Combating HIV/Aids within the EU and in the neighbouring countries 2006-2009 (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Andrejevs, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009.
rapporteur. - Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the President-in-Office for her encouraging words made in Bremen - and I hope also here during our debate today - as well as for her continued commitment in the fight against HIV/AIDS. As the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated in her keynote speech at the conference in Bremen, the fight against HIV/AIDS is the responsibility of all Member States. I strongly believe that every single national government should follow Germany's example and take full political responsibility by putting the fight against HIV/AIDS on its list of top policy priorities.
Today, Parliament is being asked to vote on my report on combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009, which contains many important suggestions on how to combat the disease. Various colleagues contributed to this final consolidated version, and I want to use this opportunity to thank all my colleagues who contributed to this report as shadow rapporteurs or by tabling amendments. Their input was of great value and is much appreciated.
As you know, after the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, several new amendments were tabled by the political groups to be voted on during today's sitting. The majority of those amendments have my support. However, I could not agree on some. If adopted, one of the amendments would, in reality, prolong the current situation where two Member States of the EU are not reporting data to the EU surveillance bodies concerning HIV/AIDS, especially to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Therefore, in my report I urged the responsible bodies in those two Member States to start reporting data. All the other 25 Member States report their national data anonymously, which does not contradict personal data protection.
I want to draw your attention to, and ask for your support for, amendment 4, tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, regarding equal access to medicines within the European Union. Let me briefly explain the motivation for tabling this amendment. As already stated in the report, access to anti-retroviral treatment and anti-retroviral drugs are different and varying among the Member States of the European Union. At the same time, let me remind you that Article 300 of the EC Treaty provides a legal basis for the Commission to conduct negotiations on behalf of all Member States if the Council authorises the Commission to do so. In such a case, if the European Parliament and the Council were to decide in favour of this proposal, the Commission's mandate would be limited in scope and duration only to those particular negotiations, namely for equal access to anti-retroviral medicines. Negotiating on behalf of 27 Member States, the outcome could be beneficial for everyone and provide all citizens of the EU with equal access to those medicines.
To conclude, I should like to thank once more all my colleagues who contributed to the work done in this report. The work combating this pandemic will not stop after today's vote: it will continue in the field. Therefore, I should like to call on all the national governments and the Commission to support non-governmental organisations, social organisations and society as a whole to fight against HIV/AIDS. I call for them to be empowered by allocating the necessary financial resources to strengthen those who fight this epidemic in the front line. The role of civic society in this fight is not to be underestimated, and we need to guarantee our full political support.
Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you here today, and Mr Andrejevs, too, for presenting his report, which makes it plain that HIV/AIDS remains a dangerous illness, which, although we often - and rightly - think of it as associated with Africa, is also an issue for our own continent of Europe.
In parts of our continent, infection is now spreading more rapidly than in other parts of the world, and it is, alas, on the increase in all the Member States of the European Union. We must, then, make this issue our own, for HIV/AIDS is more than a health problem; it also has to do with economic and social development in the states affected by it.
I am very glad, then, that we succeeded in getting over 41 European states, including some of our neighbours, represented by ministers or their deputies at the Bremen conference, that we were able to highlight the importance of the alliance between government and civil society in the fight against HIV/AIDS and that it was also made plain that HIV/AIDS has to be seen as the big issue. I am very grateful to the German Federal Chancellor for her clear statement and also for the fact that the results of this conference and its conclusions will be on the agenda not only of the Health Ministers' Council, but also of the summit in June.
The main thing that the Bremen declaration did was to set out, in four core points and in clear terms, where our priorities have to be, and they coincide to a very large degree with what you have set out in your report and in its reasoning.
All our strategies must give priority to prevention, for neither medicines nor vaccinations are available to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
It is absolutely vital that the human rights of persons who have contracted the illness should be recognised, respected and promoted, and that includes their right to be protected from discrimination and against being stigmatised.
General access to diagnosis and treatment must be guaranteed; the question has just been raised as to whether we can negotiate prices for medicines. One advance achieved by Bremen is that the pharmaceutical industry has made it clear that good provision necessarily involves affordable medicines, and has indicated its willingness to join with the Commission, your House and the Member States in finding a way in which each Member State can, by negotiating prices, ensure access to affordable treatment and injections. Now, that is progress.
There must also be a renewed and greater commitment to research and development, with better interlinking of facilities in Europe, and more investment in vaccinations and microbicides.
I do believe that this conference has enabled us to make some headway, and would be delighted if our Member States, together with Parliament and the Commission, were to put this issue at the top of the agenda, thus making the point that AIDS is an issue for all of us. It is not just a problem for our neighbour states, but a problem for Europe; it has a great deal to do with our social and economic development, no less than it does with our success or failure in giving the public added value.
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Andrejevs, and the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their excellent work in drafting this report. I would also like to thank the other two committees, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, for their contributions on this important issue.
Let me also say how happy I am that Mrs Schmidt, the German Health Minister, is here today. It is the first time in my three years as Commissioner that my counterpart from the Council has attended such a debate in plenary. I am very happy, because it demonstrates the importance of all three institutions working together very closely, very firmly and very effectively in dealing with this disease.
HIV/AIDS: is it a forgotten problem or is it a hidden disease? Is our approach that if we do not talk about it, it will go away? Well, it does not work like that. The question, then, is have we become complacent? Do we take it for granted that we have overcome this problem, that there is no need for action or that it is a problem for others, for certain risk groups? That they, therefore, must deal with it, while we do not have to worry about it? Maybe that was in people's minds in the past, but I am glad that today it is not the case. We now know that this is a problem for the whole of society. Perhaps society is now paying because of our complacency in the past and now is the time to take new effective action to deal with this problem.
Most of you know my frustration that in the European Union, where we have the highest level of education in the world, the highest level of healthcare and the highest standard of living, people still die because of the wrong lifestyle choices. Our efforts to ensure prevention aim to address that. For me it is frustrating, and even embarrassing, that 20 or 25 years on we still have to discuss the same issues regarding HIV/AIDS. We still have to discuss the same measures to be taken, measures that should now be standard and routine in the European Union. We still have to explain that the simple use of condoms is the most effective way to protect ourselves. It is a simple truth. We must also explain that everybody is at risk; we cannot start saying to some groups that it is their problem and that those not in the risk group do not have to worry about it. We still have to stress that simple preventative measures do protect.
The results of the Eurobarometer poll were, as you know, shocking. A large percentage of people in the European Union still believe that they can get infected with HIV/AIDS by kissing on the mouth, drinking from the same glass or by using the same toilet seat. It is embarrassing that after 25 years people still do not know more than that. Or, even worse, that taking care of patients who are HIV-positive could actually infect the healthcare worker.
I believe that we have to step up our efforts. It is now a problem for the general population, especially young people and women. A large number of young people became sexually active after the end of the campaigns of the 1980s. We saw a huge wave of campaigns by famous people - actors, heads of government and singers - who drew attention to this problem and helped focus on how to deal with it. Unfortunately that has stopped. We thought we had the matter under control, but we did not. The new generations are growing up unaware. I am therefore very grateful to the German Presidency, the Health Minister and the Chancellor herself for refocusing on this disease and the simple ways in which we can protect ourselves.
