ceasefire. We also stated our readiness to re-dispatch our monitors to the Rafah crossing point, in accordance with the agreement that we signed in 2005. We are ready to operate at Rafah, or at any other crossing points where help is needed or requested. Several European countries also expressed their readiness to help the interdiction of illegal trafficking, in particular, arms smuggling, into Gaza. The activities of the European Parliament in response to the crisis have been significant and are part and parcel of the European Union’s overall reaction to the crisis. As far as the United Nations is concerned, we can warmly commend UNRWA for its work and perseverance and underline that the European Union will continue to support all its efforts. But it is clear that no single country or organisation can tackle the conflicts in the Middle East alone. The very nature of the difficulties demands multilateral solutions. The Quartet will have a crucial role to play in the months ahead. The new US Administration, in cooperation with us, has confirmed its intention to make full use of the Quartet. The terrible events in Gaza should also force us to take a more strategic and long-term look at Gaza. The Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967 and, without any doubt, will be part of a Palestinian state. Gaza needs to become economically and politically viable. Gaza needs to become part of a political solution. The immediate priority remains to secure a durable and fully respected ceasefire and to allow for the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. We need to see the opening of the crossings for humanitarian assistance, for commercial goods and for people, on a regular and predictable basis. As you know, the diplomatic fall-out of the Gaza conflict in the wider region has been very significant: indirect talks between Syria and Israel have been suspended; Mauritania and Qatar have suspended ties with Israel; a withdrawal of the Arab Peace Initiative was threatened. The war in Gaza ended a month ago, on 18 January, and I think you would agree with me that it feels like yesterday. The scale of the suffering and destruction was immense and it has left us all with a bitter taste in our mouths. The humanitarian situation today remains heart-breaking. We need to find urgent solutions to get aid in and to reduce the level of suffering of the people. Arab divisions, as you know, have deepened. Without Arab unity it will be very difficult to make progress in Gaza and in the wider Middle East peace process. Peace in the Middle East requires a united Arab world. The upcoming Arab League summit will be crucial to restore Arab unity, in particular, behind the Arab Peace Initiative. In the coming months, we will also have elections in Iran and in Lebanon. On 12 June, the Iranians will vote for a new President. We have repeatedly stated our deep respect for Iran and our desire to forge a completely different kind of relationship with this country. This is clearly in everyone’s interests, but to achieve that, we need trust and that trust must be restored. Let me conclude by saying that 2009 will be critical for the Middle East. We are possibly at a threshold. We can choose to pursue the same policies in the same manner, knowing that they will lead to the same results – the results that we know today. On the other hand, we can try to work with energy, with determination, to adjust our policies, to adjust the way we set about achieving results. We have to work on both crisis management and conflict resolution – there is no doubt about that. However, the time has come to focus decisively on conflict resolution. It is the only way to end this endless sequence of death and destruction. At the same time, we need to do all we can to end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab world. In fact, the parameters of the solution are well known, and have been known for some time. What matters now is the political will to implement it among Israelis and Palestinians, among Arabs and the wider international community. The European vocation for peace in the Middle East remains as strong as ever. Our commitment to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel, is total. It is at the heart of our Middle East policy. All our actions have this strategic objective in mind. We will give our firm backing to all who want a peaceful solution to the many challenges across the Middle East region. This House – Parliament – knows just how difficult and how intractable the situation may seem. Too often, the region has been plagued by cycles of violence, rising extremism and economic hardship. At the same time, the conditions for Europeans and Americans to work together in the search for peace in the Middle East are probably better than ever. I have just returned from Washington where I had good discussions with everybody there in the Obama administration. I think I have the assurance from them that the strong commitment that has been expressed is a reality. We are willing and ready to work with them towards achieving success in this conflict. I think the appointment of Senator Mitchell as US envoy has given the people in the Middle East and his friends renewed hope. We know him. We have worked with him. I had the privilege of working with him in 2001 on the famous report and just recently, I have had the opportunity to work with him in the region. I hope very much that these changes will lead to a new approach, one that provides the parties with a greater say in how they manage their affairs. We know that solutions and proposals should be locally inspired. However, at the same time, deeper international engagement remains essential. This is why the Arab Peace Initiative is so crucial. This initiative is the collective expression of the Arab world on how they could help to end their conflict with Israel. It is their response to the issue that has held back their development and their integration into our global world. It remains, and should remain, on the table. We have just had important elections in Israel. Of course, it is for the Israeli people, their political leaders, to decide on the composition of their new government. From our side, we hope that the new prime minister and government will be solid interlocutors for peace talks."@en1
"− Mr President, this proposal has had a lot of attention, partly because there has been lack of transparency and understanding of derivatives, making derivatives a target for demonisation. However, derivatives are widely used for risk management, including by corporate entities engaged in the real economy and by pension funds. Of course it is also true that, like many financial products, they can be abused or made overly complex. The opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs was made early in the report’s consideration, and I appreciate the fact that the rapporteur reflected much of it in his report. On matters specific to our committee, we considered it key to dispel notions of retrospective legislation on outstanding contracts, which may well be illegal. However, the retrospective extension of reporting, where this is simple due to electronic records, I consider acceptable. We are also pleased to see the uptake of the suggestion of FRAND – fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing practices. This can usefully be applied in a range of financial services to achieve openness and competition, while respecting legitimate property rights. We are also pleased to see inclusion of corporate exemptions for legitimate hedging and intra-group exemptions."@en1
"− Mr President, this report is about the future of universal social services and proposes pragmatic ideas for advancing the quality of those services, and decent working conditions for those who deliver them. It is based on widespread consultation with civil society, with the social partners, and with local and regional authorities, and on detailed political compromises consolidating 285 amendments to the report. It is my objective to try to maintain the integrity of those compromises in the vote tomorrow. A high-level stakeholders’ working group is proposed. For me this is the most important aspect of the report. We can differ here on matters of principle and on matters of law but the proposed working group provides us with an ongoing method to arrive at implementable solutions. I also propose a fourth Forum on Services of General Interest to monitor progress of the working group and other initiatives such as the European Voluntary Quality Framework. Research consistently proves that social services, and public services more generally, are not only socially invaluable, but are also economically vital. Public services contribute 26% of our GDP and employ 64 million people, one third of whom are employed in the health and social services, while Eurofound research shows that public services are one of the most important ways of enhancing the citizens’ quality of life, ensuring full inclusion in society and providing for social and territorial cohesion. The report as it stands outlines reforms to address the problems and legal uncertainties that providers and users have identified as needing urgent solutions, such as the difficulties arising from current procurement and state aid rules. It also proposes an active role for social economy enterprises and actors, urges that a race to the bottom be prevented through compliance by contractors and sub-contractors with Member States’ social, environmental, and quality criteria, and looks for an EU statute on mutual societies. The world has changed dramatically since 2007, the last occasion on which social services were addressed in this Parliament. The ‘light regulation’ economic model, assiduously promoted by the Commission and the Council over many years, spectacularly collapsed at the end of that year. That collapse has had enormous human, social and economic costs. Some Member States’ debt and budget deficits have reached crisis levels as a consequence of the nationalisation of privately owned bank debt, resulting in vicious austerity programmes which are hitting the vulnerable hardest. The pressures generated by this situation are putting massive strain on the funding of social services, and the report calls for enhanced EU programmes and for project bonds to help address those problems. Because of the economic and unemployment crisis our citizens face, they have a greater need than ever for access to high quality social services, while our economies and our societies also need the added value which such services can deliver. I hope that this report can be adopted in full tomorrow and look forward to working with all the stakeholders to ensure that our citizens get the services they deserve. To conclude I want to thank everybody who worked with me on this report – the shadows, the staff, those in civil society – who took part and indeed brought forward many innovative ideas which I hope the working group will be in a position to develop over the time to come."@en1
"− Mr President, those were interesting remarks, but I am afraid they have very little to do with the contents of my report. I would point out that we have nothing to fear from public scrutiny and we have absolutely everything to fear as institutions from hiding information. We become more vulnerable. Commissioner, it is official documents which are accessible. Go back and look at the report. The space to think. Official documents. Within the notion of a space to think, that will not be official. Go back to the report. Accept our principles. It has been an interesting debate but I have to say that the recast – which you defend – is not in the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement and it is not enough. You say it has worked well, but I am afraid the recast ignores vital jurisprudence on what actually needs to be done. My reasons for delaying the final vote are so that we have absolutely maximum flexibility to negotiate with the political parties and with the institutions. I would further point out that there is nothing to prevent the Commission from amending its proposal at any time after the vote tomorrow, except perhaps institutional and political reluctance. I find it somewhat patronising to be told that we will get action plans. Commissioner, I do not doubt your personal commitment to openness and transparency, but I do not want action plans for our citizens. I want rights enshrined in law which cannot be taken away – not gifts, but rights. Parliament must therefore put political pressure on the Presidency to negotiate and it may be that we will have to negotiate without the Commission. Yes, Commissioner, I know the Council is not here, but I do not give up on one Council. I have been in politics long enough to know that you fight and you fight. Let me finally quote this President, if you will allow me: ‘My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government’. So said Barack Obama on 21 January 2009. I await a comparable announcement from the Commission or, indeed, from President Barroso."@en1
"− Mr President, today’s debate provides a very good opportunity to review the accession process in the three candidate countries. There are two equally important conclusions to this statement in the UN Charter. First, the parties can choose any one of the methods outlined in the UN Charter. The Commission’s initiative is, without doubt, among these methods. Second, whatever method in the UN Charter they agree to choose, they have to agree between the two of them. I sincerely hope that this will happen sooner, rather than later. The Commission’s initiative provides a very solid basis for this, and a viable way forward. To sum up, the Commission’s objective is indeed to solve the border issue and, in parallel, to unblock the EU accession negotiations of Croatia so that Croatia is able to meet its target timeline of concluding the technical negotiations by the end of 2009. I welcome Ms Oomen-Ruijten’s carefully balanced resolution on Turkey, and support the Presidency’s efforts to open chapters which are technically ready to be opened. We have unfortunately witnessed a certain slow-down of political reforms in Turkey in recent years. However – and I agree with your rapporteur on this – since the end of last year and the beginning of this year, there have been certain positive developments, such as the launch of a new television channel broadcasting in Kurdish and the establishment of a parliamentary committee on gender equality. Moreover, the new ‘National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis’ and the appointment of a new full-time chief negotiator are also steps forward. I am also encouraged by the fact that Prime Minister Erdogan and the leader of the main opposition party, Deniz Baykal, signalled their commitment to Turkey’s EU accession process during their recent visits to Brussels. I hope these developments will result in a strong political and societal consensus to pursue EU reforms with renewed vigour and energy. This is connected with freedom of expression, which is a core European value. An open and transparent relation between the press and public authorities is indeed elementary to the quality of the democratic debate in any country. This is particularly true for a country like Turkey which is going through a difficult process of transformation and reform. The Commission is therefore very closely following the ensured existence of press freedom in Turkey. It should be genuinely respected, as it is the very foundation of any open society, and thus of the continued democratic transformation of Turkey. I shall say a few words on Cyprus. There is a unique chance this year to reunite the island and bring to an end this long-standing conflict on European soil. It is essential that Turkey proactively support the ongoing settlement talks between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. Concerning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I thank Mr Meijer and the shadow rapporteurs for a well-balanced resolution. I share their regret that, three years after the country achieved candidate status, accession negotiations have not yet started. The key outstanding condition is the ability to meet international standards for the conduct of free and fair elections. This is a core requirement for compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria, and the presidential and municipal elections in March and April will therefore be a moment of truth. I share the positive assessment in your draft resolution on the progress made by Skopje in implementing the road map towards visa liberalisation. The Commission remains committed to making a proposal to the Council on visa-free travel in 2009, once the conditions have been met by each country in the region. I know how important this is for the ordinary citizens of the Western Balkans. Let me start with Croatia. Mr Swoboda’s draft resolution addresses the main challenges which face Croatia today. I fully agree with Deputy Prime Minster Vondra that the accession negotiations with Croatia have generally been going well since they started in October 2005, and that is why, in November 2008, the Commission proposed an indicative road map for reaching the final stage of accession negotiations by the end of 2009, provided Croatia fulfils the necessary conditions. I shall summarise by saying that, for the sake of stability and peace, liberty and democracy, we shall continue our work for a gradual, managed accession of the three candidate countries, despite the very challenging economic times. I trust that Parliament will also continue to support this very valuable common goal. On this too, I share the analysis of your rapporteur and Mr Vondra as regards the future challenges such as judicial reform, the fight against organised crime and corruption, and reform of the ship-building sector and bringing it into line with our state aid regime and competition policy. Unfortunately, the accession negotiations with Croatia are currently stalled because of the border issue. We have worked with the Czech Presidency on this matter, and I very much appreciate the support of the Presidency in our efforts to find a viable way forward. Although this is a bilateral issue, it has become a European problem, and the Commission therefore took the initiative to offer European facilitation to solve the border issue and allow Croatia’s accession negotiations to continue, assuming that both sides found such facilitation useful. That was the message I took to both Ljubljana and Zagreb in January. I have since then been discussing the terms of such facilitation with both foreign ministers – most recently in a trilateral meeting yesterday evening – following the decisions of both governments on our initiative. I welcome the endorsement in principle from both countries on such European facilitation, which would be provided by a senior expert group chaired by President Martti Ahtisaari. During our talks yesterday, we explored the possibilities for agreeing on the specific terms of facilitation. We agreed to continue the talks in the near future. Hence, this is still work in progress. Let me point out that, in its efforts, the Commission has relied on the negotiating framework, which is the very foundation of the EU accession process for Croatia, agreed by Croatia and all the EU Member States, including Slovenia. By adopting and agreeing the negotiating framework, both Croatia and Slovenia agreed to resolve any border dispute in line with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter states, and I quote, because this is of particular importance: ‘The parties to any dispute [...] shall [...] seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice’."@en1
"− Mr President, two and a half years ago, Parliament and the Council adopted the Commission proposal for a simplification of the external financial instruments. We streamlined many different instruments, one of which was the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). This is a highly important instrument because it makes our external cooperation stronger, more ‘policy driven’, and better targets our funding in support of key sectors. I was very pleased to read Mr Szymański’s comments and to see that he considers that the ENPI regulation is adequate and valid for the purpose of cooperation with our neighbouring countries. The preliminary findings of our review point exactly in the same direction. The ENPI country programmes underpin the implementation of ENPI action plans and reflect the ambition of the EU and the partner countries. In a way, they have been transmission belts for the political and economic reforms that we seek to encourage through the ENPI. Moreover, instruments such as twinning and TAIEX provide support for institution building, legislative approximation and regulatory alignment. Sector and budget support operations are used to promote the agreed reform agenda. The different ENPI regional approaches and dimensions are supported through specific regional programmes. A multi-country programme was created, particularly to implement highly visible initiatives common to all neighbouring countries such as TEMPUS, Erasmus Mundus or CIUDAD. The innovative cross-border cooperation component has been successfully launched. All of this clearly shows that the 2006 agreement on the ENPI regulation gave us a tool which allows us to deliver and produce tangible results. There is always room for improvement and I am always grateful for suggestions. Let me also say that the report, firstly, underlines the need to further develop consultations with civil society and local authorities, which is what we are already doing. Secondly, I have noted your call for even more ambitious actions in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. As you know, these topics are already at the forefront of our cooperation with partner countries, and political reforms and good governance are at the very heart of the ENP. We have also targeted projects to strengthen the judiciary. However, let us be honest. First, because our partners face important structural challenges, we cannot expect things to change overnight and, as Lord Patten once said: ‘democracy is not instant coffee’. I think that is really true. Thirdly, I see that the report calls for more resources. Clearly, more resources improve our leverage – that is true. In the first two years, we had to come back to the budgetary authority several times, asking for sufficient supplementary funds, for instance, for Palestine and Georgia. Therefore, we have proposed to draw on fresh funds for an ambitious Eastern Partnership, which we will soon be discussing in Parliament. Finally, let me say that I am very pleased to see that the report welcomes the recent Commission proposal on the Eastern Partnership, which we consider has a very important multilateral dimension, together with the Union for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. I hope that I will continue to have your support and understanding in the future."@en1
"− Mr President, we are at a moment of transition in the Middle East. Soon, most probably, there will be a new Israeli Government. There is already a new US administration, currently defining its foreign policy priorities. And we may soon face transition in the occupied Palestinian territory. So changing dynamics can create opportunities for new engagement. The Council conclusions in January indicated that the EU is developing a ‘work plan’ for a lasting ceasefire. This document identifies six areas for action including humanitarian response, the prevention of smuggling to Gaza, the re-opening of the Gaza crossing points, reconstruction, intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the resumption of the peace process. Much very delicate work is going on. To give but a flavour of the pace of activity we have all been involved in: for instance, I was at a working dinner of the Paris Co-Chairs on 15 January, the Summit meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem on 18 January, and EU ministerial meetings with Israel on 21 January and with a group composed of Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Turkey on 25 January. In addition, Commissioner Louis Michel, who is responsible for humanitarian aid, visited Gaza on 24 and 25 January. We are in regular contact with Quartet colleagues. We had important meetings as a troika in Moscow. I had this telephone conversation with Clinton; Javier Solana was there in Washington, and we are agreed on the need to renew the peace process. We continue our road map monitoring work, and we also deploy state-building assistance, including in sensitive areas such as the rule of law and border management. The EU’s action strategy for the Middle East also foresees EU support for specific final status issues, for instance, for Jerusalem, refugees and security arrangements. In practical terms, the EU has prioritised delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. The Commission has already mobilised EUR 10 million practically overnight, and another EUR 32 million has now been committed for the coming period. In early March, the Egyptian Government is organising an international conference in Sharm el-Sheikh in support of the Palestinian economy for the reconstruction of Gaza. We, as the Commission, will be a co-sponsor of this event. I am delighted that I had the opportunity to discuss the pledge that the Commission intends to make with the Chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets at an early stage here in Parliament on 2 February. Thank you again for your support. The problem at the moment is not only funding, but access, particularly to Gaza. We have been very vocal, both in public and in private, about the unacceptable closure of the Gaza crossings. This House will wish to join me today in calling, once again, for the crossings to be fully opened. When access does improve – as I have no doubt it will – we may then have to review our financial forecast. At that point, I may need to come back to discuss this with you. I hope I will again be able to count on your support. Honourable Members, you can count on the commitment of the Commission – and also on my personal commitment – to do everything in our power to help bring peace as swiftly as possible to one of the most troubled parts of the world. We will certainly continue to work very closely with this House. However, there is no denying that the recent conflict resulted in enormous human suffering and destruction. It has left the Middle East peace process – we have to confess – in a particularly fragile state. This House knows that only too well, and I refer to the discussions and debates that we have already had here. This is clearly not where we wanted to be at the beginning of 2009. But if there is, some day, to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the only way forward is to do all we can to get the talks back on track. This human tragedy in Gaza has had a huge impact on the region. I returned only last night from a trip to Syria and Lebanon, and I will certainly also say something about that but, in particular, let me say that what we need to do is to make clear to all Israeli leaders that the EU expects sustained commitment to the peace process and to the two-state solution. We also need to reinforce the message to the Palestinians that a strong Palestinian Authority with effective leadership over the entire occupied Palestinian territory is essential both for the reunification of the West Bank and Gaza and to get the peace process back on track. That is why the European Union is supporting the efforts of Egypt, Turkey and others to achieve this. With the new US administration, we need to agree a joint way forward. I spoke on the phone to Secretary Clinton to that end only last week. She agreed on the need for a lasting ceasefire and a return to the peace process, which is absolutely crucial. We also agreed that the Quartet should consult closely on these matters before the end of the month. I am glad that the American administration sees the Quartet as a very important institution for going forward on peace. Finally, we need to step up our own engagement with the Arab League countries. The consensus for peace is weakening, not only in Israel and within the occupied Palestinian territory, but also within the Arab League, where worrying divisions are appearing. To that end, as I just said, I have just returned from Syria and Lebanon, where I met President Assad in Syria, President Sleiman in Lebanon, and other key partners. The recent conflict has badly damaged negotiations not only on the Palestinian, but also on the Syrian, track. We therefore exchanged views on the peace process at length. I reiterated the very strong support of the European Union for the Arab peace initiative, and I urged partners to maintain their commitment to it, because it offers a serious framework for regional peace talks. I also stressed the milestone decision taken by Syria and Lebanon to establish diplomatic relations, and pushed for completion of all steps in this process. In both countries, we discussed practical ways in which the European Union could support the process of reform. In Lebanon, I reiterated our readiness in principle to deploy an EU election observation mission, and I have already decided that an exploratory mission should go there immediately. The European Union as a whole has been extremely active in recent weeks both on the political and practical fronts. On the political front, since I last reported to you in January, we have all pursued our intensive diplomatic activity. We have been at the forefront of calls for a ceasefire and have worked with Egypt and others to make a lasting ceasefire possible."@en1
"− Mr President, we have had a very long and useful debate, and the Presidency is grateful to all the Members of this House for their comments. We shall, of course, keep you fully informed of all aspects of the next European Council meeting, and I will ensure that Prime Minister Topolánek is fully aware of the views expressed here this morning. He will report to Parliament, at the next plenary session, on the outcome of the European Council, and I look forward to a constructive exchange of views on that occasion. They have rightly identified the very significant challenges that we currently face and, in particular, the consequences of the financial and economic crisis. As I pointed out in my introductory remarks, this issue will be at the centre of the debate at next week’s European Council meeting. Despite the scale of the crisis, the Presidency considers that the European Union can agree on the various components of an approach which will take us forward. There is no other option than to work together in the face of this deep crisis. I therefore support the many calls this morning for greater responsibility and more intensive cooperation. I also consider that we not only can and must act together to solve Europe’s problems, but also that the European Union is well placed to be part of the global solution. This crisis may be deep, but if we work together, Europe has the necessary intellectual, financial, human and regulatory resources to continue to define and implement the appropriate responses. Joseph Daul said that the next European Council is not just another summit, and he is certainly right. Delivering on a global solution starts with playing a leading role in the G20 conference in London at the beginning of next month. At yesterday’s Council meeting, Ecofin ministers endorsed the terms of reference for the EU’s participation in that important meeting. They agreed, in particular, on the need for closer international coordination of macroeconomic policies and global financial regulations based on increased transparency and accountability – and that brings us back to our debate on hedge funds and other sensitive issues. They all agreed on strengthened cooperation between the financial authorities at international level, on strengthening the IMF, and on the need to address the role of multilateral development banks in countering the effects of the crisis on the world’s poorest populations. While we are talking about the need for solidarity, we have to be aware that this European solidarity must be accompanied by nationally responsible policies on sustainable financial development in Europe. It is true that the Americans are spending, but they are not asking for assistance from the IMF, and they do not have a Stability Pact ensuring the integrity of their currency zone. We have to invest in our future, but it must be done in a way that will not undermine the long-term sustainability of our public finances or the rules of the game on the internal market. Many of you referred this morning to the very real concerns of citizens in the face of rising unemployment. Martin Schulz said that the issue is ‘jobs, jobs and jobs’ – and he is right. We do indeed need to maintain employment, and while many measures remain the competence of the Member States, there are certain things we can do. Let me give one example. Yesterday, Ecofin reached an agreement on reducing VAT in labour-intensive services sectors, such as restaurants, etc. If you remember, this had been on the agenda for many years without a solution being found, and it was only yesterday, under the presidency of my country, that we were able to reach agreement on that sensitive issue. Employment should be, and is, the key theme of the three reports before us this morning. We intend to address that issue at next week’s meeting. It is a key part of the Lisbon Strategy. I agree with those who say that the current crisis is not a reason for jettisoning the Lisbon Strategy. It is, in fact, all the more reason to ensure that we deliver on the Strategy’s key aims. The Presidency is devoting particular attention to this issue, which is why we have called an additional meeting in early May on the problem of growing unemployment. Next week, we intend to agree some concrete orientations which will create a basis for our discussions and possibly for the decisions to be taken in May. Some of you also mentioned the need for reaching an agreement on mitigating and adapting to climate change, in preparation for the meeting in Copenhagen. Graham Watson asked how much we will have to pay. I think that is premature. There are some estimates – such as in the Commission communication on this particular matter, which contains estimates from the various NGOs and institutions – and these are pretty high. However, it would be premature to give an estimate now. We have to wait for the US and other stakeholders in the process to inform us of their plans, and that is what we intend to find out about at the meeting with Mr Obama’s Administration in Prague in early April. To open the account now would not be the correct tactical move."@en1
"− Mr President, we move from one item to the next. This is a very serious and important subject which the honourable Members have raised and chosen to put on the agenda. On Monday, 28 September, more than 100 people were killed in Conakry, Guinea, when members of the Guinean security forces shot into crowds of demonstrators. Guinean citizens had gathered in a stadium in the capital to demonstrate against the presumed intention of the Guinean military interim leader, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, to run for President. The final death toll is still unknown, as the soldiers also collected the bodies rather than allow them to be counted at public morgues. At this stage, we do not know the real dimension of these tragic events. The number of injured people is said to be at least 1 200, and eye witnesses have reported that soldiers raped women on the streets of Conakry. During the violent repression, several opposition leaders were wounded and temporarily arrested. The number of protestors still under detention is also unknown; the houses of opposition leaders were ransacked and shops looted by uniformed men. In a TV statement the following day, Captain Camara expressed his condolences with the families of those killed and visited some of the injured. He proclaimed two days of national mourning and pledged to investigate the violence. He distanced himself from the killings by saying that he was not in control of the elements of the military responsible for the atrocities. The European Union immediately and forcefully condemned these brutal and shocking events. A Presidency declaration, a statement by High Representative Solana and a statement by EU Commissioner De Gucht were issued the following day. We will have to insist on the liberation of the arrested prisoners and a thorough investigation of the events. The violence in Guinea received worldwide condemnation. The UN Security Council was briefed last Wednesday on the situation in the country. The African Union condemned the events and decided to prepare a report on possible measures to be taken. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) called for a full international inquiry into the matter. Parliament, as you know, condemned the unconstitutional change of power, and in its resolution of 15 January 2009, called for respect for human rights and a rapid return to constitutional order. The EU decided to open consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, and EU development aid – apart from humanitarian aid and support for democratic transition – was frozen. We have not been alone. Our international partners have acted in line with us. The African Union and ECOWAS decided to suspend Guinea until it established a democratically elected parliament or government. An international contact group on Guinea co-chaired by the African Union and ECOWAS, and with participation by the European Union, was put into place. In March, the military junta agreed with the opposition to have elections before the end of 2009, which gave reasonable hope for a peaceful and democratic transition. Captain Camara gave his assurances that none of the coup leaders would stand for political office. A national transitional council was to guide the transition process and prepare the necessary modification of the constitution in order to help elections. What can we do, then, to prevent further violence, and how can we help the people of Guinea in their legitimate desire for democracy, the rule of law, peace and development? Well, there are three main areas of action. First of all, we should maintain and reinforce political pressure on the regime in Conakry, notably in the context of the international group. Captain Camara’s decision not to run could allow calm to return. The nomination of the President of Burkina Faso, Mr Blaise Compaoré, as facilitator in the crisis on behalf of ECOWAS and the International Contact Group, is a very positive sign, and the European Union has welcomed this appointment via the Presidency. We hope that his mediation will contribute to a secure, peaceful and lasting solution to the situation in Guinea. Secondly, the option of targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for violence could be further explored. We will need to coordinate this approach with the African Union and other international and bilateral partners. The upcoming EU-African Ministerial Troika in Addis Ababa and the meeting on Guinea on 12 October in Abuja will be important in this respect. Thirdly, we should continue to provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population and support the democratic transition process. The latter will nevertheless depend on the credible willingness of the transitional authorities of Guinea to re-engage in a peaceful and constructive dialogue with a clear commitment to refraining from further violence and to respecting the human rights and political freedoms of its citizens. We will spare no efforts to help the people of Guinea in this critical moment and we are determined to support a return to civilian, constitutional and democratic government through free and transparent elections. We encourage all stakeholders in Guinea to refrain from violence and to make a peaceful and democratic transition."@en1
