Free trade agreement between the EU and the Republic of Korea (debate)
The next item is the recommendation by Robert Sturdy, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea [08505/2010 - C7-0320/2010 - 2010/0075(NLE)].
rapporteur. - Mr President, this FTA is the first of a new generation of trade agreements launched in 2007 as part of the global Europe initiative. Global economy, instability and a stagnated mutlilateral system have strengthened the need and pursuit for increased bilateral relations. It is the first FTA in which Parliament will exercise its new enhanced powers given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon.
The FTA is designed to provide EU businesses, in a wide variety of economic sectors, with extensive and comprehensive access to the South Korean market through a series of unprecedented tariff liberalisations. It guarantees WTO-plus disciplines in the case of, for example, geographical indicators, government procurement, greater transparency of state aid and strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, and contains an all-important chapter on sustainable development.
However, while the many advantages are both immediate and conspicuous, I welcome more than anything else the fact that the FTA has an effective bilateral safeguard mechanism - a safeguard that allows the EU to restore MFN duty rates, should it be that this particular FTA has led to or threatens to cause serious injury to EU domestic industry. It is a safeguard that specifically addresses the concerns of Europe's sensitive sectors, including the auto industry, consumer electronics and textiles, and guarantees the protection they deserve. On this note I would like to thank Pablo Zalba Bidegain for the work that he did on this specific part of the agreement.
The South Korea market offers significant new opportunities for EU goods and services. It is a market that until now has remained relatively closed off, due to high tariff levies and costly non-tariff barriers. The FTA will quickly remove EUR 1.6 billion worth of EU export duties levied annually. There will be benefits for EU exporters of industrial and agricultural products, immediate savings on chemicals - approximately EUR 175 million -pharmaceuticals, auto parts, industrial machinery, and the list goes on. It is also worth noting that these figures quoted will probably be even higher, because of the increased trade. Korea is currently among those more globally valuable export markets for EU farmers, with annual sales of over EUR 1 billion to Korea. The FTA fully liberalises nearly all the EU's agricultural exports.
Exports are thus an important source of growth for the EU. They contribute to wealth and employment for European businesses and their employees and will act as one of the most important factors in stimulating the EU economic recovery. The Commission and the European Car Association have worked closely together to get this agreement.
The world is watching as Europe leads the way in improving trade and economic relations, with partners in every corner of the world looking at it. I have always said that trade is the real means of development. By removing barriers to trade and building new bridges we create new opportunities. This particular FTA offers a new approach. Complementary, of course, to Doha, it will drive Europe's recovery and growth and the European Parliament will be instrumental in determining the future of global trade policy.
At this stage I would like to thank Ignacio from the Commission. One of the economists said, Ignacio, that this is probably the best trade agreement that both parties could ever have agreed. I urge all groups to put aside protectionism and support this agreement.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for all the efforts which Parliament in general, and the Committee on International Trade (INTA) in particular, has put into securing prompt assessment - and, I hope, ratification - of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). This will permit its entry into force.
This complex task comprised two major processes: finalisation of negotiations on the Korea Safeguard Regulation, implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Korea FTA, and the preparation of consent to this treaty.
I welcome the first-reading agreement between the Council and Parliament on the Safeguard Regulation. The work that was done has not only secured legislation which will provide necessary protection for EU industry, but it has also confirmed the joint commitment of Parliament, the Council and the Commission to efficient law making. This was also the first trade dossier on which Parliament acted as co-legislator under the Treaty of Lisbon. The outcome of its involvement is indeed impressive.
I will not repeat the list of benefits which the EU-Korea FTA is expected to bring to the EU economy: we have thoroughly debated them here in the past, and Mr Sturdy has just summed them up. Let me instead open a brief parenthesis to place the agreement with Korea in the wider perspective of the future of EU trade policy, as sketched out by the Commission in its communication of 9 November 2010, and to recap the basic tenets of our policy line.
First of all, we continue to favour the multilateral channel of the WTO as the first-best way to liberalise trade and lay down the rules to govern global commerce. Despite the setbacks and the deadlock since mid-2008, we continue to push actively for the conclusion of the Doha development round, 10 years now after its inception. It is still well worth clinching a deal, both for the economic gains and in the interests of furthering the WTO. That is why I took the initiative of bringing together in Davos the trade ministers of the world's seven most important trading countries to discuss, in concrete terms, how we can now proceed and enter the end-game, following the impetus given by the G20 in Seoul. I believe our meeting was a success, and senior officials are now working intensively in an attempt to stage a political breakthrough in the summer.
However, as we said back in November, the bilateral and the multilateral are not enemies. Indeed, it may well be the case that liberalisation fuels liberalisation. We have pursued bilateral trade deals that generate genuine value added compared with what can be achieved through the WTO, and we will keep on doing so because the pace of multilateral progress is unavoidably slow. This has been, and is, our fundamental motivation for pursuing the FTA with Korea.
I will reiterate today the Commission's commitments to the European Parliament, which it made in relation to the implementation of the Korea Safeguard Regulation and the EU-Korea FTA.
As provided for in the Safeguard Regulation, 'the Commission will present a yearly report to the European Parliament and Council on the implementation of the EU-Korea FTA and will be ready to discuss with the INTA Committee any issues arising from the implementation of the Agreement.
'The Commission will closely monitor the implementation by Korea of its commitments on regulatory issues, including in particular the commitments relating to technical regulations in the car sector. The monitoring shall include all aspects of non-tariff barriers and its results shall be documented and reported to the European Parliament and the Council.
'Particular importance will be attached to the effective implementation of commitments on labour and environment of Chapter 13: Trade and Sustainable Development of the FTA. In this connection, the Commission will seek the advice of the Domestic Advisory Group, which will include representatives of business organisations, trade unions and non-governmental organisations. The implementation of Chapter 13 of the FTA shall be duly documented and reported to the European Parliament and the Council.
'The Commission also agrees on the importance of providing effective protection in the case of sudden surges of imports in sensitive sectors, including small cars. Monitoring of sensitive sectors shall include cars, textiles and consumer electronics. In this connection, the Commission notes that the small-car sector can be considered a relevant market for the purpose of a safeguard investigation.
'The Commission notes that the designation of outward processing zones in the Korean Peninsula, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Protocol on Rules of Origin, would require an international agreement between the parties to which the European Parliament would have to give its consent. The Commission will keep Parliament fully informed of the deliberations by the Committee on Outward Processing Zones in the Korean Peninsula.