At the same time, it is extremely important to invest in research, and the Commission is doing that. It is very important to invest in medicine - I will not repeat what has already been said - and to ensure access to affordable and effective ARV medicines. These are important measures that we can take. For us it is a very high priority and, as I said, I am very happy that the Council and the German Presidency, and Parliament too, look at it in the same way.
We will resume and step up our campaigns to educate young people. We will again encourage the use of condoms. We will carry out research on preventative measures and medicine. This will be gender-related, because we realise that there are aspects that differ amongst men and women and we will adjust our research and our efforts to take account of this reality. I have noted the paragraph in the report and agree that, within the Commission, we must make sure that we cooperate among ourselves, among the individual departments responsible for defined areas, whilst also dealing with the subject as a global problem. We know that it affects the Neighbourhood countries but also developing countries, and we have a responsibility to work with them as well.
I would like to commend the rapporteur and Parliament on the report. It really touches on all the important issues. We will be working on those issues. In some cases, such as interdepartmental cooperation within the Commission, we were already doing so. We will also take action by means of funding and through programmes. For example, in 2007 we will be working on developing best practices in addressing the risky sexual behaviour among young people and the prevention of HIV/AIDS in men who have sex with men and developing training programmes for healthcare personnel and NGOs to improve the treatment and care of people living with HIV/AIDS.
For us it is a very high priority. It is not just about a policy or a strategy. It is a question of moral obligation. I believe that the system as a whole has failed our citizens over the past 20 years and it is now time to resume our efforts and correct our mistakes.
Thank you very much for your speech, Commissioner, which was full of feeling and commitment and also very much in line with Parliament's concerns and demands.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (HU) HIV/AIDS, one of the most dangerous diseases today, knows no boundaries. In the past two years, the number of girls and women infected with HIV has grown in all parts of the world, and at a particularly fast pace in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. Taking measures against this epidemic can therefore not be confined to the territory of the EU, but urgently requires global collaboration. In 2005 there were close to 5 million new HIV infections worldwide, and AIDS-related diseases claimed the lives of 3 million people. Among these, some half a million were children.
The other increasingly at-risk group is women, since more and more of them are infected with the HIV virus without their being aware of it, and they in turn become carriers of a virus they can pass on to their children. An anti-HIV/AIDS strategy should make the protection of women and children the most important component. The most effective tools in this struggle are prevention, information, tools for public education, and the increased use of the most suitable communication channels, data gathering, research and early detection and treatment; we must ensure that high quality, non-exclusionary health care is available regardless of the person's age and sex.
Mr President, in order to cure HIV/AIDS in the EU and neighbouring countries we need an integrated strategy that will promote prevention on a community level as well as in these countries, but also, I would say, on a worldwide scale.
The number of people infected by AIDS as well as of those living with AIDS is constantly on the rise and 12 000 new infections are registered worldwide everyday. There is no vaccine for the prevention of the disease and no therapeutic treatment has proved successful so far.
Following the ancient saying of Hippocrates: 'prevention is better than cure', an integrated strategy would consist of promoting effective prevention. Prevention can be achieved through public awareness - as the Commissioner mentioned - and thus all necessary preventive measures could be taken.
Furthermore, we must take certain steps towards eliminating prejudices related to the specific disease. People infected with the disease constantly face intolerance and discrimination. At the same time, of course, together with the prevention efforts, we must promote the fields of research and innovation that will give us the ability to have new medications and possibly vaccines.
To close, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Andrejevs, for the exceptional work he has done. We had an exceptional collaboration and I thank him for that. I believe that with this report we will be able to come up with an extraordinary prevention strategy both in the European Union and on a worldwide scale.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, AIDS is still an ongoing tragedy, not only in developing countries, but also in Europe, not only among homosexuals and drug users, but also among heterosexuals and the totally abstinent, and so I should like to extend warm thanks to our rapporteur. Mr Andrejevs, who has put a great deal into this work and has written a fine report.
Our group must pull out all the stops in order to call a halt to the AIDS epidemic, and we need to invest with this in mind. First of all, we must invest in people, in women. We must take prevention seriously. We must take the reality of women, young people, sex workers and drug users seriously, and that reality is what we need to take as a basis. It is essential that good information be provided in schools and hospitals, the sort of information that treats people's moral choices with respect, and should also include information about all sexually transmittable diseases, since these increase vulnerability for AIDS.
Secondly, we must invest in new products, in microbicides, in products that enable women to protect themselves against AIDS, in medicines and vaccines, and in more environmentally-friendly medicines. Condoms for men and women must be become more widely available.
Thirdly, we need to invest in political innovation. We must overcome the existing obstacles without delay. Medicines and vaccines are often not affordable to groups that need them the most. Reasons for this are the high development costs of medicines and the relatively short recoup time, as a result of which new medicines are prohibatively expensive. We must face these problems and the public responsibility that goes with them. There are ways out of this situation, for example more public-private partnerships to develop AIDS medicines and vaccines, which may bring their cost down to some extent, while we should also make use of all the options open to us in order to invalidate patents in the public interest, something for which the TRIPS agreements set the right tone.
Finally, what is needed if essential medicines are to be available for the fight against AIDS is better negotiation with the pharmaceutical industry, something in which the Commission can play a key role, and I would warmly support the rapporteur's amendment to this effect.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, congratulations to Professor Andrejevs for his excellent report. AIDS is a major threat to global health, and oddly enough, it becomes even more so as the treatment of sufferers improves, because with improved treatment, patient survival also improves, and therefore the pool of infectivity grows.
I wish to take this opportunity to home in on just one aspect: infection due to the use of infected needles by drug-users. Many thousands of individuals are infected every year because of this. This problem can easily be dealt with at least in EU Member States if only governments could understand the simple fact that drug addiction is a disease, not a criminal offence, and therefore proper measures should be taken so that drug-addicted individuals are given clean, uninfected needles to use in the treatment of their illness. This should be done under proper medical supervision and surveillance and without the involvement of the police or judicial authorities. I hope that eventually governments will use medical common sense, and not a police sledgehammer approach, in dealing with drug-addicted ill people.
I am interested to hear the comments of the Commissioner and the Minister on this issue.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to speak before this House in the important debate on one of the gravest problems and threats of modern times: the fight against HIV and AIDS.
The world today appears to have become rather blasé about the issue of HIV/AIDS, and is not paying sufficient attention to the problem, or investing enough in relation to the gravity and extent of the threat. And reality contrasts starkly with this: almost 40 million people have the HIV virus worldwide and over 95% of them live in the developing countries. This fact should induce us to give more aid to those countries. The alarming thing is that over half of new HIV cases are among the under-25s. Cases in the European Union and neighbouring countries are increasing at an alarming rate. We should also remember that the people most susceptible to HIV infection are drug addicts, migrants and men having sex with men. All of these groups require particular care and assistance. That is why it is so important for all institutions and organisations promoting safer lifestyles and risk avoidance should regularly include the fight against HIV in their programmes. It is also important that the Commission makes use of its neighbourhood policy to reach out to areas threatened in countries neighbouring the EU, with special focus on the Kaliningrad enclave, where the threat is also growing at an alarming rate. But what we should be focussing on most are clear information campaigns about HIV infection, as this is the most important means of stemming this modern plague. Once again, I would like to underline that only HIV prevention and education, especially among young people, will help to avert an epidemic on a global scale.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, AIDS is a long way away from being vanquished. New cases are continuing to increase, taking on the proportions of a global epidemic. The most worrying thing is that half of new cases involve persons under the age of 25.