"− Mr President, yes, a crisis has hit the poorest countries the hardest and there is in fact not much that we can do about it. We can only talk about the remedies to get them back on track, and obviously this will take more time than it will take in the developed world because the mechanisms to produce new economic growth are much less developed in those countries. The London Summit of 2 April 2009 will go down in the history of the G20 as one where development issues were handled in their own right and in the presence of developing countries’ representatives. In preparation for the next G20, these last months have seen intense activity by the institution tasked with following up. In August, the IMF Board of Governors approved a USD 250 billion general allocation of IMF special drawing rights, of which USD 18 billion will go to low income countries, and the IMF will be called to account in Pittsburgh on other measures for low income countries. So this is, I think, a positive evolution. Louis Michel, my predecessor, has also insisted on the flexibility, claiming that the budgetary support mechanism is the most flexible we have, and this is obviously true but, of course, this also means that we need a counterpart with the developing countries and we need to be in a position to have political dialogue with them and also monitoring mechanisms, so it presupposes a minimum cooperation on their behalf, but, once that is in place, I also believe that, especially, sectoral budgetary support is a very adequate procedure. I do not quite understand why this resolution that has been introduced by the Committee on Development and refers to the G20 meeting of Pittsburgh is not being voted on before the G20 meeting. I do not grasp that. There will probably be one or another technical explanation for that but I think it gives the wrong signal from this newly elected Parliament that we are going to debate such a resolution after the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, which is due to happen, if I remember correctly, from 22 to 24 September, before our next meeting in Strasbourg in October. This is not within my discretion but I must say that, together with Members who have advocated this, I very much deplore that we have not been able to vote upon this resolution during this part-session. One of the remarks that have been made by several members is about the fact that a lot of Member States are in fact backtracking on their Official Development Assistance (ODA) engagements. The EU Member States agreed in 2005 individual minimum aid targets of 0.51% for EU-15 and 0.17% for EU-12, for the new Member States to be reached by 2010 and respectively 0.7% and 0.33% by 2015. The countries that had already achieved aid levels higher than these targets promised to maintain. Based on these confirmations and higher national pledges of some Member States, the EU should collectively reach 0.56% of ODA by 2010. I believe that the crisis should not be an excuse to water down donors’ aid promises, and I will insist on remaining committed to delivering the promised aid levels, both for EU Member States as well as other donors. In 2008, the EU ODA has increased by around EUR 4 billion to a level of 0.40% of ODA and the collective EU ODA is forecast to continue increasing. On the basis of the information gathered from Member States, we foresee the EU collective ODA increasing to EUR 53.4 billion in 2009, which represents 0.44%, and EUR 58.7 billion, representing 0.48%, in 2010. This also means that, without additional steps by Member States to fulfil their individual targets, the collective targets for 2010 will not be achieved. The forecasted trend of a continuing increase in EU ODA relies on those Member States that are trying to respect their commitments, but efforts are required by all Member States, and I will continue to insist on that with the respective Member Sates. It is their responsibility. This is an engagement that they have taken up, and the crisis should not be an excuse to water down their engagements. I would even say, to the contrary. Several Members have also insisted on the reform of the international financial institutions. This is a target that I can fully subscribe to. The G20 has set out a precise timetable for governance reforms of the Bretton Woods institutions urging them to accelerate the implementation of their own plans for reform which predate the London Summit. Some deliverables are expected as early as April next year and I am confident that solutions can be found on outstanding issues. Given the current momentum in IMF reform created by the G20, the Commission underlines the importance of advancing the second phase of reform at the World Bank with a view to concluding it by spring 2010."@en1
"− Mr President, yes, as far as I am concerned, because the request for a split vote was made by the PSE Group because it did not agree with the middle section. If my oral amendment is adopted – and I am looking at the shadow of the PSE Group: yes, she agrees with me – then they agree with the paragraph as a whole, so we could vote on the paragraph as a whole."@en1
"− Mr Salavrakos, I did not interrupt you because you are Greek and your words are very important to all of us."@en1
"− Mr Szájer, there is no minimum number: you can leave one person or two persons; it does not matter."@en1
"− Mrs McGuinness, thank you, and many greetings to your visitors’ group."@en1
"− Mrs Niebler has presented the report on renewal of the existing agreement between the EC and Russia on cooperation in science and technology. Peaceful collaboration and work between Russia and EU is mutually beneficial in advancing scientific knowledge and research and I am delighted to support this measure."@en1
"− Mrs Niebler has presented the report on the third extension of the EU-United States Agreement, which supports the Council decision concerning the extension of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America. As a mutually beneficial agreement advancing scientific knowledge and technological progress, I am very pleased to support this measure."@en1
"− Mr Burke, I understand your frustration, but the period of time laid down for every period of questions this evening has been complied with. Unfortunately, when it happens, as a result, that some questions are included in a question time period and are not dealt with, this depends, unfortunately, not on the President, but on a matter of chance which I can do nothing to remedy. The only opportunity that I had was obviously, as you can very well verify, to lengthen the time for the last period of questions by a few minutes, thanks to the Commission’s availability and kindness. No time was deducted, however, from the other question periods."@en1
"− Mr President, I am grateful to everyone for their support. There is just one slight point of confusion for me. The oral amendment is on the voting list but nobody stood up to support it. Does that mean that it fell and did not come to the vote at all? Is that correct?"@en1
"− Mr President, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Parliament’s concerns regarding the issue of debt recovery abroad. I would also like to thank Ms Gill for the report. I would like to inform Parliament that improving the practical enforcement of judgments will be a high priority of the Commission in the future Stockholm programme in the area of justice, freedom and security for the period 2010-2014 that the Commission will present in 2009. However, the Commission has not yet programmed any specific legislative measure in terms of follow-up to its green paper. Finally, in the light of the first results of the consultation, the Commission believes that this proposal – that is, to draw up a manual of national enforcement laws, to increase access to commercial and public registers, to improve cooperation between enforcement authorities and to create a compulsory assets declaration by the debtor – will go some way towards fulfilling our objectives. In this respect, of course, careful consideration will be given by the Commission to Parliament’s resolution on the different issues incorporated in this report. What is at stake? Both Parliament and the Commission agree that the problems of cross-border debt recovery may constitute a serious obstacle to the free circulation of payment orders within the European Union and may impede access to justice. Furthermore, this is key for the survival of small businesses in the current economic climate. Against this background and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, what should be the Community objectives? The European Union has an impressive set of legal measures to ensure access to justice in cross-border cases and to facilitate the free circulation of civil and commercial decisions within the Union. However, there is no doubt – as stated in the Hague programme on mutual recognition adopted by the European Council – that it would in fact be much easier to enforce judgments within the European Union if it were possible to obtain accurate information on debtors’ financial positions. The Commission published a green paper on the transparency of debtors’ assets in March 2008, and all the replies – including a summary – can now be accessed by consulting the public web site. Most of the respondents agreed with the need for measures at Community level to increase the transparency of debtors’ assets, though views differ as to what can be done in practice. I am grateful to Parliament for presenting such a detailed response to the green paper. The report is rather sceptical of the ideas put forward in the green paper, believing that the main problem is that of recalcitrant debtors who are unscrupulous. The report is also very concerned about the data-protection/privacy issues related to obtaining information about people’s financial situation. The Commission is also committed to protecting privacy and the personal data of citizens. The report instead calls for the adoption of national directories of foreign lawyers working in other Member States as a way to help creditors and suggests a Community provisional measure."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like principally to thank the Members who have done a wonderful job. First, of course, the rapporteur, Mrs Vălean, but also the rapporteurs of the other committees, the shadow rapporteurs and the spokespersons of the groups. They have made it possible, in just seven months, for a very important proposal for the free movement of citizens and the bringing down of excessive charges to become a reality. I think it is a great moment for the internal market. It is a great moment which shows to citizens that MEPs are taking them seriously. If you would just permit, I would like nevertheless to say – with all due respect to Mr Kamall, for example – that when the market does not function, it is for the political leadership to intervene. I would like somebody here in this House to explain to me how the market can be said to be functioning when the cost to operators for transferring a text message from one country to another is less than 11 cents, while the average consumer has to pay more than 28 cents. Then something is not going well. So if we now fix a cap of 11 cents I think there is ample room for manoeuvre; there is ample room for competition to develop. Like most of you in this Chamber I would have wished the market to have functioned, so that we did not need to do this. Well let us hope that we will not need to do so again in the future, and let us hope that after this decision the market really will function in the interests of the industry, in the interests of the citizen, in the interests of free movement, and in the interests of the internal market where every citizen can travel without being punished by a telephone bill."@en1
"− Mr President, I should like to thank you for all your valuable opinions. In a way, I am familiar with most of them because we have been discussing, point by point, the most important parts of your concerns and hopes for having collective redress in Europe. I should like to reiterate once again that I am totally with you in not wanting US-style class actions to be introduced into European culture. I know that is one of your most important preoccupations. As Ms McCarthy also mentioned, this is about damages. This is already happening in the UK, but this has nothing to do with what we are discussing and what I am proposing as our future steps in this direction. In this respect, I would like to stress the following. Checking to see whether there is a real need for collective redress: yes, we are doing that and we will continue to do so after the green paper. Respecting constitutional constraints: yes. Avoiding US-style class action: yes. Ensuring that damages are compensated, including all costs incurred by the consumer but, at the same time, excluding any element of punitive damage: yes, that is what we have in mind. Discouraging unmeritorious claims, as referred to by Mr Rack: yes. Promoting alternative dispute resolution schemes: of course, because this is less time-consuming, more affordable and easier for both consumers and businesses, and also respecting subsidiarity. With these few words, I would like to say that we are fully aware of the challenges and we are ready to face these challenges and make a good proposal, step by step, building consensus and common understanding with you. What I really appreciate today is that all of us recognise that we have a problem and that we are ready to address this problem. So this really is a very good starting point for the next stage of debates. As this is a challenge we face, I would like in particular to stress what Mr Lehne referred to – the common approach, the horizontal approach with Commissioner Kroes. Commissioner Kroes and myself, as well as our respective services, are cooperating very closely in order to ensure that our initiatives are consistent and produce synergies. The consistency principle does not necessarily rule out that specific situations require specific solutions. Each of the two initiatives has a distinct focus. Whereas the consumer green paper deals with redress for breaches of consumer protection law, the competition white paper is strictly about competition law infringements. Another major difference between the two initiatives is that, whereas the consumer green paper only covers redress for consumers, the redress mechanism suggested in the competition white paper is designed to benefit both consumers and businesses. So my challenge is to achieve effective redress for our consumers and thereby restore their confidence in the market. From previous discussions, I know that the European Parliament is supporting us in our efforts to achieve this goal. Let me stress again that Parliament, together with Member States and stakeholders, will be convinced that not only is there a problem but also that an effective and balanced solution must and can be found at European level. I should like to thank you for this fruitful debate and your valuable opinions, and I look forward to working with you on this file over the coming months."@en1
"− Mr President, I wish to thank all the speakers in tonight’s debate for their constructive contributions. It is important to underline that tackling global deforestation and forest degradation is a complex issue. Solving it requires real political will and actions on the demand side. We should keep in mind that patterns of tropical deforestation are the result of the interaction of a number of different factors which vary in importance in different locations. Forest cover is not only affected by forest policies, but also by other policies such as taxation policy, land tenure and rights. In the European Union we understand that working on the coherence of our policies must go hand in hand with supporting countries in their efforts to strengthen national and local institutions and make progress towards effective governance and use of forest resources. I wish to thank again Ms Lucas, Mr Ford and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work. I am encouraged that Parliament, while endorsing the approach of the Commission, wants to reinforce it further and has made amendments to this end. Let me assure you that I fully share Parliament’s objective of putting in place an ambitious regulation to address illegal logging and its associated trade. I also want to assure you that the Commission will give careful consideration to the amendments of the proposed regulation. To conclude, I would like in particular to comment on two of the issues addressed tonight. Firstly I would like to refer to the due-diligence approach, which is more comprehensive than just a certificate of legality. The principle of due diligence reflects the legal obligation of a proactive behaviour to a certain legality and needs to be demonstrated on a basis of comprehensive measures which will enable legality to be reasonably assured. In some cases a certificate of legality will only be a starting point, the first measure included in the due diligence procedure. Where the risk assessment has shown that the country of origin presents a higher risk of administrative corruption, or in countries where enforcement of national laws is weak, additional guarantees are necessary to underpin the certified legality. The other issue I would like to address is the proposed extension of the scope to cover downstream operators. According to the principles of better regulation and a reduction of administrative burden, requiring distributors and retailers to demand proof of the due diligence from the proceeding market obligators appears to be excessive. If timber was made subject to due-diligence enquires when first placed on the market, why unduly burden downstream operators? In summary, out of the 75 proposed amendments, the Commission can support fully, in part, or in principle, 37. I will provide Parliament’s secretariat with a list detailing the Commission’s position on the amendments."@en1
"− Mr President, I would just like to inform colleagues that we did not change our position: it has always been incorporated throughout the text in this resolution, so the proposed amendment is superfluous."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Méndez de Vigo for an excellent report. I am also happy to be able to inform the European Parliament that the Commission adopted a positive opinion on the opening of the IGC that will examine the necessary Treaty changes that would endorse an additional 18 MEPs. The European Council had requested the opinion of the Commission acting on the proposal from the Spanish Government and, since the Spanish Government’s proposal reflects the long-standing political agreement to bring the additional 18 MEPs into office without delay, the Commission has recommended opening an intergovernmental conference as soon as possible. In line with the Spanish proposal, the Commission has also stressed in its opinion that the IGC should be limited to dealing with the issue of the additional MEPs. I was very glad to see that that report by Mr Méndez de Vigo was supported by a strong majority in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and we hope that it will be the case in Parliament’s sitting tomorrow. I would also like to express the hope of the Commission that the limited Treaty changes to be discussed at this IGC will be agreed quickly and the ratification by Member States will allow the additional 18 MEPs to take up their mandate as soon as possible."@en1
"− Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for all the comments. In general, I hear a very positive approach to the proposal for the most needy. Mr President, could I just be allowed to focus on some of the comments that have been raised here today? First of all, I think that we have to keep in mind that poverty is not confined to certain areas or regions within the Member States. Unfortunately, it is an issue that all Member States have to face. It is true that the extent of the problem and the means available to remedy it are not identical throughout the whole European Community. The allocation of the budget to the Member States, as well as the differentiated rates for cofinancing for cohesion and non-cohesion countries, does of course already take into account the financial capacity of every country. This means that the bottom line will be that there will more money available for the so-called ‘new’ Member States than is the case today. Regarding the budget, I would just remind you that we have actually increased the budget available for the programme for the most needy by two thirds – up to EUR 0.5 billion – and I think this, together with the newly introduced cofinancing, will help alleviate some of the problems. I think we also have to keep in mind that this scheme is a voluntary one. Member States that have a social system in place in their own country certainly need not use this scheme. We do not seek to replace social policies that are already implemented in Member States and, to a certain extent, also managed by NGOs. Our intention is to underpin them by the provision of food, which I still consider the central aim of the agricultural policy. I believe that the changes that we have proposed go in the right direction. I think the provisions are reasonable and well balanced. The programme –when hopefully voted through this Parliament as well – will be able to meet the challenges of the future. It will be difficult to be against or to oppose this programme in a situation where unemployment is currently increasing dramatically all over Europe, thereby heavily increasing the number of people at risk of poverty. So I look forward to the votes of this extremely responsible Parliament."@en1
"− Mr President, as has been rightly said the aim of this proposal is to create a Community-wide framework. It was not easy to achieve this. We based our work on the Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association (WENRA) and on experience in the High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management. We also worked together with the Council, which had discussed more or less the same proposals in 2003. I believe that it strikes the right balance at this stage; I believe it gives European citizens a clear understanding that there is a Community-wide framework. I am confident this framework will evolve with time, but I very much welcome Mr Hökmark’s report because it strengthens the proposal while keeping the balance we need. It is the national regulators who are responsible for the safety of the installations running in their countries. These issues are so sensitive that we cannot, and should not, sidestep them, but we do need constantly to improve nuclear safety standards. I believe this directive gives us that opportunity."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to express my appreciation for the work of Mrs McGuinness on this report, which I know she did in difficult circumstances. She has succeeded in illustrating the great variety of the work of the Committee on Petitions and I would like to reconfirm, as I have no doubt she expects, the Commission’s willingness to cooperate in all ways we can with the work of the committee. I would just like to pick up on two of the points she makes in the brief presentation of the report. Mrs McGuinness, first of all you underline the importance of direct contact between Parliament and the everyday, very real concerns of citizens who petition you. I agree, and I should know. You have dealt with nearly a hundred petitions coming from Malta since 2004, which is a rather high rate when taken pro rata to the population. Some of these petitions are common to many other Member States as well, but many were quite specific to Malta. This demonstrates the useful direct contact with the citizen that the committee provides. In addition it is also true to say that a good collaboration with the national authorities and the organisation of fact-finding missions are definitely useful ingredients for your work. Besides agreeing on the importance of working directly with citizens, the second thing I would like to pick up on is the general issue of fundamental rights. They crop up in many places in your report, whether about nationality and related rights, individual and family rights or the right of property, and as you know it very often happens that people who petition Parliament about their fundamental rights end up being disappointed. This is because such rights, more often than not, turn out to be outside the scope of Community law, as you have just rightly pointed out. To use your own words, there is a lot to be done to separate the wheat from the chaff, those concerns which we can work on and those on which we cannot. My wish, my very sincere wish, is that your report will help people to see this clearly and realistically. With these two comments, which I am sure will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended, I would just like to say that I wish the rapporteur every success and thank her again for this report."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Davis for her kind words just expressed. I would like to say that with regard to this regulation, as I said in my opening statement, the issue of comitology is aimed at simplifying the currently over-complex system of decision-making on very technical issues. However, I agree that we have to have a procedure in place that will nevertheless allow an issue to be raised at Council level should any matter appear to be of a significant or political nature. On the question of discards, we have already started to take measures to reduce discards, in particular within the parameters of the North Sea and of the cod recovery plan. We will continue and we will be coming up with further proposals, for example on the banning of high grading, in a general manner which we will be proposing for 2010, and we hope that we will be dealing with this issue holistically in the discussions on the reform of the common fisheries policy with a view, I hope, to the final result being the total elimination of discards. I would like myself to thank the Members of Parliament, in particular the members of the Fisheries Committee, for the constant support they have given the Commission in dealing with the sometimes intricate and politically sensitive issue of fisheries."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this interesting debate. Clearly we are equally strongly aware of the need for a meaningful reform of our control systems. Concerning the point made on small-scale vessels, the Commission believes that the small-scale fleet can have a significant impact on resources. This is the reason why there is no general exemption for this fleet in the proposal. However, the proposal provides specific exemptions for certain categories of vessels, in general those under 10 metres, and in particular on the VMS, on log book, on prior notification and landing declarations. In this regard, the proposal respects the principle of proportionality. Financial aspects are also taken into account at the level of EU cofinancing of up to 95% of the costs for those electronic devices, to help the stakeholders to use the new technologies. Exemptions will be examined further within the final Presidency compromise. I would also like to say, with regard to the points made by Mr Guerreiro, that many of the points that he mentioned already exist in the existing control provisions. Therefore, were we to take up the amendments that he suggests, we would actually be moving backwards with regard to control and enforcement, rather than strengthening the provisions that need to be strengthened. We are seeking a level playing field in the sanctions provisions as contained in the proposed regulation. Obviously we are prepared to look into them further in order to see whether there needs to be further fine-tuning, but the main objective of the provisions on sanctions in the proposed regulation is to ensure that there are no significant discrepancies, such as exist today, between sanctions given by certain Member States, or by the judicial authorities of certain Member States, and sanctions that are given by the judicial authorities of other Member States. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Farage for his confidence shown in my staying here for a second term! Let me try to touch on a number of points that have been raised, first of all with regard to the question concerning recreational fisheries. As I said, this is a very contentious topic, probably the most contentious of all the control provisions contained in the proposal. However, it has given rise to a number of misconceptions as to what the real objective and purpose of the provisions is. I said that we are prepared to accept the definition that is proposed in one of the amendments. I will be setting out clearly our position on the definition and on the proposed regulation of recreational fisheries in the coming days, including by writing directly to the anglers’ representatives in order to spell out the objectives, the parameters and the details concerning recreational fisheries. Then, I hope, I will be receiving feedback from them and, if necessary, we will look into the provisions in order to make them more finely-tuned to the only objective that we need to target. We have a significant problem with recovery stock. There are certain recreational activities which impose big pressures on such recovery stock and we need to address this point. This is only fair for the professional fishermen that we address this. Otherwise we can never hope to turn the situation around if there is pressure from a significant fishing effort, even though it is carried out in a recreational manner and no earnings are derived from it. The stock cannot hope to recover if there is significant effort, as scientific reports have indicated to us. Concerning the total lack of consultation of the sector, I think that we have consulted the industry. I myself took part in such a conference in Scotland some time ago. All RACs have submitted their opinions and, furthermore, as in any other legislation, we organised a public Internet consultation. The sector was specifically consulted in the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the course of 2008."@en1
"− Mr President, first of all allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has undertaken some impressive work on this report. What is even more noteworthy is the fact that the rapporteur has undertaken to meet with numerous international and Community stakeholders in several capitals. This file was complex and delicate. The Commission would like to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda for his work on this report. The proposal will also remove the current obligation on Member States to transmit lists of fishing licenses or fishing permits to the Commission, which will instead be made accessible by electronic means to the national control services, to those of other Member States, and to the Commission. Now turning to the report, I would like to comment on the amendments proposed. The Commission welcomes the fact that the European Parliament supports the legislation in principle and considers that a new control regulation is necessary. Whilst the Commission can go along with certain amendments that are in line with the discussion within the Council working group, it considers it fundamental to retain certain key elements of the proposal. The Commission can agree with an important number of amendments, in particular Amendments 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 to 18, 26 to 28, 30, 31, 36, 44, 45, 51 to 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66 to 69, 82, 84, 85, and 92 to 98. The Commission cannot, however, accept the following amendments, which could be summarised as follows: Concerning the monitoring of fishing activities: Amendment 23 modifies the margin of tolerance to be applied to logbook catch entries to 10%, instead of 5% as in the proposal. This will seriously affect the accuracy of the logbook data that is essential when using such data for cross-checks. Since such cross-checks will be used to identify data inconsistencies as indicators of illegal behaviour on which Member States should concentrate their scarce control resources, this amendment would also negatively affect the operation of the computerised validation system foreseen in Article 102(1) of the proposal which is considered to be the backbone of the new control system. The most important argument is, however, that fishermen can indeed estimate their catches within an accuracy level of 3%. After all, fish is stored and transported in boxes and they know how much weight of fish a box can hold. Regarding Amendment 29 on prior notifications, the Commission believes that the idea to reserve the granting of exemptions to the Council would complicate enormously the procedure and would not allow for timely reactions to developments on the ground. The Commission also finds that the reallocation of unused quotas is a management matter that should be dealt with in the context of the CFP reform. Thus, Amendment 41 on corrective measures cannot be accepted. On transhipments of stocks subject to multiannual plans, Amendment 42 deletes the entire Article 33. This is not acceptable because, as you know, transhipments have been used in the past to conceal illegal catches. For that reason it is essential to maintain Article 33 and that quantities to be transhipped are weighed by an independent body before they are taken on the transport vessel. Amendment 47 deletes the entire section on real-time closure of fisheries. By accepting this, the Commission would lose a very important instrument for the protection of stocks. Real time closures are directly linked to control issues. Therefore, this amendment cannot be accepted. As you know, the current regulation on fisheries control dates back to 1993. It has since been amended a dozen times, in particular in 1998, to include the control of fishing effort, and in 2002 on the occasion of the last reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). However, the resulting system has serious shortcomings that prevent it from being as effective as it should be. As both the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors have highlighted, the current system is inefficient, expensive, complex, and it does not produce the desired results. This in turn undermines conservation and effort management initiatives. Control failures thus contribute to the negative performance of the common fisheries policy. Amendment 102 is not acceptable since it deletes the article on the ability for the Commission to close fisheries if so required by the Commission. A similar provision exists already in the current control regulation, and it is a necessary tool to ensure that, if a Member State fails to close a fishery, then the Commission is entitled to close that fishery in order to ensure the respect of quotas – and this we did last year for the bluefin tuna and the year before for cod in the Baltic Sea. Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 103, which deletes the provisions on corrective measures. This would weaken the role of the Commission as the guardian of EU law ensuring that all Member States are able to take full advantage of their fishing opportunities. Moreover, this provision already exists in current legislation. As regards new technologies: concerning the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and the Vessel Detection System (VDS), Amendment 19 foresees the entry into force of these electronic devices for vessels between 10 and 15 metres as of 1 July 2013, instead of 1 January 2012, as laid down in the proposal. Amendment 20 foresees that the installation of VMS devices and electronic logbooks is eligible for funding, with 80% cofinancing from the EU budget. Regarding Amendment 19, the proposal already provides for a transition period, as this obligation would only apply as of 1 January 2012, whereas the entry into force of the regulation is foreseen for 1 January 2010. Since the new control system intends to make the best possible use of modern technologies, in order to develop an efficient automated and systematic system of cross-checking, it is important that these provisions apply on the date foreseen in the proposal, so as not to further delay the implementation of the new approach to control. Regarding the concerns on the cost of introducing these new technologies, the cofinancing by the Commission is already available under Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, which establishes cofinancing rates, and in the framework of this Regulation the Commission will consider increasing such rates. It would, however, go against the budgetary rules to lay down in another legislative act the rates for cofinancing. Concerning recreational fisheries: on this controversial subject, I would like to indicate that, in contrast to what has been widely reported, the draft regulation does not aim to place a disproportionate burden upon individual anglers or on the leisure fishing industry. What is proposed is to subject certain recreational fisheries on certain specific stocks, namely those subject to a recovery plan, to certain basic conditions on permits and catch reporting. These requirements will also help to obtain information allowing the public authorities to evaluate the biological impact of such activities and, where necessary, to prepare the measures needed. Concerning the EP report, the Commission welcomes the fact that a definition of ‘recreational fisheries’ is provided for in Amendment 11, and that Parliament foresees that, where a recreational fishery is found to have a significant impact, catches should count against the quotas. It also welcomes the fact that the EP agrees that the marketing of catches from recreational fishing shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes. However, I would like to stress that it is important to maintain an obligation for Member States to evaluate the impact of recreational fisheries as set out in Amendment 93, and not just the possibility to do so as contemplated in Amendments 48, 49 and 50. The Commission, of course, wants to ensure that the final regulation adopted by the Council achieves a fair balance between, on the one hand, obtaining accurate information on the impact of recreational fisheries on recovery stocks – following a case by case analysis – and, on the other, ensuring that recreational fishers, whose catches clearly have a negligible biological impact, are not burdened with disproportionate requirements. Concerning sanctions and enforcement: Amendment 64 inserts a new Article 84(2a) indicating that as long as a holder of a fishing authorisation has been given ‘penalty points’ the holder should be excluded from receiving EU subsidies or national public aid during that time. The Commission cannot accept this amendment. In the same vein, Amendment 61 cannot be accepted. In fact Article 45, point 7, of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing already provides the possibility to ban offenders temporarily or permanently from access to public assistance or subsidies. To introduce such a rule additionally in the context of the penalty point system would be disproportionate. The main aim of the control reform is to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by building a new standard framework which will enable the Member States and the Commission to fully assume their responsibilities. It establishes a global and integrated approach to control, focusing on all aspects of the CFP and covering the whole chain of catch, landing, transport, processing and marketing – ‘from catch to consumer’. In order to achieve this, the reform is built on three axes. Amendment 107 deletes the minimum and maximum levels of sanctions proposed by the Commission. This is not acceptable, since comparable sanctions in all Member States is an important element to achieve the same degree of deterrence in all Community waters and thus create a level playing field through the establishment of a common framework at the Community level. The provision does not affect the discretion of Member States to determine which infringements are to be characterised as serious. Concerning the powers of the Commission: Amendment 71 imposes the presence of an official of a Member State during inspections carried out by the Commission, and in the same vein, Amendment 108 limits the possibility for the Commission to carry out inquiries and inspections only in cases where a Member State has been previously informed. The capacity of the Commission to undertake autonomous inspections would be seriously affected when officials of the Member State concerned have to be always present during inspections. By not providing an official, the Member State concerned could even prevent an autonomous inspection from taking place. Amendments 104, 108, 109 and 110 are also problematic since they restrict the competencies of Community inspectors, restrict their ability to perform autonomous verifications and autonomous inspections. Without such competencies for Community inspectors, the Commission cannot ensure the same quality of application of CFP rules in all Member States. Amendment 72 takes away the basis according to which Community financial assistance can be suspended or cancelled when there is evidence that provisions of the regulation have not been complied with. The Commission cannot accept this amendment. With this amendment the simple conclusion by the Commission that the Member State concerned has not taken adequate measures would be sufficient to take measures against that Member State. On the other hand, Amendments 111 and 112 limit the competence of the Commission to suspend Community financial assistance. This would seriously undermine the capacity of the Commission to apply this measure. Furthermore, the amendment does not clarify who, instead of the Commission, is supposed to take such a decision. Concerning the closure of fisheries: Amendment 73 limits considerably the cases in which the Commission will be able to close a fishery for failure to comply with the objectives of the common fisheries policy. ‘Evidence’ of non-respect will be much harder to prove than ‘reason to believe’. In order to ensure that the rules of the CFP are equally applied in all Member States and to avoid a particular threat to sensitive stocks, it is important that the Commission has the possibility to close a fishery when the relevant Member State fails to do so itself. In the same vein, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 113, which proposes to delete this article. Amendments 74 to 78 reduce substantially the pressure on Member States to respect national quotas. Acceptance of these amendments would simply mean maintaining the status quo. The amendments reduce substantially the possibility for the Commission to take measures to ensure that Member State fishers do not fish on a regulated stock for which the Member State has no quota or has a small quota. This would be particularly detrimental in cases where such fishing effectively prevents other Member States from fishing their quotas. Amendments 79 and 80 delete Articles 98 and 100, which give the Commission the possibility of deducting quotas and to refuse quota exchange for failure to comply with the objectives of the CFP. The Commission wishes to maintain this provision, which is an important instrument, to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by Member States. It responds to the recommendation of the Court of Auditors to reinforce the capacity of the Commission to put pressure on Member States. It will also help demonstrate to national fishing industries that the respect of the CFP rules by their national administrations is also in their interest, and they can be expected to exert a positive pressure on their national administrations to that effect. Amendment 114 proposes the deletion of Article 101 on emergency measures. The Commission cannot accept this amendment since this provision is an important instrument to ensure the respect of the CFP rules by the Member States. I would once again like to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda for the report and the committee for the attention it has given to this very important issue. This report is a significant contribution to a truly efficient control system. I would like to apologise for taking up so much time. Axis 1: the creation of a culture of compliance and responsibility of the sector. The aim of this objective is to influence the behaviour of all stakeholders involved in the wide range of fishing activities in order to achieve compliance through not only monitoring and control activities, but as a result of an overall culture of compliance where all parts of the industry understand and accept that playing by the rules is in their own long-term interest. Axis 2: instituting a global and integrated approach to control and inspection. The proposal ensures uniformity in the implementation of the control policy, while respecting the diversity and the specific characteristics of different fleets. It establishes a level playing field for the industry by covering all aspects from capture through to the market. Axis 3: the effective application of CFP rules. The reform also aims to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of Member States, the Commission and the Community Fisheries Control Agency. Under the CFP, control and enforcement are the exclusive competence of the Member States. The role of the Commission is to control and verify that the Member States are implementing the CFP rules correctly and effectively. The current proposal does try to change this allocation of responsibilities. However, it is important to rationalise procedures, and to ensure that the Commission has the means to actually see to it that the Member States equally implement CFP rules. I would also like to emphasise the fact that the proposal will reduce administrative burdens and make the system less bureaucratic. The Commission’s impact assessment found that if the reform is adopted, the total administrative costs for operators could be reduced by 51% – from EUR 78 to EUR 38 million – largely through the use of more modern technologies, such as the extension of the use of ERS, VMS and AIS. Existing paper-based tools will be replaced at all stages of the fisheries chain – i.e. logbook, landing declarations and sales notes – except for vessels below 10 metres overall length. For fishermen, the electronic system will make it easier to record and communicate data. Once the system has been introduced, a number of reporting requirements will be removed. The system will be quicker, more accurate, less expensive and will allow for the automated processing of data. It will also facilitate cross-checking of data and information, and the identification of risks. The result will be a more rational and risk-based approach to control actions at sea and on land, the latter being inherently more cost-effective."@en1
"− Mr President, honourable Members, dear colleagues, today I report back to you on the first formal meeting of the European Council that I have had the honour to chair. The mechanism respects the Treaties and meets with overall agreement of the Member States, of the Commission and of the Central Bank. Consequently, the Greek Government has not needed to request any financial support, though we will continue to monitor very closely the situation. Let me just say that the IMF participation initially gave rise to some apprehension on the basis that it could appear to be external support for a euro area unable to solve its own internal problems. Upon reflection, however, the view prevailed that the International Monetary Fund is, after all, financed to a significant degree by European money, so why should European countries not be able to draw upon its facilities? We have set up and financed the IMF for this very purpose and it would be strange not to make use of it and its expertise. Close cooperation with the IMF appeared therefore to be acceptable, certainly in an operation consisting of a majority of bilateral euro-loans. Two further aspects of the statement have given rise to much comment. First, the European Council wants to draw lessons from this crisis. That is why it created a Task Force under my authority. That Task Force will be established in close cooperation with the Commission and include representatives of the Member States, the rotating presidency and the European Central Bank. It will present its conclusions before the end of this year. The European Council will take the final political decisions. I intend to give a high priority to this work. The Greek case highlighted the limitations of the current fiscal surveillance mechanism in the euro area. We must explore all possible ways to reinforce fiscal discipline and propose a framework for crisis resolution. A strengthening of our mechanisms is essential. What legal texts may eventually require amendment is an open question that must be explored, while remaining aware of the different procedures that would be required to amend the various legal instruments. The Task Force has to deal with two aspects of the problem, revealed by the recent crisis: responsibility – how to prevent such budgetary indiscipline happening again – and solidarity – how to avoid improvisation, if a financial crisis eventually happens again in a Member State. The Greek case has also highlighted the need to look at the issue of divergences of competitiveness inside the eurozone and the Union, on which we began a discussion that will be pursued in June and is an aspect of the eurozone economy to which we have paid insufficient attention. Without more economic convergence, we will jeopardise the common currency and the common market. This discussion is crucial. Budgetary discipline is not sufficient. Behind budgetary problems lie economic problems. The second item giving rise to comments was the paragraph in which we stated that ‘we commit to promote a strong coordination of economic policies in Europe. We consider that the European Council must improve the economic governance of the European Union and we propose to increase its role in economic coordination and the definition of the European Union growth strategy.’ Some have commented on the fact that the French version of this statement refers to ‘ ’ instead of ‘governance’. Let me make it very clear that there is no divergence here in what we are seeking to achieve. We want to make full use of the European Council as the body in which we can coordinate both Union and national instruments to improve our economic performance. The European Council is neither the executive nor the legislative power of the Union. The mission of the European Council, according to the Treaty, is to give impetus and guidelines to the political direction of the Union. This applies also to economic policy. That indeed is what the bulk of the European Council meeting focused upon when we turned to examine the Europe 2020 strategy. Here, I can report steady progress, which we will pursue further at the June European Council. Based on the proposals of the European Commission – and I would like to pay tribute at this point the work of President Barroso, – we have already identified five key targets on which our efforts should focus: First, bringing the employment rate up to 75%, notably through the greater participation of youth, older workers, low-skilled workers and the better integration of legal migrants; As you know, that meeting had on its agenda our economic strategy for Europe 2020, and our strategy for global negotiations on climate change. That agenda was supplemented by having to deal urgently – for the second time in two months – with the situation in Greece and related questions concerning the eurozone. Allow me to start with the latter point. Second, improving the conditions for research and development, in particular with the aim of bringing combined public and private investment levels in this sector to 3% of GDP; Third, reaffirming, and integrating into our economic strategy, the climate change targets that we have already committed to achieve by the year 2020; Fourth, improving education levels, in particular by aiming to reduce school dropout rates, and by increasing the share of the population having completed tertiary or equivalent education; Finally, promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty. More work needs to be done on these targets, in particular by developing appropriate indicators – and Member States now need to set their national targets, which will be differentiated according to national situations. Some of these targets are reflected in EU legislation, whilst others are not of a regulatory nature, but represent a common endeavour to be pursued through a mix of national and EU level action. The last two of these five targets – education and social inclusion – gave rise to some comment. They do, of course, represent key aspects of what has been called the ‘European model’ of society, where market forces are tempered by social commitment, and indeed by environmental awareness. However, some have pointed out that education is a national or indeed, in many states, a subnational or regional responsibility. That is true – and there is no intention whatsoever to change that fact. What it does represent is the need for all levels of government to work together on our common strategy, with each taking responsibility for their part in our common effort. As regards social inclusion and the reduction of poverty, some have said that this is an outcome, not a means. It will be the result of our efforts, not an instrument. Although I understand that argument, social inclusion is a competence of the Union according to the Lisbon Treaty, and it is also a key instrument for improving our overall economic performance, as well as for securing public support for what we want to achieve. It corresponds to the profound aspiration of peoples for fairness in our economy. We ignore it at our peril. Besides identifying these five targets – on which further work will be necessary – the European Council underlined that rapid progress is required on strengthening financial regulation and supervision, both within the Union, where the European Parliament has important work before it concerning financial regulation, and in international fora such as the G20, to ensure a level playing field at the global level. Progress is particularly needed on issues such as capital requirements; systemic institutions; financing instruments for crisis management; increasing transparency on derivative markets; considering specific measures in relation to sovereign credit default swaps; and implementation of internationally agreed principles for bonuses in the financial services sector. The Commission will shortly present a report on possible innovative sources of financing, such as a global levy on financial transactions or on banks. We have to find solutions so that a new financial crisis cannot happen again, but we also have to address the moral crisis that was at its root. The European Council went on to have a discussion on climate change and on how to refocus our efforts after Copenhagen. A global and comprehensive legal agreement remains the only effective way to reach the agreed objective of staying below a 2°C increase in global temperatures. We agreed to remain ambitious and constructive in the international negotiations, but we agreed also that a stepwise approach should be followed, building on the Copenhagen accord. The pledges made on emission reductions are insufficient to meet the crucial target of 2°C. The negotiations need a new dynamic. The next meeting, in Bonn, should set the road map for taking the negotiations forward. COP-2 in Cancun must produce concrete decisions and must address remaining gaps. The Union and its Member States will implement their commitment to provide EUR 2.4 billion annually over the 2010-2012 period for fast-start financing, and we remain committed to jointly mobilise USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries fight climate change. How, in what circumstances and by whom financial support should be provided, if needed, to the Greek Government, was the subject of much debate in the run-up to the European Council. Indeed, prior to our meeting, there appeared to be a wide divergence of views. This is really not unusual in the history of the Union, certainly when so much is at stake – the key point is that we reached agreement. The Union’s capacity to find a compromise remains intact. It is fundamental to our existence. In this context, we had a discussion on how to address key partners in the world introduced by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative Cathy Ashton, whose pertinent analysis was well received. We will raise these issues not only within the United Nations process, but also in other settings in order to help build the necessary momentum. We will pursue internal work as well. We will hold a dedicated European Council debate on energy policy, and on how to shift towards an efficient, low-carbon economy, exploring all its aspects, including security of supply. Mr President, honourable Members, I can conclude that the European Council has made clear progress and has avoided huge and damaging pitfalls that could have set us back a long way. Curiously, some have suggested that my own role in this process was merely that of a spectator whilst others have accused me of being a power-grabbing dictator. Let me assure you that I am neither. The permanent President of the European Council has to be a facilitator and a builder of consensus in an institution that can only work by finding the necessary and sufficiently ambitious compromises. I had hoped that my start as permanent President of the European Council would have been easier. The two coming years will be difficult. I am fully aware that the worst of the recession is over, but not the problems. We reacted efficiently in dealing with the initial financial crisis, but it is often more difficult to stay united and act consequently once the storm is over. This means there can be no ‘business as usual’ over the coming two years. That will also be the case for the European Parliament. In the event, a large number of bilateral contacts between Member States and myself, the conclusions of the meeting of the eurozone ministers on 15 March, proposals by the Commission on loans by the Member States and intense negotiations between France and Germany helped pave the way to finding a compromise acceptable to all. I convened and chaired a meeting of the heads of state and government of the eurozone countries and presented to them a draft statement which, after being amended, was accepted unanimously. The parts of the text for which the European Council is competent were discussed and agreed by the European Council itself. The European Central Bank also agreed. In the statement, we reaffirm that all euro-area members must conduct sound policies in line with the agreed rules and should be aware of their shared responsibility for the economic and financial stability of the area. We fully support the efforts of the Greek Government and welcome the additional measures announced on 3 March, which are sufficient to safeguard the 2010 budgetary targets. Those measures were requested by the informal European Council of 11 February. On the basis of the mechanism of solidarity we put in place, we stand ready, should market financing prove insufficient, to step in and provide support through a European-led operation of bilateral loans from the euro area Member States, in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund."@en1
"− Mr President, let me express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Visser, Ms Fraga and the Fisheries Committee for the draft report on the Commission’s proposal for technical measures for the Atlantic and the North Sea. Let me again express my gratitude to the rapporteur and the Committee for their work on this proposal. This is a very technical file and, as you are aware, technical conservation measures in the Atlantic and the North Sea originate to a large extent from existing rules. In Community legislation the measures are spread out in different regulations: the 1998 general technical measures regulation for the Atlantic and the North Sea; the additional technical measures regulation for the recovery of cod and hake; and the annual TAC and quota regulation, which also contains a number of technical conservation measures. Apart from this legal complexity, the present rules are in some cases very complicated and difficult to implement and control. The Commission adopted the proposal for a new Regulation on technical conservation measures for the Atlantic on 4 June of last year. The proposal was drafted after extensive consultation of stakeholders and Member States during 2006 and 2007. It groups together all the relevant rules into one single legislative act, which will therefore improve legal consistency. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to simplify, clarify and streamline the various rules. Special attention has been paid to simplifying onboard inspections and reducing the costs for fishermen. There are also some additional rules to reduce discards, such as the establishment of a legal framework for real-time closures, already applied in the North Sea. A new decision-making structure is being proposed, using a Council-level decision for the general and essential provisions and comitology for the more detailed and technical region-specific provisions, thereby avoiding micro-management at a political level. This new approach is not supported in your report, where Amendments 1, 6, 7, 25 and 26 call for Council regulations both for general and for detailed technical rules. The Commission, particularly in the framework of the CFP reform, does not want to continue with micro-management measures at a political level. However, taking into account the point made in the report regarding comitology, the Commission is ready to study any procedure which, while maintaining comitology for regional technical rules, will enable the raising at Council level of any matter which appears to be essential or political. The Commission can partially accept Amendments 2 and 3, relating to additional illustrations of fishing gears, if needed, and to certain specific market provisions, particularly on the minimum size of species, with the aim of harmonising measures. In line with discard policy, the Commission is proposing new rules about real-time closures and moving-on provisions for specific fisheries in order to reduce discarding practices. Both measures are considered to be efficient tools and, in order to reduce discards, are important in order to allow for a switch from rules dealing with landings to provisions on real catches. For that reason, the Commission cannot accept Amendments 4, 5, 21, 23 and 24. However, Amendment 20, only in so far as it calls for ‘quantity’ to be replaced by ‘weight’ to define the level of by-catch, is acceptable. In addition we can positively consider the second part of the amendment regarding the derogations on distance. The parameters of such a derogation, however, would have to be studied in some detail and will be laid out in the implementing regulation. The Commission, mainly for inspection purposes, intends to implement the one-net-rule provision, which should be applicable to most European fisheries. The Commission is ready to examine possible derogations for specific fisheries, where these are justified and well argued, and where they take into account the criteria set out in Amendment 11. Such derogations should be part of the regional regulations. The other aspects of the Commission’s proposal are very technical, with many details related to the construction and use of fishing gears in the Atlantic. I note that the rapporteur and the Fisheries Committee also addressed the very technical elements of the proposal and suggested a number of amendments, with the intention of improving the proposal. However, I must express my reservations regarding Amendments 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22. The technical rules proposed on the basis of scientific advice have been simplified in comparison with current legislation, and will facilitate inspection on board and reduce costs for fishermen. The Commission cannot accept Amendments 18 and 19, since the provisions proposed are already in force, subsequent to a political agreement in Council on a proposal from the Commission based on scientific advice, and no new information is available to justify any modification. I can support the idea set out in Amendment 27, and therefore, when introducing new technical measures, the Commission agrees to delay their entry into force so as to allow fishermen enough time to make the necessary adaptations."@en1
"− Mr President, nuclear safety is an absolute priority for the European Union, as the rapporteur said, and I would like to thank the rapporteur for a very strong, clear and comprehensive report. As the use of nuclear energy in the European Union is a reality and will be a reality, and nuclear safety is not constrained by national borders, we need a Community-wide framework aiming at achieving, maintaining and continuously improving nuclear safety in the European Union. This is the objective of the revised proposal for a directive that sets up a Community framework for nuclear safety. The fundamental goal of the proposal is to establish binding legislation, the only solution that offers guarantees that political and industrial commitments to continuously improve nuclear safety are followed by concrete measures. These International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Fundamentals and the obligations of the Convention of Nuclear Safety constitute the core of the directive. De facto, their transposition into binding Community legislation would bring legal certainty. The proposal also aims at ensuring that national regulatory authorities in charge of nuclear safety are independent from any governmental decision-making body and any other organisation that would have an interest in nuclear matters. They can, therefore, preoccupy themselves solely with the safety of installations. The proposal aims to enhance the role of regulatory authorities by ensuring that the Member States provide them with adequate authority, competence and human and financial resources to fulfil their responsibilities. The revised proposal takes into account the outcome of a consultation process that started in 2004 with the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety. It was discussed, before adoption, with the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, as well as in other fora. It also reflects the substance of the opinion given by the Scientific Group of Experts, referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, and the current nuclear safety proposal is a second revision of the regional proposal in the area of nuclear safety. Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty does not require a resubmission of the revised proposal to the Scientific Group of Experts. Moreover, close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency has ensured consistency with international practices. The Commission agrees with most of the proposed amendments that reinforce the line taken. The report clearly recognises the obligation of the Member States to respect the Safety Fundamentals stemming from the IAEA and the provisions of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, as well as seeking to reinforce the role of nuclear regulatory authorities and ensure their independent decision-making role. I am, therefore, confident that the Council will take into consideration Parliament’s position whenever it contributes to improving and clarifying the objectives of the directive."@en1
"− Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to thank Parliament for giving us the opportunity to comment on the report on the control of budgetary implementation of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) for 2007, and to extend our thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, for the very valuable report that she initiated and prepared. According to the principles of IPA, environmental protection, good governance, civil society development, gender equality and non-discrimination are all cross-cutting issues and are an integral part of project design. Civil society organisations are now more actively involved in the development and the initiation of projects. In 2008 the Commission launched the civil society facility as a tool for promoting civil society development and advancement of regional cooperation, for which an indicative budget of EUR 130 million is earmarked for 2008-2010. The Commission also shares the rapporteur’s views as regards the importance of education, regional and cross-border cooperation and gender equality, to name but a few issues. The services of the Commission have fully taken on board the recommendations of Parliament and we look forward to reviewing progress with you during our regular rendezvous where we have the opportunity to discuss the financial assistance strategies and their implementation. This will allow the further enhancement of the ongoing dialogue between our respective institutions. We can, overall, concur with the findings and recommendations of the report, which are fully in line with the views of the Commission on how best to use financial assistance for the Western Balkans and for Turkey. The Commission acknowledges the late launch of IPA 2007 programmes because of the late adoption of the legal framework for IPA. I can assure you, however, that the Commission made all efforts to limit the delay of implementation on the ground, and that preparation of management structures and detailed project design were pushed ahead all through 2008. Within this framework the Commission will ensure that the impact of IPA will become visible in the beneficiary countries. Allow me to elaborate on some of the issues raised in the report. As regards the balance between political criteria and transposition of the acquis communautaire, the Commission has already increased the allocations for projects in the area of the political criteria in IPA 2008 in all countries, and will continue to do so gradually. However, in the face of the current financial crisis, we will also need to strike an appropriate balance in the 2009 and 2010 programmes between continued support for political reforms and financial assistance to help the countries mitigate the consequences of the economic downturn. In this regard the report rightly identifies the challenges generated by the financial crisis and the need for an EC response. To that end, the Commission has put together an IPA crisis response package of about EUR 250 million at the end of 2008 with the aim of leveraging some EUR 600 million in loans from international financial institutions. Measures will focus on support to private sector SMEs, energy efficiency investments, and support to investments and infrastructure under national IPA programmes in close coordination with international financial institutions. The Commission also fully concurs with the need to establish the decentralised management system as a step to promoting ownership and responsibility of candidate countries and potential candidates. Guidance and assistance is being given to them in order for these countries to build the required public management structures and public financial control systems."@en1
"− Mr President, since the beginning of my mandate, redress has, as you know, been high on my list of priorities. I believe that substantive rights show their strength only when they are backed by enforcement and effective redress for consumers. More and more often, large numbers of consumers lose out as a result of the same or similar illegal practices by a trader and do not receive redress. Concerning the initiative taken by the Commission on damages actions for breach of the European anti-trust rules, I can assure you that the Commission shares Parliament’s view that these two initiatives related to collective redress should be consistent. Indeed, being consistent does not mean that different policy initiatives have to use the same tools to reach the same goals. I can equally assure you that I remain personally committed to this issue and will continue to work on it until the end of my mandate with the same energy and vigour that I have devoted to it thus far, and of course with the kind help and support of Parliament. The Commission has been examining the problem that consumers face in obtaining redress for mass claims. We have commissioned studies, discussed the issue with stakeholders, conducted surveys and an Internet consultation, and recently published a green paper to which we have received more than 170 responses. Although the consultation officially ended on 1 March 2009, comments are still coming in and I can already tell you that, the more evidence we gather, the more our belief that there is a problem is confirmed. This is why we need to find a solution in the interests of justice and a healthy European economy. The green paper on consumer collective redress proposed various ways of tackling this problem. A preliminary analysis of the replies received indicates that stakeholders recognise the unsatisfactory present situation on collective redress in the Member States. There is consensus about the necessity of further action to achieve effective redress for consumers and thereby restore their confidence in the market. Consumer organisations favour binding measures for a collective redress judicial scheme in all Member States in combination with other options, such as the extension of existing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to collective claims. Business would favour ADR mechanisms. In a few weeks’ time, once we have properly analysed all the responses, we will publish the replies, together with a statement on the feedback we received, and before the summer we will outline the different ways of addressing the problem of mass claims. This will not simply be a repetition of the four options in the green paper. Our thinking is developing further in the light of the responses to the green paper consultation. Based on the outcome of all the consultations, the Commission will carefully examine the economic and social impact on stakeholders, including the costs and benefits generated by the possible options. On 29 May we will hold a hearing to share our preliminary conclusions with stakeholders. Let me stress that, whatever route we take, we will not go down the path of the US experience. Instead, we will follow our European legal cultures and take into account the existing experiences of Member States. Once the options become clear, the European Parliament, Member States and stakeholders will be convinced, as I am, that not only is there a problem but also that an effective solution must, and can, be found at European level. Why should reputable businesses suffer at the hands of unfair competitors who profit when consumers are not compensated? And I stress ‘compensated’. This is the very nature of redress that we are aspiring to. Why should consumers give up their legitimate expectations of compensation, and why should society put up with the welfare and justice gap? I am confident that we will find a solution that strikes the right balance between improving consumer access to redress and avoiding unfounded claims. Effective redress will boost consumers’ confidence in the internal market and in what Europe can do for them. This is particularly important in the harsh reality of today’s economic and financial crisis. As you know, the coming months will be marked by many institutional changes, and this may influence the timing and the delivery of our work on collective redress."@en1