'The Commission also notes that if, due to exceptional circumstances, it decides to extend the duration of an investigation pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Korea Safeguard Regulation, it will ensure that such an extended timing does not go beyond the expiry date of any provisional measures introduced pursuant to Article 5.
'Moreover, the Commission and the European Parliament agree on the importance of close cooperation in monitoring the implementation of the EU-Korea FTA and the Safeguard Regulation.
'To this end, in case the EP adopts a recommendation to initiate a safeguard investigation, the Commission will carefully examine whether the conditions under the regulation for ex-officio initiation are fulfilled. In case the Commission considers that the conditions are not fulfilled, it will present a report to the INTA Committee including an explanation of all factors relevant to the initiation of such an investigation.
'Upon request by the INTA Committee, the Commission shall report to the committee on any specific concerns relating to the implementation by Korea of its commitments on non-tariff measures or on Chapter 13 of the FTA.' That is the end of the quotation.
Finally, let me elaborate on two issues which are of interest to you: the Korean CO2 legislation on car emissions, and the supplementary agreement on the draft Korea-US FTA (KORUS), which was finalised in December 2010.
On 24 January 2011, Korea confirmed that certain changes will be introduced to its previous draft CO2 legislation, which satisfactorily address a number of concerns expressed by European car makers, while retaining Korea's ambitious emission reduction objectives. The changes, which the Commission welcomes, will not alter overall emissions, but will provide for fairer burden sharing between Korean and EU car makers.
Rest assured that the EU position on the Korea CO2 legislation was closely coordinated at all stages within the Commission and, in particular, with my colleague Connie Hedegaard and DG CLIMA, to avoid undermining Korea's environmental protection efforts.
As for the supplementary agreement to the draft Korea-US FTA reached in December 2010, the Commission has not identified elements therein that could have a negative impact on the EU. I will, however, contact my Korean counterpart to ensure that no competitive disadvantage arises in future for the EU automotive sector insofar as non-harmonised automotive safety standards will not be applied in a more restrictive manner than was the case at the time of the negotiations.
The Commission will be closely monitoring the implementation of this provision. In particular, the Working Group on Motor Vehicles and Parts established by the FTA will examine practical aspects of implementation to ensure that market access problems are addressed in an effective and speedy manner.
To conclude, I wish to emphasise that the EU-Korea FTA will not only provide important benefits for European exporters to the Korean market, but will also be a clear signal of our determination to pursue new opportunities in key Asian economies.
We are also addressing the concerns of some stakeholders by means of an efficient and effective safeguard regulation. As this is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, both the Council and this House have been able to introduce mechanisms for responding to perceived risks should they materialise.
With this FTA and the Safeguard Regulation we have an excellent package that I hope you will support tomorrow.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, international trade and exports are an important source of growth and employment in Europe. The Free Trade Agreement that we are debating today will strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union and will provide our enterprises with significantly better access to a highly dynamic region of growth. Both the European and the Korean economy will benefit considerably. Our gross domestic product will increase. That could lead to the creation of new jobs. Our exports to Korea will double in the next few years according to all the forecasts because duties and non-tariff barriers to trade will be abolished; the relief in terms of duties alone will amount to EUR 1.6 billion per year. For the European Union there will be a substantial new trade in goods and services with a value of up to EUR 19 billion.
I am particularly pleased that, in the negotiations, the Commission took full account of the negotiation recommendations expressed by the European Parliament in the Martin Report from 2008. I am also pleased that the European Commission took account both of the concerns expressed by Parliament and also of those coming from industry and it was also able to dispel some concerns just in the last few weeks. Something that I have never experienced before in the area of foreign trade is positive feedback even coming from the agricultural sector, which is usually more likely to be a problem for us in the area of trade negotiations.
In the area of agriculture, the agreement will facilitate access to South Korea for European agricultural products from 1 July 2011. Up to now, only 2% of our agricultural products reach the South Korean market duty free. For pork, annual duties amounting to EUR 240 million are paid, and for milk and milk products the figure is around EUR 100 million. All of these barriers to market access for our domestic agriculture will now be removed. I would be pleased if, for this area in particular, the European Commission would consider how we could set up some kind of market access programme, not only for small and medium-sized enterprises, but also for agriculture in the countries that will profit from the Free Trade Agreement.
Above all, I would be pleased if we were also to ensure that our partners in South Korea now actually implement the trade facilitation measures promised in the agreement. I call for it to be clearly monitored whether new barriers to trade are introduced, and I would, in particular, like to congratulate the Commission.
What the Commission has achieved and what Parliament's rapporteurs have achieved, particularly in the trialogue negotiations, is an example to us all. I hope that we will have a broad majority in favour of this agreement in this House tomorrow.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner De Gucht, early in this parliamentary term, which is my first, one of the matters I first heard discussed was precisely the Free Trade Agreement with Korea. Certain sectors of European industry, especially the automotive industry, were unanimous in opposing this agreement. As a citizen of Navarre and Spain, where the automotive industry represents a substantial part of our economy, I felt the duty to become involved in order to improve, if not the agreement as this was no longer possible, the safeguard clause, which was where Parliament could introduce improvements.
Thus, we set out to achieve two objectives. Firstly, to protect the industry and its jobs, and secondly, to make the agreement more attractive for the industries concerned, particularly the automotive industry. Our aim was not just to avoid outright rejection, but to gain their support for the agreement. I believe that here today, we can say 'mission accomplished'. This is all thanks to Parliament's hard work and expertise.
I should like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs of both reports for their outstanding work. Thank you Robert. And thank you also for your words.
Recognition is also due to the members of the Committee on International Trade, led by its Chair, Mr Moreira. ¡Muito obrigado!, Vital.
I would also like to thank the Belgian Presidency of the European Union for their excellent work. Their effort has had its reward in the form of the agreement we finally reached in December.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the work of the European Commission, and particularly Ignacio Bercero's contribution, for which I am most grateful. Tomorrow we will vote in favour of a clause which will be more effective, easier to apply and will genuinely protect European industry. Today, concerns on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea have hugely diminished. Indeed, we might say that they have all but vanished. Today, the opportunities this agreement brings clearly outweigh the uncertainties. The European Parliament should be proud of a job well done.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon has in fact put trade policy on a new footing. The EU is solely responsible for trade policy and Parliament gives or withholds its consent. In that respect, we have gained a new responsibility. We can only enable this new responsibility to take shape if we act together. We have proven that very clearly in this matter. In this regard, I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs.