In Europe over 50% of the population believes that you can catch AIDS from a kiss. For this reason, we need information campaigns written in scientifically accurate language that give the population clear information on prevention, methods of protection and risky behaviour.
It is necessary to combat all forms of ghettoisation, by putting in place policies and programmes for the promotion of social inclusion and access to the employment market for those with the virus. We also need public funds to promote research and development activities focusing on public health needs, where access to research results is available to all, including the poorest patients.
The medicines that are needed to save millions of lives cannot be treated as ordinary goods, governed by the laws of the market. As the report states, we need to guarantee the right of every human being to health care, medical services and access to medicines.
(SK) I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for a detailed report covering all aspects of the fight against this insidious disease. It is regrettable that EuroHIV lacks national data from Spain and Italy, even though the agency regards them as the two countries with the highest incidence of the epidemic, and despite the fact that the estimated number of people infected with the virus in some EU countries is nearly three times the official number. Slovakia, for example, is estimated to have ten times more infected patients than the official statistics indicate.
It is understandably difficult to obtain accurate statistics, because there are also patients who refuse treatment and disappear from sight as far as doctors are concerned. The legislation does not solve this problem, and in spite of the risk of infection, no one can force a person to have treatment. It is often difficult even to determine the source of infection. With syphilis, identifying an infected person is a simple matter. With HIV, it takes a very long time. I support Commissioner Kyprianou in the emphasis he places on the difficulty of research, and in his efforts to ensure that treatment is provided under the 7th Framework Programme.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. - Mr President, may I start by congratulating the rapporteur on the work that he has done on this extremely important report.
Can I first say that of course, AIDS and HIV are themselves not prejudiced. They affect anyone who actually becomes vulnerable either by the use of badly treated blood which is often contaminated and passed on, unsafe sex and the bad use of needles to list just some examples.
But what we have to deal with is how to prevent the transmission. It seems to me that highest on the agenda is the whole issue of information and education. We have to inform people about how they can protect themselves. We have to inform people about their rights and about access to medicines. At the same time we have to create a whole process for awareness-raising amongst communities and individuals who feel that they themselves are not under threat or will not be affected by AIDS and HIV.
When we look in particular at Africa, where millions and millions of lives are being ravaged, and when we look across Europe, where more and more young people are becoming infected with the HIV virus, what we have to look at is not only the accessibility of treatment, but also the cost of treatment. We must do everything we can to reduce the cost of that treatment and to make it available to all.
To those who say that condom use is not effective in preventing the transmission of the HIV virus, I say they do a great deal of damage and in fact they cost lives. Condoms do work. Needle exchange does work. Good practices do work and they save lives. And those who promote abstinence? Well, if abstinence can work in sexual relationships, of course it will. But what about when abstinence is not a choice? The young 14-year old girl raped on a highway in Africa: does she have a choice? No. She has no choice. And that is where education and the promotion of awareness-raising and ending the discrimination that blights the lives of people living with AIDS and HIV is so important.
Finally, I do not think she is often quoted in this House, but I want to quote Madonna - that is the pop star. She once said that to come out and declare your sexuality is to be a hero. To come out and say that you are HIV positive and to deal with the discrimination and the anger that you therefore suffer is to declare yourself a warrior: a warrior because you fight the battles that you never want another generation to have to fight again.
I commend the report and I commend it to the House.
(SV) Mr President, according to official statistics, more than 215 000 people in the EU were infected by HIV between 1998 and 2005. In Europe, almost 650 000 people were infected, many of them under 25 years of age.
In a way, that makes me feel extremely sad and downcast. It also makes me very indignant because, just as Mr Kyprianou said earlier, this is happening quite unnecessarily. These people could have avoided becoming infected. That is why I am very pleased indeed that we are having this debate today. I am very pleased with the report that we are to vote on and by the fact that the Commission and the Council have said they are willing to give priority to these issues.
The fact is, it is a question of tackling the ignorance that clearly exists about the ways in which people are infected by HIV and Aids. This just goes to show that we need to concentrate even more on providing information and on encouraging openness about sexuality in general. We must dare to talk about gender equality and self-determination in sexual matters. The fact that it is mainly the most vulnerable groups in society that are affected by HIV and the spread of infection shows that we need to work in new ways if we are genuinely to reach all social groups. The fact that it is vulnerable groups that are affected also poses some very tough challenges for our work on preventing those with HIV from being stigmatised. That is something to which a very great deal of priority needs to be given.
I am also very pleased that the report highlights support for the global fund for combating HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. This is very important work, which I hope we can do more to support. I am also very pleased that the report and several of the amendments indicate the significance of combating tuberculosis and HIV in parallel. I am grateful for the work we have promised to do together to combat this quite unnecessary spread of infection.
(DE) Mr President, what makes today's debate on the fight against HIV/AIDS in the European Union and its neighbouring countries so important is the fact that even we in this House sometimes forget the facts about it.
HIV/AIDS remains a menace of an illness, not only in African countries, but also in our own Member States and in the countries that are our neighbours. The rate of HIV infection is on the increase, and it is estimated that the number of persons with the virus is - as has been said several times over today - three times higher than the official figure.
Good though it is that all the European institutions have, once again, spoken out in favour of an effective war on this menacing disease, I can do no other than share Commissioner Kyprianou's frustration when we come up against figures like these on new infections and against such misleading information after the many years in which we believed that the upcoming generations had got the message. Information campaigns need to be organised not only in order to prevent new infections with HIV, but also to prevent people with the condition from being stigmatised and to give people the knowledge that they need, because it is pretty astonishing that people still believe that they can be infected through a kiss or a glass of water, and it is here, in the sphere of education and prevention, where far too little is being done, that a start has to be made.
I never cease to be horrified by the reception given by some religious groups to education and information campaigns sponsored by the relevant ministers in some Member States, and here, too, we have to nail our political colours to the mast.
What is at stake, among other things, is compliance with EU law as it stands; there is a directive that lays down quality and safety standards for the collection, processing and distribution of human blood, and we must insist on all Member States transposing it in full, not least for the protection of their own inhabitants.
Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament, and also the Commission, for the debate we have had today, which shows very clearly how our common action in doing our utmost to keep new infections at as low a level as possible, and to guarantee unrestricted access to treatment for people who are infected, is to a very considerable degree dependent on the subject not being made taboo, and on the sufferers not being stigmatised and discriminated against.
I am glad that it has been spelled out, both here and at the major conference in Bremen, that HIV/AIDS must go to the top of the agenda, for I am firmly persuaded that it is only if the Heads of State or Government make this issue their own that we will, everywhere, and not least in our neighbouring countries, be able to ensure the creation of the infrastructure that is needed if cooperation with civil society and, above all, with sufferers, is to bear fruit, and if the things to which reference has been made are actually to be done.
The first thing we must do is to give some thought to prevention and information, asking ourselves how we get the message across to young people, to immigrants, or to those to whom access is difficult, such as, for example, those women who have been forced into prostitution; this can be done only through close cooperation between those with political power and those within civil society who accept responsibility and work with us, and mention of forced prostitution makes it clear that this is not just about health policy, for governments must do all they can to protect women.