"− Mr President, since the trans-European transport network policy was established 15 years ago, it has contributed significantly to the functioning of the internal market and to economic, social and territorial cohesion. It now needs to be adjusted to new challenges. The Commission also underlines that TEN-T investment is key to sustainable economic development and thus is an essential way of helping to overcome the current crisis. To conclude, we are very grateful for the motion for a resolution on the future of the trans-European transport networks policy. We would like to thank the Transport Committee for its constructive debate on it, and in particular Ms Lichtenberger for her comprehensive work. It will constitute a valuable contribution to the next steps of the process in the debates with the other institutions. The green paper on the TEN-T policy review addresses these challenges and proposes measures to tackle them at both the network planning and the project implementation stages. The Commission appreciates very much that the European Parliament is following this revision process from the outset, as reflected in this resolution. This underlines the determination of both institutions to develop a future-oriented TEN-T policy. There is a high degree of conformity between our proposals and the objectives and calls set out in Ms Lichtenberger’s report as adopted by the Committee on Transport: that is, a more integrated and coherent network approach is necessary, in which intermodal connections such as rail connections to ports and airports and intermodal terminals, the link between long-distance and urban transport systems as well as interoperability must be strengthened so as to improve the basis for efficient, safe and high-quality services for passengers and for freight transport. The Commission also shares the view set out in the report that – in particular in the freight sector – it is vital to facilitate co-modal chains in which waterborne and rail transport play an important role and intelligent transport systems help to optimise infrastructure use. In the draft report, the Transport Committee has chosen option three, a dual layer consisting of a core and a comprehensive network. By supporting this option, Parliament confirms the need to combine traditional transport infrastructure policy with an appropriate consideration of new conditions and circumstances; the need for more flexibility and responsiveness to changing situations and more openness for the identification and support of infrastructure measures resulting for transport service requirements; and the economic and environmental challenge to promote a coordinated improvement of transport corridors through a series of small infrastructures and ITS projects. We note that, after the vote on the draft report by the Transport Committee, an alternative resolution has been proposed which supports option two, a single-layer network with priority projects or a priority network only, and therefore without a comprehensive network. This is, as we see it, in contradiction with some other points of the draft resolution. I would also like to recall on this occasion the advantages and disadvantages of the comprehensive network. While being too large to allow for clear priority-setting and the focus of Community instruments to stimulate its implementation, it contributes to ensuring the TEN-T access function and to facilitating cohesion. It has also proved to be vital as a reference framework for various transport policy actions and legislation: in particular, interoperability in the railway sector and road safety. Elimination of the comprehensive network would therefore have some perverse effects. On the network implementation side, we fully agree with the view set out in the report that Member States have a crucial role in deciding, planning and financing transport infrastructure. Sufficient financial resources are needed under the TEN-T budget and coordination of territorial development objectives and TEN-T policy need to be enforced, whereas public/private partnerships have to be further promoted."@en1
"− My colleague, Mr Harbour, has presented an own-initiative report regarding increasing innovation in Europe to ensure sustainable and high-quality public services. Access to such services in a fair and equitable manner is essential for the full functioning of the free market. This communication addresses the issue of the research and development (R&D) phase of a pre-commercial product. Pre-commercial procurement is a specific approach for the public sector to engage R&D, with a view to driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe. The scope of public services concerned covers healthcare, education, security, climate change and energy efficiency, all issues which benefit the entirety of society. The adoption of this strategy will allow for cost-effective, value-added development of new and innovative solutions, and so I supported this proposal."@en1
"− Natura 2000 has done much to protect unspoilt or virgin environment. This report stresses the importance of such projects and I am in full agreement with the rapporteur that many resources must be used to ensure the protection of such areas. It is important to map these areas because it might be too late if we leave this too late."@en1
"− Nigel Farage, we might not always be happy in our European family, but you belong to the family as well."@en1
"− No, I am not afraid of Siemens and I will happily send OLAF to investigate these cases, but of course there is a clear legal framework in which we can operate and can go to investigate. We are following the situation, as I said, and we can urge Member States and we can demand that they inform us (they have, anyway, the obligation to inform us) and move actively. But there must, at present, be an indication and request from Member States for OLAF assistance. So far this has not been the case, but we will follow the situation. We have clear and sometimes very sensitive divisions of responsibilities and obligations between Member States and Community bodies. This is particularly the case where the investigation rules are very precisely defined."@en1
"− No, I am sorry: we have to keep to the order of speakers. When your time comes, I will ask you to take the floor."@en1
"− No, there has been no request for a separate vote on that paragraph."@en1
"− Not only did I vote against this report, but I also consider it dangerous to the European common market. This is mainly because of its unfair character and the fact it acts like a concealed tax. Moreover, it will not contribute to environmental protection. During this time of financial crisis, it is kind of absurd. This type of regulation shows that the EU is turning its back on its citizens."@en1
"− Now we are into a completely different policy area. The Commission is perfectly aware of the poverty which, combined with other factors such as instability, climate change and human rights violations, drives migrants to embark on a hard, sometimes tragic journey. The Commission is active on all these fronts, primarily via the political dialogue conducted with these countries and via the European Development Fund and its aim of combating poverty. In response to the tragic events in Ceuta and Melilla and as part of the global approach approved by the European Council in late 2005, the European Union wanted a structured dialogue with Africa on the link between migration and development under the Rabat process in respect of the West African migratory route, shortly to be followed up by the Paris Conference on 25 November, and the Tripoli Process in respect of Africa as a whole. The partnership on migration mobility and employment was launched at the December 2007 EU-Africa summit in Lisbon. The underlying idea is that the partnership should find solutions to migration by linking it to employment issues. The Migration Information and Management Centre, inaugurated by the Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner and Malian President Touré in Bamako on 6 October, exemplifies the practical application of the integrated approach that the Commission is striving to promote. It is, moreover, ready to reproduce this example elsewhere in West Africa. As regards migrants’ living conditions, one of the objectives of the migration and asylum programme is to protect migrants’ rights, inter alia, by strengthening the capacity of administrations and stakeholders in countries of transit or destination such as the North African countries to assist migrants, especially in certain conditions. By way of example, the European Community has recently granted funding under the programme for the following projects: the continuing financing of the Libya office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which plays a key role in promoting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers; improving the protection of the living conditions of international migrants in North Africa; strengthening the capacity of civil society organisations in the area of promoting the rights of migrants in North Africa; and a programme enabling migrants in Libyan Morocco to return home voluntarily in decent conditions. Lastly, the Commission is using the programme to finance many projects in sub-Saharan Africa addressing the prevention of illegal immigration, the promotion of legal migration, the link between migration and development and the promotion of refugee and asylum-seeker advocacy."@en1
"− Of course it must be improved, but you must also understand that we are talking about errors. For instance, the 12% figure for last year is based on samples taken by the Court of Auditors, using absolutely correct methodology. These samples amount to EUR 63 million. All these samples have been corrected, recovered and the necessary documents provided. Therefore, the 12% issue from 2006 is resolved. Errors are not a waste of money: errors are errors which are corrected. All the figures are available, from the Committee on Budgetary Control, for what is done to recover wrongly paid money. For instance, this year the Regional Development Fund made decisions for the recovery of almost EUR 2.3 billion from the Member States – provided there are no other corrections, but this is a process where, last year, we were much tougher than previously; still, you must understand that we are talking about errors. Meanwhile, the Court of Auditors has submitted this discharge, this report. Based on this report, they have submitted all of two cases to OLAF for further investigation – one case is closed and the other is under investigation. These are the possible fraud cases. I must say that this situation is not so bad, though we must of course ensure that the money is properly used everywhere."@en1
"− Often, the EU seeks to take common action where things are better left to Member States. In this case, however, I believe we can make a difference acting together. The scourge of child pornography and child sex abuse is a serious blight on our society, wrecking the lives of those most vulnerable and worthy of protection. Given the nature of the EU and the free movement of people, it is vital that we use the various means at our disposal to combat these sickening crimes wherever they occur. In particular, it is important that information about offenders is coordinated and updated regularly. We must also improve cooperation with third countries so that EU citizens travelling outside the EU to commit sex crimes against children can be identified, stopped, prosecuted and extradited as required. The EU’s global role offers an important opportunity to promote our values in countries and regions where children’s rights are less well protected. I therefore voted in favour of this report."@en1
"− On balance, I can support this own initiative report from my colleague, MEP Reul. As the past months have shown, the importance of energy security has never been as acute. The cooperation that is necessary from all Member States and the need to take advantage of the stimulus packages currently launched by almost all Member States and the Commission underscore the need for investment in renewable technology to increase our energy security and decrease our CO emissions. Our years of dependence on fossil fuels have left us with two stark conclusions: 1. We need to be independent from global geopolitical forces, as the Russian/Ukraine impasse this winter showed and the ravages of OPEC’s pricing policy. 2. Our need to meet ever pressing CO reduction deadlines continues and should be maintained as a matter of utmost priority. We cannot shy away from the challenges, both economic and environmental, with which we are currently faced."@en1
"− On behalf of my Fine Gael colleagues in the Parliament I would like to clarify that we did not vote in support of the El Khadraoui report on the charging of HGVs, due to concerns over the legal basis for the proposal, concerns regarding the compulsory use of electronic tolling and the provision for earmarking of revenue. We fully support the principles behind the proposal, but believe the report’s application of the principle is flawed."@en1
"− On behalf of the Irish delegation within the PPE-DE Group, I would like to clarify that we supported the Ayala Sender report on the basis that the aim of the report and its impact will contribute greatly to improved road safety. We are aware of potential difficulties for Ireland, but we feel these can and will be overcome once agreement has been reached at Council on the exact legal base of this proposal."@en1
"− One month ago, Parliament adopted a resolution on the proposal for a directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment. This means that the proposal has successfully completed first reading and will shortly be adopted by the Council. The new directive is a major step forward towards the establishment of a common European defence market. It will introduce fair and transparent procurement rules applicable throughout the Union. This will enhance the openness of defence markets between Member States to the benefit of all. European industries will get a much larger home market and become more competitive; our armed forces will get better value for money, which will help to improve Europe’s defence capabilities; and last but not least, taxpayers will benefit from more efficiency in public spending. One of the controversial issues during the debate on the directive were ‘offsets’ – that is, economic compensation for defence purchases from foreign suppliers. Some Member States proposed to include in the directive a compensation system which will allow them to secure such industrial returns on defence investments. Offsets aim at fostering the industry of the Member State which purchases defence equipment abroad. As such, they can lead to distortion of the internal market and imply discrimination against companies from other Member States on the basis of the nationality of the supplier. The EC Treaty prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and a directive, as secondary law, has to abide by the Treaty. The Legal Service of the Council confirmed in its opinion of 28 October 2008 that, and I quote, ‘restrictive procurement measures designed to promote domestic industry do not comply with the general principles of the EC Treaty’. Consequently, offsets on defence procurement can only be permitted if they are necessary for the protection of essential security interests or justified on the basis of an overriding requirement of general interest. Economic interests, by contrast, are not sufficient. The vast majority of Member States and Parliament agreed with this assessment. So there was not only a legal obligation, but also a political consensus not to accept in the directive compensations directed at fostering national industries. Accordingly, neither the Commission in its proposal, nor the colegislators, namely the Council and the European Parliament, included specific rules on offsets in the text of the Defence Directive. The Defence Directive does, however, offer alternatives to offsets. Member States which are principally purchasers of defence equipment usually seek to justify their wish to have offsets either with security of supply needs or with the necessity to open up defence markets for their SMEs. The Defence Procurement Directive will satisfy these concerns. On the one hand, it allows the contracting authorities to ask tenderers for specific commitments to satisfy their security of supply requirements. On the other hand, it contains provisions on subcontracting which make it possible to require tenderers to open up their supply chains to EU-wide competition and facilitate access for SMEs, as this will contribute to reconciling the legitimate security and economic interests of Member States that are purchasers and avoid the need to have recourse to compensations or offsets."@en1
"− One of the cleanest methods of transport is by water. The report relates to inland waterway vessels, but I believe that this mode of transportation cannot be disassociated from the larger picture of transport by sea. The two types of water transport are inland and sea transport and both are energy efficient. Transporting a product on water produces about one percent (1%) of the carbon dioxide that would be produced by carrying the same item the same distance by air. We have to be careful when making regulations which affect this type of transportation. We must not overload industry in relation to shipping and inland waterway boats and barges as the end result may turn out to be the opposite of our intentions. Should water and sea transport become uncompetitive, custom may well be directed to other means of transport. All other alternatives leave a larger carbon footprint. In the end, instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we would have put in place a set of rules and regulations which will ultimately defeat the general scope of our proposals."@en1
"− One of the figures I can refer to in my answer is that in 2005, more than 80% of seized fake products came from China. Now this proportion is around 60%. I think it would be premature to say that it is due to the Customs Cooperation Agreement and is the result of the yearly meeting of the Customs Cooperation Committee, but I am pretty sure that there is certainly some correlation between the two. As I have already said, there have been changes in Chinese legislation: production and distribution of fake goods are now an element of the penal code, which was not the case before, and export controls have also been introduced. I would not say that this export control is systematic and full-scale. It is rather sporadic and occasional, but it is a step forward. These are the concrete facts which show that China is becoming more cooperative and taking it more seriously. I have already spoken about Chinese motivation. As far as the Joint Customs Cooperation Committee is concerned, the co-chairs are the Minister on the Chinese side, and myself on the EU or EC side, but also in the joint committee, all the Member States are represented at expert level. They have more than one meeting at expert level a year. Once a year, the two chairs of the joint committee also come together and discuss the issues."@en1
"− One of the positive aspects of the EU is the way in which it seeks to spread values of democracy, human rights and good governance throughout the world by way of its relationships with third countries. It is, however, deeply ironic that the EU places so much emphasis on democracy elsewhere while ignoring democracy within the EU itself, as can be seen by the reaction to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. I wish to draw attention to two parts of the world: firstly, Central Asia. Although I recognise the strategic importance of this region to the EU, I believe that continued engagement on the EU’s part must be matched by advances in human rights and democratisation in Central Asia. Secondly, I would like to contrast the human rights situation in the authoritarian Communist dictatorship of China with the vigorous and free democracy of Taiwan. Taiwan enjoys an exceptionally high standard of human rights in east Asia and can serve as an example to China of what societies can achieve when they take the bold decision to become truly free."@en1
"− Othmar Karas is, of course, from Austria, but he was talking on behalf of Herbert Reul."@en1
"− Parliament, the Commission and the Council have boosted their cooperation on EU communication and signed the political declaration on Communicating Europe in Partnership on 22 October this year. Thank you very much for your strong support on this issue. This is the first time that we have agreed on a common approach to communication. Communicating is more efficient and effective if done in a coordinated way on priority issues. Besides, it requires a political commitment of all actors, including Member States. All institutions have a responsibility to communicate with citizens about the European Union. However – and let me stress this firmly – the political declaration also respects the individual responsibility of each EU institution and Member State for its own communication strategy and priorities. Common communication priorities are at the centre of the political declaration and they will be agreed by the interinstitutional group on information (IGI) co-chaired by representatives of each institution. We have already identified and agreed to have four common priorities in 2009: the European elections, energy and climate change, the 20 anniversary of the democratic changes in Central and Eastern Europe and, of course, sustaining jobs, growth and solidarity in Europe. Implementation will be assured together by Parliament, the Commission and the Council, as well as by Member States. Therefore, we will aim to develop synergies with national, regional and local authorities, as well as with representatives of civil society. Our representations and Parliament’s information offices in the Member States will work with national authorities on joint activities adapted to national conditions. If needed, we will enter into appropriate administrative arrangements between the services at EU and national levels and action will be financed appropriately. It goes without saying that in their actions, our institutions and Member States will respect multilingualism and cultural diversity. In this context, let me mention that the Commission is very active in facing the challenge of multilingualism. Among other measures, translators have been assigned to our representations in the Member States to serve local needs and help to communicate Europe in the language of its citizens. Finally, implementation of the common communication priorities will provide excellent platforms for European, national and regional politicians to debate with citizens on EU issues before the European elections. I hope it will have a positive influence on the turnout."@en1
"− President Barroso, thank you for your speech, and for your readiness to cooperate in the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The cooperation between Parliament and the Council during the videoconference with Prime Minister Jan Fischer of the Czech Republic was also excellent, so thank you once again, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, for organising that video conference."@en1
"− President Sampaio, on behalf of the European Parliament, I thank you for this great speech, and I thank you for your great commitment, as the UN High Representative, to the alliance of civilisations and to intercultural dialogue. As you mentioned the Union for the Mediterranean, I take this opportunity to inform you that, at its extraordinary plenary session of 12 and 13 October in Jordan, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly – including representatives from Israel, Palestine, the Arab countries, the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the European Union – adopted a declaration on the peace process in the Middle East. In November, several hundred young people from all the countries that are building the Union for the Mediterranean will meet here, in the Chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and engage in a dialogue of civilisations – a dialogue of cultures. We are committed to your goals, Mr President, and we wish you well in your great commitment to the alliance of civilisations. The European Parliament supports you. Your ambition is our ambition. Thank you, President Sampaio, for your visit to the European Parliament. ."@en1
"− Prime Minister, thank you for your very clear message regarding all that is going on after the vote in Ireland, and also for the very clear message on cooperation between the European Parliament and the Presidency of the European Council. We have just started discussions with Mrs Malmström, a former Member of the European Parliament, whom we remember very well. Thank you very much for your proposal and very clear message."@en1
"− Question No 2 by Brian Crowley () What initiatives is the European Council pursuing at present to combat youth and long-term unemployment in Europe?"@en1
"− Question No 3 by Mairead McGuinness () Europe imposes high standards, which we all applaud, on food production and manufacturing inside its borders but does not require these standards to be met by imports. European standards, particularly for food production and the manufacture of clothes and toys, are the best in the world; but these high standards add costs and make production inside EU borders more expensive. Imported products, which are not subject to the same high environmental and other standards, are placed on our shelves, often at much cheaper prices. What is the Council doing at the WTO and other global fora to raise awareness and encourage higher production standards around the world, giving better protection for workers and consumers?"@en1
"− Question No 4 by Claude Moraes () What preparations is the Council making in the run up to the G8 summit in July and the climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year in order to move international negotiations forward on climate change? In particular, can the Council report on any improved cooperation between the EU and the new US Administration in this area? In addition, what further action in the fight against climate change is the Council planning in order to consolidate the package of measures agreed upon in December?"@en1
"− Question No 5 by Liam Aylward () According to the priorities of the Czech Presidency, the high number of people killed on European roads requires an enhancement of Europe-wide effort to improve road safety. What plans does the Presidency have to tackle this issue?"@en1
"− Regarding the United States, the new Administration has committed to reductions which are considerably more ambitious than those of the previous administration. However, they are still not as ambitious as those to which the European Union has committed, and fall below the level that science is telling us is required in order to keep global warming below 2°C, as was agreed by all the leaders of the major economies in July 2009 in L’Aquila, including the Americans, the Chinese and the leaders of the other countries that you mentioned. Regarding the impact assessment and the issues of competitiveness, these were discussed at length when we adopted the Energy and Climate Package. Many studies have been carried out not only by the Commission but also by industry and by various sectors. The provisions that we have in our legislation will provide the assurances needed to preserve the competitiveness of other European industries, especially small and medium-sized enterprises by, for example, granting free allowances, in many cases up to 100% of their emissions. So this is something that we are taking into account and, of course, the same applies when we go to 30%. Additionally, if we go to 30%, it will mean that we shall have an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen where all developed countries will undertake similar comparable reduction targets to the European Union and developing countries will accept mitigation actions which will create a level playing field for the whole world. We shall then have comparable reduction obligations which will mean that the problem of competitiveness will not exist. But the discussions in the United States are ongoing. The Markey-Waxman bill has been voted on in the House and is now going to be voted on in the Senate. There are quite a lot of provisions which need clarification, and we have to see what the net result will be at the end, because this bill could be more ambitious than it appears to be today. For example, if the calculation of emission reductions includes those achieved by investments in ‘avoided deforestation’ – depending on whether this is calculated in the United States’ emission reduction target, or in the financing, or whatever – this is something which must be clarified in order to determine the comparability between the targets of the United States and the European Union and other developed countries. The fact is that we are encountering a very positive attitude from this Administration, we are working closely with them, and we hope that together we shall work for a good result in Copenhagen, namely an agreement with the elements that I described previously. Regarding Brazil, China, India, Mexico and other developing countries, of course we expect from them a reduction in the rate of growth of their emissions of the order of 15% to 30% below ‘business as usual’. This is again what science is telling us is necessary in order to keep global warming below 2 °C. Reductions by developed countries alone will not suffice. Some of these countries have already taken national measures which will lead to reductions in emissions, either by energy efficiency measures or investments in renewable sources of energy, but we need to intensify our cooperation with them – exchange of information, cooperation regarding technologies and transfer of technology – in order to achieve the reductions that we need. Regarding cost reduction and, as you mentioned, energy efficiency, clearly all investments in energy efficiency are win-win-win situations. For example, by reducing the consumption of imported oil, not only do you save money, and you do not pay it to the oil-producing countries, but you also reduce CO emissions. In many countries, especially developing countries, where there are problems with air pollution – the air pollution problem in China, for example, is very well known – there will be the collateral benefit of improving air quality. Concerning the related problem of water and food, both of these are objectives of the European Union’s policies. We do support policies that will improve the sanitary quality and supply of water, especially in very poor countries. Regarding food, we were very careful, for example, when we examined the Biofuels Directive, that there should be no competition between feedstocks for food and biofuel. We always take account of these important issues."@en1
"− Researchers are at the heart of knowledge creation, transfer and exploitation. They are the key for Europe to turn the fifth freedom – the freedom of movement of knowledge – into reality, and with that to shape the knowledge-based economy. The supply of human resources for research is indeed best reflected in the number of new university graduates. The benchmark adopted by the Education Council in 2003, to increase by 15% the number of graduates in Member States and decrease gender imbalance by 2010, has been reached. In 2006, there were in the EU-27 about 200 000 more mathematics, science and technology graduates than in 2000. It is clear that not all university graduates go into research. For the European Union, an additional factor here is that, due to the lower share of private research investments in Europe compared to other continents, the market for researchers in the EU is relatively smaller than those of our competitors. On top of that, there is strong competition for attracting and keeping the most talented researchers. This is, first and foremost, a competition between research and other economic sectors. But there is also a competition between countries and world regions – in particular the US, but also, increasingly, China and India. The European Union is facing the upcoming retirement of generations of researchers in Europe, with no prospect of their complete replacement. The situation will get worse if young people are not attracted into the research profession. What is at stake is whether Europe in the long term can remain and further develop as a world-class location for research and development. The fact is that researchers in Europe are still faced with serious obstacles and a lack of opportunities. When I talk to researchers across Europe, I hear about unattractive working conditions and career prospects, an often precarious status and short-term contracts. Furthermore, many researchers are still trained in a way which does not equip them with the skills needed in a modern knowledge economy. There are strong disincentives for researchers wishing to move jobs within academia and industry and vice versa. Finally, the structural fragmentation of the European researchers’ labour market hinders the transnational mobility of researchers within the European Union, due to, in particular, a lack of open, merit-based recruitment and to cultural factors, as well as problems encountered by highly mobile workers in such fields as social security, taxation and transferability of supplementary pension rights. It is therefore high time for Europe to step up its efforts to ensure the availability of the necessary researchers in the years ahead. That is precisely why the Commission, last May, proposed a European Partnership for Researchers: a partnership with and among Member States entailing a focused framework to make rapid progress across Europe in key areas determining better careers and more mobility. The Council has responded favourably to this initiative and we are about to embark on its implementation, centred on national action plans and mutual learning. Evidence-based monitoring of progress, data-collection on mobility and career patterns are also foreseen. So, while we currently have very few data, the aim is to provide ourselves with the better statistics that the honourable Member is looking for. We have many of the other data but not exactly these specific data. The Commission Communication on the European Partnership for Researchers is currently under consideration in this Parliament. The Commission looks forward to Parliament’s opinion, which will hopefully reinforce this common endeavour for the future of research in Europe."@en1
"− Roma people represent the biggest minority in the European Union and their integration into European society is one of the biggest challenges the EU will face in the coming decade. The Roma, comprising approximately 10-12 million people, have no chance of escaping from poverty and exclusion. Such a degree of social disadvantage hampers the attainment of a basic level of human dignity and equal opportunities for the Roma. I welcome this report which highlights the need to improve conditions for all Europeans, regardless of race."@en1
"− Russia has to make up its mind: does it aspire to the EU’s common values or not? There are many areas of agreement with Russia, which all said and done is our strategic partner. We acknowledge the common threat of nuclear proliferation, particularly from Iran. We need Russia’s help as part of the Quartet to work towards a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict with a new PM of Israel and US President in place. However we cannot allow Russia to bully its neighbours and use its hydrocarbon resources as a diplomatic weapon. Similarly, we cannot allow Russia simply to behave as if last summer’s war in Georgia did not happen. The annexation of sovereign Georgian territory cannot be brushed under the carpet, either by Russia or the EU. Lastly Russia must observe its binding OSCE/Council of Europe commitments to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law."@en1
"− Russia remains an important strategic partner for the EU. We have common interests like fighting nuclear proliferation and building peace in the Middle East. Russia also has an important diplomatic role, not only as a permanent member of the UN Security Council but as a major influence on Iran. We therefore need Russia’s help to persuade Iran not to build nuclear bomb. There are, however, areas of concern about our relationship with Russia: and if we share common interests, I am not convinced that we share common values. The state of democracy and the rule of law in Russia remains of concern. The freedom of the press is also not of the standard that we would expect. Our partnership with Russia must therefore be strong and durable, but it cannot be unconditional. In particular Russia needs to know that we will not tolerate the annexation and recognition of the sovereign Georgian territories seized in last summer’s war."@en1
"− Securing value for money, effective management, and the elimination of fraud are key priorities of the ECR Group for the EU budget. We therefore support the thrust of the Cozzolino report and most of its conclusions. The ECR group cannot, however, endorse the concept of a European Public Prosecutor. This office risks being a dangerous first step towards European competence for aspects of criminal law and the focus on its creation is a distraction from making existing systems and bodies work effectively. As the ECR amendment to remove the paragraph supporting progress towards a European Public Prosecutor was rejected, the ECR abstained on the final vote."@en1
"− Sinn Féin attaches the highest priority to the fight against climate change. We fully recognise the profound changes needed to bring about the type of society and economy which will prove to be environmentally sustainable. Therefore, we support measures at local, national, EU and at global level through the UN climate talks to set the necessary binding targets for CO reductions. Specifically on the Doyle report on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), we voted in favour of this report, as the outcome ensures an improvement of the current EU ETS, notwithstanding some serious difficulties with the scheme itself. We are unhappy with the fact that most of the reductions to reach EU targets can actually be made outside of the EU, as approved by the Hassi report. We abstained on this. On the Davies report on CCS and without prejudice to our clear preference for renewable energy, we voted in favour of this report, as it provides important measures on safety, financial security and liability. We would also have liked an emissions performance standard. However, this report provides for a review into the possibility. We voted against the Sacconi report on cars, as the agreement severely weakens the Commission proposal."@en1