Trade policy is not an end in itself. Its purpose is, firstly, to strengthen jobs and industrial development in the European Union and, secondly, to improve conditions for people in other countries of the world. The aim of trade policy must be to achieve both of these goals. We therefore need to assess this agreement from this viewpoint. Overall, this is a step in the right direction towards fulfilling these two requirements. However, we certainly do have a few points of criticism, for example the question of duty drawback in South Korea, which will bring one-sided competitive advantages for certain sectors of industry in South Korea, particularly in sensitive areas such as the automotive industry. It was therefore right for us to have very intensive talks about a safeguard clause and also to have jointly implemented such a clause, which provides for the close monitoring of precisely these points, so that we can be certain that the possibilities provided by duty drawback in South Korea do not lead to a distortion of competition in Europe. Parliament has rightly established safeguards here.
Secondly, this agreement also has the purpose of improving the situation in South Korea for our colleagues there. South Korea still has improvements to make with regard to Chapter 13, in particular the question of the core labour standards laid down by the ILO. Two absolutely crucial core labour standards - No 87 and No 98, relating to collective bargaining - have not be implemented or ratified. Section 314 of the penal code relates to the obstruction of business. Neither of these things is in line with the nature and the provisions of this agreement. Thus, Commissioner, I am relying on you, and on the statement that you have given in support of the safeguard clause, to change this situation in South Korea so that this agreement will represent a blueprint for the future to enable globalisation to proceed in a fair manner.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently witnessing a historic situation, because the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea that we are debating and that we intend to adopt is the first Free Trade Agreement that has been debated under the new Lisbon system, which grants Parliament full power of codecision.
This makes an important area of policy - trade policy - more democratic. We, as Parliament, consider this to be important. The debate here in Parliament has also shown that, as regards safeguard clauses, we were able to include important concerns expressed to us by workers, companies and associations in an improved safeguard clause that is intended to protect the interests of industry and, above all, jobs in the future by creating a level playing field and fair conditions for competition and avoiding asymmetries. That is what we as the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have concentrated on.
As shadow rapporteur for our group, I am pleased that we were able to be successful in this regard. The duty drawback mechanism, which caused us concern to start with, has now been explicitly included in the safeguard clause and there is the option for industry, and also for Parliament, to call on the Commission to carry out an investigation. A monitoring process is planned, which is intended to be established in a transparent way via an online platform, and there is greater scope for the investigation of the factors that will decide whether significant damage has been done to European industry. Mechanisms for monitoring to be carried out by the Commission, particularly for sensitive sectors in the event of increased imports, are also provided for. We can start with this and focus on the advantages associated with the South Korea agreement, such as the considerable reduction in duties - the Commission expects enterprises in Europe to be able to save EUR 1.6 billion.
I would therefore like to thank Commissioner De Gucht, who has personally worked hard to enable us to reach a compromise, including with the Council. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, especially Mr Sturdy and Mr Zalba Bidegain, for their excellent work. We have achieved something really good here.
Mr President, Commissioner, this is in fact the first major Free Trade Agreement that Europe has passed for some years, and when it comes to free trade agreements, it must be said that you do not lack ambition - South Korea, Canada, India, Mercosur. There is not a single country or area that escapes the European Commission's ambitions where free trade agreements are concerned.
In the case of this agreement, we have seen that there will only be winners, but I still wonder who the winners will be when I am told that they will be in the agricultural sector. As the elected representative of Brittany, I can tell you that in in that region which produces more than 60% of French pigmeat, the few benefits to be had by the agri-food product firms do not compensate for reductions in tourism, degradation of the environment and the health of workers, and farmers' losses.
There are, indeed, also a great number of losers, and do we, here, have a vision of what economic and social Europe will be like after all these free trade agreements have been signed? No we do not, and nor do we know, at the end of the day, whether there will be any industrial or economic sector left to benefit from these free trade agreements.
Moreover, and most importantly, Commissioner, try as you might to tell us that we are not questioning South Korea's environmental and climate policy, that is not true. We are going to be able to export enormous saloon cars, those cars of which the manufacturers who make the least amount of effort to combat climate change are rewarded by this agreement.
For the first time, the European Union is questioning the climate policy of one of its trading partners. Has the European Commission started to change, under pressure from Canada, its directive on fuel quality?
We believe that we are putting Europe's ambitions in the wrong order: the environment and the climate must come before trade. That is why our group will vote against this agreement.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, with the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement signed in October 2010, which has been assigned the attribute by the Commission and the Council of being the most ambitious agreement of its kind ever to be negotiated between the EU and a highly industrialised state, the bilateral protection duties are to fall by around 98% in the next five years. The trade exchange between the EU and Korea is supposed to double in the medium term and that - so it is said - will speed up economic growth and the creation of jobs and prosperity. My group and I have justified doubts about this prediction.
Quite apart from the mantra of the role of free trade as a kind of saviour of the global economy that is currently in a precarious state, which is also reflected in the Free Trade Agreement itself, it is not clear from this agreement whether it will, or will able to, help us deal with the global challenges arising as a result of climate change and the necessary fundamental economic restructuring. What are the efficiency criteria and what are the free trade criteria? At the same time, Commissioner, the Free Trade Agreement that has been concluded hardly contains any references to sustainability for the future, oriented change or international economic cooperation. An agreement is being concluded in which the fundamental standards of the International Labour Organisation are still being contravened.
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Mr President, tomorrow we will vote on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea, and this has been a long time coming. Most of us will agree that this is a win-win situation. It will be particularly beneficial for Europe's farmers and economic operators. However, we must not ignore the fact that the agreement does not only bring advantages for European companies and Korean farmers. Some sectors will benefit from the agreement, whereas others will inevitably lose out. Thus, in future, EU citizens will be able to buy cheaper technology products and cars from Korea. In return, Korea will get badly needed food from Europe as well as medicines and luxury goods. The agreement may also lead to better environmental and working conditions in Korea - that is something worth mentioning and to be pleased about. I hope that the agreement can enter into force quickly, especially as the EU wants a first-mover advantage over the United States, which is also in negotiations with Korea in respect of a similar agreement. Finally, I would like to thank all of the rapporteurs involved for their untiring and highly competent work.
. - (NL) Mr President, tomorrow we will be voting on the free-trade agreement with South Korea. I must say that it looks good at first glance. The delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is a strong supporter of free trade. Unfortunately, the European Union could not resist adding a safeguard clause to the trade agreement. This means that non-competitive companies will be protected when unable to hold their own when faced with competition from Korean products.