Thirdly, prevention is possible only if we talk frankly about how infection can happen, and that might well lead to us, in our own countries, adopting a drugs policy that does not criminalise drugs, because, although action must be taken, including by means of the law, against drug pushers, those who have become ill as a result of their addiction must be assured of such things as access to clean needles and of easy access to help and services. All these things have a part to play in this. This is far from an easy path to take, not least in the countries around us, where the Member States and their governments face the accusation that, by adopting such a policy, they are themselves acting as dealers and encouraging drug dependency - a taboo subject in many countries.
It is for this reason that I was, in Bremen, very glad to see that the ministers from the new Eastern European Member States were willing to talk very frankly about these things, because I see in this frank and open approach to these problems, in the removal of taboos, a way in which we can move forward in the way we all hope to do.
That being so, then, if we pool best practices in the prevention field and exchange ideas, if we jointly invest in research and development and take up this cause, we have already taken a step forward.
Secondly, I am very much in favour of your House, the Member States and the Commission coming to the shared realisation that any real campaign against HIV/AIDS also needs the sort of infrastructure that makes health care possible while also ensuring that the people accessing treatment find qualified people to talk to when they do so.
Thirdly, we have to ensure that access to affordable medicines can be assured in every Member State by allowing 10% of the health budget to be spent on HIV vaccinations or treatments.
I appreciate the opportunity given for this debate here today, and am very glad that we will continue to cooperate closely in addressing this issue for the sake of the people who live alongside us and in order that young people may be protected against HIV/AIDS infection.
Mr President, I would like to thank all Members and the Minister for a very interesting debate.
As you know, our motto this year for our HIV/AIDS campaign was 'AIDS - remember me?' Unfortunately, we still have to remind people - including, I regret to say, decision-makers - about the existence of this disease.
This must be done in several ways. First of all, concerning decision-makers, I repeat what the Minister has already said: 'Spending on this effort is not a cost; it is an investment'. We have to remind our leaders and decision-makers of this. Also, dealing with HIV/AIDS in neighbouring countries and in developing countries is not just our moral obligation towards our partner third countries, it is also a self-protection measure. We have to use all practical arguments to convince those who take the decisions.
Of course, I agree that prevention is the most important policy, as we do not have a cure at the moment. But this can be done more effectively through education and information. It has to be done in a very balanced way: on the one hand, we have to educate people, especially young people, that this is a dangerous illness. It is not like the flu: you cannot take antibiotics and it will go away. It could eventually kill you. We have to show the risks of the disease, but not in a way that marginalises, stigmatises or discriminates against those who are infected. Stigmatisation also prevents dealing with the disease because people are afraid of the stigma. People do not get tested and remain unaware that they are infected. They end up infecting others and not seeking treatment themselves.
It is a delicate balancing act, but it is our task and we have to do it. As has already been mentioned, it is unfortunate that young people today practise unsafe sex. As I said in my opening remarks, the simple use of condoms is something that we have to keep reminding young people about: it is an important way for them to protect themselves. Abstinence is something that should be based on moral or religious beliefs, not as a measure against the disease, because we want people to know how to protect themselves if they decide to have sex. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs. They can act based on those, but the education has to be there. They have to know how to protect themselves.
As I said, we will also place particular emphasis on research and development measures, in particular protective measures for women, and especially measures that women can take that do not require the male partner's agreement. Therefore, I am very much in agreement with that paragraph in the report.
Civil society is a very important factor for us. We have to develop partnerships - not just the European institutions, but European citizens as well - so we plan to, and do, work very closely with civil society. We established an HIV/AIDS Civil Society Forum in 2005 and we have made this a core aspect of our work in addressing HIV/AIDS in Europe. Indeed, the Civil Society Forum has been and is meeting yesterday and today in Luxembourg to discuss this important issue. It consists of NGOs, women's groups, groups for men who have sex with men, sex workers, prisoners, drug users. We have to include the whole of society in dealing with this issue.
I agree with Mr Matsakis that we must work on dealing with the issue of drug addicts and the exchange of needles, because I agree that it is a health issue and not an issue for criminalisation.
Also, we have to mention the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the instrument we created together and which should be a very effective mechanism in surveillance and in dealing with this important problem. Therefore, I believe that this debate, and hopefully more to follow, will not only help in focusing the attention of all those who have to take the right decisions, but will also help European citizens to be informed about the continued existence of this problem. On behalf of the Commission, I can assure you that this will remain at the top of our political agenda.
The debate is closed.
I believe that it is right to congratulate Mr Andrejevs once again on the magnificent report that he has prepared and that this debate has been one of the most gratifying debates that we have held in recent times, showing great harmony between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. A debate that demonstrates commitment and which I believe offers hope in terms of how the European Union should act as a whole, in terms of interinstitutional action in relation to a problem that is at the forefront of everybody's concerns.
The vote will take place at 12 noon
Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. - (FR) AIDS is the biggest epidemic in history, affecting all regions, all social sectors and all age groups. Today, one person is infected every six seconds.
The European Parliament must relaunch a campaign that is running out of steam, and I welcome the own-initiative report on which we are voting today.
AIDS is being forgotten about, but it has not forgotten about us - it is spreading mainly among the young, women, migrant populations and within the new EU Member States. Young Europeans are becoming less and less vigilant, and seem to confuse existing treatments with a cure. Let us remember: AIDS is still killing people today.
The disease knows no bounds, and, now more than ever, our solidarity must be transnational. That is why I am pleased that the report recommends not only European measures in the areas of prevention, information and research, but also international measures, by means of the neighbourhood policy and the TACIS programme.
The fight against AIDS is not merely a fight against a pandemic; it also plays a role in the promotion of health care and sexual rights, as well as women's rights. This is not only a joint political measure; this is a universal duty.
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the data on the current state of the fight against AIDS are discouraging: worldwide over 39 million people are living with HIV, while in 2006 alone 4.3 million people were infected with the virus. The data on the European Union are also upsetting, showing a significant rise in new cases over the last seven years.
It is therefore necessary for both national and European institutions to adopt a new approach as quickly as possible. They need to identify prevention measures to be directed towards at-risk groups and to maintain information campaigns and sexual education campaigns in schools, since half of new cases involve young people under the age of 25. Worldwide, the European Union and the international community have a duty both to ensure access to medicines and treatments at prices that are accessible even for the poorest countries, by fighting the drug company lobby, and also to continue to carry out research to produce, as rapidly as possible, new innovative antiretroviral medicines, vaccines and microbicides.
In the light of these data I call on all the Member States that have not yet done so, among them Italy, to release the funds promised to the Global Fund. The Italian Government ought to make its financial contribution, which in this particular case is 260 million euros, to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as soon as possible.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)


7. Amendment to the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (vote)


Voting time
- The next item is the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
The Minutes of the sitting of Tuesday 11 March have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
(The Minutes were approved)


Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Canfin, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation on Short Selling and certain aspects of Credit Default Swaps - C7-0264/2010 -.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, this report concerns short selling and the supervision of credit default swaps, those products that insure debt against default, in particular state default.