"− Sir Jonathan, on behalf of the European Parliament, I am honoured to thank you for your important message. I would like to thank you for your great contribution to the intercultural dialogue. You spoke about the mutual respect and acknowledgement of others. I think this is what we have learnt from our European history. You said that what unites us is much more than that which divides us. This is the principle – and you finished with this – of our European engagement for a strong, democratic European Union which is based on the dignity of each human being. Sir Jonathan, thank you for your great message. All the best to you, the religion you represent and the peaceful living together of all religions on our continent and in the world. Thank you, Sir Jonathan."@en1
"− Such agreements are vital in the process of strengthening the ties between the European Union and the United States of America. With competition from the new emerging markets ever increasing, it is of the utmost importance to be on top of the situation, and I think that this report expresses this feeling exactly."@en1
"− Thank you for answering the question, but, colleagues, I will read you the Rule because we must know about it. ‘The President may give the floor to Members who indicate, by raising a blue card, their wish to put to another Member, during that Member’s speech’ – not later – ‘a question of no longer than half a minute’s duration’ – a question only – ‘where the speaker agrees and where the President is satisfied that this will not lead to a disruption of the debate.’ If blue cards are raised too often, then I will not give you the floor because it will lead to disruption of our debate. You must be aware of that. Raise your card in time and only for questions that take half a minute; answers must not exceed one minute. These are our rules, and we must keep to them very strictly."@en1
"− Thank you for this opportunity to deal with the very interesting issue of our foreign policy on the Andean Community. Region-to-region negotiations with the Andean Community entered an impasse last summer due to the Andean Community’s inability to agree on common negotiation positions in certain trade-related areas. These differences reflect, to a certain extent, the differing approaches of the various countries in the region on economic and trade policies. Despite the efforts undertaken by some Andean Community countries to overcome this impasse, the Commission could only note that a consensus on moving forward with negotiations no longer existed. Under these circumstances, and without abandoning the medium-term objective of building an association between the Andean Community and the European Union, the Commission proposed to the Council a new two-track negotiating format which was approved by the Council on 19 January. First, and with the objective of preserving and strengthening relations between the European Union and the Andean Community, the Commission proposes to enrich and update the 2003 political dialogue and cooperation agreement. Second, the Commission proposes to negotiate the multiparty trade agreement outside the Andean Community framework with those countries that are ready and able to commit to ambitious, comprehensive and WTO-compatible trade negotiations. All of them are invited, of course. Taking into account the discrepancies among the Andean Community countries on the trade part of association agreements, the Commission believes that the proposed approach is the best suited to permit us to move forward in a pragmatic and constructive way, while continuing to support the Andean Community and Andean integration."@en1
"− Thank you for your speech, Mr Farage. European parliamentarianism has always provided a forum for various opinions. This is what discussion in Europe is based on. The speeches of those Members who wished to speak have now ended, but I think that the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, is signalling that he would like to say a few words. Mr Barroso, please take the floor."@en1
"− Thank you for your work, Mr Foglietta, which everyone here has recognised. The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow."@en1
"− Thank you very much, Mrs Malmström. You have had so much patience spending the whole afternoon and part of the evening here. One can see that not so long ago, you were a Member of this House and so you like this environment very much! The debate is closed."@en1
"− Thank you very much, Mr Tabajdi. You will surely be pleased to know that I had the honour of being part of the jury that awarded the Charlemagne Youth Prize. I am telling you this so that you will know that we made the right decision."@en1
"− Thank you, Commissioner, and my thanks to all of you who took part in this very important debate on the outcome of the Irish referendum. The debate is closed."@en1
"− Thank you, Minister. In reality, in this debate neither the Council nor the Commission have a fixed time, however strange that may seem. You have therefore surpassed yourself in your consideration of the time that you had. Thank you very much, in any case, for having used it so moderately in this second intervention. Now our dear Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, has the floor."@en1
"− Thank you, Mrs Juknevičienė. This is a case of ‘looking at the speck in someone else’s eye and failing to see the plank in our own eye’."@en1
"− That concludes the explanations of vote."@en1
"− That concludes this item."@en1
"− That is a huge question. I can only pass this question to my colleagues. We, together with Parliament, are asking the Member States whether this kind of money – this EUR 5 billion – can be made available solely for energy efficiency. So far, it has been a very heated debate in the Council. There are some opportunities to support energy efficiency through the Cohesion Funds. But to establish some kind of new fund will probably create a lot of very long debates. I do not know how good an idea this is, because energy still does not fall within the mandate of the Community – it is strictly a national matter. Seeing what is happening with this EUR 5 billion, I am not so enthusiastic about cooperation between the Member States in establishing different financing instruments. The idea, of course, I can only support."@en1
"− That was an easy one. I voted in favour in the final vote."@en1
"− The Commission fully supports the analysis made by the honourable Member in his oral question. The Commission hopes that, with this element of response, the honourable Member will be convinced that we are fully engaged in harnessing FP7 funds to really greening our research and our economies. We are the leader in green technology and we need to maintain and reinforce this position. This will also back the position of the EU in its leading role in the international fora for combating climate change. With the seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, the European Union is well equipped – and Parliament played its full role in its outcome – to mobilise EU R&D funds in support of the development of new green technologies. The Commission is putting a lot of effort into making the most of FP7. Two of the joint technology initiatives adopted so far are fully dedicated to green technologies: ‘Clean Sky’, with a European contribution of EUR 800 million; and ‘hydrogen and fuel cells’, with a contribution of EUR 450 million from the European Community. With the European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, we are strongly endorsed by Parliament and the Council. The Commission has initiated a process that will enhance the effectiveness of Research & Development spending in energy research. The SET Plan is committed to green technologies. It calls for the implementation of six new priority European industrial initiatives (industry-led programmes: wind, solar, CCS, grids, bioenergy and sustainable fission) and the establishment of the European Energy Research Alliance (research-led programmes). The FP7 Energy Community Programme is the main instrument available in the short term to support the implementation of these actions. But more than EU effort alone is certainly needed. Therefore, the Community Programme should be used to catalyse actions of Member States and, of course, of the private sector. This requires a shift in the approach: rather than just cofinancing projects, steering and enabling the deployment of a joint effort through joint programming is truly needed. Analysing the whole set of work programmes from the first three years of implementation of FP7, the Commission estimates that 37% of the topics supported by R&D funding are for green technology. Forty per cent of the budget committed after the 2007 calls, under the ‘Cooperation’ Specific Programmes, also support green technology R&D. In order to be able to monitor the contribution of FP7 to sustainable development, in general, and to green technology, in particular, the Commission is setting in place a monitoring system that should be operational in the first semester of next year. In its Communication ‘From financial crisis to recovery: A European framework for action’, adopted on 29 October this year, the Commission also emphasises the role of R&D investment and education as well as enhancing European competitiveness by continuing to green our economy. In more general terms, it should be noted that, in addition to FP7 funds and activities, there is a wide range of policy initiatives and supporting programmes related to environmental technologies in the EU like the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, the Competitiveness and Innovation Plan and more recently, the Lead Market Initiative and Action Plan on sustainable production and consumption."@en1
"− The Commission has always encouraged Turkey to implement all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. A debate will be held tomorrow in plenary, and this subject will also be discussed."@en1
"− The Commission has strongly condemned the violence in Gaza. This crisis proves once more that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have a military solution. Only negotiations with the full commitment of the parties can bring about a lasting solution. The Commission welcomes the recent cessation of hostilities in Gaza. It is vital that all parties make the current ceasefire permanent through the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1860. A number of issues need to be addressed without delay, in particular, the reopening of all crossings into and out of Gaza, a sustained halt to rocket attacks against Israel and an effective means to prevent arms-smuggling to Gaza. Now that the hostilities appear to have stopped, it will be important to resume talks aimed at comprehensive peace as soon as possible. The EU has called on its partners for help in driving the peace process forward. The immediate priority for the Commission is to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the population in Gaza. Trading relations between the EU and Israel will continue. Isolation, sanctions or any other forms of boycott would be harmful to talks and negotiations aimed at achieving a sustainable solution to the conflict. Furthermore, while targeting Israeli interests, they would also prove to be detrimental to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which is economically dependent on Israel as a main destination for its exports and employment of its labour force."@en1
"− The Commission is closely following the situation in Venezuela with concern. The Commission is aware of the case of Manuel Rosales. He was granted political asylum in Peru after being charged with corruption in Venezuela. The Commission has taken note of the explanation provided by the president of Rosales’ party, according to which he has gone into hiding for his own protection. The Commission believes that the request for asylum made by Manuel Rosales, and its acceptance by the Peruvian Government, is a bilateral case and that it is not for the Commission to pronounce itself on the merits of this request. We are aware that recently the judicial institutions have opened some judicial processes against opposition leaders in Venezuela. We know that some sectors of Venezuelan society have criticised the proliferation of measures which they consider adversely affect the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to exercise political rights. This same sector considers that the Government is showing an intolerant attitude towards criticism. We are conscious of these facts and we are closely following the political situation in Venezuela. I would like to underline the importance that the European Union attaches to freedom of expression and opinion, a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. We hope that the democratic institutions of Venezuela will respect the rule of law and preserve democracy in the country, whilst complying with the obligation arising from the international agreements signed and ratified by Venezuela, including the American Convention on Human Rights and, specifically, the provisions on political rights set out in Article 23. I wish to assure Parliament that the Commission will continue to follow developments in Venezuela closely. The Commission’s commitment to supporting and strengthening democracy and the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms will continue to be reflected in our cooperation policies and relations with Venezuela."@en1
"− The Commission presented its autumn forecast on 3 November, which indicates that the economic outlook is bleak: economic growth is expected to come to a standstill in 2009, increasing by a meagre 0.2% in the European Union. 2010 should see a gradual recovery for most EU economies, with growth projected at 1.1% for the EU as a whole. As a result, unemployment is expected to increase to 7.8% in the EU in 2009, with a further increase projected for 2010. However, next year we expect inflation to fall back quickly to 2.4% in the EU and to decelerate further in 2010. There is no question that the challenges we face are substantial. Hence, the Commission is now developing a comprehensive strategy to manage the financial crisis and limit the economic downturn. The basis of this strategy is set down in the communication entitled ‘From financial crisis to recovery: A European framework for action’, which indicates how the EU should tackle the next stages of the crisis in a united, coordinated manner. Action should be geared towards three objectives: first, building a new financial market architecture at EU level; second, dealing with the impact on the real economy and, third, coordinating a global response to the financial crisis. On 26 November, the Commission will propose a more detailed version of this EU recovery plan, under the umbrella of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. Our aim is to bring together a series of targeted short-term initiatives that will help counter adverse effects on the wider economy, while adapting the medium to long-term measures of the Lisbon Strategy to take account of the crisis."@en1
"− The Commission shares the concern of the honourable Member that population growth in Africa and the long-term impact of high fertility rates could contribute significantly to increased pressure on Africa’s natural resources and determining the development trajectory of the African continent. Fertility rates tell an important part of the story; according to the UN Population Division, Africa’s overall population today is 8% lower than if its fertility rate had stayed at its 1970 levels. Indeed, its fertility rate is expected to decline even below 2.5% by 2050. In urban parts of the continent, an emergent middle class is having fewer children at rates comparable with Europeans. This story is one of promise, of the countries which have attained political stability and achieved impressive economic growth. Aware of these challenges, the European Commission has a development policy geared to fight poverty, promote sustainable development and tackle political challenges in order to help foster stability. In this field, the Commission is also bound by the strategy endorsed by the 1994 international conference on population and development, further reviewed in 1999. The strategy has extended the concept of family planning to that of sexual and reproductive health and rights. It emphasises human rights, the empowerment of women, the importance of investing in health and education and the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services to all those who need them. In particular, the education of women has an impact on their reproductive behaviour. Many studies have found a strong correlation between education and fertility; as literacy improves, fertility rates tend to decrease. Across all of its programmes the Commission expects to commit around EUR 1.7 billion to education for the years 2007-2013; more generally, we are firmly engaged in increasing the level and effectiveness of the collective EU aid to health systems delivering universal coverage of basic services including reproductive health. In this respect, under the EU agenda for action on MDGs – Millennium Development Goals – the EU has undertaken to contribute an additional EUR 8 billion, of which EUR 6 billion for Africa, to health, providing that all aid commitments are fully met. In order to address environmental pressure, it is of key importance to ensure that local livelihoods are sustainable. This means combating desertification and land degradation and enhancing agricultural productivity, halting over-exploitation of biodiversity, forests and other natural resources including oceans and inland waters; and, finally, ensuring that climate change remains within certain limits and assisting African populations to adapt to climate change. The Commission, together with the EU Member States, is working on an environmental integration strategy to ensure that development cooperation efforts contribute to these objectives. Our preparations for the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit are to be seen in this light. At present, the EU is working with the African Union and other regional organisations to strengthen their capacity to address environment and climate change issues. It promotes important initiatives to enhance forest governance, especially through forest law enforcement, governance and trade."@en1
"− The Commission’s proposal on a Statute for a European private company allows an opportunity for non-serious companies to circumvent the rules on worker participation. If the private European company has its registered office in a Member State with low or no workers’ participation and performs its activities in another Member State with high participation, the company can circumvent the rules. The Socialist Group in the Parliament has however, together with the ETUC, reached a compromise which improves the Commission’s proposal substantially. The compromise now states that when the companies have a certain quota of their employees in another Member State with higher worker participation compared to the Member State where the company has its headquarters, the more favourable rules for worker participation will apply. Although the compromise is far better than the original proposal, we have not succeeded fully. The levels to trigger worker participation are still high compared to the rules in some Member States and there are also problems with the definition of what is regarded as being a higher level of worker participation. We − the Danish and the Swedish delegations in the Socialist Group − have therefore decided to abstain our votes in the final vote."@en1
"− The EPLP believes that the Lisbon Strategy remains an important platform for growth and job creation across the EU. This is still an objective which is achievable, even if the current economic climate damages the true potential. However, the EPLP does not agree that an EU-wide transaction tax is a necessary vehicle to achieve some of the Lisbon Strategy objectives and did not support this measure. However, the EPLP could support the main thrust of the approved text and therefore voted in favour of the report."@en1
"− The EU has ambitious plans, matched against a risk that resources will be increasingly constrained as populations around the globe demand more energy. The answers, in maintaining current security of supply and developing efficient non-carbon based energy, are not mutually exclusive. Safety of our environment and avoidance of energy poverty among those people, particularly in the South-East of England who live on fixed incomes, are equally important objectives. That is why I support a mixture of technological solutions to energy supply in the EU. Whilst I respect the necessity for caution in the nuclear industry as regards safety, I believe it offers a degree of certainty: if we were deprived of this process now, it would be accordingly disastrous for many of my constituents on fixed incomes."@en1
"− The EU is India's top foreign investor and biggest trading partner. Forging an economic alliance is therefore vital to both. I support this report because it stresses that the agreement should ensure that increasing bilateral trade brings benefits to the widest number of people and contributes to the Millennium Development Goals, including preventing environmental degradation. However I regret that the EPP text replaced the more comm. text which was more progressive."@en1
"− The EU needs to take a greater interest in the increasing violence in Mexico created by drug wars. The doubling in murders related to drug violence is a worrying situation."@en1
"− The EU’s Temporary Agency Work Directive adds to the mass of EU and British Government legislation making the life of employers and businessmen more complex, expensive, restrictive, less flexible and generally more problematic. In an age of global competition, it is even more important that the UK and other European countries should retain whatever competitive advantages they may have in their economies. Employment regulation should therefore be a matter for national authorities, not the EU. The directive aims to establish a common legal framework across Europe to regulate the pay and working conditions of temporary workers supplied by agencies. This would have a significant negative impact on the UK labour market, with its estimated 1.4 million temporary workers. It will also encourage migrant workers who may benefit from the directive. As we enter a period of recession, it is even more important that flexible employment opportunities are increased for our own citizens and that small businesses, in particular, are helped and not burdened."@en1
"− The European Commission estimates that 43 million people in the European Union are at risk of food poverty. This report calls on the European Commission to reverse a proposal to cut food aid to the most deprived persons living in the EU."@en1
"− The European Community has developed a number of actions to protect the euro against counterfeiting, but in response to your question about the situation with regard to the fight against counterfeiting, it is as follows: In 2008, according to figures published by the European Central Bank, a total of 666 000 counterfeit euro banknotes were removed from circulation – so, a little over 600 000 compared to 20 billion genuine euro banknotes: this number is not too alarming. Historically, the 50-euro note has been the most counterfeited banknote, but in the second half of 2008 – for the first time – the most counterfeited banknote was the 20-euro banknote. For euro coins, a total of 100 095 counterfeits were removed from circulation in 2008, which represents a decrease of 7% compared to 2007, and the two-euro coin has always been by far the most counterfeited euro coin. So it is closely monitored. The roles are divided. The European Central Bank is responsible for the coordination of the fight against counterfeiting of euro banknotes. The Commission, especially its OLAF service, deals with the counterfeiting of coins. The real law enforcement happens at Member State level, but the coordination is carried out by the European Central Bank. We have a Technical and Scientific Centre, which carries out the analysis and classification of new stamped counterfeit coins. It is important to mention that Europol is playing a substantial role in fighting counterfeiting. So this is the situation with regard to the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and coins."@en1
"− The European Parliament has no role or responsibility to implement the Lisbon Treaty. Why not? Because the treaty has not come into force: indeed, it was rejected comprehensively by Irish voters last year. Therefore, to talk about the European Parliament’s new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon treaty is breathtakingly arrogant and symptomatic of the institutional imperviousness to democratic opinion that characterises the EU. I hope that when Irish voters go to the polls later this year they will reject the Lisbon Treaty again. The leader of my party, the Conservative Party, David Cameron, is committed to holding a national referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not already entered into force. I would therefore hope that the people of Britain could have the chance to drive the final nail into the coffin of this wretched treaty. British Conservatives believe in a very different vision of the EU to the one represented by the Lisbon Treaty, and we are rightly forming a new political group in the European Parliament to champion our vision."@en1
"− The European Parliament practises what it preaches in terms of eco-friendly behaviour! Voluntarily, we have taken it upon ourselves to improve our environmental performance on a day-to-day basis. In February 2007, I personally asked the President to initiate EMAS in the Parliament. Today, we have voted in favour of the EMAS scheme, which requests other companies across the EU to do likewise. By reducing our environmental footprint in ways such as turning the lights off, smart metering, sensor lights, and less paper use, the European Parliament works to be environmentally sound. As a result of an audit in Parliament, we have received an EMAS logo. A yes vote today for the extension of EMAS means a yes for more environmental awareness in the Member States. This plan looks to recognise and reward proactive organisations that go beyond what environmental laws expect of them and that are constantly improving the way they interact with the environment. Now it is important to set a harmonised system throughout the European Union with a single set of rules; ensuring the usefulness and exposure of this plan not only for buildings, but for the Member States as well. For these reasons, it is essential to vote yes on this legislation."@en1
"− The European Parliamentary Labour Party abstained on this report not because we are opposed to enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade, but because Mrs Muscardini has produced a Trojan horse that contains within it unacceptable positions on Trade Defence Instruments. We are disappointed that the Commission has shelved the review because of difficulties in securing a consensus on the way forward. Our view remains that there is an urgent need to amend the Community’s trade defence regime so that it takes better account of developments in the global economy. Lack of reform means that our industry is badly placed to take advantage of the benefits of globalisation. While we welcome the Czech Presidency’s inclusion in the work programme of improving the transparency of Trade Defence Instruments, this is not enough."@en1
"− The European Parliamentary Labour Party had a number of serious concerns regarding this report that will perpetuate and increase distortions within the European Union and on a global level regarding agricultural production. In view of today’s vote where a series of amendments were carried to reinforce and worsen this situation, I was unable, on balance, to vote in favour of either the amended proposal or the draft legislative resolution despite the fact that the report has other detailed elements I support."@en1
"− The European Parliamentary Labour Party supported this resolution and gave support to underpinning the progress made last month in Pittsburgh. Without commitments to improve multilateral surveillance within the IMF and further involvement of economies other than the current members, little effective success can be foreseen. There is much to commend this resolution, and with careful thought, greater progress can be expected against the problems of the financial crisis."@en1
"− The Eurovignette Directive was created to harmonise levy systems on European roads – including vehicle taxes, tolls and charges relating to the use of road infrastructure and establish fair mechanisms for charging infrastructure costs to hauliers. The recent revision of the directive from the Commission proposes additional amendments to the Directive; such as cost assessment for the environmental impact of HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) in terms of noise pollution, congestion and air pollution. Countries with large amounts of transit traffic hold considerably different opinions to more peripheral countries, like my own, which depend on large volumes of traffic for importation and exportation of goods. While, in principle, these are fair, it should be implemented in a gradual and equitable manner. These are issues that we cannot afford to ignore. HGVs are frequently subject to time constraints and external timetables, like those of ferry operators. The construction of a port tunnel in Dublin city has done much to reduce the need for HGVs to be in the city centre, and has increased the quality of air and reduced noise pollution. This was a worthwhile investment. I am not convinced of the need to create a European independent authority to fix toll levels, and would argue that this falls under the domain of subsidiarity."@en1
"− The Fine Gael members of the EPP Group voted in favour of Draft amending budget No 8/2009. We note that this vote includes the creation of a budget item to provide supplementary funding to the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten, Netherlands. Originally, the facility was set up to evaluate materials used in fusion and fission reactors. It has become an indispensable facility for the production of radioisotopes for the medical sectors, covering some 60% of European demand. The report also provides support for, among other things, a strengthened budget to eradicate the bluetongue disease and assistance with European policing and anti-fraud. On balance, given the nature of the HFR and the mix of budget items covered, the Fine Gael delegation voted to support Draft amending budget No 8/2009."@en1
"− The G20 Summit that was held in Pittsburgh on 24 and 25 September was successful in various areas such as discussing the need to address the root causes of the financial crises so as to ensure that such events do not recur in the future. I am in agreement with this and have hence voted in favour of the resolution."@en1
"− The Governor of the Bank of England (Mervyn King) has stated, and I believe correctly, ‘Banks are international in life but national in death...’. It is national governments and national taxpayers who pay when banks have to be bailed out. It follows therefore that banking supervision must be carried out on a national basis and not via the EU. This is why I voted against the setting-up of an EU special committee on the financial and economic crisis."@en1
"− The President of the European Parliament, Mr Pöttering, was in the chair when Mr Schulz spoke, and so this is a question for Mr Pöttering. I do not see that it has any connection with my being in the chair. You should raise the matter again when Mr Pöttering is in the chair."@en1
"− The Safer Internet Programme, a predecessor of the programme which is now being launched, was considered a real success. The Commission is convinced that the next one will also be a success. The Safer Internet Programme is a unique pan-European initiative through which the EU helps combat illegal content and harmful conduct online and increase awareness of child safety online among the European public. It facilitates national actions and initiatives in a coordinated fashion. As pointed out by the honourable Member, the new Safer Internet Programme, which will run for five years from 2009 to 2013, has a total budget of EUR 55 million and will be implemented through annual work programmes. The 2009 work programme is currently subject to Commission inter-service consultation. The Commission will then seek the Programme Management Committee’s favourable opinion. Thereafter, this document will be uploaded to the comitology register in order to allow the European Parliament to exercise its 30-day right of scrutiny, which should take place between the end of March and the beginning of April. The work programme defines the content criteria and indicative budget of the call for proposals which will be launched in 2009. The call for proposals will be open to all legal entities established in the Member States. It is also open to legal entities established in EFTA states that are contracting parties to the EEA Agreement – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It is, furthermore, open to legal entities established in other countries provided that a bilateral agreement is signed. The 2009 work programme is the first of five, and so will be a building block for the activities to be carried out over the whole lifetime of the programme. According to the current draft, its priorities are to empower and protect children by introducing new actions and continuing actions started under the previous Safer Internet Plus Programme, ensuring coverage of awareness activities, help lines and hotlines throughout the Member States, strengthening coordination at European level, and also ensuring value for money by obtaining maximum impact with the financial resources available, namely EUR 11 million per year."@en1
"− The Verts/ALE Group voted in favour of the resolution on the G20 for several reasons, among which: – by referring to the need to develop new indicators which go beyond GDP, the EP gives a clear signal that ‘economic recovery’ must not be based on a ‘business as usual approach’, which is in line with our request to develop a ‘Green New Deal’; – the resolution insists on the need to tackle global imbalances, especially exchange rate imbalances and commodity price volatility within a multilateral framework; – the resolution sends a good signal towards the setting-up of a tax on financial transactions, which was never the case until now; – as regards the financial crisis, the EP makes a strong statement on international coordination that should aim to avoid regulatory arbitrage. It also stresses that the upgrading of prudential rules within the context of the G20 consists of a ‘minimum harmonisation’ approach that must not prevent the EU from applying higher standards; – as regards supervision of the financial sectors, the EP has made a significant move towards an enhanced and more centralised approach on financial market supervision, with the setting up of a single financial supervisory authority being a final objective."@en1
"− The challenges are clear: our planet is growing towards 9 billion people in 2050, the amount of middle-class consumers will almost double to more than 3 billion people in the coming ten years, according to the FAO food production must increase by 70% by 2050, and already now 60% of the world’s ecosystems are degraded or used unsustainably. What Europe needs is a new agenda for future growth. This new agenda will demand a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking towards our production and consumption patterns. It will require not only technical but also institutional changes and social innovation. The new agenda for future growth will guarantee Europe a high level of prosperity and quality of life. The Road map for a Resource Efficient Europe gives the analysis and sets out the first steps towards this new agenda"@en1
"− The collection of data plays a vital role in policy development and decision making. The Commission’s proposal in this area will give a firm legal status to data collection and I voted in favour of Mr Schwab’s report."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place during the first October part-session."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Thursday 21 February 2008."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday 12 December 2007."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday 12 December 2007."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday 18 June 2008."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday, 16 September."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday 15 June 2010). Our thanks to all the interpreters and staff."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 12 March 2009."@en1
"− The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow."@en1
"− The economic situation in Europe and further afield is as grave as any of us can remember, and it is absolutely right that the European Union and the Member States do everything that they can to ensure that a recession does not turn into a slump and that where government action really can kick-start economic activity, it should be allowed to do so. This report is not perfect and we cannot agree with everything in it, but it reiterates the key points that the downturn is not an excuse for protectionism, excessive debt or the removal of competition rules. We have resisted efforts from the left, whose amendments have aimed to turn a reasonable report into an unaffordable shopping list or an attack on capitalism and the financial system in general. It is now important for all of us to roll up our sleeves and get our economies working again. This report recognises that the free market and the individuals and businesses of Europe are vital to the reconstruction process, and it is on that basis that the British Conservatives support it."@en1
"− The effects of the Abruzzo earthquake were devastating and tragic, and the funding which we approved today cannot, of course, compensate for the terrible loss of life or the physical destruction of communities caused by this natural disaster. However, the funding from the EU Solidarity Fund will make a real difference to the region and its long-term recovery, and the existence and effective operation of this fund demonstrates the solidarity between the Member States of the European Union. Programmes and mechanisms to deliver practical measures make us stronger as a union, and better able to cope with crises, whether they be economic downturns or natural disasters. We should continue to support these practical measures to provide assistance to Member States during times of genuine need. Policy enables us to influence and control events, but for those events – such as natural disasters – which go beyond the realm of politics, we can develop these important mechanisms to help us cope with crises."@en1
"− The establishment of this office is yet another step towards a common EU asylum and immigration policy, which is a policy I totally reject. I believe that the issue of whom to allow into the United Kingdom should be the responsibility of elected parliamentarians and accountable ministers in the United Kingdom, not the responsibility of the EU. Handing the EU control of asylum and immigration policy would be deeply inimical to our national interest and would potentially expose us to greater risks from terrorism and organised crime. The progress towards a common asylum and immigration policy is another sign of the EU's determination to create a single political entity with uniform rules for everyone. That's not the vision that British Conservatives have for the EU, and we will be promoting a very different vision of the EU when we form a new political grouping in the next parliament."@en1
"− The ethical review of research funded under the Seventh Framework Programme is a system that safeguards the protection of fundamental rights and respect for ethical principles. In the case of research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells, the procedure consists of five steps, including the scientific evaluation, the ethical screening and review, the national/local ethics committees’ approval for the proposed research and the submission of the proposals to a Regulatory Committee, so this relates to which project we decide on a single project basis. In July 2007, the European Group on Ethics also delivered an opinion to the Commission on ethics reviews of Seventh Framework Programme research projects using human embryonic stem cells. In following the above steps, the Commission considers that the established ethical review mechanism has been successful in implementing the relevant EC provisions. In particular, as all research activities that involve the destruction of human embryos are excluded from the scope of the Community funding, no research proposals in this area have been funded under the Seventh Framework Programme. The ethical review is meant to verify that no EU funding is granted to research activities involving the destruction of human embryos. In this sense, it is an integral part of the whole implementation of the Framework Programme."@en1
"− The extension of the Scientific and Technological Cooperation agreement between the EU and the USA is, beyond doubt, a positive aspect for European Research. The overwhelming vote shows just this. However, experience shows time and again that the most fruitful scientific collaborations are obtained when two researchers from two institutions collaborate on a commonly designed and jointly funded project. Therefore, in order to bring more substance to the scientific cooperation with the US, I call upon the Commission to explicitly establish simple, project-oriented financing instruments of joint research grants between researchers in the US and the EU. The explicit inclusion in the agreement of fields such as biomedicine, nanotechnology and space research is welcomed. I would like to see included also other cutting edge fields, such as stem-cell research. The fact that there are justified ethical issues related to some research fields should be a drive to a common reflection on these aspects rather than a barrier to common scientific progress. Due, in particular, to the European Research Council grants, the EU is increasingly attractive for American researchers. The EU now has instruments to seek higher and longer term incoming scientist mobility and must act so that the EU achieves a net brain-gain."@en1
"− The financial and resultant economic crisis have dwelt a huge blow to European growth and the stability of the job market. In these difficult times, our primary aim must be, as this joint resolution says, to protect EU citizens, whether workers, entrepreneurs, householders, from the effects of the crisis. While the current crisis is undoubtedly devastating, it also offers opportunity: opportunity to change our way of thinking; opportunity to build a strengthening framework for sustainable growth that can withstand potential shocks; and opportunity to build a sound economic and social base for the future. Among the elements of this resolution that particularly appeal are the recognition of the crucial role of small and medium-sized enterprises and the support that needs to be given to them. Not only do SMEs provide valuable employment, accounting for 80% of new jobs in the EU in recent years, but they also play a key social role in stimulating local economies, diversifying employment and encouraging entrepreneurship. Similarly, the emphasis on innovation – especially in the environmental sector – is very welcome and an illustration that the twin goals of energy efficiency and economic stability need by no means be mutually exclusive."@en1
"− The financial crisis is the first test of globalisation. A crisis fuelled by greed and now consumed by fear should make us question our fundamental values and what kind of society we would like to live within. This is not a time for narrow nationalism, but a time where a strong Europe has never been so important. The need for a coordinated approach, not just across the EU, but across the world, makes the G20 in London so important."@en1
"− The inclusion in this report of a EUR 9 billion fund to clean up coal-fired power stations through the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) will offer exciting opportunities for the Welsh coal industry. This chance must be seized upon, to make Wales a leader in this new technology, and unlock the potential of a lucrative export market. It is essential that Europe takes the lead in this area, as finding a solution to the problem of coal is crucial, in particular when coal production is expected to rise globally by 60% in the next 20 years."@en1
"− The initiative to launch the Recovery Plan is a reaction to the serious ongoing economic downturn. The top priority of the Recovery Plan must be to stimulate the economy and competitiveness of the EU, and to avoid increased unemployment. Members insist that all financial aid must be timely, targeted and temporary. The present exceptional circumstances have to be seen within the wider context of a firm commitment to bringing normal budgetary discipline back on track as soon as the economy recovers. In addition, the Recovery Plan must also serve the purpose of delivering a fair international agreement to give poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming, by helping to finance massive investment. Finally, coordinated action between Member States must be directed at reducing uncertainty in the credit markets and facilitating the functioning of those markets."@en1
"− The most important question right now is: what are the next steps for the Commission in the coming week to actually deal with the effects on the real economy? We are going to present a package – which is being worked on at the moment – where we identify the different policy fields where we think we can mitigate the impact on the real economy in the short run, whilst sticking to the existing medium-term reform priorities of the Lisbon Strategy. That will be the framework within which we work. We hope that we can find actions which will help to bolster aggregate demand; on the demand side, we want to reduce inflationary pressures and help the purchasing power of households. We have to do more on the labour market and, as you say, front-load investments. We hope that this will also help the issues and the actions taken when it comes to the energy and climate change package, because we will need money for investments. We hope that will help to push in this difficult period. On the labour markets, for example, activation policies can be very helpful. In reply to the last question, I would say that we want Member States to coordinate action. We think the worst thing would be if everybody went in different directions doing whatever they thought was the right thing to do in their respective Member States. We want them rather to discuss, coordinate and cooperate as much as possible, because the effects will be felt on the whole economy in Europe. We prefer actions in a coordinated way. What about the long lead time or the long time to prepare? You would be surprised. As I said yesterday in the debate on the financial crisis, the Commission, for the first time, has managed within 24 hours to get proposals on the table. We have to respond to this very serious crisis in such a way that we do not take too long to prepare the different proposals. We have all been instructed or we have all wanted to see in our respective policy areas how we can help, how we can overcome the long period to prepare, how we can do it more quickly, yet do it in a coordinated and respectful way. We are trying to get the proposals on the table as quickly as possible and we are stretching all our possibilities as much as possible. This is the starting point for the Commission at this moment."@en1
"− The next item is Question Time (B6-0006/09 ). The following questions are addressed to the Commission."@en1
"− The next item is Question Time (B6-0009/2009 ) to the Council."@en1
"− The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance."@en1
"− The next item is the Commission statement on scientific cooperation with Africa."@en1
"− The next item is the Commission statement on the free trade agreement with South Korea: impact on European industry."@en1
"− The next item is the Council and Commission statements on immigration, the role of Frontex, and cooperation among Member States."@en1
"− The next item is the Council and Commission statements on rising food prices."@en1
"− The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations."@en1
"− The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the outcome of the referendum in Ireland. I should like to welcome the Prime Minister of Sweden to the House today, who is representing the Swedish Presidency. We are very happy to have you with us, but there was a problem of formalities. I am very sorry about that. President Barroso, it is great that you, too, are with us at such an important moment for our European Union. Thank you very much. You can see how difficult it is sometimes to go through all the formalities, but we are a very democratic institution, as you can see. It is always necessary to go through everything in order. Then everything is OK and we can agree. We shall now go to the main item on this afternoon’s agenda. It is very important for us to have you in the Chamber to discuss such an important topic."@en1
"− The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the second EU-Africa Summit which was held in Lisbon on 8 and 9 December 2007."@en1
"− The next item is the Council statement on SWIFT."@en1
"− The next item is the Council statement on the situation in Guinea."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Cornelia Ernst, Helmut Scholz and Søren Bo Søndergaard, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (– B7-0412/2011 ) the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (– B7-0413/2011 ) the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Birgit Sippel, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (– B7-0414/2011 ) the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists (– B7-0415/2011 ) the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Sophia in ’t Veld, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (– B7-0416/2011 ) the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Axel Voss, Simon Busuttil and Manfred Weber, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (– B7-0417/2011 )."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on India, in particular the death sentence on Davinder Pal Singh."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Indonesia, including attacks on minorities."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Venezuela."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo, mass rape in South Kivu province."@en1
"− The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission (– B7-0209/2009 ) by Eva Joly, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation."@en1
"− The next item is the joint debate on the report () by Mr Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny – Part One (– C6-0432/2007 –); and the report () by Mr Szájer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny – Part Three (– C6-0474/2007 – 2007/0282 (COD))."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Glyn Ford, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on trade and economic relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Ioannis Gklavakis, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as regards the support scheme for cotton (– C6-0447/2007 –)."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the review of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Mr A. Foglietta, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the White Paper on ‘A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues’ ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Mr Galeote, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas on imports of certain fishery products into the Canary Islands, (– C6-0153/2008 –)."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Mr J. Muscat, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, as regards the treatment of insurance and financial services (- C6-0473/2007 -). I should like to take this opportunity to welcome my friend, Mr Muscat, and to congratulate him on the recent and very important success in his political life. This will perhaps at some point cause him to leave this House but, for the time being, it is a cause for celebration, both for himself and certainly for many of us."@en1
"− The next item is the report () by Mr Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs [– C6-0119/2004 –]."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (– C7-0046/2009 –) (). We had expected Commissioner Malmström to be with us, but I understand there is a problem with her incoming flight. She is on her way but she will not be here at the beginning. Commissioner Barnier will stand in so long as is necessary."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Edward Scicluna, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (– 2010/0135(NLE)) ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Francisco Sosa Wagner, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on Internet governance: the next steps (–) ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Maria Badia i Cutchet, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the Internet of Things (–))."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on investor-compensation schemes (– C7-0174/2010 –) ()."@en1
"− The next item is the report by Werner Langen, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on derivatives markets: future policy actions (–) ()."@en1
"− The next item is the vote."@en1
"− The objective of cutting emissions from Europe’s power stations and heavy industry by at least 20% by 2020, and for this to increase to 30% if there is an international agreement at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009, should be welcomed."@en1
"− The proposed Directive on the revision of the EU Emission Trading System is an improvement on the current system and is important at a global level. I was accordingly able to support Mrs Doyle’s report."@en1
"− The protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation should be a priority in all Member States. I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to combat the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children by criminalising any such abuse and exploitation not currently covered by EU legislation."@en1
"− The protection of human rights is of the highest priority in the European Union’s relations with Colombia. We are therefore following the situation in Colombia very closely. We are well aware of the difficulties confronting trade unionism in Colombia, and the continued killings of, and threats against, union leaders and members. We know this from our information sources, from the reports and statements issued by international treaty bodies, as well as from my own discussions with bodies such as the European Trade Union Confederation. Serious concerns remain concerning the effective application of the ILO core conventions in the country. We are consistently urging the Government to step up efforts to protect the most vulnerable population groups and to investigate and punish all human rights violations. Recent attacks on human rights defenders and trade unionists have been the subject of démarches by the EU troika ambassadors in Bogotá and were also raised during recent high-level meetings between European Union and Colombian officials. Moreover, we have recently launched a bilateral human rights dialogue with the Colombian Government which provides a channel for a more regular and systematic exchange of information and experience in the human rights field, and will help inform technical cooperation. Furthermore, we are seeking to include additional guarantees in the planned multiparty trade agreement in order to improve implementation of core labour and environmental conventions in Colombia as part of the Sustainable Development Chapter. We are also proposing monitoring by civil society institutions on the implementation of labour laws. We hope that in this manner the agreement will help to improve the situation for labour rights activists in Colombia."@en1
"− The public sector has been hampered by traditional methods in the procurement of research and development services. This can be altered through what is known as pre-commercial procurement. Pre-commercial procurement is a special approach for the public sector to procure research and development. The EU needs a broader innovation strategy. And what we are terming pre-commercial procurement has to be seen as part of the strategy. This is essential to re-enforce the innovation capabilities of the Union and to improve public services for European citizens. The US public sector spends USD 50 billion on research and development procurement. Europe spends USD 2.5 billion. It is obvious why pre-commercial procurement is crucial to help the public sector in Europe address major public challenges. One of the problems existing in the EU is a lack of awareness of how to optimise research and development procurement. The problem is a result of what is known as exclusive development. Companies which have developed a product or service for a public body cannot use their findings for other customers. Pre-commercial procurement will address this anomaly. It will allow a specific approach which involves risk benefit sharing. This will also result in cost-effective development of innovative solutions."@en1
"− The question the honourable Member has asked is not new, which shows that it is something that is very dear to the heart of MEPs. So we already have a whole series of mechanisms, a whole series of laws and a whole series of measures implementing these laws. But as always with negative content – be it in the traditional media or on the Internet – it pops up more quickly than you can fight it. I would recall the answer I gave to the questions by Mr Moraes on the Internet and hate crimes, by Luca Romagnoli on content and the use of blogs, and by Robert Kilroy-Silk on racism and violence on social websites. I can tell you not only that those questions have been asked but also that the Commission has taken action in this area. Speaking only about the social websites, some weeks ago, all the social networking site providers sat around a table and signed a code of conduct to help young children and adolescents to fight against negative content on these websites. As you know, the Commission strongly rejects all racist and xenophobic views conveyed on the Internet, together with the types of hate speech cited by the honourable Member in his question. As is often the case with the web, the picture is one of stark contrasts. On the web, the best rubs shoulders with the worst: on the one hand, there are tremendous opportunities to diffuse and receive valuable, targeted information, for better social cohesion; on the other, it is an ideal forum for stereotypes, prejudices, derogatory views and even dangerous content, as was mentioned in the question. Here lies the danger: should the State go and block access to websites or filter search-engine results? This is already being done by authoritarian states. In democratic countries, such as the EU Member States, restrictions on the freedom of speech are exceptional and governed by the rule of law. It is worth noting that the Council of Europe has developed a series of international, legally binding instruments, directly and indirectly concerning the Internet. These uphold the belief that cyberspace is not a lawless area, but is subject to the rule of law. I would recall the Convention on Cybercrime and its additional protocol. The Commission has also adopted policies aimed at reducing racist content online, notably the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and the right of reply, which calls for action against discrimination in all media. I would also like to draw attention to the Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expression of racism and xenophobia, which aims at criminalising intentional conduct, such as incitement to violence or hatred towards a group of people or against a person belonging to that group. This is a criminal offence if committed by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, and here, Member States have the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Framework Decision by 28 November 2010. I could also underline that the European law already prohibits incitement to hatred on grounds of sex, race, religion or nationality in TV broadcasts and in TV online."@en1
"− The question which was asked is very important, and I would like to underline that the Commission strongly rejects the racism, xenophobia and any type of hate speech the honourable Member refers to. The Commission also shares the concerns raised, and is aware that certain content available on the Internet can have a very negative impact. The Commission fights racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in all media platforms, and not just the Internet, as far as possible, under the powers conferred by the Treaties. On this basis, the Commission has taken a number of initiatives – legislative and non-legislative – which seek to prevent discrimination as well as racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic speeches. Firstly, there is the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which extends minimum standards for content to all audiovisual and media services, and that includes on-demand offers on the Internet. This includes: ‘prohibition of incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality’. Furthermore, the Commission had adopted policies that aim at reducing racist content online. I would just underline here the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply, which calls for action against discrimination in all media. The recently adopted Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law sets out a common EU approach to racism and xenophobia. The framework decision aims at criminalising international conduct, such as incitement to violence or hate towards a group of people or against a person belonging to a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion, belief, or national or ethnic origin. Incitement to violence or hatred would also be punishable if committed by public dissemination and distribution of tracts, pictures and other materials. The Member States have an obligation to comply with those provisions by 28 November 2010. Apart from this legal approach, the Commission is promoting a set of measures for the safer use of the Internet. I think Parliament well knows the Safer Internet Plus Programme, with a budget of EUR 55 million for the period 2009-2013, which co-funds projects with the following objectives: increased public awareness, provision of a network of contact points for reporting illegal and harmful content and conduct, in particular, on child sexual abuse material, grooming and cyber-bullying, fostering of self-regulatory initiatives in this field and involving children in creating a safer online environment, establishing a knowledge base of the new trends in the use of online technologies and their consequences for children’s lives. The Commission furthermore strives to promote a responsible use of media and the Internet. In its communication on media literacy of December 2007, the Commission calls on Member States to commit to more effectively promoting media literacy and research in this field. This year, it will present a recommendation on media literacy. It is also worth noting that our neighbour, the Council of Europe, has developed a series of international legally binding and non-binding instruments on these issues, which all show that cyberspace is not a lawless area and that Member States are bound to protect individual rights and freedoms through their national laws the Cybercrime Convention and its additional Protocol 3."@en1
"− The reason I abstained on paragraphs 3, 9 and Recital L is that certain sections of this Resolution are extraneous to the issue of homophobia. For example, issues of marriage and the recognition of civil status documents are a matter of subsidiarity for Member States only. It does great disservice to the fight against homophobia to be trying to make political capital by introducing issues for which Parliament has no competence when we should be using all our energies to oppose homophobia. I am dismayed that those who say they are concerned with issues of justice do not give attention to areas of grave injustice about which we could do something, such as gendercide when 100 million females are missing from the world’s population, mostly in countries that receive EU funding."@en1
"− The recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state by many countries has probably created more problems than it will solve. I am sceptical as to whether Kosovo was ready for independence. The fact that some EU Member States will not recognise Kosovo’s independence for fear of setting precedents within their own borders has further complicated Kosovo’s future. The EU has now taken on primary responsibility for assisting Kosovo internally. This commitment should not be open-ended either in terms of time or financial resources. Genuine concerns exist about Kosovo’s political stability, the extent of corruption, the influence internally and externally of organised crime and the treatment of minorities, including Serbs. It is vital that the EU institutions remain vigilant and ready to intervene if Kosovo fails to live up to the high standards that must inevitably accompany sovereign statehood. Notwithstanding my concerns, I gave my support to this resolution."@en1
"− The report concerns the financial management of some of the most important funds within the European Union. These are inclusive of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. After a careful analysis of the proposal for regulation () as well as Article 161 of the EC Treaty in addition to other documents, I was inclined to support the position of the rapporteur and have therefore voted in favour of the report."@en1
"− The report is a cosmetic exercise designed to maintain false hopes, among hundreds of petitioners, during the approach to the EU assembly’s elections. It purports to be able to take actions, which – as the Committee on Legal Affairs points out – the EU is not competent to take; so that even Auken’s threat to oppose the next EU budget, if the report’s demands are not met, could not help those who have bought, and then been deprived of, properties in Spain. The UKIP will not contribute to this imposture."@en1
"− The report is an important step in forcing Member States to meet their renewable targets. Renewable energy is vital to our fight against climate change."@en1
"− The report that MEP Jarzembowski has presented makes the 'greening' of transport a priority and is an important first step towards a more comprehensive approach making transport more environmentally friendly. An essential part of the response to climate change is an alteration in our means and methods of transportation, be it in the adoption of advanced hybrid vehicles, in increased green public transportation, or the increased efficiency of other methods of transportation. The rapporteur has advanced the options of charging Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) for the pollution they cause and including noise pollution caused by rail transport under the provisions of the report. It is important that we consider the needs of peripheral European countries who encounter several geographic barriers that depend on a strong transport network to supply their countries, and for their economic growth. We must ensure that these measures are applied in an equitable manner. With these reservations, I am pleased to support the report."@en1
"− The resolution adopted by this House reaffirms that, according to Article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, any victim of an act of torture has an enforceable right to redress and to fair and adequate compensation. It is telling that the UK Conservative Members of this House voted against the resolution. It is equally telling that the UK Labour Members abstained. The morally bankrupt Labour Government has led the UK into an illegal war and has allowed its airports to be used for extraordinary rendition flights. The votes of the Unionist MEPs today adds further to this shame."@en1
"− The resolution was carried with a large majority. I abstained because of the wording in paragraph 6 on Roma people justifying Canada’s restrictive visa policy against Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic. However, the Verts/ALE Group was successful in getting the following in the resolution regarding bluefin tuna and CITES: ‘expresses its disappointment about the position of the Canadian Government at the most recent conference of CITES parties with regard to the extension of CITES Appendix 1 for bluefin tuna’."@en1
"− The rise in youth unemployment is one of the biggest social challenges that we face across the European Union. In my own constituency of Northern Ireland, approximately one in five young people are currently out of work. In a recent study it is estimated that growing youth unemployment costs Northern Ireland around GBP 250 million a year in lost productivity. This equates to a cost of close to GBP 5 million per week to the local economy and is still increasing. Although the major contributing factor to the huge percentage of youth unemployment is the current economic crisis across the EU, there are also various other contributing factors that must be examined. Studies show that around 3% of young people still leave Northern Ireland schools with no formal qualifications and many more do not achieve the necessary qualifications in numeracy and literacy. Failure to attain even basic qualifications leads to significant difficulties in gaining employment and can lead to social problems and disengagement from mainstream society. Therefore it is vital that Member States put in place employment initiatives to boost employment opportunities and give our youth the chance to have a meaningful stake in society."@en1
"− The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. I therefore voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that I do not support, such as creating a uniform extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU and defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances."@en1
"− The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. Therefore, we voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that we do not support, such as creating uniform, extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU, as well as defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances."@en1
"− The situation in the Gaza Strip is deplorable. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed and thousands presently face death on a daily basis. Yes, I accept Israel should be allowed to live in peace. Yes, rocket attacks across the border are unacceptable and should stop. But the response by Israel is totally disproportionate and cannot be supported. The Israelis have failed to respect the international community. They have shelled the UN compound, they have attacked schools and children. This is totally unacceptable and must stop. We must have a cease-fire immediately. I will vote in favour of this resolution because the European Parliament needs to have its voice heard so that innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza will not be forgotten. Israel: you have the right to live in peace. You do not have the right to practise wanton destruction and to be the delivery body of death and destruction on innocent civilians. Your actions mean that you have become the aggressor, not the victim."@en1
"− The status of refugee is that accorded to a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, due to such fear, is unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of their own state. This is a 1951 UN definition. This review of the 2003 ‘Reception Conditions Directive’, which laid down minimum standards for the reception of people seeking asylum in Europe, aims to enforce the implementation of these rules, such as access to information, education, healthcare and standards regarding reception facilities. The Directive allows Member States to determine the length of time during which an applicant cannot have access to the labour market. Ireland unfortunately did not opt into the 2003 Directive, and operates a ‘direct provision’ system, providing accommodation, food and EUR 19.10 per week per adult, designed to discourage asylum seekers from choosing Ireland, and keeping them out of the official labour market for the entirety of their application procedure. Legislation currently before the Oireachtas – the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 – seeks to extend this prohibition, despite grave concerns about the impact of such decisions. Other measures in the Irish legislation include criminalising ‘spurious’ appeals and the prospect of fines to legal representatives who take on such cases. As Ireland is not party to the 2003 Directive, I felt obliged to abstain, but commend the aims of the report."@en1
"− The three main objectives – security of supply and solidarity between Member States; combating climate change: recalling the ‘three times 20’ objective for 2020 and the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 50% and 80% by 2050; and the economic growth of the EU: obtaining the best prices while avoiding price volatility – are of utmost importance when we discuss the European energy policy. We have to consider the policy that the decentralisation of energy sources will have, and new types of renewable energy should also be encouraged."@en1
"− The two questions by Mrs Harkin and Mr Ó Neachtain mainly concern the same subject. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer them together. Of course, the sector itself also has a responsibility to adapt production to demand, in order to try to restore profitability, and Mrs Harkin wants to know if the Commission has similar plans for other sectors. I gather that the question might be aimed at refunds for the pig meat sector. But I must say that at present, I do not see any justification for introducing export refunds in the pig meat sector because we see that the number of pregnant sows and the number of piglets are decreasing. Consequently, the input on the European market will decrease, and therefore we hope that the result will be increasing prices. We also have to take into account that for pork production, the situation is totally different to the end of 2007 because today, the feed input prices, and the energy prices, are considerably lower than when we introduced the export refunds for the pig meat sector. So please trust me that we will continue to keep an eye on the situation. I do not underestimate the difficulties in the dairy sector. I think it is decades since we experienced a situation like the one we are seeing today. I am happy to say that the Commission has recently taken a number of measures within the dairy sector in an attempt to try to end the downward spiral of prices. We have already introduced private storage earlier than we normally do. We have also started the intervention system whereby we hope to be able to stabilise the prices for butter and for skimmed milk powder, as this intervention system will certainly remove a lot of quantities from the market. Originally, we entered a level of 30 000 t of butter and 109 000 t of powder, but I have indicated recently that we will be able or willing to go higher than these figures by opening a tender. Export refunds for the dairy sector were further alleviated recently. We can see that we are faced with a significant drop in the world market prices although Europe has not increased its production, despite the 2% increase in the milk quota which was agreed for last April. So I think I can say to those people who argue that the drop in prices is due to the increase in the quota that this is not the case, because we can see that in spite of the 2% increase in the quota, production is staying at a lower level than we used to see before. With the introduction of the export refunds, however, we should see a situation where we can increase the chances for the European Union’s dairy producers to be present in the world market. At the same time, this may also alleviate the imbalance within the dairy market. In response to the specific question that Mr Ó Neachtain put forward, the Irish dairy sector with a relatively high share of milk processed into butter and into skimmed milk powder, and a relatively high share of export outside the European Union, will, in particular, benefit from the measures taken by the Commission. I can promise you that we are closely following the situation in the dairy market. This can be seen from the fact that two weeks ago, we actually increased the export refunds in the dairy sector, and we will be willing to take all the necessary steps."@en1
"− The vote today by Parliament to end the ‘opt out’ from the Working Time Directive should be welcomed. Too many people have no choice but to work longer hours because their employer demands it of them. The basic principle of labour law is to protect the weaker party – the employee. Today is the first step on the way to conciliation to end the ‘opt out’. It was remiss of the Council of Ministers to have no one present while the vote was taking place."@en1
"− There are several reasons why this agreement strengthens the EU internal market and cooperation in standards as well as maintaining consumer protection. First among them is that science is a global discipline and advances we can share go towards increasing the sum total of human endeavour. Benefits which we can work towards are specifically and generally a positive. Whether it is the car industry working to reduce emissions, or universities creating strategic links, the success of promoting this agreement is measurable. Consumers, too, are beneficiaries indirectly, as the best minds can be brought to bear to create greater trust in the answers to our joint concerns."@en1
"− There is no excuse for crime, wherever that crime has taken place – be it in the real world or in the digital world – but of course, it is much easier to fight crime in the real world because you have the instruments which allow you directly to intervene. It is much more complicated on the worldwide web, and that is why we have developed a whole series of instruments in order to fight such crime. I know from discussions with my colleague, Jacques Barrot, that police forces are building up a network of analyses in order to fight crime on line, and that they are having more and more success in catching the criminals. However, there are also more and more sites being constructed. I myself have tried, with the Safer Internet Programme, to do something else in this respect. This is to empower people – and most of all young people – who utilise the Internet to know what to do when they come across negative content. For instance – and we are not necessarily speaking about crime, but about cyber-bullying, which can become terrible for young people – that there is a special report button for them to ask for help. So we are trying by different means to fight criminals by means of the police forces, by empowering educators, parents and children so that they can take a decision by themselves or report, and, of course, by media literacy programmes, which I personally would wish to be much more numerous in the Member States. You have to give tools to the next generation to find a solution and to fight, because, if not, then we might have a problem with the Internet, and that parents will not allow, for instance, their kids to be on the Internet, and that would not be the right way to proceed. We want the positive site of the Internet to flourish and the negative side of the Internet to be blocked. Now to the murder question which the honourable Member underlined. This is a terrible thing to happen, and I believe that it is within the field of activity of the police and security forces to block all this. Those tools should, of course, not be regarded as something which can be utilised for solving all society’s problems, but when it comes to crime there can be no discussion. Crime has to be fought and it has to be fought very strongly."@en1
"− These are both quite specific questions. Again, I must underline the basic position that these negotiations must be the same as has been the case with other Member States. But, of course, Iceland has a population just under 300 000, so it is small and would not be a big burden on the European economy. I think that the basic idea is that it would make a contribution, so it is an economy that can overcome the current difficulties. I think that the Member States will watch it very carefully and will ask it first to put its house in order. That is the first requirement, and then there can be the question of the contribution Iceland can make to the Union’s economy. Concerning the fisheries agreement, again, this is a very specific question. However, I seem to remember that this issue was mentioned several times in previous enlargement negotiations. I think that the fisheries question will be the most complicated in negotiating with Iceland, because it has quite big privileges which will definitely be contested by certain Member States. I think this will be the key element in future negotiations. I do not know to what extent the existing agreement is applicable or suitable for future relations between Iceland and other EU Member States. Being on that committee, however, you will know that this was a very hot topic in negotiations between Norway and some Member States. However, I think that, at least today, nobody can say exactly what promises or preoccupations there will be in this particular area."@en1
"− These are the rules. The Commission made a proposal, and now it is up to the Council to decide unanimously whether the chapter is open or not. So these are the procedures. We have to follow the procedures."@en1
"− These issues are always very complicated and serious. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is competent to investigate, where EU funds are involved, when there are sufficiently serious suspicions of fraud or irregularity having been committed against the financial interests of the European Union. In cases where projects are co-funded by EU funds – such as is the situation with structural funds – the Member States and the Commission share the responsibilities in the management of these funds. In this regard, it is the Member States that are primarily responsible for distribution of the expenditure and the necessary controls. Moreover, resulting from such controls and investigations and the communication of possible cases of fraud or irregularity to OLAF, the honourable Member may be aware that there are regulatory arrangements in place under Regulation (EC) No 1681/94, which provides that the Member States shall report to the Commission, at the appropriate stage, the details of their investigation into such possible cases of fraud or irregularity. Moreover, whenever it is deemed appropriate, OLAF liaises closely with the competent national authorities on progress in such matters. In the matters referred to by the honourable Member, the Commission has been informed by OLAF that it is aware of on-going cases in Germany and Greece but that, until now, OLAF’s direct assistance in matters involving Siemens in Germany and/or Greece in respect of structural funds has not been requested by the judicial authorities of either Member State. In addition, the Commission would refer to the reply already given to the honourable Member’s written question, which stipulated that, according to Article 3 of Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, economic operators are not being controlled by both the Commission and Member States’ authorities at the same time and on the basis of the same facts, according to Community sector regulations or national legislation. Besides, the Commission may, at any moment, start an infringement procedure against the Member States, on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if there are sufficient elements indicating an infringement of Community public procurement law. In respect of the particular matters referred to by the honourable Member, the Commission has no such elements that could justify the opening of an infringement procedure."@en1
"− This Parliament has played a key role in promoting equal treatment of people across the Union on grounds of sex, race, religion, belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. I therefore welcome this report, which urges a further strengthening of provisions to enforce such equality. My only reservation is with regard to Amendment 39, part of which argues that freedom of speech should not be compromised, even in cases of harassment. We rightly have restrictions on freedom of speech covered by the laws of libel and slander. Equally you cannot with impunity shout ‘fire’ in a cinema. On that basis I have to vote against this particular amendment with the threat it would pose to minorities."@en1
"− This concerns the revision of Traditional Own Resources, VAT and GNI and provides for adjustments with reference to economic forecasts. The proposal is extremely technical, so I shall simply declare that my vote has been favourable to this proposal."@en1
"− This is a complicated and very big discussion. It touches upon the conference itself but it is, of course, something that goes much further. We do not have the intention of really starting those discussions; we have been waiting to receive from the Commission an element, a communication regarding the future budget; it was promised – as was agreed by the Council in 2004 already – that we would have a thorough revision of the income and the outcome of the expenditure of the budget including, of course, the CAP, which is such a big part of the budget. This communication has been delayed – there are now rumours that it will come by the end of the year. If it does, we, the Swedish Presidency, intend to have a first discussion among the Member States on it, but it will be up to the Spanish Presidency to really start working on these issues. So for the moment, I cannot give you any more details."@en1
"− This is a crucial debate for us, so it is necessary to sit here and discuss further."@en1
"− This is a good question, one which has often been discussed in the parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control as well. As the Commissioner responsible for administration and audit and the fight against fraud I am, of course, very concerned; my colleague Dalia Grybauskaitė and I always ask questions about the necessity of the creation of new bodies, and we insist that the rules which cover the new bodies are as transparent and as clear as they are in our main bodies and headquarters. Having agencies which can be more flexible and more precise in implementing EU policies is mainly a policy-making decision. It is very much discussed here in Parliament and supported on many separate occasions. I can be the bureaucrat who always raises questions on how to audit and how to control these agencies, but at the same time I do not think that a certain distribution of EU institutions or a certain spreading of EU institutions in Europe is a bad idea. So let us balance and weigh both sides: the policy-making needs and gains on one side and administrative clarity and auditing clarity on the other. We have tried in all decisions to achieve a certain balance."@en1
"− This is a major report with important consequences for EU citizens. It is difficult to argue against the principle of equal treatment, yet this report has proven hugely contentious in this House, not just between groups, but indeed within political groups too. I voted against Amendment 81 to totally reject this report. I have met with and been lobbied by many disability interest groups who asked for consideration of their position. The European Disability Forum, in particular strongly argues that we need EU legislation to protect people with disabilities against discrimination. At Council many Member States have also voiced concerns about the proposal. Those concerns range from the legal base to be used, the scope of the proposal and fears that it may impinge on areas of national competence, such as education, social security and healthcare. We must also make clear that adoption and reproductive rights (including assisted human reproduction) are not within the scope of the directive. I voted against Amendment 28 in order to secure the reference to national law on family or family status, including reproductive rights. This amendment was rejected by the House and therefore I abstained in the final vote."@en1
"− This is a very timely question and I could answer very briefly that the priorities are agreement in Copenhagen for reduction commitments by developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries, and finance. I would, however, like to say a few more words. We now have less than three months until Copenhagen and the climate talks have now entered into a crucial phase. With 250 pages of negotiating text on the table, the negotiations have not yet gathered sufficient momentum to come to an agreement that is ambitious and detailed enough. However, among most parties there is a sense of urgency and the willingness to focus on areas of convergence. The ultimate objective of the climate agreement is to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, an objective that was endorsed at the last G8 summit and the Major Economies Forum. We need comparable and more ambitious emission reduction targets for the group of developed countries, which in aggregate today offer less than 15% reduction as compared with 1990. This falls short of the 25-40% reduction required by science. We welcome the fact that Japan will strengthen its target. The EU has offered to take up a 30% reduction target if others make comparable commitments. Developing countries should take appropriate mitigation actions to curb the growth of their emissions to 15-30% below business as usual by 2020. The EU proposes that developing countries (except Least Developed Countries) design and implement low carbon growth plans containing their key mitigation actions. These plans would then form the basis for targeted financial and other support. Adequate international financing will be essential to reach an effective agreement in Copenhagen. Money will make or break the deal. We need to mobilise private investment and promote the establishment of a robust international carbon market, but substantial public funding will also be required. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the global partnership on technology, which aims at doubling investment in low carbon technologies. Furthermore, we have to strengthen support to the poorest and most vulnerable countries to adapt to the increasing adverse effects of climate change. Last week, on 10 September 2009, the Commission adopted a communication on stepping up international climate finance, which aims at speeding up the international negotiations. There is a daunting task ahead of us, with intense negotiations over the coming months – but failure is not an option."@en1
"− This is certainly a difficult and complex area. The debate on cloning at the Commission refers to the use of a technology called somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) with particular reference to farm animal breeding and how to deal with food produced from these cloned animals and their offspring. In the case of the use of this cloning technique in livestock reproduction and breeding in the agrofood sector, the questions are, in particular, related to animal health and welfare. In the case of the safety of food derived from cloned animals and their offspring, the questions are, in particular, related to any possible risk to human health and to the consumer’s right to be informed. The debate does not cover the use of SCNT in research. The Commission has been following the development of SCNT since 1996, when the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was born. In 1997, the Commission asked the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to issue an opinion on the ethics of cloning. In 2004, the Commission financed the project ‘Cloning in public’ under the sixth Framework Programme. This allowed an EU-wide debate to be launched as a first opportunity to have preliminary discussions with academics and civil society on ethical, legal and other societal aspects of farm animal cloning. The study concluded that the public is not well informed about the use and implications of cloning. The JRC published a study in 2007 in on the prospects for future commercial use of cloning technology. The study mapped the state of the art of the commercial applications of animal cloning worldwide and produced a pipeline of products and their estimated time of arrival on the market. The conclusion was that cloned animals were not expected to arrive on the EU market before 2010 and that reproductive materials – semen – from cloned animals may be the first products to be traded. Over recent years, the Commission has received information that the technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer for the reproduction of farm animals is about to reach its commercial stage, in particular, in third countries, notably the USA. Based on the final risk assessment, a report written by the US Food and Drug Administration scientists and issued in January 2008 concluded that the consumption of food from cloned animals and their offspring is safe as long as the food comes from healthy animals, which is a general principle in food safety. Only healthy animals enter the food chain. In order to prepare for an informed political debate, in 2007, the Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the actual and potential risks associated with the use of this technology in food production and also asked the European Group of Ethics (EGE) to issue an opinion on the ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. The Group released their opinion in January 2008 and the Authority in July 2008. According to EFSA, ‘based on current knowledge ... there is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety between food products [derived] from healthy [animal] clones and their progeny, compared with those from healthy conventionally-bred animals’. Concerning the general health conditions of clones, the EFSA opinion states that there is no indication of adverse effects for the sexually reproduced progeny of cattle or pig clones. However, clones and their progeny have not yet been studied throughout the whole of their natural life span. At present, the EGE does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring. The Commission also asked for a Eurobarometer survey to be carried out on the attitude of Europeans towards animal cloning. The results were made available in October 2008. The study showed that 58% of the respondents were against cloning for food production purposes. The Commission is now carefully considering these various elements to prepare an informal political debate on the use of somatic cell nucleus transfer for the reproduction of farm animals and food production. Should it be considered necessary to further develop the regulatory framework, it is important to recall that the new provisions would, of course, have to comply with the EC Treaty and with World Trade Organisation rules."@en1
"− This legislation will reinforce existing EU safety legislation and transpose major international instruments into Community law. I support this legislation because it recognises the need to closely supervise classification societies, which perform vital tasks in maintaining safety at sea, because of the major concentration of power they hold."@en1
"− This list is, of course, constantly being revised. If a Member State suggests another approach, to remove an entity from the list or to add something, this is definitely a reason for revisiting this list. So this is a process which is dynamic: it is not fixed forever. There must be reasons for any new approach, but it can be revised if there are new reasons."@en1
"− This morning we had a debate on the preparations for G20. I know that there are different proposals discussed in the media but I must say that the EU is extremely well coordinated. We have had discussions with the finance ministers and tomorrow night there will be a dinner with Heads of State and Prime Ministers to finalise the coordination in the light of the Pittsburgh meeting. The EU stands united. We know what we want. We have a concrete proposal, and the fine tuning will be done tomorrow. So I am not really worried about that, and I am also very happy that, with the help of the Commission and Commissioner Almunia, we have reached this very rare stage of strong unity within the European Union. These are our priorities and our solutions that are being discussed and we will, of course, try to find cohesion on as many points as possible with the American Administration and the other partners at the G20 meeting. On non-proliferation, we are very happy that this is again on the agenda. It has been difficult for some time to raise it and we are very happy with President Obama’s commitment to that. But it will take time. There are complicated technical issues and it will take time to pursue them. We are very process-oriented. We will try to move them forward but I cannot tell you how long this will take and what deadlines we have. But it is on the agenda. We are very committed to moving forward and I think this is also a wish that our American counterparts share."@en1
"− This morning, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, we must elect the President. According to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure, candidates for the office of President of our Parliament must be nominated, with the consent of the people concerned, by a group or by at least 40 Members. Under the conditions provided for in the Rules of Procedure, I have received the following nominations for the office of President of the European Parliament: Mr Jerzy Buzek Mrs Eva-Britt Svensson The candidates have informed me that they consent to their nomination as candidates. Both candidates will now introduce themselves briefly, starting with Mrs Svensson."@en1
"− This proposal aims to extend the reach of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 which enables Member States, in the absence of proposals from industry, to propose information and promotion campaigns in third country territories without the requirement of funding from industry. The present requirements necessitate a 20% industry contribution to funding when the EU provides a maximum of 50% of the funding. This latitude would provide Member States with the ability to self-start promotional and information campaigns without the financial participation of industry. The potential of this proposal to provide impetus in the fruit and vegetable industry is considerable and also desirable given the current economic conditions. I am accordingly pleased to support this proposal."@en1
"− This question is very well known to me and has already been dealt with many times. I must say that, first of all, Mr Richard Boomer is not a property developer, as is stated in the question. All information about him is available on the website. He has been my special adviser since 1 April 2006 and his mandate was renewed in 2008 for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009. His mandate as special adviser is as follows: advise the Vice-President responsible for administration, audit and fraud prevention as regards property policy; improve relations with the competent authorities in Brussels and Luxembourg; optimise effectiveness of the investments to be made by the Commission. I must say that he has really provided us with valuable expertise, knowing what is going on in the real estate field in Brussels or Belgium mostly, though not so much in Luxembourg. His advice has been valuable and I must say that also the lines of command in the matter of property policy at the Commission are very clear. The definition of property policy falls within the competence of the Personnel and Administration DG under the authority of the Vice-President in charge of administration. This policy is implemented by the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (for Brussels) and the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Luxembourg (for Luxembourg). In his capacity as special adviser, Mr Boomer, like all special advisers at the Commission, advises on the policy and perspectives on a long-term basis in the matters laid down in his mandate. He has no role in the process of decision making or in the underlying management procedures such as, for example, the acquisition of buildings or the suspension of a long-term lease. On the third question, relating to an unnamed Belgian real estate entrepreneur, the Commission has no knowledge of the pressures suggested by the honourable Member. On the last question – the big one – I am very happy to inform the honourable Member that the European Commission announced publicly, in a communication on its property policy on 5 September, its will to maintain a strong symbolic presence at the centre of the European area, while developing in parallel up to three additional sites outside this area. This policy makes it possible to ensure the best added value for use of public money and puts downward pressure on the high level of prices within the European area. In accordance with this policy, the Commission published in June 2008 a call for information addressed to the market in order to have better knowledge of the existing possibilities for the development of a site external to the European area from 2014. This call was made with full transparency, via publication in the Official Journal. The Commission received nine offers and is currently undertaking a technical examination of them. The Commission would reassure honourable Members that the choice of the site to be made in 2009 will be based on careful examination of the merits of each offer, pursuant to clear procedures and in the best interests of the European Commission and the taxpayers’ money. Until this decision is taken, the Commission will not express a view on any of the offers which have been examined. On the question of when the results of the architects’ competition for Rue de la Loi will be announced, the Commission can only state that this question does not fall within the competence of the European Commission but has to be submitted to the Brussels Capital Region, which launched this town planning competition. According to information available to the European Commission, the final result is expected in spring 2009. I am sorry about the long answer but the details were also substantial."@en1
"− This report accompanies the recovery plan of the European Commission, which attempts to reinvigorate the EU economy. The EPLP can support the main thrust of the rapporteur’s ideas and believes that many of the issues outlined are critical for a real recovery. The Commission response during the economic crisis has been muted and Parliament believes that more effective tools are required to produce recovery. In fact, an environmental approach could lead to greater innovation and spark renewed productivity whilst also having a positive effect on our environment. However, care has to be taken not to injure specific industrial sectors or reduce our overall economic possibilities, and therefore consideration of a targeted approach is very necessary. Similarly, a new approach to financial supervision denoted by the de Larosière wise men’s report is also vital to ensuring against systemic risks."@en1
"− This report aims to protect those who are unjustly marginalised and ensure that they have proper and adequate means to address their situation. I was pleased to support it. It has broad support from social platforms and civil society. I am satisfied that it does not interfere with Member States competences in the following domains: Ms Buitenweg’s report clearly demarks certain areas to remain part of the competency of each Member State, but progress on a European scale is important to achieve a social and more just Europe. education access to religious institutions matters of marital or family status the relationship between church and state the secular nature of the state and its institutions the status of religious organisations and the wearing of religious symbols at school. Ireland had, until recently, a very active National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI) and a well funded Equality Authority. Despite the importance of the work that these bodies were charged with, including, among other issues, equality proofing legislation, these bodies have ceased to be, given the drastic cuts in funding available to them. It is important that we continue to support these groups and their work."@en1
"− This report concerned modifications in the budget creating fresh commitments amounting to EUR 51 640 000. These funds will go to the fighting of bluetongue, the creation of a high flux reactor in addition to funds directed to Europol and OLAF. My vote here is consistent with the opinion of the rapporteur."@en1
"− This report indicates that not even the farthest reaches of Europe are beyond the EU’s grasp. The whole point of wilderness is that it is supposed to be untouched by mankind – including the EU. However, given the various pressures on the environment, the Commission has proposed action to protect and nurture Europe’s most remote and isolated regions. I am therefore generally supportive of this report, provided that Member States retain a prominent role in the management, designation and protection of wilderness. I am somewhat sceptical about the merits of an EU strategy on wilderness, given that the EU’s management of agriculture and fisheries has proved to be so disastrous. It is vital that the EU acts as a facilitator and repository of best practice in this process, otherwise the whole point of the measures proposed would be undermined. Notwithstanding those caveats, my region of north-east England is blessed with isolated areas of outstanding natural beauty largely untouched by humans. I therefore supported this report."@en1
"− This report is concerned with the introduction of differentiated targets across the EU27 for the period 2013-2020 for greenhouse gas reductions in economic sectors outside the EU emissions trading scheme. These MS targets are in the range +20% to -20% relative to 2005 emissions for these sectors with the Irish target -20%. Taken together, ETS and effort sharing represent 100% of the reduction each country has to make in CO emissions by 2020. Ireland welcomes the inclusion of increased Carbon Capture and storage measures, specifically Carbon sinks in the - 20% scenario as we are the only country in the EU that has more cattle than people and together with generous cost effective offsetting to trading emissions between Member States while it will be difficult, we can reach our target of 20% less without reducing our herds. Some countries will be challenged by the reviewed ETS legislation, some by the effort sharing targets. Ireland is in the latter category."@en1
"− This report makes sobering reading: for all the talk about the Lisbon agenda, and making Europe the world’s most competitive economy by next year, I was shocked to read that the US public sector is spending USD 50 billion per year on research and development procurement. This amount is twenty times higher than in Europe and an amount that represents approximately half of the overall research and development investment gap between the US and Europe. I welcome this report by my colleague, Malcolm Harbour, who has set out ways in which Europe can begin to close that productivity gap. The key to this process is in the title: driving innovation. In my view, the best way for the aspirations of this report to become reality is to ensure that the EU encourages innovation and technological development rather than throwing regulatory obstacles in the way. Given the important role of public procurement in promoting and supporting new technologies, I supported this report. I hope its principles will be of use to local authorities in my region of North-East England."@en1
"− This report mentions China’s growing trade with Taiwan, which I welcome. Under President Ma, Taiwan has made great strides towards normalising its trade relations with China and trying to end the obstructionist attitude that Beijing’s communist rulers have previously taken towards commercial relations with Taiwan. However, if Taiwan is ever to be fully integrated with the regional economies of south-east Asia, it needs to be accepted into international organisations, regardless of whether or not it is recognised as an independent sovereign state. Given various health scares in East Asia in recent years related to the movement of goods and people – such as SARS, avian influenza and the melamine milk scandal – it is essential that Taiwan is given the status of observer at the World Health Assembly. Such a move would strengthen cross-straits trade, drive up quality standards in the region and elevate Taiwan on the international stage. The way that China has used its disagreements with Taiwan to play politics with matters of public health is to be deprecated. So too is the shameful silence that so many people in Europe keep in the face of China’s pressure. I voted in favour of this report."@en1
"− This report on the Annual Report on Human Rights 2008 evaluates the state of human rights actions around the world and calls for improvements in some key areas. Regarding Amendment 2, while I disagree strongly with Pope Benedict’s quoted stance on the prophylactic use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, I could not support this amendment because of the gratuitous and inaccurate drafting."@en1
"− This report reflects China’s growing power as a trading nation. It also draws attention to trade between China and Taiwan, which looks set to grow following the signature of cross-Straits commercial agreements. Closer economic ties between China and Taiwan have the potential to facilitate a more positive approach to the wider issue of cross-Straits relations. However, this détente makes little sense unless it is accompanied by Taiwan’s integration into international organisations, especially those related to trade, like the World Health Assembly and the International Maritime Organisation. Parliament should voice strong support for the Council’s declared policy of supporting Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations. Parliament should also press China on its continued reluctance to permit Taiwan a voice on the international stage. The prosperity and health of the 23 million citizens of Taiwan should not be held hostage for political purposes. Given my support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations, I voted in favour of this report."@en1
"− This report represents a revolution in the way we produce energy in the EU. The target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 is extremely ambitious but necessary if we are to win the fight against climate change. I hope, however, that the Commission will be flexible in its interpretation of when these targets are met if they are to include large projects such as the Severn Barrage. The 10% target for road transport fuels is a vital part of this package and of the efforts to achieve the EU’s goal of a low carbon economy. This so-called ‘biofuels target’ has been greatly improved to ensure that only those biofuels which deliver real emission reductions without increasing food prices are allowed in the EU. A strict set of social criteria has also been included which will safeguard people in the developing world who could otherwise have been adversely affected by the rapid development in biofuel production."@en1
"− This resolution tragically reminds us that ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’ is not something that ended after the Holocaust of World War II. It continued in Europe with Srebrenica and it continues today in Gaza!"@en1
"− This was an important vote calling for a European directive to improve protection for workers suffering from ‘needle-stick’ injuries. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to protect those working in the healthcare sector from contracting potentially fatal diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis through injuries from used needles. Needle-stick injuries represent one of the most common and serious risks for health workers throughout Europe, with an estimated one million injuries of this type across Europe each year. I hope swift action will be taken to improve training and safety for those working with needles and sharp instruments so that the number of injures caused are drastically cut and the emotional distress caused to those involved limited. In addition, I hope the use of safer medical instruments will help prevent avoidable injuries for those working with needles on a daily basis."@en1
"− This was my own report on the VAT rules on invoicing. We were successful in asking that the cash accounting scheme be introduced on a mandatory basis in all Member States, thereby giving SMEs the option of whether or not to use such a scheme. The report has also been successful in reducing unnecessary burdens on business that were found within the Commission’s proposal. To this end the report was successful in achieving its aims and I have voted in favour."@en1
"− Thousands of European citizens continue to be victims of a system of massive urbanisation, expressed in a very large number of petitions concerning the abuse of the legitimate rights of European citizens to their property and environment. The problem has been caused by public procurement with insufficient control of the urbanisation procedures by local and regional authorities. The resolution adopted should begin to bring concrete solutions to people living in the affected areas in Spain."@en1
"− To be honest, this is quite a far-reaching question. We believe that it is important that we agree with the Member States on ‘2020 Vision’, because if we do then this would certainly reduce the length of further debates about what we want to do in Europe. We should not repeat again and again where we are going: that is the whole idea. Of course, the debate is not starting now: the idea was launched with a Green Paper in 2000. I think it is great, especially for the new changed reality in which we live. The structure and governance of ERA are extremely important, and that is why we have to be patient. It is clear that we will not be successful if the Member States are not in the driving seat. When we talk about the European Research Area and stimulating that, we do not talk predominantly about increasing funds at the European level, but rather about how we can all cooperate better – something that is inherently in the basics of the institutional framework of some of our major competitors, such as the USA, with which we want to compare ourselves. So we want to create a voluntary commitment of the Member States through which we cooperate more and better than at present. Concerning science policy methodologies, this is all part of the discussion which we are focusing on. I think that this question will certainly have to be addressed, but I cannot elaborate on that. I know that ERA’s approach is, in essence, one of the developments that Europe most needs at this time."@en1
"− To conclude the debate I have received one motion for a resolutionpursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The debate is closed."@en1
"− To conclude the debate, I have received one motion for a resolutionpursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon."@en1
"− Today's debate on forest fires in welcomed. The devastation to many sites of natural beauty is a loss to us all. We must show solidarity with our colleagues and help the countries affected."@en1
"− Today, an important vote was held. It was important for all farmers in the European Union. However, there are farmers who are not as strong as others because they have not had time to adapt to the agricultural structures of the European Union yet. They used all the capacities they had to build up sustainable agricultural enterprises after they got the chance to do so after 1989. These farmers are not the big producers that we know from France and Germany; they are still small. But they are extraordinarily important for my country, Poland. We need them if we are to have a rural area where people want to live and work in future. And therefore they need our special support. So I voted today to help small producers, i.e. in Poland, to show that they can count on our and on my support today and in the future."@en1
"− UK Conservatives believe that, while cross-border cooperation in criminal justice is important, the report seeks to create a common justice area at an EU level, which would significantly compromise the traditions of those countries which base their legal system on common law. Therefore, we cannot support this proposal."@en1
"− UK Conservatives have voted against the asylum package as, while we believe in cooperation in this area, we do not believe in a communitarised approach to asylum and immigration policy. We believe that the protection of national borders for us remains a key element of public policy at national level."@en1
"− UKIP fully supports equality for men and women. However, the UK already has equality legislation and can change and improve it as and when required to by our Parliament and people. Further legislation and bureaucracy imposed by the EU is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, the EU is undemocratic and not a safe guardian of anyone’s rights, including those of women."@en1
"− UKIP recognises the value of certain elements of the Council’s position in preserving the right of Britons to work, and we have voted against other amendments in this report which specifically undermine those elements. However, the Council’s position contains many other elements which UKIP cannot agree with and cannot vote for. We therefore abstain from voting on Amendment 30."@en1
"− Under normal circumstances, the Stability and Growth Pact presumes there will be rapid correction of the excessive deficit and this correction should be carried out the year after such an excessive deficit has been identified. However, the reformed Stability and Growth Pact also allows for longer deadlines in the case of special circumstances – in accordance with Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97. The Pact does not provide an explicit definition of these special circumstances. However, when preparing a report under Article 143 of the Treaty triggered by the existence or the planned excessive deficit, the Commission is required by the Treaty to take into account what are known as ‘relevant factors’. In this report, the Commission shall reflect developments in the medium-term economic position, in particular, potential growth, prevailing cyclical conditions, the implementation of policies in the context of the Lisbon Agenda and policies to foster research and development and innovation. It shall also reflect developments in the medium-term budgetary position, in particular, fiscal consolidation efforts in good times, the level of public debt and sustainability issues, external financing needs, public investment, and the overall quality of public finances. It shall also take into consideration any other factors which, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, are relevant in order to comprehensively assess in qualitative terms the excess over the reference value and which the Member State has, of course, put forward to the Commission and to the Council. The provisions of the relevant factors to be considered indicate that determining the incidence of special circumstances should be based on an overall assessment of such factors. On 18 February, the Commission adopted its recommendations for Council opinions on the latest updates of the stability and convergence programmes for 17 Member States. At the same time, and taking into account its assessment of these programmes, the Commission adopted reports for Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Latvia and Malta. The Ecofin adopted its opinion on these reports this morning. The Commission will propose recommendations to the Council to put an end to situations where an excessive deficit exists. These recommendations will include deadlines which will have been decided according to the Stability and Growth Pact, i.e. taking into consideration the existence of special circumstances, where appropriate."@en1
"− Under the rules which we currently apply, this is ruled out. The rules which we are using certainly do not allow research where the purpose would be the cloning of people."@en1
"− Under the ‘blue card’ rule you must ask a question, not make a statement. The wording is very strict, and it is very important that this rule is respected."@en1
"− Unfortunately, I do not have any detailed information about the contact points, but I know in general that this is decided in the Member States and depends very much on the structure of the government and governance structures. I know where this contact point will be in my own country, but at this moment, I do not have such an overview of where the contact points are in other countries. It is, of course, possible to provide you with the necessary details if you are interested."@en1
"− Water is a precious resource, and access to clean drinking water across the world has to be a key priority. Too many people, in 2009, in the developing world have no access to clean drinking water. We have to focus our efforts in helping countries and communities in the poorest parts of the world have access to this resource."@en1
"− We acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, particularly for beef and sheep farmers in the South and East of England who, by wholesale vaccination on their own farms, have created a firewall against bluetongue that their fellow farmers in the North and West have benefited from. In order to vote for EU funding for this vaccine we are obliged (in the same vote) to vote for increased funding for Eurojust and Europol. These are two agencies that operate outside the boundaries acceptable to British law, severely increasing the power of the state at the expense of the liberty of the individual. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, we could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains our voting abstention on the subject."@en1
"− We are now starting the time for speakers to take the floor by ‘catching the eye’ of the President. I would like to say that in today’s meeting of the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity, a Vice-President was highly criticised because it is said that only male MEPs ‘catch his eye’, and that female MEPs do not ‘catch his eye’. I would like to say that in this case it is going to be very easy for me because everyone who has asked to ‘catch my eye’ is female. We are not therefore going to be subject to the criticism directed at us barely an hour ago."@en1
"− We do not have a specific family planning policy, but this can and does happen at the request of the governments concerned. A lot of maternal deaths result from abortions in unacceptable circumstances. In countries where the legislation allows abortion, the Commission will also support these programmes. So whether or not we take such measures really depends on the countries concerned. With respect to the second question; I must say that when you look at the African continent and the birth rates, as I explained in my introduction, there is a clear relationship between economic development, the degree of urbanisation and fertility rates. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it in all countries all over the globe. One can expect, with global urbanisation and, hopefully, increased growth figures, that the fertility rates might go down. This is not limited, as the honourable Member is suggesting, to some countries. It is rather a phenomenon that is linked to the development of the country concerned."@en1
"− We do not object to the postponement."@en1
"− We follow very closely the effects of the financial crisis on our industrial sectors, including of course the textile and clothing sector, an important and strong industry in the European Union. We reacted to this crisis by setting up the European Recovery Plan complemented by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Temporary Community framework for State aid matters. These measures have also been relevant for the textile and clothing industry: for instance, the Globalisation Fund support has been used to reintegrate workers laid off in mostly small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector in Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania and Belgium. The textile and clothing sector comes from decades of managed trade. Since early 2009, trade in this sector has been fully liberalised. The sector has lived up to the challenge of liberalisation and has undertaken a process of restructuring and modernisation, which has not been easy. The sector has reduced mass production and concentrated on products with higher value added and technological content. Today European textiles are known in the world for their innovation and technical performance. The sector has been evolving successfully and has maintained a world-class export performance. Market access issues are therefore a priority for it, and I am happy that our renewed market access strategy has been taken up by this industry with positive results. And, of course, in our trade negotiations, such as the free trade agreement with Korea or the multilateral trade talks, we do take into account the sensitivities of the different industrial sectors, including the textile sector, and we aim for balanced deals."@en1
"− We followed the rapporteur, Staes, in this vote, even though we lost one key amendment, number 22, on the transparency of the use of public funds, defended by the same rapporteur."@en1
"− We fully support the notions of anti-discrimination and equality in access, and strongly believe in creating inclusive school systems and inclusive schools. We believe that actions should be taken to assist all vulnerable pupils. However, we believe that Member States are best suited for ensuring accessible and inclusive schooling for its citizens and residents alike. We believe that democratic control of the school system by the people it serves can only be ensured if the Member States formulate and implement education policy."@en1
"− We have not discussed that in the Council in the light of this particular conference, but it is clear that the common agricultural policy can play a role and can also, when we discuss it in the future, play an increasing role in facilitating the poorer countries to be part of the common market, as well as in where we can help to mitigate and to eliminate the current acute crisis. We have done that. Now the world situation looks a little bit better. There are positive reports coming from almost all the different markets. That is excellent, and I would give it a little bit of time to reflect on how we can address those conflicts in the future and how we can use a slightly reformed common agricultural policy to help those poor countries and to avoid a similar situation."@en1
"− We have to do all we can to help children of immigrants fulfil their potential and flourish in their new environment."@en1
"− We know that it is very important to have measures to help citizens and governments go for energy efficiency. We now have some studies on the potential of tax incentives for energy and environmental purposes, and the Commission is preparing a proposal to amend the VAT directive to allow reduced rates of VAT to apply to certain environmentally-friendly goods and services. As set out in the Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission may propose reduced VAT rates for green products and services aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings in particular. It should be pointed out, however, that the Commission proposal of July 2008 already provides an option for Member States to apply these reduced VAT rates on services involving the renovation, repair, alteration and maintenance of housing, places of worship and of cultural heritage, and historical monuments. This includes work aimed at increasing the energy savings and efficiency of the buildings concerned. The Ecofin today came to a compromise. It is too early to say exactly what we are going to do in detail with the Ecofin proposals, but the Commission is going to study the proposals that were made today."@en1
"− We must ensure that airport security charges are transparent, objective and based on clear criteria that reflect real costs. Any new costs to air travel should acknowledge the importance airports have for the development of regions, especially those which depend heavily on tourism, as well as those that suffer geographical and natural handicaps, such as the outermost regions and islands. Airport users, as well as local authorities, should be able to obtain in a timely manner information on how and on what basis the charges are calculated. There should be also a compulsory procedure for consultations between the airport authorities and interested parties or local authorities, whenever there is a need for a revision of the charges. Also, any independent supervisory authority should have precise, clearly defined terms of reference, including in particular any powers they may have to take punitive action."@en1
"− We must use the green economy to create jobs throughout the EU. This must be a priority during the financial crisis."@en1
"− We now continue with the vote."@en1
"− We of course regret the victims of all aggressive and authoritarian regimes, regardless of the atrocities that have been carried out in Europe or for example in the former European colonies. We are however deeply concerned about all direct or indirect efforts by politicians or parliaments trying to influence the general perception of historical facts. This task should be left to independent academic research and public debate. Otherwise there is a risk that every new majority in Parliament will try to change history by describing the worst enemies of society, and that the discussion on European history will be used for short-term campaign purposes. We therefore chose to abstain in the final vote."@en1
"− We voted in favour of the report in sympathy with the complainants. However, we are of the opinion that the alleged breaches of Spanish, EU and international law should be dealt with and solved by the relevant Spanish authorities, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights."@en1
"− We voted in favour of the report on urbanisation in Spain because it reflects the result of several years of detailed work by the Committee on Petitions to respond to hundreds of related petitions by several thousand petitioners, including fact-finding visits and discussions with all interested parties and it was adopted by a large cross-party majority in committee. We have a duty as elected representatives to ensure that European citizens whom we have encouraged to make use of their free movement rights should not then be subjected to arbitrary or unjustified restrictions in the host state. We recognise that the primary responsibility under the Treaties for the monitoring of the application of Community law lies with the Commission. We also recognise that the Treaties explicitly exclude any effect on domestic rules governing the system of property ownership. However, we also believe, firstly, that Parliament’s Petitions Committee, as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the institutions, should highlight any systematic problems affecting the free movement of thousands of our citizens which are brought to light by the petitions process. Secondly, we consider that violations of Community law appear to be at issue, in particular environmental law and public procurement rules."@en1
"− We welcome the shift in emphasis in this resolution, and some of the positive proposals in relation to regulation of the financial sector, innovation, energy efficiency and investment, as well as acknowledgement of the need to protect employment, create jobs, combat poverty and focus on the most vulnerable groups in society. However, the logic of the Lisbon Strategy is flawed and needs to be fundamentally revised, particularly in light of the new economic situation. In addition, three are a number of specific proposals contained in the resolution which are short-sighted and counter-productive, such as the insistence on deregulation and on flexible employment practices leading to a weakening of workers rights. For these reasons, we abstained in the final vote on this report."@en1
"− We will end this debate with a speech by the rapporteur, Mr Foglietta, who I urge to keep within his allotted two minutes."@en1
"− We wish to say that the Fine Gael MEPs in the PPE-DE Group support the general thrust of the report on the European Council meeting, but do not accept that Parliament should consider ‘that it is possible to meet the concerns that have been expressed by the Irish people in order to secure a solution acceptable to all before the European elections’, as this is a matter for the Irish people at their discretion and timing to consider."@en1
"− We work actively to tackle what are very complex vital sanitary barriers, and with this to help market the sale of European products like Irish beef and lamb. The Market Access Strategy, and particularly the Market Access Partnership launched in 2007, is the centrepiece of the Commission’s work in that respect. The Market Access Strategy sets up a stronger partnership between the Commission, Member States and business to enhance the work of detecting, analysing, prioritising and removing barriers. The specificity of this strategy is that it is done through the right mix of various trade policy instruments. That means using multilateral and bilateral channels and complementing the more formal medium to long-term policy instruments with political contacts and with joint trade diplomacy. Our efforts in relation to this market access have been stepped up considerably in recent years, and we have several success stories to show we are going in the right direction. For example, we managed to confine a few countries and lift the ban on EU exports of meat due to the dioxin and PCBs contamination incident in Ireland in December 2008, and recently we were successful in opening Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Philippines to the import of EU beef and to treat certain SPS issues in a more trade-friendly manner with Egypt and Israel. We keep insisting on the different levels with countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea, to bring some of their legislation fully in line with the requirements of the SPS agreement and of the international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health. We have asked EU beef businesses to come forward with their specific concerns and to make suggestions on how we might tackle barriers in key markets. It has recently had very positive feedback, and a presentation made by an Irish business association will help us in setting priorities and continuing our work."@en1
"− We, as Greens, voted in favour of this report. The good new is that the amendment to delete the focus on nuclear safety was defeated."@en1
"− Well, as you said, it is important to evaluate this properly and see what is being done; what the results have been. We are gathering scientific evidence. At the conference in Uppsala, we have invited both experts and scientists to be the background for the discussions at that conference. As I said, we hope that these can be the basis for the Council’s response to the communication that will come from the Commission. This is what I can say at the moment. But we also very much welcome the opinions of the European Parliament. We hope that this could be a very good start for the discussions and gather as much information as possible."@en1
"− What I said about the labelling was with regard to chicken that was imported. When the chicken was imported, it had to be labelled, and I said specifically that compulsory labelling is necessary in the case of poultry meat. However, if the meat is defrosted and sold in another form, it has to abide by the rules of the European Union. It does not have to abide by the rules of the country of origin. Any meat producer, whether it is the person who produces the poultry or the person who produces the food, has to abide by our very strict food laws. If this is not the case, then he is liable."@en1
"− When Romania and Bulgaria entered the EU, it was specified in their act of accession that a protocol would have to be drawn up amending the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the EU and its Member States and China. This vote is in favour of the conclusion of this protocol."@en1
"− When we talk about wilderness, in reality we are referring to a natural environment from which significant human activity has been absent, in other words, virgin areas. Wilderness may refer to both land and sea. There are two different approaches: one refers to the concept of conservation and the other to that of preservation. These are distinct. The former can be described as ‘proper use of nature’, the latter ‘protection of nature from use’. I believe that conservation and preservation may be distinct, but their application depends on the particular area. To take an example, Europe is too small to have forbidden areas for its citizens. Forests cover about one third of the land area of which only 5 % can be described as wilderness. Most areas in Europe which are wilderness are protected under Natura 2000. This is a European network which already covers the most valuable and bio-diverse areas of the EU. That is why I agree that no new legislation is required concerning wilderness areas as most are covered by Natura 2000. It is, however, important to map wilderness areas according to forest, fresh water and marine wilderness."@en1
"− While I am in favour of the maximum objectivity in analysing Europe’s history, and while I recognise the horrific nature of the crimes of Stalinist Russia, I am afraid that this resolution has elements of a historical revisionism that flies in the face of a demand for objective analysis. I am not willing to equate the crimes of the Nazis, the Holocaust and the genocide that saw six million Jews, along with Communists, Trade Unionists and disabled die, with those of Stalinist Russia. This political relativism threatens to dilute the unique nature of the Nazi crimes, and in doing so provides an intellectual underpinning to the ideologies of today’s neo-Nazis and fascists, some of whom are with us here today."@en1
"− While I fully subscribe to genuine measures to overcome racism and extremism, this sort of resolution, generated by the Left, is not helpful and is merely intended to take forward their own distorted agenda. In fact, there is little to distinguish the extreme Left and the extreme Right and they feed off one another. However, the Left has been successful in taking the spotlight off its own extremes and promoting institutions and policies which assist its own objectives. The EU, in its continuous efforts to extend its own reach, is often complicit in this. I do not approve of EU quangos such as the so-called ‘EU Agency for Fundamental Rights’ or indeed funding from public money of the constellation of NGOs pushing the Left’s agenda. I therefore abstained on the resolution."@en1
"− While I supported the Santos report () on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, I am not in favour of the amendment that passed on increasing modulation. It will result in extra funds being transferred from pillar 1 to pillar 2 taking income directly from farmers (particularly small farmers) in countries such as Ireland. Funds will go to schemes which require cofinancing by Member States – a source of funding that is uncertain and cannot be relied on."@en1
"− While I support the main thrust of this report, I oppose the lack of balance on the particular question of Cyprus. I strongly oppose Amendments 14 and 15, which are directed exclusively against Turkey on several questions, including the fulfilment of international obligations, and make no equivalent calls for action or engagement on the part of the Greek or Greek Cypriot authorities. During the Committee stage, my amendment rejecting the idea that resolution of the Cyprus question is to be achieved through unilateral action by Turkey was not accepted. I called on the Council – as a preliminary step – to give practical effect to its commitment of 26 April 2004 to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. Nevertheless, without abandoning my reservations, I voted in favour of the report."@en1
"− While we all acknowledge and support the role that SMEs play in international trade, it is a real shame that a large part of this report was dedicated to defending so-called Trade Defence Instruments. In reality, TDIs are being used by inefficient producers as a form of naked protectionism to shelter them from competition, not only from non-EU competitors, but also from more efficient competitors across the EU that have taken advantage of globalisation and established global supply chains. TDIs punish retailers and consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for goods that they could obtain at better value elsewhere. They also punish the most efficient and innovative SMEs. We all know of many SMEs in our constituencies that are punished by the very same TDIs that this report seeks to praise. It is for this reason that Conservatives reluctantly voted against this report."@en1
"− Whilst we support measures to manage and protect European forests, we do not support the creation of a new European forestry policy that would transfer powers in this area to the European Union. The report also refers to the Soil Directive, legislation that the British Conservative Delegation opposes, as soil can be best managed by Member States, because applying the same rules on all soil from Northern Finland to Southern Greece will not bring any benefit to farmers in the UK. UK farmers already meet very high voluntary standards of soil management and have continued to improve standards. The Soil Directive as proposed by the European Commission was flawed in many aspects and would only bring more regulation, more cost and less flexibility to British farmers, who we believe know better than European bureaucrats how to manage their own land."@en1
"− Why are we even talking about the Lisbon Treaty when it has yet to come into effect? Why are we effectively ignoring the democratic will of the Irish people, who voted to reject the treaty a year ago? The reason, of course, is that the EU cares very little for democratic opinion and is determined to move rapidly towards ever-closer union despite a lack of popular legitimacy. Irish voters will have to vote yet again on this treaty because the EU simply does not take no for an answer. The chasm between the EU and its citizens is growing all the time. Referring to the Lisbon Treaty as though it were a fact of life merely serves to reinforce this democratic deficit. For this reason, and many others, I am pleased that British Conservatives will be part of a new political group in the next parliament, dedicated to reforming the EU and challenging the prevailing orthodoxy of ever-closer union which has proved so unpopular and caused so much damage in my region of North-East England."@en1
"− With regard to the Santos report () on the CAP Health Check, I need to clarify that, while I voted for the report, there is one aspect of the CAP, namely subsidies to grow tobacco, that I cannot support, nor have I ever supported. Tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop per hectare in the EU. Since the early 1990s, the EU has spent about EUR 1 000 million annually on subsidies to tobacco growers. Despite the effort to reduce these subsidies, tobacco subsidies are still given out to tobacco farmers by the hundreds of millions (EUR 963 million in 2002). This is by far the highest support, compared to other agricultural sectors, creating distorted incentives and high levels of inefficiency. It has been costly, the policy has not worked from a trade point of view, and it has been bad for the EU’s reputation, exposing an awkward ambivalence in the EU’s health goals. Subsidies should be removed completely from tobacco (but not from tobacco farmers) and switched to support healthy agriculture much quicker than is currently planned."@en1
"− With the renewal of the Lisbon strategy I stress the need for a real update of the Integrated Policy Guidelines, along with a greater role for the European Parliament in monitoring how the strategy is followed up. The focus should be on achieving a socially sensitive Europe that deals with the current economic problems we face without isolating those most vulnerable. The need for enforcement of a minimum wage in all Member States is one of the key ways that we can ensure that all European citizens enjoy a decent basic standard of living. I am satisfied with the resolution and have voted in favour of it."@en1
"− Within its field of competence, the Commission has so far responded rapidly to help prevent disastrous social consequences in developing countries, in particular in the least-developed countries, most of which are ACP states. These measures include honouring aid commitments and leveraging new resources, acting counter-cyclically, improving aid effectiveness, sustaining economic activity and employment, revitalising agriculture, investing in green growth, stimulating trade and private investment, working together for economic governance and stability, and protecting the most vulnerable in developing countries. Concrete actions and procedures have already been put in place to speed up delivery of aid. An ad hoc ‘Vulnerability FLEX’ instrument will mobilise EUR 500 million from the European Development Fund. This V-FLEX is complementary to actions taken by the World Bank and the IMF, and will target the most vulnerable countries with poor resilience capacity, giving rapid grant assistance to help them to maintain priority spending, notably in the social sectors. As the V-FLEX utilises previously unallocated reserve funds, it represents additional financing for these highly vulnerable countries. EUR 80 million has also been mobilised for the funding under the existing EDF FLEX mechanism for countries that suffered significant export losses in 2008. In addition, the mid-term review of cooperation strategies for countries funded from the EC budget is currently under way, and the mid-term review for ACP countries funded from the EDF has been accelerated in order to re-define and adjust the national strategies and allocations in early 2010. Nevertheless, it is important to recall that development policy is a shared competence within the EU. The prime responsibility for delivering on the ODA commitments lies with the Member States themselves. I strongly believe that the crisis should not be an excuse for our Member States to water down donors’ aid and promises, and I will insist on remaining committed to delivering the promised aid levels, both for EU Member States as well as for other donors. In this regard, we very publicly monitor Member State ODA through our annual Monterrey survey. On the basis of the information gathered from Member States, we foresee the EU collective ODA increasing from EUR 49 billion in 2008 to EUR 53.4 billion in 2009 and EUR 58.7 billion in 2010. This also means that, without additional steps by Member States to fulfil their individual targets, the collective targets for 2010 will not be achieved. Moreover this crisis has also shown that we have to strengthen the mechanisms for delivering ODA, as the honourable Member rightly pointed out. The International Aid Effectiveness Agenda embodied in the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action are now more important than ever. In these difficult economic times, we have a particular responsibility towards the world’s poor to make sure our development assistance is being channelled effectively. I will defend this approach personally at the November Development Council, and the global financial crisis will be at the centre of my political concerns during the weeks ahead."@en1
"− Yes, I can definitely say that this is the Commission’s approach. We have always been in favour of agreements between multilateral organisations, and we always see the dangers of bilateral dealing, which can easily end in confusion. I am very pleased that I was required to go to Barbados to sign a Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and 14 countries in the Caribbean region. This was a really big achievement. It has encouraged and boosted the trade between these countries tremendously, and has been greeted as a very positive step. So we will try, of course, to have this multilateral approach."@en1
"− Yes, Ms Lynne, I will bring this to the attention of the organisers."@en1
"− Yes, it is true that we have been aiming to make a proposal in the autumn of this year, but you have to understand that, in a project as ambitious as the CCCTB, it is not possible to predict exactly when we will be ready to make the proposal, as the timing of the proposal depends on the finalisation of the impact assessments and its evolution by the Commission. As far as the correlation between the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and the CCCTB is concerned, I want to emphasise that the Commission is taking a measured approach based on wide consultation and detailed study of all aspects of the CCCTB. The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the electorate during the referendum in Ireland relating to the Lisbon Treaty. However, I would point out that the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty do not have any direct influence on the process whereby Member States would eventually decide on any proposal on a possible Commission proposal for CCCTB."@en1
"− Yes, we have indeed discussed this in the Council several times. There is a quite unanimous view that, for the sake of the quality of the project, there should be an element of national financing as well. Therefore, the proposal to eliminate that has no support from the Council. However, we are aware of the situation and of the problems. We have asked the Commission to present an alternative proposal. I brought that up with Commissioner Samecki, who is responsible for it, just two days ago. They are working on such a proposal and will present it as soon as possible."@en1
"− You are aware that in the Council, there are different opinions concerning this issue and you know that there is no unanimity concerning the position of the Council on this issue. So, as I said in my answer we, the Commission, fully share the opinions of the Council – and I refer to the conclusions of the Council from April 2008 – that full cooperation with the Tribunal is essential for following the process."@en1
"− You have seen how difficult this debate is when we talk about ethical questions. That is exactly what Europe is and how it looks. To be precise, human embryonic stem cells research is allowed under conditions which were agreed and voted in the European Parliament and also in the Council. We have had a very thorough and in-depth debate and the procedure which is used is – I can say – based on a really ethical approach. I have explained in the introduction which steps we have taken and how the decision is made. Firstly, we need to have a scientific evaluation. Then we have an ethical evaluation at European Union level, then an ethical evaluation at individual Member State level. If any Member State is against something being funded in their country, we do not fund it. Then this project goes to the committee where the decision is taken by the Member States on the individual project basis. When we do the scientific evaluation, the first question is: is it possible to attain this with any other kind of approach? And only if the answer is ‘no’ will we continue in the other direction. Normally, there is an overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that the combination should be used. But if you look at the structure in our programmes, you would definitely find that the overwhelming majority of the programmes we finance are programmes which are connected with adult stem cell research. That is quite clear. So we try to follow the rules which were voted and agreed here and which we believe that, in practice are working."@en1
"− You will be clearly informed about the full procedure and it can be scrutinised. It will be a very clear and transparent decision. The reason behind the idea of having so-called ‘other sites’ outside the European quarter is precisely because we want more efficient use of money. If we concentrate all our services in the European Quarter, it gives real estate developers enormous opportunities to ask very high prices, which we have already seen in many cases. So, to have other sites as well is a necessity, especially to moderate the costs. That is the main idea. We already have some buildings and some sites outside the European quarter. We have buildings in Beaulieu, we have buildings on the Rue de Genève and some others also. We are interested in looking. We have asked for 70 000 m to be proposed and we will then examine all the possibilities. You mentioned Heysel. I read about it in the newspapers. I do not know anything about Heysel. Yes, since I read this, several Belgian politicians have approached me and talked both for and against the site, but it has never been considered as some kind of preferred option. Nothing has been decided. It is a process. It is of big interest for Belgian and Brussels politicians, this location of the sites, and the Brussels Region is also interested in having our location outside the European Quarter, so we will make this decision. We have an assessment committee which is examining the proposal at the moment and then it will come before the OIB board and then later to the Commission. It will be a transparent process. I suggest, though, that we keep out of Belgian internal debates and interests."@en1