In other words, should the European consumer choose to buy Korean products, rather than European ones, for the simple reason that the former may be better quality or cheaper, then trade barriers will once again be erected. Look how the vicious European reflex towards protectionism and market intervention is rearing its head again.
Mr President, free trade that does not entail any disadvantage for European industry is, of course, an illusion. Therefore, trying to overcome this by including a safeguard clause and offering compensation to disadvantaged industries is a totally misguided solution.
This will allow industries that are competing poorly to carry on doing what they have always done, instead of adapting to the competition. Worse still, who will ultimately be footing this bill? Exactly: our citizens, unfortunately. As consumers, they will be forced to pay over the odds for their purchases and, on top of that, as taxpayers, they will even have to cough up the required compensation.
How am I supposed to explain to my constituents that they will soon have to foot the bill if, for example, Fiat loses some of its market share to Kia? These rules have no place in a free trade agreement. In practice, this is nothing other than subsidising inefficient companies on the backs of European citizens. Free trade? What a great idea, but please let us drop this safeguard clause.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, South Korea is indeed a very important market for products from European industry - that has been emphasised and cars have been highlighted - but also for farmers. I would emphasise that we need it to be a win-win situation. There is a new generation coming up, which is a good thing. The agreement with South Korea contains a chapter on sustainable development, which covers labour standards, environmental policy and a monitoring mechanism that is to involve civil society. That is also good.
The Free Trade Agreement is a step in the right direction, and I would like to thank everyone involved and emphasise that some excellent work has been done. Nevertheless, I would also call for clear rules for the production chain as a whole, particularly with regard to food. We should not only consider the end product, and it should not only be the agricultural industry that benefits; farmers should benefit, too.
In the interests of European consumers and our farmers, when trade flows are liberalised it absolutely must be ensured that agricultural products that are imported into the European Union meet our high standards in respect of environmental, animal and consumer protection, including at their point of origin and throughout the production chain.
I will support the position of the Committee on International Trade tomorrow, but where further liberalisation efforts are concerned I would call strongly for the food sector and farmers also to be taken into account.
(PT) Mr President, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on International Trade, I should like, first and foremost, to express my satisfaction that we are about to successfully conclude our first major test in exercising the codecision powers that the Treaty of Lisbon has granted us in the area of trade agreements. I feel that we exercised our powers with a great sense of responsibility, and I believe that it is only right that I should thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, and also express my gratitude for the spirit of cooperation on the part of the Commission and the Council, under the Belgian Presidency, during the negotiations on the safeguard regulation.
It should be noted that in the vote that took place in the Committee on International Trade, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of recommending approval of the trade agreement and adopting the regulation on the safeguard mechanism. This demonstrates that Parliament is capable of forming a broad-based political coalition for more openness in international trade, in line with one of the principles laid down in the trade agreement itself, in fact.
The trade agreement is, to my mind, mutually beneficial. With the mutual opening of both markets, each economy can profit from their competitive advantages. The trade agreement will not only remove tariff and non-tariff barriers, but will also encompass the opening up of the public procurement market, safeguard intellectual property rights, and protect employment rights and environmental standards.
Once the agreement has been ratified, which will be tomorrow, I hope, we must move resolutely to the next stage, which is its implementation.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, this agreement contains a clause that does not convince us and has never convinced us. I am talking about the refund of customs duties that Korea will receive for imports of products from China or other countries. We have already discussed this, but as a liberal democrat I consider this measure to be deeply flawed. It is a kind of export subsidy, and I would like it if, when voting on this agreement, we had an assurance that this clause will not set a precedent and will not be included in any other future agreements.
Tomorrow's vote will conclude one leg of the journey we have undertaken together, but only one leg, because the relationship between Parliament and the Commission must continue, not least with regard to the actual implementation of the safeguard clause. For the sake of European industry and European workers, we cannot make any mistakes when implementing it, or else we will face great problems in future agreements.
This is the Year of the Rabbit in the Far East, so I hope European industry will run like a rabbit, taking advantage of what this agreement can offer it.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I still remember very well how - as is happening now in Egypt and Tunisia - the people in Korea, particularly the young people, took to the streets and, in the face of police truncheons and weapon, fought for freedom, democracy and self-determination. What has happened since then is unbelievable. It is unbelievable how much has been achieved in Korea in respect of democracy, self-determination and freedom, but also with regard to the economy and now increasingly also the environment. This makes Korea a good example for many other Asian countries, and it is also a country our ever closer cooperation with which I very much welcome, along with our work to break down customs barriers and to establish fairer trade.
Nevertheless, we are rejecting this agreement today and there are a number of specific reasons for this, some of which have been mentioned by my colleague Mr Jadot. In addition to what has been said, I would also like to mention the regulation in the area of the financial sector, which we consider to be a step in the wrong direction. However, there are also fundamental reasons for this. We are concluding more and more free trade agreements, each one giving rise to another one. What we need is not a patchwork of more new individual agreements, but just and fair rules for world trade as a whole.
Mr President, a free trade agreement cannot only be about tariffs. It also has to be about intellectual property rights.
A business in my constituency, Avon Protection, is a world leader in the manufacture of gas masks. Avon believes that its patents have been infringed by a South Korean firm making what are quite simply copies. There is meant to be patent protection in South Korea, but will a Korean court really find in favour of a British company against a Korean business?
For free trade to work, there has to be a level playing field and, yes, a safeguard clause such as Pablo Zalba Bidegain's is useful, but the other signatory must also ensure that the agreement is indeed a two-way street, otherwise the Free Trade Agreement which should benefit both parties simply becomes completely one-sided.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is wrong to have turned the debate on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea into a stand-off between supposed neo-protectionists and die-hard free-traders. I also think it is wrong for the Commission to have acted more like a service economy development agency than the political government of 500 million Europeans, which should strike a balance between considerations relating to growth on the one hand, and to employment and distribution of wealth on the other.
What differentiates us from the United States, which has not yet ratified this agreement - and we know why - and this also applies to relations with Korea, is the very fact that no world economic power exposes its quality - and I stress the word 'quality' - manufacturing industry to inevitable dismantling processes, sacrificing it on the altar of financial interests, setting white-collar workers from the City of London against the white-coated workers of modern European factories, which is exactly what Europe does not need in the wake of the crisis.