The origins of this text lie in the Greek crisis, which began in spring 2010. Following certain movements on the financial markets that had been observed, a political request was put to Commissioner Barnier and to the European Commission to establish European rules on short selling and on sovereign debt speculation tools. The Commission drafted that regulation in September. This was followed by the adoption of our position in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in March, and of the Council position in May. Since then we have been negotiating, because we have already had five trialogues, which have enabled us to reach a number of possible compromises. Although they are not here, I should like to thank the representatives of the Hungarian Presidency who took part in these trialogues and helped to move this matter forward.
However, after those four or five negotiating sessions, we and the shadow rapporteurs who voted by a majority for this text in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - in other words, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, which I represent - took the decision to vote in the July part-session for this text, but not for the legislative proposal, in order to send two messages. The first message consists in saying that we want to carry on negotiating with the Council because it has been almost a year since the Commission tabled this text and because, on this issue as on others, Parliament wishes to adopt a responsible yet ambitious attitude. We want these texts; we want the rules on financial markets to change. Too often, we have to wait for the Council, which clearly takes much longer to make its decisions than we do. Therefore, we want to carry on negotiating, which means that we will not be voting for the legislative proposal tomorrow.
However, we also want to send three messages on the substance in order to reaffirm the positions adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which will become the positions of the European Parliament too when it adopts them - by a very large majority, I think - tomorrow.
The first issue concerns the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). In our version we have strengthened the role of ESMA, and you have reminded us many times, Commissioner, of the importance of that institution when it comes to ensuring the consistency of the single-market rules on financial services. I have to say that the position adopted in the Council - to have a red line that is an absolute red line for us, to create a right of veto for States on European regulatory issues concerning sovereign debt - is completely unacceptable.
The second point that I wished to raise is that we in Parliament want a simple rule: when you sell an asset, be it a share or a bond, you must be able to know for certain where to find it; there must be an agreement with the person who is going to lend it to you. This is what is known as the 'hard locate' rule in technical speak. This is Parliament's position, and I think it is a sensible one.
The final point that I should like to emphasise, and which is obviously a key element of the discussions we are having, is the ban on naked credit default swaps. This position is shared by a large majority of the European Parliament. We do not see how it is possible, in financial terms, to cover oneself against a risk with a credit default swap without being liable for that risk, in other words without owning the bond of the country that issued the security. It is a nonsense and it opens the door to speculation.
To conclude, I would say that the current debates on Greece prove us right, because some of the arguments made to limit the Greek restructuring consist in saying, 'Yes, but some people have speculated. If the debt is restructured, they are going to make money without having invested in Greece.' That is exactly what we want to put a stop to.
(Applause)
Mr President, as Mr Canfin said, with each day that passes, if we look closely at what is happening on the markets, we are reminded of the urgent and topical nature of this text. That is why, Mr Canfin, my entire Directorate-General and my team have worked so quickly, I think, and so seriously in four and a half months; on 15 September it will be a year since we tabled this text. I see the time passing, we know that times passes much more quickly in the world of the markets than in the world of democracy, and that is why I hope, like you, that you will be able to follow up the good work that you have done with the Hungarian Presidency recently in order to find a solution and to reach some compromises.
Ladies and gentlemen, the 2008 financial crisis and the stock-market collapse that followed clearly illustrated the consequences and the risks that can result from uncontrolled movements on the financial markets, which are sometimes encouraged by a number of reprehensible practices that we must regulate. The 2009 bond crisis highlighted the fact that these phenomena can affect bond markets too by causing serious problems for everyone operating on them, including Member States when they try to raise capital.
In both cases, the Member States reacted urgently, and often in a disorderly fashion, without having the information and the resources necessary to act effectively and within a genuinely European framework.
The draft regulation on short selling and credit default swaps (CDS) is specifically aimed at remedying this situation. We want to make these practices more transparent. Although they are often useful, they can have an impact on the markets by increasing volatility. The regulation must enable national regulators to act effectively, within the comprehensive and coordinated European framework that we want to consolidate.
Faced with markets that are still unstable and with the persistent problems concerning the debt of certain Member States, Europe must take swift action, and it must take practical action.
It is vital that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission can make progress on reaching a dynamic compromise, something which you yourself want, Mr Canfin, and the few weeks that you are going to have should make this possible. I am very grateful to you, Mr Canfin, for the very effective work you have done alongside and with the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Ferber, Mr Goebbels, Mr Schmidt and Mr Kamall, and the Presidency, which has supported these efforts, as you said yourself.
The text put to the vote in Parliament and the general Council agreement are aligned on many points now. I think that the trialogues have made this alignment process possible, and I hope that it will succeed.
I would just like to raise three points in your presence: the purchase of naked CDSs, the restrictions on naked short selling, and the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which you yourself mentioned, Mr Canfin.
Point one: regarding the sensitive issue of CDSs on sovereign risks and the possibility of buying them without being exposed to the underlying risk, therefore naked, I believe that appropriate action should be taken. I have reservations, as you know, about the effects of an unconditional ban on naked CDSs where the liquidity of sovereign markets is concerned and about the impact that that might have on the bond market. I think that we need to change the status quo and not leave it up to the Member States to decide whether or not to ban naked CDSs. We must not let this opportunity slip; that is why I can confirm to you that we are willing to work with the European Parliament and with the Council in order to come up with a solution that responds to these concerns, which are in fact legitimate.
Point two: regarding the restrictions on short selling and the 'locate rule', which you mentioned, we must maintain effective and sufficiently binding measures for market operators. Having different provisions for shares and sovereign debt may be an option, Mr Canfin, but this must not result in requirements that are too flexible and hence ineffective.
Point three: regarding ESMA's powers, it is very important for that authority - I shall say it again in relation to this text - to be able to carry out its coordination and, in some cases, intervention role; this was a requirement laid down in ESMA's founding regulation, which you yourselves consolidated, and this regulation officially authorises such intervention under certain circumstances. The issues relating to sovereign debt are, of course, particularly important for the Member States. We can see this very clearly at the present time, but maintaining a European regulatory framework that dovetails with an authority that can act effectively is also very important. I made a promise, during the recent ECOFIN Council in May, to work with you and with the Council on an appropriate solution.
Once again, I am very grateful to you for having properly understood and worked on this text, which I consider to be one of the bricks that we talked about earlier, and for having decided to take the few days or weeks necessary to work effectively on the trialogues and to bring them to a successful conclusion.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a very important proposal and a very important report. In my view, the very fact that we are having this debate demonstrates that in the past we allowed things to go on in the financial markets that had, in fact, been banned in casinos and state lotteries for years or even decades.
The rapporteur has rightly pointed out that, in the current situation, credit default swaps (CDSs) are being offered which insure something that may not even exist. In practice, the result - and this is also true in the current debate on the crisis in Greece - is that nobody knows how many CDSs actually exist, or what the consequences would be in the event that Greece should actually declare itself bankrupt. It is high time that we regulated this and ensured proper supervision. In so doing we can help draw up rules for the financial markets that are at least equal to those that apply when ordinary citizens visit a casino or play the lottery.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is right for us to debate this important proposal from the Commission here in plenary today and for us to lay down our position as the European Parliament tomorrow, because discussions in recent weeks - with all respect to the Hungarian Presidency, which has tried very hard to bring the Council and Parliament closer together on this - have shown that the Council of Ministers still needs to be motivated into adopting rules that allow what is necessary, but which prohibit what is not necessary.
