3. Justice for the "Comfort Women"
President
The next item is the five motions for a resolution on justice for comfort women.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - (ES) Madam President, I have to say that, as the driving force behind this resolution, I am particularly satisfied that finally we have found the space and sufficient consensus to table it, because I sincerely believe that the subject deserved this, and much more.
We are talking about almost 200 000 women, euphemistically known as 'comfort women', who were forced to be sexual slaves during and before the Second World War by the Japanese Imperial Army. After 62 years, the survivors are still seeking justice.
During their lives they have suffered from poor physical and mental health, isolation and shame, and often extreme poverty. So far the Japanese Government has not complied with international rules on reparation, which include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction, including full disclosure, apology and guaranteeing that the action will not be repeated. This is particularly significant given that Japan is one of the main donors of aid in post-war times.
There was, therefore, an urgent need to react and to point out, as the survivors do, that truth must be linked to justice, and that an apology is empty if it is not accompanied by an acceptance of responsibility. I would like to stress that this is not only about the rights of an individual victim, but about collective rights, which bring with them the responsibility to remember, so that this type of violation does not happen again.
This means that we must ask the Japanese to conduct an exercise in historical honesty and not only acknowledge the facts but apologise on behalf of their predecessors, and to compensate the victims.
Finally, I would like to express my great respect and recognition for the women who had and continue to have the courage to speak out and demand justice, and for the organisations like Amnesty International that are supporting them on this journey.
Eva-Britt Svensson
author. - (SV) Madam President, the Resolution calls for justice and redress for the hundreds of thousands of women, so-called 'comfort women', who were forced into providing sexual services before and during the Second World War. All these degraded women who were held in sexual slavery are still waiting for justice and redress. The Japanese authorities have indeed done a certain amount but, as the Resolution shows, a great deal remains for the Japanese Government and authorities to do in order to give those women justice and redress.
The majority of the women who were forced into this dreadful situation were very young at the time. That means that their whole lives have been destroyed by these terrible experiences. They have been forced to live out their lives in poor physical and psychological health, isolation, shame, and often extreme poverty. The fact that these women have not had full justice and redress also means that those who committed these crimes have effectively enjoyed immunity for their acts.
Again the victims, women, are punished while the perpetrators go free. This Resolution is also important for the reason that it highlights what always happens in war and conflict zones, that it is always women who are the main victims. It is therefore important that we draw attention to this matter. We must try to put a stop to this.
Marcin Libicki
author. - (PL) Madam President, when we talk about crimes and when we think about crimes of the 20th century, we think above all of the crimes committed by the Germans and the Bolsheviks, or rather, to put it more broadly, the Communists. In Europe we are less aware of the fact that in the Far East Japan committed immense crimes from the 1930s until the end of the war. One of the greatest of these crimes was the sexual exploitation of women at this time.
Some 100 000 women from conquered countries in the Far East were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan. This sexual slavery, which was in itself totally criminal, had further consequences too. These consequences were enforced abortions, mutilations and murders on a large scale, and large-scale instances of suicide among these women. Obviously any of these women who are still alive today are very old.
It must be conceded that during the post-war period the Japanese Government did much to compensate for these dreadful offences against the women who experienced them. Today this resolution calls on the Japanese Government to make a final political, moral and financial settlement upon those women who are still alive and with the families of those who have died. This is most certainly their due.
Sophia in 't Veld
author. - (NL) Madam President, I should like to start by expressing my solidarity with these women - I believe on behalf of all of us. I am pleased that this is on the agenda, as it has taken a very long time. The European Parliament has been wavering for five months over whether human rights for women should actually be a priority or not.
Mr Dillen, who has now left, has just said that oppression of women is typical of the Koran - which is complete nonsense, as the matter of 'comfort women' shows that men do not need the Koran to repress and abuse women.
I am actually also rather disappointed with the attitude in the European Parliament. As I have just said, this House wavered over this for a very long time, and I have heard even Members of this Parliament coming up with arguments such as 'Well, yes, but 90% of these women did it of their own free will' and 'Oh well, it is their culture, you have to understand that'. To be frank, I find this sickening. It is rape, and rape is without exception a crime in all ages and all cultures.
I now gather that Japanese school textbooks have been adapted; but I then hear from the Japanese embassy that the tale has to be told very cautiously, as pupils do not yet know much about sexuality and could incur psychological damage. No-one talks about the psychological damage to the 'comfort women' themselves. To be frank, I find that quite shocking. Anyway, I am pleased that this is now on our agenda and that we are just about to adopt it.
I think that it is important that apologies be sincere and unequivocal. It is not a matter of a formality. With the previous Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, once more casting doubt on the whole issue, it is not sufficient for the current government to then say 'Oh, but we shall continue with the previous policy'. Sincere and unequivocal is what is needed.
Also, when I hear the arguments that have been forthcoming from the Japanese embassy in recent days - incidentally complete with a recognition of everything that has already been done - I think that much progress remains to be made on sincerity. I hope, therefore, that this resolution expresses the solidarity of all of us with the victims.
Karin Scheele
author. - (DE) Madam President, I am very grateful to the previous speaker for having drawn attention to the fact that no religion on this earth is immune to massive human rights violations against women, but this is more to do with dictatorship and authoritarian systems than with a specific religion.
Hundreds of thousands of women before and during the Second World War were forced into prostitution by the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. Historians' estimates assume that around 200 000 of these 'comfort women' from Korea, China, Taiwan and the Philippines were handed over to Japanese soldiers as sex slaves. The 'comfort women' system is one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century and led to gang rapes on a massive scale and to forced abortions.
After the end of the war, many women were murdered by the armed forces or prevented from returning home. Many of the survivors remained silent out of shame about their past and were stigmatised and relegated to the fringes of society. The issue of forced prostitution was not broached at the war crime trials and there was no talk of reparation.
Not until the end of the 1980s did the fate of the comfort women come to light again. The reason for this was not an automatic change in awareness, but the rapidly growing women's movement in South Korea. Little by little, women who had been forced into prostitution spoke out publicly. In 1992 weekly demonstrations began in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul with the words: the Japanese Government should be ashamed, not us.
In 1997 the Japanese Government was asked for the first time to take legal and moral responsibility internationally for the most severe human rights violations committed against women. In her report the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women demanded financial compensation for the victims and court sentences for the perpetrators. The reaction of the Japanese Government at the time was an out and out rejection of these demands.
It has already been said several times today that the truth must be taken into account. We are therefore asking the Japanese Government publicly to reject any assertions that deny or question the subjugation and enslavement of the comfort women and we are likewise demanding that they accept moral and legal responsibility for the enslavement of 200 000 people. We are calling on the Japanese Government to implement mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims and their families as quickly as possible.
Many victims of the comfort women system have passed away or are at least 80 years old, which means speed is of the essence. We are also calling on our colleagues in the Japanese National Assembly, however, to make their contribution in parliament to help get these mechanisms accepted.
Andrikienė, Laima Liucija
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, there are pages in the world's history we would wish not to be repeated anywhere, ever.
One of these pages is the story of 'comfort women'. I refer to the officially commissioned acquisition of young women by the Government of Japan, from the 1930s and during the Second World War, for the sole purpose of sexual servitude to the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces. We do not know exactly the numbers of women who were enslaved but we know that the 'comfort women system' included gang rape, forced abortions, humiliation and sexual violence, resulting in mutilation, death or eventual suicide, and that it was one of the largest cases of human trafficking in the 20th century, involving not hundreds but thousands of women.
Today, the remaining survivors are 80 and more years of age and one could argue that the problem is no longer an important issue. But I fully understand the wish of these women and their families to clear their names. Today we express our solidarity with the women who were victims of this system. We call on the Japanese Government to formally acknowledge and accept historical and legal responsibility and to implement effective administrative mechanisms to provide reparations to all surviving victims of the 'comfort women system' and to the families of deceased victims.
Taking into account the excellent relationship between the European Union and Japan, based on the mutually shared values of the rule of law and respect for human rights, I hope that the Government and the Parliament of Japan will take all necessary measures to recognise the sufferings of sex slaves and to remove existing obstacles to obtaining reparations before Japanese courts and that current and future generations will be educated about these events. I am sure that official recognition of the existence of the 'comfort women system' and an apology on behalf of the Japanese Government also would do much to help heal the wounds of our painful common history.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, people can be forgiven for their sins, but people's crimes cannot be forgotten. This applies as much to Japan as it did, for example, to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
The Japanese committed immensely barbaric war atrocities in the 1930s and 1940s. To some extent, they paid dearly by having two of their cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, annihilated by the mighty nuclear holocaust brought upon them by the US.
However, Japan inflicted many dreadful evils on the world in the past, and one of these - the sexual slavery of 'comfort women' - only came to prominence relatively recently. Some of these poor and now frail elderly ladies are still with us, as the remnants of a past that is inconvenient for Japan but torturous for them.
These women are asking for two very simple things from today's rich and powerful Japan: an official apology and very modest humanitarian aid. Certainly, the European Parliament, with this joint motion for a resolution, expects and demands that the Japanese Government must do both and fast. Otherwise, aside from the stigma of shame, the EU must consider taking particularly effective action against ex-imperial Japan.
Urszula Krupa
Madam President, the subject of today's debate is a violation of human rights that took place during the 1930s, during the Japanese occupation, when young women in the Imperial Armed Forces were sexually exploited and forced into prostitution, despite the fact that the Japanese Government had signed international conventions on combating traffic in women and children and supported the UN Resolution on Women, Peace and Security.
The sincere sympathy of the Japanese premier is currently being undermined by Japanese officials in connection with the closure of the Asian Women's Fund programme and mandate in March 2007, out of which only monetary compensation was paid to women.
In supporting the resolution and the demand for compensation, we would, however, point out that in modern times, too, the boundary between the normal and the pathological is being eroded, and this flies in the face of moral norms, so there is a need for radical moves to combat prostitution as a form of modern-day slavery. Prostitutes are not just victims of wars that took place 50 years ago; it could also be women of today who are being exploited, in the Belgian Congo, for example, as reported in the press, and indeed in many other countries, even rich ones.
In the name of respect for the human being we should also unmask the spread of a hedonistic and commercial culture that is pointing towards abuse in the area of sex, drawing even very young women and girls into the sphere of prostitution and other forms of demoralisation.
Respect for the identity and dignity of women is not based solely on uncovering crimes or abuses in the sphere of sexual discrimination or other injustices; it is based primarily on the drafting of development programmes and on the real-life practice of principles embracing all areas of a woman's life. These principles must be rooted in a new realisation of the worth of a woman as wife, mother, carer or employee, as a human being and a person who is the equal of a man, despite being different.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1993 the Japanese Government spokesman at that time, Yohei Kono, extended Japan's 'sincere apologies and remorse to all those ... who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women'. In 1995 the Prime Minister at that time, Mr Murayama, also apologised publicly to the comfort women on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. That same year the Asian Women's Fund was set up to grant reparations and medical aid to survivors on behalf of the Japanese Government and people.
These attempts to obtain reparations for the comfort women and a renewed public apology from the former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Koizumi, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in 2005 are positive steps by Japan. Japan has thereby recognised its responsibility for these unspeakable human rights violations. Only a few days ago, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed the declaration of the government spokesman, Mr Kono, which I quoted at the beginning, as Japan's official position.
We now have the moving testimony of survivors, and this moving testimony has again aroused interest in this terrible period, in Europe as well as in the United State, Canada and Australia.
Our actions here are not simply about the past; they are about drawing the right conclusions from the events and doing everything in our power to combat today's forms of slavery, sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
With the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Commission is actively supporting NGOs throughout the world involved in preventing violence against women and children and combating human trafficking for the purpose of sexual slavery. On 23 November 2007 the Commission sent out a further signal on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, by having affirmed its emphatic commitment to combating gender-based violence.
The European Union is conducting a regular human rights dialogue with Japan, touching on all the EU's concerns - including women's rights. Japan is a like-minded global player cooperating constructively with us in multilateral forums in order to improve respect for and protection of human rights. Together with the European Union, Japan has therefore issued a resolution on human rights in North Korea and denounced the actions of the regime in Myanmar.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote on these three topics will take place at the end of today's sitting.


Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President and all those present at this late hour, I think that these are times when it is quality that matters, not quantity. This is, I think, how you should look at it anyway.
The Commission has taken five years to produce a strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. That is a long time, and so it is very regrettable that the proposal it has submitted is so lacking in ambition. To be fair, the Commission has clearly identified the problem, namely that if we carry on in this way, we will be irrevocably faced with exhaustion of our resources, and, along with it, a serious threat to our economy and our quality of life.
Thereupon, though, it also fails to come up with concrete measures. It calls, inter alia, for more research and more data. This is all well and good, but we cannot afford to wait for much longer. Like climate change, the problem of natural resources is acute now, and now is the time we need to take concrete action. When you read the proposal, there is a vague lack of urgency on the part of the Commission. It does not invite the citizens to think about this issue all that much, although they are the people eventually who will bear the brunt of it all.
The heart of the matter is simple. Our ecological footprint, in other words the environmental effect of our consumption, is much greater than what the earth can cope with. By way of illustration, if this children's shoe is the ecological footprint we would be allowed to have in order for our natural resources to be in balance, this large men's shoe represents the current consumption level. As you can see, it is really far too big. This is, therefore, a good illustration of what we are doing at the moment.
I will be very honest, Commissioner. The gut reaction in our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was that the entire document should be sent back to you and the Commission asked to rework it. This, however, struck us as not very constructive and besides, we cannot afford to wait for another five years for action. This is why I decided to commit to producing a sound proposal and called on all my fellow Members to help me in this task. I can tell you, my fellow Members had a few amazing brainstorming sessions. Working together, we came up with a large number of ideas to improve the Commission's document, and that took us not more than three or four months. I would like to thank them, because we have really achieved a great deal. On account of all these sound amendments, the lay-out of the report may not be anything to write home about, but I hope that the message is clear. Parliament wants to see concrete measures rather than deferral.
I should like to single out a few proposals, the first of which concerns agriculture. Agriculture does not feature in the thematic strategy, which is quite bizarre to my mind, if you consider that the agricultural sector is one of the largest users and consumers of natural resources. This sector is therefore being denied a great opportunity. I understand that the reason for this lies in the fact that DG Agriculture and DG Environment failed to see eye to eye on this. It is unacceptable, though, that mutual bickering between European officials would lead to the strategy lacking a wide support base.
I would also propose linking European agricultural subsidies straight to sustainability. To give you an example: subsidies for corn should be suspended if large-scale irrigation is needed and thus if water is being wasted, but subsidies should instead be given to farms that commit to using alternative energy sources, such as wind energy. In addition to agriculture, there are also other sectors, including transport, fisheries and construction, that are not included in the strategy - wrongly so. We will need to do something about that too. In short, the strategy should cover all areas of policy.
The structure of the strategy is largely determined by the consumer and manufacturer. Other proposals include a lifecycle approach, a top-10 list of priorities of threatened natural resources, tax incentives, the provision of information, the involvement of NGOs and experts, making use of alternative recycling and re-use. Too many to mention, really.
I suggest that the EU, in general, seeks to halve the use of resources by 2030. This is not science fiction, but a real necessity. Needless to say, European policy should not stop the Member States from performing even better. By setting the highest achieving Member State as an example to others, this trend can be promoted further.
During his most recent visit to the Committee on the Environment, Commissioner Dimas spoke about the importance of natural resources, and I was delighted to hear him do that. I have sent him a letter, asking for his cooperation. I live in hope, therefore, that this Commissioner will stand for a more ambitious policy than what the Commission's current document suggests. If that is the case, a critical report from Parliament can only be something to which they can look forward.
President
Mrs Liotard can be sure that this Parliament has listened to her to the best of its ability at this time.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like, first of all, to thank the European Parliament for the special attention paid to this strategy. I would like to thank Mrs Liotard and the shadow rapporteurs for the preparation of the report under discussion today. Indeed, it contains many constructive and useful data that make us think about possible future measures and build on them.
The use of natural resources is of vital importance both for the state of the environment and our economic growth. The course of events is a cause for concern, while the consequences have become noticeable with the constant loss of biodiversity, the greenhouse gas emissions, the downgrading of the quality of water, of air and ground, but also at a significant financial cost.
It is evident that the way in which we use our natural resources constitutes a threat towards our ecosystems on which our quality of life and prosperity depend. Therefore we are obliged to adapt our economic activities to our planet's endurance capabilities.
That is the aim of the strategy for natural resources, the result of vigorous often with disagreements but also extremely fruitful debate that has lasted for more than five years. This strategy offers an approach to environmental policy which focuses on natural resources on the one hand and a long-term framework for limiting the environmental consequences from the use of natural resources in a developing economy on the other. Moreover, it aims to improve efficiency when using natural resources.
Despite being very ambitious, these objectives are feasible. Europe has already managed to stabilise the use of natural resources in certain sectors of the economy. However, we lag behind other countries as for example in the case of Japan, which uses its natural resources much more efficiently compared to Europe. The strategy promotes products, technologies and consumption patterns that are more efficient with regards to the use of natural resources and less pollutant.
New initiatives have already been undertaken for the implementation of the strategy. Allow me to mention three examples:
First of all, the Commission is setting up a data centre, which will provide information for the policy planning, and this will lead to a better understanding of the use of resources and the consequences of various economic activities.
Secondly, in order to measure our progress in the direction of environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources, the Commission will pursue the development of a new generation of indicators. Already many quantitative indicators have been established with regards to the use of natural resources, as for example in the energy and climate change sectors. The determination of strict quality targets for atmospheric air and water and waste recycling targets contributes towards achieving the targets of the strategy on natural resources. Through this strategy we will be able to work out the general quantitative goal of natural resources conservation in our economy.
Thirdly, we must adapt all our policies to take account of the use of natural resources based on the entire life-cycle. We must take into consideration the environmental consequences of natural resources from their creation to their depletion, that is, from their birth to their death, so that the consequences are not transferred from one stage of life cycle to another or to other countries. When, for example, we import processed metals to Europe we must not overlook the environmental consequences of mining in other countries. The natural resources we actually use in Europe increasingly come from developing countries. Biofuel is another characteristic example.
Therefore we are talking about a global challenge and we have to assume responsibility. Together with the United Nations Environment Programme, we have set up an International Panel on the sustainable use of natural resources, which will start evaluating the consequences of the use of resources on our planet and will propose new measures. The work programme of this new International Panel already includes issues, such as environmental conditions for the production of biofuel and the implementation of measures on a worldwide scale in order to boost the recycling society. If this panel manages to reach the achievements of the International Panel on Climate Change, we will fulfil our goals to a great extent.
Honourable Members, the foundations have already been laid. Following the detailed examination on your behalf, and with the proposals you made, the Commission is committed to ensuring the successful implementation of the strategy for natural resources. In the long term, this strategy will lead us to sustainable use of natural resources and could constitute a benchmark for other policies. This is only the first stage of a long process. We should cooperate, now, with specific actions, so that its implementation can play a part in the development of all policies in all sectors of the economy.
Avril Doyle
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner says that these are 'ambitious goals'. I think not, Commissioner! The Commission's report came under a lot of fire when the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety first discussed it in October, as the document is seriously limited in its ambition after five years of gestation. At best, it could be described as a reasonable basic document with which to start the discussion, but it lacks any concrete objectives and, as I said, any ambition. This can probably be attributed to a turf war between the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Directorate-General for the Environment - guess who won? DG ENVI's strategy has been mainly restricted to knowledge-gathering and fails to address some key problematic sectors such as - unsurprisingly - agriculture, forestry, transport and many others.
Whilst some new initiatives are mentioned, such as a data centre for natural resources, a high-level forum and an international panel, the proposed time horizon of 25 years is totally unacceptable. By contrast, the rapporteur Mrs Liotard has worked hard to add some substance to the proposal. She correctly makes the point that the Commission communication does not comply with the requirements laid down in the Sixth Environmental Action Plan for concrete targets and timetables. The report calls on the Commission to replace this non-strategy with ambitious proposals, including clear targets and binding timetables.
I welcome the emphasis on an integrated policy approach and on the external impact of EU policy on sustainable resources. The only problem is that the rapporteur may have done too good a job. There is such a broad consensus for her report in the ENVI Committee that practically all amendments tabled were adopted, making the report somewhat long and repetitive in places. In my view, this takes away from the message. For this reason I have indicated on my group's voting list a negative vote on certain paragraphs that duplicate points mentioned elsewhere in the report.
Gyula Hegyi
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, we have inherited natural resources from nature or the Creator, but we are responsible for them with regard to future generations. We hear increasingly varying information on the threat to the balance of nature. Two-thirds of the ecosystems on which human beings depend are in decline. Europe's demand on natural resources has risen by almost 70% since the early 1960s. This dangerous trend must be stopped.
We want economic growth, because many people are still in need, but without increasing the use of natural resources and with less environmental impact. This decoupling of economic growth and the increasing use of natural resources is the main message of this report. The strategy proposed by the Commission is rather weak and has no deadlines or targets. That is why I tabled around 25 amendments on behalf of the PSE Group. I am happy that all but one of them has found favour with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
My fellow parliamentarians and I have proposed concrete targets to improve our commitment to the future. I propose specific targets regarding food, housing and the transport sector. In a market economy, taxation is the proper tool for regulating the use of resources. That is why it is so important to set up a European eco-taxation system. This report should be followed by specific regulations and directives to stop the self-destructive over-use of natural resources.
Mojca Drčar Murko
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) Greater efficiency in using energy and raw material resources is the objective of the thematic strategy being discussed here. This strategy is probably the most important partial strategy of the Sixth Environmental Action Plan. Its main objective is to prevent the unnecessary squandering of renewable and non-renewable sources which is threatening the environmental balance.
Product lifecycles is a philosophy which occupies a special place amongst the measures designed to limit excessive consumption. It is possible to increase significantly the volume of products that are channelled back into the economy at the end of their lifecycle and to reuse them. In this regard, the strategy is closely related to the process of revising EU legislation on waste management.
The ambitious goals that we want to see in this thematic strategy are not unrealistic. In fact, the priorities of the political debate on the economical use of natural resources have already enhanced the willingness of citizens to participate in the beneficial reuse of waste. Our cities, for instance, are potential mines of raw materials. Just as we extract ore from mines, we can use advanced waste collection and separation methods to extract iron, zinc, copper and plastic, and in the process we will use three times less energy than we would by producing them from fresh raw materials. Urban mining offers a promising vision of the modern city as a lucrative cache of recycled materials. And it is not the only method that considerably improves efficiency in using natural resources.
Wiesław Stefan Kuc
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, almost half a century has passed since the first report was delivered in Rome. Since then, natural resources have diminished, but we made great technological advances and learned to make more efficient use of raw materials and energy, harnessing resources which we could not have dreamed of fifty years ago. Have we done everything our knowledge, technology and experience are capable of? Definitely not. This is what this report clearly shows.
I am wholly in favour of the report, but I also see that the European Union is doing a great deal, much more than other countries, to protect the earth, air and water. It is doing a lot to recycle and re-use its raw materials. However, we need to intensify our activities for the better utilisation of manufacturing waste, which will not only reduce environmental pollution, but also make our use of natural resources more efficient.
Satu Hassi
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the rapporteur, Kartika Liotard, for her excellent work. These days mankind lives on an ecological credit card which goes over the limit of ecological funds. Mankind as a whole uses 25% more than the sustainable level of natural resources, which means that we are using up our children's capital. According to the European Environment Agency, the consumption of natural resources in Europe exceeded Europe's own biocapacity back in the 1960s. If the current trend continues, by 2050 we will be using double the level of sustainable natural resources. The need to cut climate emissions is only part of the more universal challenge of using natural resources more sparingly and more wisely.
If our use of natural resources is to be brought down to a sustainable level and at the same time we make it possible for developing countries to rise out of poverty, the rich countries, such as ourselves, should over a period of 50 years make the ratio between the prosperity achieved and consumption of natural resources ten times greater. This sounds like science fantasy but by degrees it only means an improvement of 5% a year. We have been able to do something similar in improving work productivity so why not in improving the productivity of natural resources? This century must be the century in which we improve the productivity of natural resources, the ratio between prosperity achieved and the use of natural resources.
As everyone has already said, the strategy put forward by the Commission is far too flimsy, mainly because it lacks any concrete targets and timetables, even though they are required under the Sixth Environment Action Programme. The knowledge base for producing them exists. We need clear targets and timetables by next year, including sector-wide action programmes.
The cheapest way of improving productivity in the use of natural resources is to end aid that is environmentally harmful. That should be done right away. Kartika Liotard's conclusion that we need more quality and less volume could also be a motto for us in our use of natural resources.
Irena Belohorská
(SK) I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for her excellent work and for the stance she has taken on this question. I can fully endorse all the points in her report on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. The fact that the Commission worked on this document for five years indicates the seriousness of the problem.
The Commission's document does not contain specific schedules, nor does it describe the methods to be adopted. We have to recognise that we have a worldwide water crisis, especially as regards drinking water, as well as global warming, and a threat to biodiversity, where Europe's ecological footprint is twice as big as its biological capacity, and every year people are dying of diseases caused by a polluted environment. This calls for a more proactive and radical approach.
I agree with the proposal for a complete reform of the subsidy system. Subsidising activities which have a negative impact on the environment must be reduced or stopped, especially in agriculture. If the Commission claims that it does not have enough indicators to set specific timescales, the rapporteur mentions several in her report, for example, gross domestic product, domestic use of materials, etc.
If we wish to reduce our dependence on natural resources, I agree that by 2012, 12% of the energy in the EU must come from renewable sources, and by 2008, a specific policy and line of action must be implemented for the 20 most important materials that have the greatest impact.
Riitta Myller
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner Dimas's example was a good one, as when the production of bioenergy is increased, it must happen on a sustainable basis and, in particular, at a global level, although the problem, with this strategy, for example, is that agriculture and forestry are not included in it.
This is one of the last thematic strategies that form part of the Sixth Environment Action Programme. It has already been stated here that quantitative and qualitative objectives have been set under the Sixth Environment Action Programme for the European Union's environmental policy and that they have not been mentioned in the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, it has not been possible in this strategy on natural resources to meet the objective of ensuring that the use of natural resources and their impact do not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme was supposed to have been reviewed a year ago, and it is vital that we undertake a review of a programme as analytical as this one is, now that we have already come a long way in debating thematic strategies. I would therefore like to ask Commissioner Dimas when the Commission is going to review the Sixth Environment Action Programme.
Evangelia Tzampazi
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to thank my colleague Mrs Liotard for her comprehensive and cohesive report. The climate changes and energy crisis faced by the European Union call for community action and the creation of a well-structured strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources which are at least in accordance with demands set by the sixth action plan for the environment.
I would like to emphasise that we need a strategy which targets the efficient use of natural resources, improvements in both their management and in waste management with a view to adopting sustainable production methods and consumer standards, whilst on the one hand, disengaging the use of resources and waste production from the economic growth rate and, on the other, ensuring that their use will not put too much of a strain on the environment than it can withstand. I believe you have made a good point, Commissioner. The foundation has already been laid.
President
Before giving the floor to Commissioner Dimas I wanted to let Mrs Liotard know that I have consulted the Rules of Procedure and it is not necessary for her to enclose the two shoes which she used in her example for the purpose of drafting the Minutes, and therefore she may keep them.
Stavros Dimas
These were actually shoeprints, not footprints!
Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, let me thank you for the constructive remarks made in the report and during the debate tonight. We all agree that today's use of natural resources is not sustainable. Indeed, the sustainable use of natural resources is a common challenge for all of us as policymakers, as companies and as citizens, both in Europe but also globally.
Parliament has an essential role in leading this project and mobilising the necessary public support. Today, more than one year after adoption of the communication, we have already made some progress. Member States have endorsed the strategy and it is becoming a global benchmark promoted, for example, by the OECD.
We are developing and moving forward with the implementation in an open, transparent and engaged way. Your report and today's discussion will now be taken into account in future actions.
The use of natural resources policy is intimately linked to the way we produce our products and consume them. The forthcoming action plan on sustainable consumption and production will focus on the eco-design of products, on making procurement greener and on measures that help consumers make better choices.
Actions will start from food, housing and transport, the sectors with the highest environmental impacts. Your other priorities will be tackled as well. We will promote best-practice approaches, innovative and eco-efficient solutions and the use of economic instruments. Just one month ago the Commission published a Green Paper on the use of market-based instruments in energy and environment policy, and I am committed to looking beyond GDP when we assess the economic, social and environmental progress of our societies.
Finally, I fully understand those of you who want to see more action and sooner, and I thank Parliament for its proactive role in this.
I also have a lot of sympathy for calls for more specific targets. As I highlighted earlier, a number of ambitious targets related to resource use are already in place, for example the strategy's over-arching goal to decouple negative environmental impacts from growth on a European and global scale. This is arguably a very ambitious target and is formally endorsed by the Commission and the Council.
We will assess the need to set an overall target for resource efficiency in the context of the review of the resource strategy planned for 2010. The resource strategy is a big step forward, tackling environmental impacts in a lifecycle approach.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.
Written statement (Rule 142)
András Gyürk
, in writing. - (HU) In spite of increasing evidence pointing to the fact that natural energy sources have been used irrationally and excessively, and that daily life has become part of the worry about the sustainability of the natural environment, today humanity, and especially political leaders, lack a clear conception of how to address the problem.
The political concept of sustainable development is too general to lead to tangible results, and what is more, it tries to deal at the same time with protecting the natural environment and resolving the complex problem of justice among generations and nations. Methods for measuring the environment (for instance, life cycle analysis [LCA]), and indicators (for example, the ecological footprint) are burdened with methodological problems and are often contradictory.
Without calling into question the usefulness of designing a unified, complex and clear knowledge base on natural energy sources and a set of indicators measuring the use of energy sources, it is important to emphasise that even in their absence, many measures could be put into practice.
It is unfortunate that both the Commission's proposal and the accompanying report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are silent on the important role that the market and market-oriented regulations could play in the effective use of natural energy sources. It would be a mistake to forget that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions - in spite of the inevitable over-allocation by the government during the first distribution period - worked satisfactorily. It would be a mistake not to recognise that numerous solutions that protect natural energy sources (for instance the broader distribution of renewable energy sources) is hampered precisely by the lack of a unified, unrestricted competitive market in Europe.


Appointments of ESA senior executives (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the appointments of ESA senior executives.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the honourable Members - my dear ex-colleagues - for giving me the opportunity to comment, on behalf of the Council, on the appointment process of the chairs and executive directors of the new European Supervisory Authorities - the ESAs - and on the principles that should guide the performance of their duties.
The ESA regulations, which we adopted less than three months ago, give no specific role to the Council in the appointments of the chair and executive director of each ESA, which are made by the respective board of supervisors.
Hence, in accordance with the ESA regulations, the chairperson of each ESA is appointed by the board of supervisors. Furthermore, the ESA regulations give a crucial role to the European Parliament, which has been granted the possibility of objecting to the appointment of those senior executives and of removing a chairperson from office following a decision of the board of supervisors.
Where, then, does the Council stand in this scenario? Well, the Council, as co-legislator, has agreed with Parliament to insert in these regulations provisions that aim to ensure that members of the board of supervisors - the management board - the chairperson and the executive director of each ESA are protected by, and bound to, strict independence so as to act solely in the interests of the Union.
I will not quote in full the provisions of those regulations, and more particularly Articles 42, 46, 49 and 52, but their spirit is clear. This is that neither the voting members of the boards, nor the chairperson or executive director, shall seek or take instructions from EU institutions or bodies, Member State governments or any public or private body, and that these, in turn, shall not seek to influence the chair or the executive director in the performance of their tasks.
The ESA regulations are subject to the staff regulations adopted by the EU institutions. They also contain a number of key provisions that aim to ensure that the chair and executive director of each authority are selected in the most objective way, on the strict basis of the criteria set out in Articles 48 and 51 of the regulations.
Apart from the managerial experience specific to the executive director's profile, I note that both those articles list as criteria 'merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation'.
As far as financing is concerned, the Council placed high ambitions on the ESAs when it adopted the regulations, and I am sure that was also the case with Parliament. It now falls to both institutions, as budgetary authorities, to ensure that those ambitions are translated into the appropriate means each year, on the basis of the Commission's budgetary proposal.
The Presidency also attaches great importance to all Member States fulfilling their obligations towards the new authorities. For the Council, as co-legislator, it is essential that all the provisions of the regulations are implemented completely and faithfully. We expect the European Commission, as the Guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that this is indeed the case.
As the honourable Members will be aware, the Commission is also entrusted, in recital 55 of the regulations, with the responsibility of drawing up a shortlist of candidates to steer the process of selecting the first chairperson of each authority. Parliament and the Council agreed to this starting procedure when adopting the regulations.
I hope that the chairpersons will now be able to start their work. It is of primary importance for the new agencies to be up and running as soon as possible. They are an essential part of the EU's response to the challenges posed by the financial crisis. We cannot afford to wait, and I am sure I can count on the full support of Parliament to ensure the smooth establishment and running of the new agencies.
As a result of the good cooperation between Parliament and the Council, the EU has a brand new supervisory authority structure. It is our common responsibility to ensure that ESAs get down to business as soon as possible.
As the representative of a Parliament-friendly Presidency, I am fully commited to working in maximum harmony with the European Parliament, and I also hope to be able to work with a Parliament that is a faithful partner.
Michel Barnier
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has had a new supervisory system for the financial sector since 1 January.
This system, combined with the fundamental reform of the regulation of the markets and financial operators will enhance financial stability in the Union and, I believe, will expand opportunities and lay solid foundations for the financial industry, which is extremely important in our countries.
I would like to begin by congratulating the European Parliament on the key role it has played in this process for several years. That we now have a more effective supervisory system for the financial sector and are drawing on the lessons of the crisis in this area, as in others, is largely due to the European Parliament.
We are now approaching the final stages of the creation of this new architecture of the three European Supervisory Authorities with the appointment of their chairpersons and executive directors in the next few days. Ladies and gentlemen, these appointment procedures were conducted with complete transparency and in full compliance with the regulations that created the authorities as well as other rules governing the appointment of the heads of the regulatory agencies of the Union.
Approximately 275 applications were received for the six posts I have just spoken about. They were all considered carefully and objectively. The roles allocated to the different stakeholders, to the European Parliament, to the board of supervisors, and to the Commission itself were scrupulously adhered to. In the future, we will continue to ensure that the process is transparent and properly planned so as to enable the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament to play its very important role to the best possible effect.
This Parliament has made, and continues to make, big demands of these authorities, and I think it is right to do so. It is making demands that I can understand. Like Parliament, the Commission takes the view that the chairpersons and executive directors of these authorities must be chosen on the basis of merit, experience, independence, their commitment to Europe and their knowledge of issues linked to the supervision and regulation of financial markets. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the spirit in which the selection procedures under way have thus far been conducted on the basis of the applications we have received.
In addition, since Parliament and the Council decided, in Article 68 of the regulations creating these authorities, that the chairpersons and executive directors would be subject to the rules applicable to the staff of the institutions of the Union, the Commission has ensured that that is what is happening and that, in this area as in others, the regulations are being complied with.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have expressed concerns with regard to the salaries and the maximum age of the senior managers of these authorities. In this respect, we have explored all avenues in order to obtain maximum flexibility and this issue may, if necessary, be re-examined when the functioning of the authorities is reviewed, which is scheduled for the end of 2013.
I also endorse the intention of this Parliament to achieve the optimal gender balance at the head of these authorities. In the preselection procedure the Commission rigorously applied the principle of equal opportunities on the basis of the applications that were registered. I note in this regard that, in the latest process for the appointment of the executive directors, which is ongoing and has not yet been completed, two very able women are in contention for a post as executive director.
I fully agree with Parliament that we need strong authorities, which are independent of political or other interference. The chairpersons, executive directors, and voting members of the different boards must be completely independent and act solely in the interest of the Union. Parliament and the Council have enshrined this principle in the regulations creating the authorities, in particular in Articles 42, 46, 49 and 52, which Minister Győri referred to just now.
The Commission, as the guardian of EU law, will totally and fully assume its responsibilities to ensure that these Articles are rigorously complied with. I would add that the Commission will be present in the governing bodies of the authorities and that, in this regard, it will, of course, be vigilant so as to ensure that any decision that is taken in the interest of the Union.
As regards the composition of the board of supervisors, the Commission has already highlighted the legal necessity and the political importance of ensuring that these boards are composed of the heads of the competent national authorities. I have personally written to the authorities to clarify this point, where it needed clarifying. Some national authorities have since modified their representation. Others still have to do so. You can rest assured that the Commission will keep this point under very close scrutiny and will be inflexible.
The composition of the boards of the authorities must fully respect your wishes and those of the legislator in general, and I will personally see to it that the heads of the national authorities are actually present at least, and I repeat, at least twice a year in accordance with Article 40 of the regulations that created these authorities.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I endorse the intention of this Parliament to ensure that these authorities have the necessary financial and human resources to perform their duties in a credible fashion. The budgetary authority can count on the technical support of the Commission to ensure coherence between, on the one hand, the responsibilities assigned to these authorities and, on the other hand, naturally, the resources allocated to them to assume these responsibilities.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now essential that the procedures to appoint and confirm the chairpersons and executive directors of these authorities are completed successfully. These authorities need to get down to work. I can assure you that, every day, I have proof of the usefulness of these new authorities, since we currently consult them on an almost daily basis.
The tasks that these authorities have to assume in cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board are of the utmost importance. We wanted them to be fully operational from 1 January. It is now the responsibility of each of us, in our own particular role, to allow them to perform their task swiftly and under good conditions. To achieve this, they need the full support of your institution.
I wish to reaffirm here that, for its part, the Commission will ensure that the intention of the legislator is fully respected and that these authorities work exclusively and solely in the interest of the European Union.
Jean-Paul Gauzès
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Győri, Mr Barnier, this debate right now is not a legal debate; it is a true political debate. It is a debate on the future of financial regulation in Europe. It is the culmination of one aspect of the work conducted by Parliament, with the Council, under the guidance of the Commission. I am therefore going to be quite clear.
For us, it is not about indulging in some sort of revolution or showing our biceps just for fun. It is about ensuring that the spirit that presided over the agreements between the Council and Parliament is, in fact, respected. It is not a lesson in law. The texts do not matter. We know the texts. What matters is the way in which these texts will be put into effect. In this regard, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the clarity of his speech.
We have never sought to call the Commission into question, and the words spoken by the Commissioner are totally in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. We are talking here about a political act that consists in saying: 'These institutions have been established, so we must give them the concrete resources to function properly.'
Yet, I think that we do not simply have doubts but also suspicions about the way in which these provisions have in fact been implemented by a number of Member States, by those that wish to unravel European supervision and prevent financial regulation at European level. That is what we are speaking out against, because we believe that, if that had been the case, we would have been cheated in the negotiations on supervision. The negotiations were long; they were difficult. Everyone made compromises. The Belgian Presidency did some remarkable work and the Commissioner provided extraordinary impetus. Today, we could be faced with institutions without effective power: due to the low status of the staff appointed; due to the fact that the Member States did not choose the best, and perhaps because the salaries were not attractive.
In any event, today Parliament needs a concrete answer. Minister, I am bound to say that, despite the friendship that I feel for you, having sat on the same bench, in the same group and on the same committee as you, the letter, which I have seen and which, I admit, is only a first draft, is inadequate.
I will give you the response of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). It is simple. You say, on behalf of the Council, that you fully endorse what the Commissioner has just said. I can tell you that, for us, this will be a satisfactory declaration. The statement made by the Commissioner is precise. It deals with problems of human and financial resources. Your letter needs to state: 'We agree with virtually everything the Commissioner said'. Mrs Győri, this is very important.
We agree with virtually everything the Commissioner said in plenary this evening.
Udo Bullmann
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, why are we here? Mr Barnier said that we are here because the European Parliament has succeeded in establishing European supervisory authorities that are worthy of the name. That was not part of the Council's programme. It was not part of the Member States' programme. The Commission, too, had doubts about how long we would actually persevere with regard to the establishment of this new institution. The Council will understand - it will have to understand - and the Commission will, too - possibly even of its own accord - why we are concerned.
No, this European Parliament - and this is a statement that I find applies to all party groups, not just to us as Social Democrats - will not allow national games to be played that undermine the powers of these new supervisory authorities. That is why we are interested in the appointment of staff, of course. We have rights in this regard - we have to be consulted.
There are one or two things that in fact give us cause for concern. We receive lists of individuals and we receive lists, which when we look at we cannot actually tell whether a gender criterion has been applied. We are given proposals for candidates, which when we consider - and I say this with all due respect to the people concerned - we do not see anyone that we believe could not do a decent job. These are clearly good people who have already shown in their jobs that they can do their work well, but the people that have been presented to us are not people who, on the basis of any authority that they may have demonstrated in their past work, can actually say to the national supervisory authorities where they would stand in the event of a conflict. Where there is European supervision, national momentum comes to a standstill. That surprises and annoys us, and it must call us into action.
No, these procedures are unsatisfactory, and I ask myself why, for example, we cannot take the same approach as we are taking with regard to those responsible for OLAF, where you are of course interested in the opinion of this House. Why can we not do that? We still have another opportunity with regard to the executive directors. You can still demonstrate that you are interested in the opinion of the European Parliament. You still have another opportunity. I would urge you both - President-in-Office of the Council and former fellow Member Mrs Győri and Commissioner Barnier, to take this opportunity. You can take on board the objections of this House. You can tell us very clearly how you want to work with us in future. You can tell us very clearly what goals you will support in the 2013 reform and how you will equip the institutions. You will also be able to make it very clear whether you are interested in our opinion in respect of those members of staff that are still to be appointed. I therefore ask you in all earnestness in the interests of Europe to provide these rules quickly.
Sylvie Goulard
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Győri, Commissioner, thank you for being with us this evening. We are well aware that there was limited time available, so we thank you even more for having begun to answer us. I think it is important to put our motivation clearly into perspective, as my fellow Members have done.
What motivates us is that we have fought collectively for months to ensure that there is a 'before the crisis' and an 'after the crisis', that, in this internal market, which has facilitated the expansion of financial services and banking activities, and we are entirely in favour of all the cross-border work done by the sector, common rules and supervision are brought into line. To be frank, during the negotiations - and with the support of the Commission moreover - it became very clear to us that we were being troublemakers. We saw all too clearly that there were some Member States that wanted to remain in control of the supervision and did not want anyone to poke their noses into their business.
Mrs Győri, you tell us that the Council has no say in the appointment of these officials, which is legally correct, but some Member States are lying in ambush. Moreover, the Commissioner pointed out that his departments had to tell some countries to send pre-eminent people. Therefore, this Parliament is doing its work, in trying to ensure independence, resources and the resolve to move forward.
We are, of course, aware of our responsibilities. We, more than anyone else, want these authorities to set to work, since we have contributed personally to their emergence. We have no desire to delay their work; I am thinking, for example, of the bank stress tests, which are so important. However, the simple fact is that, as has been pointed out, we will be demanding, we are going to sleep on the issue and take the necessary time to look in detail at what you have told us, each of you in turn, and we will take a decision with a clear conscience.
I would like to thank Mr Barnier for having made some very clear statements and I would ask you, Mrs Győri, not to be naive. There is a lot at stake.
Sven Giegold
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this is a question of making the best possible use of the possibilities provided by the law to actually provide strong financial supervision in Europe, and we have our doubts about whether these possibilities are in fact being utilised to the best possible extent in the institutions. We are seeing shortcomings in the procedure. As Parliament, we have so far not been able to see the list of candidates in advance, but only the finished result. It would be very easy to send us this list now for the executive directors. We quite clearly have a lack of gender equality when it comes to filling the posts, and, due to certain events during the process, we have our doubts about whether the Member States will in fact fill the posts in this institution in the interests of Europe.
That and the other points in our letter entitle us to ask a fundamental question. However, over and above this there is, of course, also the question of the suitability of the individuals, and in this regard each person has to be assessed individually on the basis of their skills. We see two major problems with this. In the hearings, we found that one of the candidates disputed the fact that this was a European institution, but talked instead about a network of supervisory authorities, and even when asked about it he was not prepared to correct this.
We did not receive any clear responses when we asked them whether they were prepared to make all lobbyist contact with the financial industry transparent. We have sent a letter to all three candidates, and as far as we are concerned the outcome of the vote is dependent on whether we receive clear and comprehensive responses to this.
Kay Swinburne
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the ECR welcomes the opportunity to discuss these issues in the Chamber this evening.
I would like to make it clear that our group believes that all three candidates for chairing the ESA, as presented to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs yesterday, are fully qualified and competent to fulfil the important roles involved.
Any comments I make this evening are purely about the process that has been followed to get to this point. I would ask, therefore, that future selection processes aim to recruit candidates from the broadest possible pool of talent in order to ensure independent thought and a new diversity in the senior management of such authorities. To that end, salary scales need to be appropriate to the expected seniority of those roles. Unnecessary age restrictions, or any other criteria outside technical skills and competence, should be avoided at all costs.
We can do a little better than we have done this time in terms of the process and the transparency that could be applied with respect to Parliament. I hope that note is taken of this in the future.
Marta Andreasen
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, I believe there is no need for these agency supervisor posts because I believe there is no need for the agencies themselves. Is creating another level of supervision called ESMA going to represent an improvement compared with existing supervisory authorities? I believe that, by doing this, we are only going to cause confusion about who is responsible for what.
Will the supervisory authority produce regulations suitable for the world's largest financial district? I doubt it. I think, instead, that the pet theories of the anti-market crowd will be adopted and forced upon the City of London. The problems caused by financial activity in recent years were due to rule books being either torn up or ignored by those whose job it was to enforce them.
There is no guarantee that these authorities will do anything better. Moreover, we have been presented with only one candidate for each post - a totally undemocratic exercise. Of course, it is the same that was used to appoint the President of the Commission, the rest of the Commissioners and the High Representative. I could go on with a long list. I encourage you all to vote against these or any other candidates.
Michel Barnier
Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I will be brief, as I have expressed myself as sincerely and as clearly as possible. I have carefully weighed each word of my statement, which will be confirmed in writing in a letter that I have co-signed with Vice-President Šefčovič so that things are extremely clear.
In response to each of your speeches, which I thank you for, I would simply like to mention three issues.
The first issue concerns the independence and the authority of the chairpersons of the authorities. I am very pleased with, but not surprised by, the total commitment of Parliament, which is shared by the Commission, to defend this independence and this authority and to ensure that they are respected over time. It is crucial and it is what is important for the future, bearing in mind the multitude of tasks and the seriousness of the tasks that these authorities are going to face. Earlier, the issues of the rating agencies and the stress tests were raised. These are issues for which we are going to need the authorities and their credibility. This is the first point I wanted to make, on which Parliament and the Commission, of course, and, I hope and believe, the Council, can agree.
The second point is that of the selection procedure. Ladies and gentlemen, I remember the discussions at the trilogues, where this procedure was the subject of numerous debates and, finally, of agreement among the co-legislators. It is what it is and it doubtless has its shortcomings. I personally brought in the rendez-vous clause to improve it. I have no reason - and I say this to you in all conscience - to think that it has not enabled good candidates to be selected. I have no reason to question the motives of the candidates chosen. After I had received the shortlists and met each of the candidates in person, I personally took responsibility for establishing an order according to what I felt, in all conscience, were the most useful and the most credible criteria. However, in order to find these good candidates, we relied on the lists given to us and the 275 applications from the regulatory authorities of the Member States. We have a rendez-vous clause to improve these procedures, which undoubtedly can be improved. But I would like to say, in all conscience, that, as far as I am concerned, I have no reason to say or to think that we have not selected good candidates, who are capable of living up to their responsibilities.
Finally, there is a third point, which a number of you have raised, which is that of the level of representation of the authorities. The Commission will always ensure that this representation is in full compliance with the regulations and at the highest level. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the European Parliament for supporting us in this absolutely crucial issue, which is also one of the keys to credibility.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, that is what I wanted to say, before we all retire to sleep on it, as a previous speaker said. That is what I wanted to give you as an assurance, as a concern, which I would like to express personally on behalf of all the Commissioners, for vigilance to ensure that these authorities succeed. This will provide genuine European supervision, which will not replace national supervisory authorities but make them work together more effectively, which will have its own powers when facing challenges and risks, which are now clearly transnational.
We needed, and we now largely have, thanks to you, these three radar screens, these three authorities in addition to the European Systemic Risk Board. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now necessary for everyone to get swiftly to work because, frankly, I note that the markets are moving very quickly, much more quickly than us, in this, our time of democracy, and the authorities need to work very quickly.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, honourable Members, first let me answer the question which came up very often in this debate: will the Council agree to review the appointment procedure in the regulation?
Well I know that the same recital states, for the subsequent designations of the chairpersons, that the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report.
I also know that Article 81 of the regulation also makes provision for the review by the Commission to be sent to the European Parliament and the Council by 2 January 2014 and every three years thereafter. So this will give us an opportunity to improve the regulation in due time on the basis of practical experience, and in this spirit I look forward to a constructive dialogue between our institutions to pave the way for the future assessment.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Madam President, the speeches delivered by the Commissioner and me were framed by our respective competences. We received the letter of the Chair of the Economic Committee, and both of us tried to answer questions fitting into our respective competences. I tried to convince you that there are guarantees of independence and, in the creation of the budget, the task of the Council and Parliament, as the two institutions having financial responsibility, is to ensure that these institutions are in operating condition. As such, it seems to me that there is clear task sharing and unambiguous commitment on the part of all institutions.
The letter sent today by the Chair of ECOFIN, Minister György Matolcsy, in reply to the letter sent by the Chair of ECON this morning, was written in this spirit, and I trust that, along with the Commission's opinion, you will find it to be a satisfactory response. The Council and the Presidency-in-Office fully support this. This was the question of Mr Gauzès, which the Commission answered regarding the topics within its competence. I therefore hope that, after this, there will be no obstacles to Parliament supporting the candidates tomorrow, and the supervisory authorities will finally be able to commence their work.
President
Three motions for resolutions to wind up the debate have been tabled under Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 11:30.
Written Statement (Rule 149)
Alfredo Pallone
This Parliament has made an important contribution to the creation of the new European Financial Supervisory Authorities. Hence it wants to emphasise its role this evening, also, and it calls on the Council and the Commission to pledge to ensure that the Authorities operate independently and have the personnel and the resources they need. This applies no matter who is appointed. The candidates for the posts of chairpersons of the ESAs have, in fact, proven to be competent and professional, and I am sure that they will be able to carry out the role in an impartial and more than satisfactory manner. I think it is crucial to support the candidates and to ensure that these Authorities are in a position to start work as soon as possible, since there are many problems to resolve and they require immediate action. It was this requirement which prompted us to create the Authorities and which we shall have to remember tomorrow during the vote.