All this, Mr Sturdy, Commissioner, has nothing whatsoever to do with neo-protectionism. Otherwise we would have to include in this category the Spanish, German, Polish, Portuguese, French and Italian Industry Ministers who, in the 10 February edition of Le Monde, reiterated the need to make Community interest central to the work of the European institutions, stating that in this case it definitely could not be protected by the safeguard clause, however worthy it may be.
An excellent academic exercise in the field of international trade relations has taken place, but we have failed to act in Europe's interests. For that reason ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(FR) Mr President, this Free Trade Agreement is the first to have been examined since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force and that is why we MEPs believe that it really cannot come into force until we have obtained robust guarantees, guarantees that must, furthermore, act as a model for future trade agreements. It will therefore be up to us - to you and to us - to ensure the proper implementation of these mechanisms in order to protect the European economy in the event of distortions of competition.
However, that should not in any case exonerate us from strategic thinking in two areas. Firstly, in order to guarantee that competition is genuinely fair, it is essential for social, health and environmental standards to be taken into account in trade agreements. That is an essential requirement.
My second point is that Europe must finally provide itself with the instruments necessary to retain or recover production capacity, for example industrial or agricultural production capacity, and to retain - and this is absolutely vital for its future - its technological progress.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I only hope that what we are discussing right now does not end up being an additional and perhaps final death blow to our economies. We are already flooded with goods produced at low or very low cost, arriving mainly from east and south-east Asia. Many Italian companies, especially SMEs, have been brought to their knees due to unfair competition. This means that they cannot compete on the market, with tragic consequences as far as the economy and especially employment is concerned.
This agreement provides for various safeguard and protection clauses, but who can assure us that these rules will really be applied later on? There are still too many unknowns, and the possible benefit to be had by a few large producers cannot always rebound on the smallest producers alone. In my region, Tuscany, our textile industry - historically a driving force - is already in a serious condition due to Asian competition: I only hope that Europe itself does not deal the death blow to this sector, and probably many others besides, with this agreement.
We will not vote for this agreement.
- (SK) Mr President, since the start of negotiations in May 2007, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea has had a long and difficult journey. Despite the clear benefits to both sides, some key sectors of European industry were exposed to serious risks. I also expressed my reservations on the floor of this Parliament, and I called for fair and balanced rules of the game.
The solution was the bilateral safeguard clause. I would like to thank Robert Sturdy and Pablo Zalba Bidegain for their leadership as rapporteurs, as well as everyone else involved. Thanks to their combined efforts, the economies of the EU and South Korea will be billions of euros better off. From July 2011, the real victors in this agreement will be the consumers and citizens of both sides.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everybody has said that the free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea is an institutional and strategic innovation on the part of the Union. On the contrary, it is an unbalanced agreement that will have a negative impact on the European manufacturing industry.
The elimination of duties on Korean products in return for a rise in environmental and social standards in Korea cannot be considered fair. The Korean shipbuilding industry benefits from substantial state aid, which has enabled it to attain a 30% share of the world market. This means that European industry, be it automotive, textile, chemical or any other, must defend itself against competition that if not unfair in form, is unfair in fact.
The introduction of the safeguard clause is an appropriate measure, but it is not sufficient to patch up the many weaknesses in the agreement. I therefore call on the European Commission to be more prudent if it really wishes to defend European economic interests.
(PT) Mr President, this is the pinnacle of a vision of trade that is geared solely towards competition instead of towards harmonisation and reciprocity; that is to say competition between countries, producers and workers.
Large economic groups and transnational companies are, as always, expected to see a profit worth millions of euros with this Free Trade Agreement. However, as always, the other side of the coin is missing: the sacrifice of millions of small producers and small and medium-sized enterprises, environmental sacrifices, the destruction of production capacity and jobs, and the onslaught on wages and workers' rights.
This agreement will primarily affect countries like Portugal and the regions that are most dependent on the sectors concerned: textiles, automobiles related components, and electronics. It is significant that the rapporteur himself has already predicted the inevitable redundancies throughout Europe, but we also know that trade unions and rural organisations in the Republic of Korea are against this agreement.
It is therefore clear who the winners and who the losers will be when it is eventually concluded.
(NL) Mr President, this trade agreement with South Korea is ambitious and comprehensive. It will help remove major trade barriers and European companies will be able to benefit from that. Increased access to the South Korean market will improve European companies' market position.
Given the fact that other major players, such as the United States, Chile and the EFTA countries, aspire to or have already entered into trade agreements with South Korea, this is a very important step. With this agreement, the European Union has shown that it is not cutting itself off from open and sustainable trade, at a time when some other nations are showing protectionist tendencies. Trade offers a way out of the economic crisis. However, free trade must not be allowed to lead to freebooting.
The steel and car industries are worried about this, and not entirely without reason. Therefore, when implementing the agreement, we must closely monitor whether all the conditions are being met and we must ensure that we are able to deploy bilateral safeguard clauses, quickly and effectively, if necessary.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I will try to be extremely brief.
First, regarding the question asked by the Earl of Dartmouth, in a case involving the infringement of intellectual property rights, including patents in third countries, it is appropriate that the operators concerned have recourse to the available enforcement means, including legal proceedings if necessary, as this is a case between two private firms.
In the specific case of Avon Protection, it would be appropriate for your constituent first to seek redress for the alleged infringement of the patent via the existing legal framework in Korea. Should the available enforcement in Korea not be fair or expeditious enough, then the Commission could look into the matter.
Regarding the remarks made by Mr Jadot, the initial draft of the Korean legislation would have forced EU car makers to reduce the CO2 emissions of their cars twice as much as Korean car makers. This was mainly because the proposed emission cuts were not proportional, but highly progressive, depending on the level of emissions of the respective cars. Consequently, despite being responsible for only a small share of car sales in Korea - 3% in 2009 - and therefore of total CO2 car emissions in Korea, EU car makers would have been asked to contribute disproportionately. Their average emissions reduction between 2009 and 2015 would have been 23%, compared with just 10% for their Korean counterparts, which account for 95% of total car sales in Korea. Such burden sharing would not have been fair, and that is why we discussed it with the Korean counterpart.