Let me say quite plainly that I can hardly stand to hear the word liquidity any more. If there was one problem that was to blame for leading us into the financial crisis, it was that there was too much liquidity that was invested in products that nobody needs and which then collapsed and took us into the crisis. I ask you therefore: who is it that needs insurance against a government defaulting on its commitments? Only those that hold such government securities, and they should indeed have it. Anyone speculating on a country being unable to meet its commitments, however, should not be able to use such instruments to do so. That is why these products must be prohibited.
When it comes to the short selling of shares - in other words, selling shares that one does not have - it is a matter of drawing up rules that prevent highly speculative behaviour. I believe we have achieved a reasonable compromise here, and in this respect discussions with the Council have been very constructive. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive discussions, and also the Commission, which has played a very positive part in achieving this. Moreover, I hope that, for its part, the Council - which is unfortunately not represented here today - will be able to agree a sensible resolution of this matter with us as soon as possible. With that in mind, I am pleased that we - as Parliament - are now sending out a clear signal as regards this important dossier.
Mr President, I fully agree with my fellow Members Mr Canfin, Mr Lehne and Mr Ferber, because I believe that in order to prevent a new financial crisis, we need to strengthen market regulation. In particular, we need to ban all abusive practices, one particularly harmful example of which is short selling. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were forced into bankruptcy by the short selling of the shares of those two paragons of Wall Street capitalism. Naked credit default swaps (CDSs) are more abusive still. Warren Buffett described them as weapons of mass destruction. In theory, a CDS is a guarantee against a possible loss on a security. Yet naked CDSs offer the possibility of insuring oneself against a risk for which one is not liable. That is toxic speculation and it endangers the real economy.
Today, certain market operators are betting on the collapse of the euro area and on the default of a State. By purchasing naked CDSs on the sovereign debt of certain States, they are simply increasing the speculative pressure on the States concerned. It is strange that certain States - the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Romania and others - do not want naked CDSs on sovereign debt to be banned. They believe in the warnings from the markets predicting increased volatility on the sovereign debt market if naked CDSs are banned. Those governments should explain to their citizens that they prefer to give in to wild speculation rather than alienate the sacrosanct financial markets. Wolfgang Münchau, an editorial writer on the Financial Times, who is far from left-wing, writes the following:
I quote in English: 'A naked CDS purchase means that you take out insurance on bonds without actually owning them. It is a purely speculative gamble. There is not one social or economic benefit. Even hardened speculators agree on this point. Especially because naked CDSs constitute a large part of all CDS transactions, the case for banning them is about as a strong as that for banning bank robberies.
'Economically, CDSs are insurance ... A universally accepted aspect of insurance regulation is that you can only insure what you actually own. Insurance is not meant as a gamble, but an instrument to allow the buyer to reduce incalculable risks. Not even the most libertarian extremist would accept that you could take out insurance on your neighbour's house or the life of your boss.'
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that we reach an agreement with the Council, especially on banning naked CDSs.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Canfin, for a splendid piece of work and, above all, for the way in which he led the trialogue negotiations. It was an absolute pleasure, even if we did not entirely agree.
We need a European legislative framework for short selling. I believe that that is something on which we all agree. We need more transparency and openness. It must no longer be possible for anything to be conducted in secrecy. We need a greater ability to regulate and we also need a greater ability to regulate at European level through the agency of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). However - and I realise that I am saying something that will not go down well in this Chamber - it is important for the financial markets to have the option of short selling. That will actually provide liquidity on the market and reveal prices that have been incorrectly set as well as any share bubbles.
The controversial question is now whether the EU should introduce a ban on short selling of naked credit default swaps. In connection with the crisis in Greece, it has been claimed that market participants have used these credit default swaps to a considerable extent to speculate against the Greek crisis. The Commission's report issued last year demonstrated that this was not the case. It simply did not happen. Neither is there any evidence, Mr Ferber, to suggest that the German ban during the financial crisis had the desired effect. On the contrary, academic experts believe that it had a negative effect. Our basic approach should be not to introduce market restrictions if we do not know what will happen.
My view and that of my group - and it is in line with what Mr Lehne and the Commissioner said - is that to experiment with a ban at the present time could be detrimental. The burden of proof should be on those who intend to introduce this ban. My group and I are in favour of the regulators being able, in exceptional circumstances, to introduce a temporary ban or to restrict short selling if manipulation of the market or other phenomena occur. However, a permanent ban at this present time would make the market, which is already experiencing uncertainty, even more uncertain.
The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Mr President, I have a very short question. Could Mr Schmidt explain to me what economic benefit naked short selling brings to an efficient financial market? From my perspective, there is no theoretical reason in economic theory to explain what it is good for.
Mr President, I would rather use my mother tongue, but OK. Mr Giegold, I tried to explain that in Swedish and I think the burden of proof is upon you to say why you should ban naked CDSs today, because exactly as the Commissioner said, there is turmoil out there in the market. We do not know what is going to happen - that is also what Mr Lehne said. This is the crucial issue now: you do not know what is going to happen, I do not know what is going to happen, therefore be cautious, my dear friend Sven Giegold, be cautious. We are not dealing with theories now. We are dealing with a dramatic economic situation in Europe today, so you have a responsibility to know what kind of proposals you are passing through this House.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work that we have done, even though we may not agree on every element.
One of the things that we do agree on is the need for better coordination between regulators and supervisors across borders so that they can act quickly. We all agree on the need for greater transparency. We can also agree that, where there is abusive behaviour in short selling, that should be banned. But that is banned under the Market Abuse Directive, so we have to be clear about what we are trying to achieve with this directive.
The question has been raised about uncovered sovereign CDSs. When I talk to the participants in the market I ask them why they want to use uncovered sovereign CDSs. Some of the investment banks tell me that they need them if they provide credit lines to some small and second-tier banks. I have also heard from investors - and I have shared this with my colleagues, but they did not seem to want to listen - that, if you have investments in countries that you are concerned about and you cannot get protection on those investments, you use uncovered sovereign CDSs as a proxy hedge for those investments, in such sectors as infrastructure, shopping malls and others. That is why they are used.
The problem is that, if we ban this, what will we end up with? We will end up with more complicated and less transparent instruments, when we want transparency. We will also end up not actually recognising the real problem. The real problem with CDSs and other derivatives is how they are treated on the balance sheets of banks and how banks use them to falsify their accounts, liquidity and capital.
Let us focus on the real problem here, rather than trying to ban everything without tackling the real problem. Let us tackle the real problem of transparency, IFRS standards and the way these instruments are dealt with by banks.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, speculation was a major factor in triggering the crisis, while credit default swaps (CDSs) and short selling have been a major factor in heightening the crisis. These instruments have degenerated into purely speculative instruments. Some people in the financial sector seem to have incorrectly regarded or misused these instruments as a personal licence to print money. As a result, entire economies have suffered, along with nation states and, above all, the people of the countries concerned. To this extent, the fact that the Commission has finally taken the initiative and realised that regulation is necessary is to be welcomed. Whether or not the regulation will be strict remains to be seen.
I expressly welcome the work and the efforts by the rapporteur, Mr Canfin, to improve the regulation tabled and to put a stop to the gambling. What is needed is a de facto ban on naked short selling and the prevention of speculation in the future. We also need strict regulation and, above all, a strong supervisory authority in Europe.
I fear, however, that as the negotiations continue, the interests of the financial centres - London and Frankfurt in particular - will override the interests of the majority of the people of Europe. If that happens we will be left with little more than a Swiss cheese in which the holes are probably larger than what is left. That is quite definitely not something my group could support.
(BG) Mr President, to be able to control the various derivative instruments properly, you need to have people who have an excellent knowledge of them. However, ladies and gentlemen, where would anyone with such good knowledge go? To the European inspection agency where they will receive an annual salary of EUR 30-40 000, or will they become a broker on the stock exchange where they can earn millions from speculation?
This method of getting rich by using speculation and knowledge about how the system works has been known for two thousand years, ladies and gentlemen, as oligarchy. As a result of the games being played by the new financial oligarchy, Europe's citizens, the very ordinary, poorest people, are now paying the price due to the fact that this oligarchy was left to its fun and games. This is why, in order to stop this act of robbery against European citizens, Commissioner, it is not just necessary but compulsory to ban uncovered short selling and credit swaps.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(DE) Mr President, my question is addressed to the previous speaker. Yes, we should come to an agreement with the Council. That is all very laudable. I should be interested to hear how the previous speaker sees the situation. In his view, is the Council dragging its feet and not sufficiently prepared to be transparent? In particular, I should be interested to know what role the national governments should play - an important role or a fairly insignificant one? Moreover, what is his assessment of the function and task of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)?
(BG) Mr President, thank you, Mr Obermayr. I think that the answer to your question is very simple. When we see the Council dragging its feet and doing nothing for more than a year, I cannot understand the Commission's position. Why should Member States be banned from taking measures themselves? When one State is under threat, it cannot expect the Council made up of all the States to be on hand to make a decision, assuming that it does not want to. This is why I think that Member States must be given the power to ban these instruments in this situation.
As far as the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is concerned, I agree that it is exceptionally important. However, as I said at the start of my speech, I cannot simply imagine how staff, who should exercise real control, will be recruited for this agency.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs. Let me make a few comments based on the debate.
Some of you may think this is trivial, but I would like to remind you that falls on the stock markets during the crisis were a consequence and not a cause of the problems. The reasons for these dramatic falls were the excessive risks taken by market participants, and the falls were a reaction to the losses they incurred. Sometimes, after all, prices have to fall to reflect the true value of a share or bond or other instrument. What is important is that these falls do not lead to panic or excessive hesitation. This is why the regulation is so important. In my view it addresses the challenge, and this is why I am pleased, as a situation where a supervisory agency is in possession of the full facts on short selling is an eminently desirable situation. It will increase the quality of supervision and confidence in this type of institution. However, I am not fully convinced whether making this information public will also contribute to this. I hope that it does not have consequences which are very different from those expected, such as the knowledge that a certain amount of short selling is taking place which may lead investors to tend to pursue that very trend.
Regarding credit default swaps (CDSs), I am not convinced that banning uncovered CDS transactions is a proper reaction to what has happened to Greek bonds. There is no convincing proof, or at least I am not aware of any, that CDSs caused greater hesitation or increased interest rates on bonds of endangered countries. Please remember that the markets for CDS contracts are many times smaller than the bond markets of countries on which they are based. This is why it is difficult to believe that this issue has had such an effect. Even in spite of that I could agree that the ban is justified, were it not for the fact that - as Mr Kamall mentioned, among others - empty CDSs in fact cover other transactions which have not been included.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not know precisely what role short selling or naked short selling played in the bankruptcies of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, but we do know that they made at least a substantial contribution to the collapse of these institutions.
Claiming that naked short selling is useful for the market is as hard to prove as saying that it will be the end of the world if we do not prohibit it. We are dealing here with a highly complex, extremely technical area and I would not dare to claim that one thing or another was definitely right. However, it seems to me absurd to want to sell something that you do not even have, and moreover to want to do this on a speculative basis. It goes against my basic understanding of how one should behave in business. If I do not have the title to something then it is difficult for me to offer it for sale. Whether this is genuinely useful for the market is something that I am not in a position to judge. Perhaps it is - but my instinct suggests it is not.
I would therefore suggest that we should deal with it by saying that shares, debt instruments and credit default swaps (CDSs) can only be offered for sale if you either hold the title or - if you do not hold the title - a loan agreement has been concluded or at least an agreement that says that the title will be available the next day or in a certain number of days' time if the transaction is actually concluded and settled, so that no risk arises. I thought that the Council and Parliament had already agreed on this when they agreed the intraday rule. I regret to say that the Council has since moved away from this position, and I hope that it may find its way back to it.
One thing is certain: in the final event, these are international transactions and it is therefore important for us to have very clear supervisory rules. It seems to me that the recently established European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is the ideal institution to have a sole mandate to intervene in serious cases and to establish what needs to be prohibited, what needs at least to be recorded, where we need a repository, where we need a reporting requirement and so on. In this respect we have an ideal opportunity to use ESMA productively.
(RO) Mr President, I too must welcome the Commission's initiative on creating a legal framework for short selling and credit default swaps (CDSs) regarding the situations where market operations would pose a threat to financial stability or market confidence. I agree with the proposal to introduce a transparency system which entails the relevant authorities being notified of significant net short positions in shares, according to specific thresholds. In normal circumstances, short selling is conducive to market liquidity and helps set prices effectively. However, when the markets are experiencing difficulties, this operation can exacerbate the fall in prices. This situation would result in turbulent markets and systemic risks.
Regulatory bodies must be given clear-cut powers to restrict or ban short selling in exceptional circumstances. They will be exercised in cooperation with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
(SK) Mr President, much like today's debate on derivatives, this debate on short selling and credit default swaps is important if we are to maintain already fragile financial stability. The fact that these provisions take the form of a regulation is unavoidable, as they impose direct obligations on private parties to disclose information. Transparency is particularly important for financial market stability and investor protection.
Another significant point in this proposal is the suggested ban on naked short selling. The current debt crisis has shown how speculators who choose to gamble on the bonds of eurozone Member States rather than actually own them are capable of bringing entire countries to their knees, so it is vital to restrict the practice of using credit defaults swaps as cover for securities solely to the bond holders.
The final important point promoted by the text before us is the strengthening of ESMA's powers. I hope that the Council will review its position that decision-making in exceptional situations should be placed in the hands of finance ministers rather than ESMA, and that ESMA will take precedence in this regard.
(DE) Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to add a few critical remarks. In short selling one is selling a security that one does not have, or that one has merely borrowed. This enables speculators to bet on falling prices. These complex, opaque instruments were the deciding factor in bringing about the financial crisis. We therefore need a basic ban on speculative short selling of forward contracts. However, this ban needs to be comprehensive and must also include naked credit default swaps (CDSs) and short selling, particularly of government bonds. Betting on states being unable to meet their commitments in times of crisis is abominable, and we need to stem the tide of destructive speculation involving government bonds. Finally, we also need to bolster our mechanisms for sanctions in the financial services sector. The crisis involving the euro should have shown us one thing at least: not every financial transaction that is profitable in the short term is economically and ethically justifiable.