Finally, I would like to thank everybody involved in this legislative process - the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the Commission rapporteurs, the Chair of the INTA Committee, the Council and my own staff at the Commission - for what, I would say, is a very good example of what the ratification procedure should be under the Treaty of Lisbon.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner also. The whole process has been excellent. Over the years I have worked on a number of codecision procedures and I have to say this has been one of the best. The debate among my shadow rapporteurs has been phenomenal. We have had extremely good input from virtually everybody.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Moreira, the Chair. Without his expertise, I do not think we would have got a satisfactory conclusion on the comitology issue - a particularly difficult sticking point towards the end of the negotiations. There have been a number of issues raised today. I would just like to say to Mr Jadot: I think your pig producers in Brittany may well benefit significantly hopefully, Yannick, because pig producers across Europe are having a bad time. I only pick on that because I am involved in agriculture.
As I said, the quality of the debate has been excellent. There always will be two views and Mr Susta is absolutely right: there is always a split between the protectionist and the free marketeer.
I would just say that we cannot stick our head in the sand and close the door and expect the world not to move on without us, because it will move on without us. We live in a global market, whether we like it or not. There are problems with that but it is a fact. I believe quite strongly that this offers huge opportunities for the European Union to move out of its problems with the financial crisis. We have set a standard for future agreements. However, they will not be as easy as this one. I am sure that we will move onto other far more difficult ones and we look forward to working with the Commission on that.
I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate tonight. It has been excellent and it shows how comprehensive this House can be.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Thursday, 17 February 2011).
Written Statements (Rule 149)
I think that the entry into force of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement would have a positive impact on the European Union's economy. Firstly, it would help achieve customs duty savings estimated at EUR 1.6 billion a year. We would also see an increase in trade, especially in the services sector where the future growth in trade is estimated at 70%, and in the agricultural sector where, just at the moment, European Union exports to Korea have an annual value of EUR 1 billion.
At the same time, this is an ambitious and innovative agreement. It is the first in a new generation of free trade agreements which contain both a chapter on sustainable development and compliance with labour standards and a monitoring mechanism in which civil society will be involved. The fears about the difficulties which Korean competition could cause the Union's more sensitive industries, such as the car industry, are dispelled by the inclusion of the Safeguard Clause in the agreement. This will be used to impose measures for monitoring imports and exports and evaluating the impact of the agreement on the various sectors.


13. 2006 discharge: EU general budget, section V - Court of Auditors (


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


Promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Emilie Turunen, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status.
Mr President, I stand here today as a young politician and as a rapporteur with an appeal to make. Over the last year, more and more of my friends have become unemployed. These are motivated young people, who want to contribute to society, but who instead have to take their place at the back of the unemployment queue because there are no jobs. There are millions of examples of these young people in Europe, and their numbers are growing. With this own-initiative report, therefore, the European Parliament is placing itself at the top of a new agenda. We want to eradicate youth unemployment. We refuse to allow youth unemployment to take hold of a whole generation, and we will insist on helping young people to get off the ground with training and employment.
Statistics show that around 5.5 million young people under 25 in the EU have become unemployed and therefore, young people are hit twice as hard as the population in general.
The reason that I am particularly concerned about youth unemployment is that there is a risk of it leaving a lifelong scar on the individual and on society. We are only too well aware of the consequences of allowing things to carry on as they are from the example of the 1980s, when we lost a generation to long-term unemployment, benefits and social exclusion. That is far too high a price. However, it is not only about economic forecasts; it is about real flesh-and-blood people. It is about young people with high hopes for themselves, who feel that they are not good enough. Young people who will find it difficult to get back into the labour market if we do not give them a helping hand now.
We, as the European Parliament, are therefore asking all Member States to prioritise the combating of youth unemployment and we are asking them to invest in education. Therefore, it is also vital that, as a strategic priority, the EU focuses on joint strategies right now. We need an integrated and ambitious approach with a combination of education, economic, employment and social policies. We have this at local, national and European level.
With this own-initiative report, the European Parliament is sending a number of specific proposals to the Commission, the Council and the Member States. Allow me to highlight a couple of the more important ones:
1. We are proposing a European Youth Guarantee, which will ensure that every young person under 25 will experience a maximum period of 4 months' unemployment, after which they are to be offered a job, a training course or a chance to upskill.
2. We are proposing a European quality charter for academic interns, which is intended to ensure that internships are completed in conjunction with education and that the interns are not used as cheap labour. At the same time, we are proposing more and better apprenticeships for young people during vocational training.
3. We are proposing that all Member States in the EU establish taskforces for combating youth unemployment, and also that the EU should jointly set up a taskforce for coordination, knowledge-sharing and new initiatives.
4. We are proposing that more resources be provided for the European Social Fund, and we want to earmark 10% - a minimum of 10% - of this fund for projects targeting young people.
We also want to ensure that we put a stop to the discriminating practice on the labour market of young people, purely on grounds of their age, being denied access to social services and a proper wage.
These proposals, and all of the other proposals in the report, represent our attempt to turn the youth crisis in Europe around. With the right policies and investments, we can transform the European labour market and create a better future for the young people of Europe. Here in the European Parliament, we are prepared to do our part to create more jobs and better apprenticeships and internships. In the European Parliament, we are prepared to make a difference for the young people of Europe.
(RO) Unemployment among young people under 25 has passed the 5 million mark at European Union level, equivalent to a rate of roughly 20%.
Due to the harsh economic climate, young people are now encountering even more problems in finding a decent job. This is why I believe that Member States must promote the active integration of young people into society and the labour market. However, this cannot be achieved without sound, good quality education.
The potential of young people is a resource which is not used sufficiently. Against the background of demographic changes, they can make an active contribution to strengthening social welfare systems.
Finally, I wish to draw your attention to the situation of young people in rural areas. According to the statistics, they are disadvantaged. They find it more difficult to find a job than young people living in an urban environment.
(PL) Mr President, the mobility and education of young people are budgetary priorities of the European Parliament for 2011. Only a few weeks ago, here in this Chamber, we adopted our mandate for negotiation of the European Union budget for 2011. For me, the Turunen report shows very clearly how much these very areas - the mobility and education of young people - require increased attention and active measures.
It should be emphasised that Mrs Turunen's report is further evidence which confirms the key significance of ensuring the right conditions for education and supporting all practical forms of the mobility of young people in order to implement the 2020 strategy. Facilitating young people's entry to the labour market is also an essential measure for reducing the overall unemployment rate in European Union Member States - unemployment, which is the greatest difficulty and barrier to economic growth. It is all the more important that the European Union budget which is negotiated should include appropriate resources for implementing the objectives described in the report.
(PL) Mr President, unemployment is a problem which has affected the European Union particularly badly in recent years, and it has been made worse by the economic crisis. The problem is worse still when it affects increasing numbers of young people - people who are finishing their education at school or university and who want to begin supporting themselves. Apart from the severe social and psychological consequences which unemployment has for a young person, the massive scale of this phenomenon also has extremely detrimental effects on the economies of the countries concerned. We must not allow successive generations of EU citizens to have to face the spectre of social discrimination and an atrocious economy, so we must do everything in our power to guarantee young people a solid education and work experience as well as fair earnings, to ensure that they have dignified living conditions and a good start to their adult life.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Turunen on her work. As all the statistics sadly remind us, in all countries of the European Union without exception, the people worst hit by the crisis were those with temporary jobs, women and immigrants.
Those with temporary jobs are mostly young people and so there is a shocking percentage, which has not been seen for a very long time, of young people unable to find a job. The slow levels of growth which many expect to last at least two years and the fact that old people are staying in work for longer due to pension system reform, of which all are aware, mean that this problem is destined to increase in the coming years.
For this reason, the work accomplished is very important and I believe that it is essential that each Member State considers youth unemployment as a specific issue to be addressed with interventionist policies.
(EL) Mr President, in this very good own-initiative report by Mrs Emilie Turunen, on which I congratulate her, the European Parliament calls for a better employment strategy from the Council and the Commission. It does so for a very simple reason: young people need Europe, but Europe also needs young people.
It is a two-way relationship, but it is extremely important and it must function for one very simple reason: if this relationship does not function, both sides will be the poorer for it. Although young people have all of their life ahead of them and will have second and third chances, Europe is quite old and will not have another chance in these difficult times of economic crisis.
(PT) Mr President, as this report demonstrates, young people are finding it increasingly more difficult to find jobs, which is a very serious situation.
Unemployment amongst young people is already, on average, over 21% in the European Union, but it is even higher in some countries, and it is becoming ever more difficult for young people to complete their studies and find a job where they have rights and a job with a respectable salary. Generally, they are offered work placements, which are often unpaid, exploiting young people and their need to find work. Even these placements are unpaid and, when they are given a job, it is temporary and poorly paid, and they have no rights.
This situation is unacceptable, so there must be policies in place to prevent such exploitation from continuing, creating jobs for young people, but also protecting the rights they do have.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is absolutely essential to help and guide young people into the world of work. School is not enough to train the workers of the future; instead, we should promote apprenticeships in businesses.
Fighting unemployment, particularly among young people, is one of the most important challenges facing the European Union. Exactly for this reason we must be careful not to ask too much - for example in the fight against climate change - from businesses, since if they decide to close, then there is no future for our workers. Instead, let us concentrate on fighting imports of low-cost goods from third countries which do not respect our rules and workers' rights, particularly in the case of child workers.
(DE) Mr President, it has become clear who has been really hard hit by the ongoing economic situation in the EU: young people under the age of 25, who have an unemployment rate of 21.4%. This is twice as high as the overall unemployment rate in the EU. Young unemployed people will also suffer the consequences of their unemployment later in life. In addition, youth unemployment has significant, negative social and economic effects on our society, in particular, on economic growth. Young people represent our future. We must give them a fair chance, for example, by investing in better education and training in order to provide them with a solid foundation for their future lives.
(DE) Mr President, the young people of Europe need clear prospects. This report is the first step in the right direction. They need the prospect of a secure future that will end their financial dependency on other people and allow them to be self-sufficient.
The entry into the world of work plays an important role in this respect and internships can often make this step easier. However, internships are all too frequently abused. Therefore, we need a legal framework that protects committed young men and women and also ensures that the internships they complete are of good quality. An internship must be seen as part of a young person's training process and not as an opportunity for employers to find cheap labour. Motivated and committed young men and women must not be exploited and discriminated against in this way or in other ways. We must take decisive measures to counteract age discrimination, because the young people of Europe represent our future. We must protect and support them.
(PL) Mr President, I, too, have carefully read the report drafted by Mrs Turunen, and I must say it is an extremely complicated problem. Unemployment among young people has two aspects.
Firstly, what we should do so that those who have completed education or training can really find jobs. All policies which the European Union has at its disposal should help achieve this, including agricultural policy. When reforming the common agricultural policy, we should take care that appropriate programmes, projects and funding for these objectives are given a place in the overall European Union budget.
The second matter concerns social projects which will enable young people to develop their home situation and also provide them with a high standard of public services. I am thinking here of schools, nursery schools and crèches. There is a great shortage of these even in very large cities, not to mention small towns and villages throughout the European Union.
Mr President, youth unemployment is a travesty in the European Union at this time. It is an absolute tragedy that 20% of young people are unemployed. Many of them are highly educated, fully qualified and mad for work, but they cannot get jobs because they are paying for the sins of others - the sins of financial terrorists, greedy speculators, overpaid bankers, golf-playing non-performing regulators. Young people cannot get jobs as a result.
We have got to do something about it. We have got to create internships for them and give them jobs. They do not have to be highly paid jobs and they do not even have to be full-time jobs, but certainly these young people need to start working because, the longer a person stays without work, the more difficult it is to become a good worker. We have got to take action now. If we do, we will be doing a great service to the youth of this Union and it will remembered for evermore.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I very much welcome the adoption of this text by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Given that we are currently in the process of negotiating the EU budget for 2011, the vote on this report comes at precisely the right moment. In fact, Parliament has expressed its desire to make policies relating to young people a priority. We welcome this move. However, such policies should not be limited to the issue of youth mobility. They should also relate to young people's rights. That is precisely the issue at stake here.
The exploitation of interns is a cause for concern and gives rise to the risk of creating a parallel labour market for young people. The precarious position of young interns who undertake internships in places where they later may stand a chance of being hired is harming the European economy, particularly with respect to the funding of social security systems.
In this regard, I welcome the fact that my amendment, which seeks to include measures to guarantee decent working and living conditions for interns, has been included in this report. In my view, this report represents a step towards establishing a real European statute for interns.
(SK) So, a token young person at last. Youth unemployment is actually averaging around 21% in the European Union at the moment, but in some countries, is as high as around 40%, which is an enormous number, and surely needs be halted.
Young people are the most vulnerable group in society at the moment because, if you cannot find work, you cannot live independently, and so young people are not starting families, which has a bearing on the EU's demographic problem. However, we need to give real help to young people - not just to talk about doing something, but to take real steps that will make a difference.
It is also necessary to bear in mind that, in a time of global economic crisis, cutting spending on education is surely the most stupid path to take, as this will only ensure that we have an ignorant population in the future.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, let me start by thanking your rapporteur, Ms Turunen, for her report, which is very timely. As was highlighted by several speakers, it is very clear that the young generation has been particularly badly affected by the economic crisis and the unemployment rate for young people is clearly unacceptable. We cannot waste the talent of our young people, where every fifth young European is without a job or without appropriate prospects.
The Commission therefore is particularly pleased, as am I personally, by the very good title of this report, because it is very clear that we need better-quality jobs for young people and that they need to get appropriate work experience. Where and how better to get work experience than through high quality apprenticeships or internships? I therefore fully agree that these forms of training at the workplace should be used properly and should not replace regular jobs, as was highlighted by several speakers.
Full appreciation of the negative impact of the economic crisis on the young generation was fully reflected in the Commission's proposal for the EU 2020 strategy. It is not a coincidence or an accident that two of the key targets for the Europe 2020 strategy are dealing with young people, and dealing with the importance of better education, ensuring that a higher proportion of the young generation have a university diploma and reducing the proportion of young pupils who are not able to complete primary or secondary education.
The Commission will therefore come with a concrete proposal in order to assist Member States in reaching these targets. We will present our flagship initiative on 'Youth on the Move' in September and we will put the emphasis on the development of fully integrated policies, bringing together education, training and employment.
The objective will be to establish a framework at EU level for promoting youth employment, including through policies to ensure that young people are equipped with the skills and competences they need and that are required by the labour market by means of specific actions to help young people get a first job and to ensure that they move upwards once in the labour market.
We will present measures on how to support young entrepreneurs and increase the self-employment of young people, and we would suggest targeted actions for young people with no or low qualification to help them to move into the labour market.
As I said at the beginning, I agree with the speakers that we have to find concrete and positive measures to stop the waste of young talent and energy and to help young people in Europe. I am sure that, with the support of the European Parliament, we will find an appropriate recipe to overcome this very serious crisis.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, 6 July, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Unemployment rates among young people are rising rapidly worldwide, and currently there are few opportunities for young people to obtain regular permanent employment. Young people entering the labour market are discriminated against on the basis of age, and I welcome what the report contains regarding access for young people to the labour market being encouraged.
I particularly welcome the proposal to create more jobs by encouraging employers to invest in young people. Ongoing training and instruction are extremely important for giving young people better access to the labour market, and the third level education sector is very valuable in this regard.
Internships and apprenticeships must be encouraged, to ensure that there is no exploitation involved and that young people are able to cover basic living expenses and enter the labour market in future without being discriminated against in any way. The Council, the Commission and the Member States must make contact with young people so that their needs and priorities can be taken into account when policy is being drafted.
The worryingly high percentage of young people out of work - double the general EU unemployment rate - reflects how difficult it is for young people to find work, a trend which has been significantly exacerbated by the recession. The current young generation, suffering a disproportionate impact from the economic crisis, are at risk of social exclusion. More than 5.5 million young people without work face poverty and hardship after leaving school. Young people are forced to accept precarious jobs, with low salaries and reduced social insurance cover, which affects their health and safety in the workplace. A higher level of vulnerability is being witnessed in rural areas where, in countries like Romania, poverty, unemployment, starting work at an early age and dropping out of school are ruining the futures of countless children and young people.
In addition to the strategies we have for economic recovery and creating jobs, adapting the education system to avoid producing a conveyor belt of unemployed young people and combating illegal employment and exploitation of young people, I believe that a European Youth Guarantee must be established, providing every young person with the right to be offered a job or a combination of work and additional training, after being unemployed for four months.
The economic recession has resulted in a huge rise in the youth unemployment rate, making it one of the most urgent problems facing Europe. At the moment, there are more than 5.5 million young people under 25 who are unemployed, equivalent to a rate of 21.4%, which is double the general unemployment rate. Previous recessions have proven that young people are worst affected as they are the last to be taken on and, in many cases, the first to be dismissed.
Many young people, especially in southern Europe, work on short-term contracts, making it easy for them to be dismissed during times of crisis.
The European Commission must increase the European Social Fund's funding, allocate at least 10% of this fund to projects aimed at young people and facilitate access to this fund.
I think that the most important issues which can be dealt with at EU level to help young people are: the European Quality Charter on Internships, which will ensure that in cases where practical experience is incorporated in education systems, certain conditions are respected, and the introduction of a European Youth Guarantee, which will guarantee every young person in the EU the right to be offered a job after being unemployed for a maximum of four months.
Young people are Europe's future, but they are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, especially during the current economic and financial crisis. The rate of youth unemployment is nearly 30% in southern and eastern Europe. Young people must benefit from greater opportunities in education and employment and from an improvement in the mechanisms promoting social inclusion and active participation in society.
Member States must take the following action to help create a 'Europe of the young generation' on the labour market: provide a smooth transition between the education system and labour market by promoting and supporting measures such as paid internships and professional guidance; provide young people and young mothers with access to the labour market and social welfare facilities; encourage employers to offer stable, long-terms jobs to young people and a wage which reflects their level of effort and their professional and intellectual capabilities; protect young people from contracts which contain clauses placing them in a precarious position in relation to their employer. It is time for the well-being of young people to be promoted and for them to be provided with a civilised, truly European working and living environment.


8. Free Trade Agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (vote)


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Documents received: see Minutes


Dates for next sittings: see Minutes


4. Excise duty on alcohol (vote)
- Report: Lulling
- After the rejection of the Commission proposal:
I should like to request that the document be referred back to committee, because now we have contradictory voting outcomes.
Because the Commission has not made any proposals, it will automatically be referred back to committee. That will happen anyway.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I proposed to my group and to many of my fellow Members who supported me that they reject the report, because the line that I had proposed has not been followed and because I have the impression that, in view of the close outcome of the vote, certain Members of this House did not know what they were voting for.
(Protests)
Sorry, were unaware of the significance of their votes.
Furthermore, Mr President, given that the Commission is keeping quiet - even though Commissioner Kovács spoke twice last night while I, the rapporteur, was not allowed to respond to him - I really must highlight its powerlessness.
We made a proposal in order to break the deadlock. Unfortunately, we have not been supported, Mr President. Therefore, there is no report by Parliament on this proposal, and the Commission and the Council can persist in maintaining the status quo and persevere in their state of deadlock.
(Applause)
There will of course be a debate when the matter comes back before the House.