(FR) Mr President, having listened to this debate as a layman, I think that we need to show some common sense in this affair. When crises occur, the citizens are the ones who directly or indirectly pay the consequences. I believe that when they realise the absurdity of selling something that one does not own, or of insuring against a risk for which one is not liable, they understand that this is an inappropriate system.
I believe that we should try today to apply some common sense to this complex financial legislation, so that the human spirit is back at the heart of this work, instead of computer programs that are all configured in the same way to ensure that, when ridiculous transactions take place, no one really understands what is going on. I believe that Parliament has adopted some reasonable positions, and I hope that the Council will support them.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, in your introduction you said how important it is to make dynamic progress on this matter. That is a view I share, but at the same time I cannot help but remember that we Members already include a passage aimed at prohibiting naked short selling in the dossier on alternative investment fund managers. It did not have the intended effect. A separate proposal was tabled.
I originally drafted the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on this matter, but I subsequently had my name removed because, in my view, we should not be making compromises here. We need a rigorous ban on naked short selling. Credit default swaps for government bonds should be prohibited. In this regard I can only congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which was able to achieve something constructive in the later work, for having succeeded to some extent and hope that in the end the Member States will be a bit more reasonable.
Mr President, Mrs Regner, I have not forgotten the promise that was made during the debate - which Mr Gauzès and all of you here remember - on the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers.
It is precisely for that reason that, as I said earlier in response to the work done by Mr Canfin - which many of you unanimously praised, and rightly so - the Commission honoured its commitment by preparing, in the space of four and a half months, the text that it presented almost a year ago - it will be a year to the day on 15 September - to the bodies in charge of making a decision: Parliament, which you represent and comprise, and the Council.
I should like to thank Mr Lehne, Mr Schmidt, Mr Händel and Mrs Flašíková Beňová for agreeing that we need to regulate credit default swaps (CDSs) and to increase transparency and financial stability. Mr Gauzès spoke about the citizens. The citizens are also taxpayers. As I have often said, they cannot afford a second crisis and, politically speaking, they will not accept another crisis without lessons being learnt from the current one, which has been going on now for more than three years and is still not over. We owe it to the citizens, particularly to those who live in countries that are being attacked on the markets, Mr Gauzès, and which are suffering under the effects of volatility, speculation and hyper-speculation, which Mr Stoyanov was not the only one to denounce here.
That is why the Commission has proposed rules, transparency and accountability, but needless to say it is willing to carry on and accomplish even more work with Parliament.
Mr Ferber, to whom I listened, as always, very carefully, raised the issue of liquidity. Let me say it again: I want to be cautious and realistic with you. Mr Schmidt also raised this point, as did Mrs Bǎsescu. We know what an important role liquidity plays in ensuring the smooth functioning of the debt market. That is why I expressed reservations about a straightforward ban. However, I am always willing to discuss progress of any kind, and any additional rules that could provide peace of mind, Mr Ferber.
Mr Goebbels was right in saying that short selling can be harmful. However, it can also be useful, which is why we did not hesitate to implement a framework and rules. I agree with you, Mr Goebbels, holding CDSs without being exposed to the underlying risks does present problems, and sensitive ones at that. Mr Kamall also mentioned the sensitive nature of this issue. This is one of the issues that we will have to address in the trialogue.
All in all, though, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to you and with you, we are going to create for the first time, if you and the Council so wish, a European framework on the CDS market, with a European authority which I hope will not be undermined, on this or any other issue, and I am keen for it to be able to use ESMA's Article 9 - which Mr Giegold knows well - which gives it important powers.
A word about naked short selling, which concerns me just as much as it concerns you. Mr Klinz and Mrs Regner raised this point. In this text we are going to propose - and I hope we can see it through - two types of regulation, everyday regulation in the shape of the 'locate rule', which your rapporteur, Mr Canfin, mentioned, and then a coherent liability system with a buy-back obligation. We will therefore have binding everyday rules for everyone and then the ability to enforce a coordinated ban, which we all wanted, in the event of an emergency.
One final word, Mr Nitras, on the disclosure of information. We have made provision to disclose information on shares above a certain threshold. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, that is precisely what the regulators wanted and requested. In the case of sovereign debt, this disclosure will not be automatic, but it will be compulsory to provide information to those regulators who need it.
That is what I am able to say, Mr President, by way of thanks to the rapporteur and to the speakers, and to clarify a number of points before you - we - spend the next few weeks, I hope, reaching a dynamic agreement on this point.
Mr President, I just wanted to say something to my fellow Member, Mr Kamall - since he is one of the negotiators of this text and is very familiar with it, and if he is not, he only has to read it - concerning his argument that credit default swaps (CDSs) are used as proxy hedges and therefore should not be banned. As the text says, when CDSs are used for proxy hedging, they are not uncovered. It would be helpful, therefore, if you could change your argument or read the text, because we are debating for nothing otherwise.
(Applause)
The second point that I wished to make is that we really want to complete this text because we feel that the situation is urgent. No one is saying that CDSs caused the Greek crisis. It would be absurd to think that. However, they are clearly being used to fan the flames by financial operators whose sole aim is to exacerbate the crisis so that they can make money at some point.
While we are on the subject of CDSs, I should like to tell you that this text only covers the purchase of these swaps. This presents another problem, which was also raised by Mr Kamall, concerning the fact that operators who sell CDSs, such as US banks and hedge funds, are supposed to provide a guarantee against the risk of default to banks such as BNP, Deutsche Bank and Barclays. For those banks, it is a way of getting the risk off their balance sheets. However, those who sell CDSs, such as hedge funds, have a lot less capital than the banks. This tool has the effect of reducing capital requirements and hence the security of the system.
Since you are working on the Capital Requirements Directive 4, I should like it if you could also cover the sale of CDSs and the obligations incumbent on sellers of CDSs, rather than just focusing on buyers, as is the case in this text.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Unlike long selling, where the risk is reduced to the difference in price between buying and reselling, the risk with short selling is unlimited, which means, in theory, that losses could be limitless. Taking into account the unlimited risks which a seller also assumes in short selling, it was considered necessary to adopt this regulation. However, certain notification periods or procedures may have slightly more relaxed deadlines. Furthermore, speculative transactions, along with hedging transactions, are an integral part of this market and must be declared to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Speculative transactions are not damaging in themselves; the danger lies in them getting out of control.
in writing. - Restrictions on short selling and credit default swaps in exceptional situations have long been overdue, as is the need for more transparency from financial markets. Parliament rightly found it appropriate to have a common framework rather than to rely on a number of divergent measures by Member States, as experienced during the financial crisis three years ago. These obligations come in the wake of various other reforms to past regulatory regimes. It is easy to jump on the bandwagon at this time and argue that more regulation is better because we do not want to live through another crisis in our lifetime. But at the same time we all want to look forward to a future where industry, both manufacturing and services, provides much-needed jobs, based on strong economic growth. For this we need many bankable projects. Let us therefore satisfy ourselves that there is no unintended collateral damage to industry from financial regulation. We do not want EU project funding to be curtailed by a drought of liquidity, nor do we want their responsibility in mitigating risks to become prohibitively expensive so as to make them lose their competitiveness.


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes