Statement by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, the Conference of Presidents has asked me to deliver a brief statement about tomorrow, the European Day of Languages. I shall gladly do so, but please bear with me, because this statement is written in several languages, which makes it a daunting task for me too. I ask you to take note of this statement.
On 26 September 2008 we are celebrating the European Day of Languages. In that framework, the European Union, together with the European Council, is supporting a series of European initiatives aimed at promoting the valuation of languages and cultures and at highlighting to the European public the importance of learning languages.
(DE) The linguistic diversity of Europe is an essential element of our intellectual heritage and is one of our cultural treasures. In the course of European unification, linguistic diversity has gradually become less of a barrier and more of an opportunity. This is why the latest communication from the Commission on multilingualism rightly describes our linguistic diversity as a trump card.
(FR) Multilingualism and promoting linguistic diversity are cornerstones of our day-to-day activities in the European Parliament. Our motto is 'no legislative work without translation'.
(IT) Translation and interpreting of our work as representatives of the peoples of Europe play a vital part in ensuring its legitimacy and transparency and bringing our Parliament ever closer to European citizens.
(ES) In that context it should be noted that the European Parliament is the only international organisation which has a website and web television in 23 different languages.
(PL) A European Union that is united in diversity need have no concerns about its future.
(DE) Thank you for your attention, ladies and gentlemen.
(Applause)
Mr President, I have a point of order. If you have the information to tell us that it is safe to go back to Strasbourg, why can you not make a statement now before we leave this plenary and risk going back to a building that some of us think is still unsafe?
Mrs Lynne, all the information given to me indicates that the building in Strasbourg is every bit as safe as this building here in Brussels.


Formal sitting - Czech Republic
- Mr President of the Czech Republic, I would like to offer you a warm welcome to the European Parliament.
President of the Czech Republic. - (CS) I would like first of all to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the European Parliament, which is one of the key institutions of the European Union. Although I have been here several times before I have never had the chance to address a plenary session. I therefore appreciate the chance to do so today. The elected representatives of 27 countries with their broad spectrum of political opinions and views constitute a unique audience, just as the European Union itself has been a unique and essentially revolutionary experiment for over half a century, attempting to improve decision making in Europe through transferring a significant part of the decision-making process from individual states to pan-European institutions.
I have travelled here to see you from Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, the historic heart of Czech statehood and an important place in the development of European ideas, European culture and European civilisation. I have come here as the representative of the Czech state, which in its various forms has always been part of European history, a country which has often played a direct and significant role in the making of European history and which wishes to continue doing so.
The last time a Czech president addressed you from this place was nine years ago. He was my predecessor in the role, Václav Havel, and it was four years before our accession to the EU. Some weeks ago, the Czech premier, Mirek Topolánek, also spoke here, this time as the leader of the country holding the presidency of the Council of the EU. In his speech he focused on specific topics arising from the priorities of the Czech presidency and the problems currently confronting the countries of the European Union.
This enables me to approach you with themes of a more general nature and to talk about things which, at first sight, are possibly not as dramatic as the solutions to today's economic crisis, the Russia-Ukraine gas conflict or the situation in Gaza. In my opinion, however, they are of absolutely fundamental importance for the development of the European integration project.
In just under three months, the Czech Republic will commemorate the fifth anniversary of its accession to the EU and it will do so in a dignified manner. It will mark the anniversary as a country which, in contrast to some other new Member States, does not feel disappointed over the unfulfilled expectations of membership. There is nothing surprising about this and there is a rational explanation for it. Our expectations were realistic. We were well aware that we were joining a community created by and composed of people and not some sort of ideal construct developed without authentic human interests, ambitions, opinions and ideas. Interests and ideas are to be found at every step in the European Union and that is how it should be.
We saw our entry into the EU, on the one hand, as external confirmation of the fact that we had relatively quickly, over the course of almost fifteen years since the fall of communism, become a normal European country again. On the other hand, we considered - and we still do consider - the chance to participate actively in the European integration process as an opportunity to benefit from the advantages of an already highly integrated Europe while at the same time contributing our own ideas to the process. We assume our own share of responsibility for the development of the European Union and it is precisely with this in mind that we accede to our presidency of the Council of the European Union. I firmly believe that the first six weeks of our presidency have convincingly demonstrated our responsible approach.
I would also like to repeat out loud and very clearly here in this forum, and for the benefit of those of you that either did not know or did not want to know, my conviction that for us there was not and is not any alternative to EU membership and that there is no relevant political movement in our country that would be able or willing to undermine this position. We have therefore been taken aback recently by the repeated and growing attacks against the Czechs based on the completely unfounded assumption that we are looking for a different integration project than the one we joined six years ago. This is not the case.
The citizens of the Czech Republic take it for granted that European integration has a necessary and important mission, which broadly speaking they understand in the following way. It is firstly to remove barriers which are unnecessary and counterproductive to human freedom and prosperity, hindering the movement of persons, goods and services, ideas, political philosophies, world views, cultural plans and behavioural models, which, over the course of time, have formed between various European countries for many different reasons, and secondly to exercise joint care for public assets that are of significance to the entire continent or such projects as cannot be implemented effectively through just bilateral agreements between two or more neighbouring European countries.
The effort to implement these two aims - removing barriers and making rational choices over issues that should be resolved at European level - is not and never will be completed. The various barriers and obstacles still remain and there is definitely more decision making at the Brussels level than there ideally should be. There is certainly more of it than people in the various Member States want. You are surely well aware of this too, ladies and gentlemen. I would therefore like to ask in a rhetorical sense whether you are certain each time you vote that you are deciding on a matter that should be decided on in this house rather than closer to the citizens, in other words within the individual European states? Other potential impacts of European integration are also discussed in today's politically correct rhetoric, but these tend to be of a secondary and irrelevant nature. They have more to do with the ambitions of professional politicians and the people connected with them than with the interests of ordinary Member State citizens.
I said earlier that for the Czechs there was and there continues to be no alternative to EU membership - and I am delighted to emphasise and underline this - but that is only half of what I would like to say. The other half comprises the completely logical assertion that a range of potential and legitimate alternatives exists in respect of the methods and forms of European integration, just as it has done throughout the past half century. History has no end point. To claim that the status quo, in other words the current institutional arrangements of the EU, is a dogma forever beyond criticism is an error which unfortunately continues to proliferate, even though it is in direct conflict both with rational thinking and with the entire historical development of over two thousand years of European civilisation. The assumption that an 'ever closer Union', in other words an ever deeper political integration of the Member States, represents the only possible and correct course of development for the European Union is a similar error, which is postulated a priori and is therefore similarly beyond criticism.
Neither the status quo nor the postulate of deeper integration bringing indisputable benefits can or should be regarded as sacrosanct by any European democrat. It is unacceptable for them to be enforced by persons regarding themselves as, to quote famous Czech writer Milan Kundera, the 'keepers of the keys' to European integration.
Moreover, it is obvious that the institutional arrangement of the EU does not constitute an end in itself but is a means to achieving real ends. These ends are nothing less than personal freedom and a set of economic arrangements that will bring prosperity. In other words, market economics.
Citizens of all Member States surely want these things but, over the course of the 20 years since the fall of communism, it has repeatedly been confirmed that they are wanted more and cared about more by those people who have experienced tyranny for a large part of the twentieth century and who have suffered the effects of a dysfunctional, centrally planned, state-run economy. Those people are quite legitimately more sensitive and more aware of manifestations or tendencies pointing to ends other than freedom and prosperity. And those people include the citizens of the Czech Republic.
The current system for decision making in the EU differs from the historically tried and tested traditional form of parliamentary democracy. In a normal parliamentary system there is a group supporting the government and another supporting the opposition. However, unless I am mistaken, this is not the case in the European Parliament. Here only one alternative exists and those who dare consider other alternatives are labelled enemies of European integration. In my part of Europe, we lived until relatively recently under a political system where no alternatives were allowed and where no parliamentary opposition therefore existed. We learned through bitter experience that where there is no opposition, there is no freedom. This is why political alternatives must exist.
That is not all. The relationship between the citizens of the various Member States and their EU representatives is not the normal relationship between voters and the politicians representing them. There is more distance between EU citizens and their representatives than is the case within individual Member States, and not only in the geographical sense of the word. This is often referred to in various ways: the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, decision making by the un-elected but selected officials, the bureaucratisation of decision making and so on. The proposed changes to the status quo contained in the rejected European Constitution or the not-so-different Treaty of Lisbon would only exacerbate this defect.
Since there is no European demos, no European nation, this defect cannot be solved by strengthening the role of the European Parliament. This would only make the problem worse and would lead to Member State citizens feeling ever more alienated from EU institutions. The solution does not lie in trying to breathe new life into the current form of European integration, or in trying to suppress the role of Member States in the name of a new multi-cultural and multi-national European civil society. These are attempts that have failed in the past because they were not natural historical developments.
I am afraid that attempts to speed up and deepen integration and to shift decision making affecting living standards of Member State citizens more and more to a European level may have repercussions endangering everything positive that has been achieved in Europe over the past half century. Therefore let us not underestimate the concerns felt by many Member State citizens that decisions affecting their lives will be taken elsewhere and without their involvement and that their ability to influence the decision-making process is very limited. The success of the EU to date is due among other things to the fact that the opinion and voice of every Member State had the same weight in voting and thus could not be ignored. Let us not allow a situation to come about in which Member State citizens live their lives with a resigned feeling that the EU project is not their own, that it is not developing as they would like and that they are obliged merely to resign themselves to it. We could very easily and very quickly find ourselves once again living under conditions we now habitually regard as a thing of the past.
This is also closely connected to the question of prosperity. It must be said openly that the current economic system of the EU involves constraints on the market and a constant strengthening of a centrally-controlled economy. Although history has given us ample evidence that this path leads nowhere, we are following it again. The level of restrictions on the spontaneity of market processes and the level of political regulation over the economy are constantly increasing. This development has recently been further reinforced by incorrect interpretations of the causes of the current financial and economic crisis, attributing it to the market rather than to the actual cause which was, on the contrary, political manipulation of the market. It is again necessary to remember the historical experience of my part of Europe and the lessons we have learned.
Many of you will certainly be familiar with the name of the 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat and his famous Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, which is still a well-known standard text to this day, illustrating the absurdity of political interference in the economy. On 14 November 2008, the European Commission approved a real petition from manufacturers of candles, not just a Bastiat-style fiction, and imposed a 66% tax on candles imported from China. I could not believe that a 160-year-old literary essay had become a reality, but that is precisely what happened. The inevitable consequence of introducing such measures on a broad scale is that Europe will fall behind economically and that economic growth will slow down or even grind to a halt. The only solution lies in the liberalisation and deregulation of the European economy.
I say all this because I care about a democratic and prosperous future for Europe. I am trying to remind you of the fundamental principles upon which European civilisation has been built for centuries or millennia. Principles whose validity is timeless and universal and which should therefore still apply in today's EU. I firmly believe that the citizens of the various Member States want freedom, democracy and economic prosperity.
The most important thing at this point is clearly to make sure that we do not equate the open discussion of these matters with an attack on the very idea of European integration. We have always believed that being allowed to discuss these serious questions, being heard, defending everyone's right to put forward alternatives to the one correct opinion, no matter how much we may disagree with them, is precisely the kind of democracy that was denied us for four decades. We, who have involuntarily spent the greater part of our lives witnessing how the free exchange of ideas is a basic precondition for a healthy democracy, believe that this precondition will be honoured and respected in the future as well. This represents an opportunity and an irreplaceable way of making the EU freer, more democratic and more prosperous.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, it was your wish to address the European Parliament. We have gladly granted this wish. Mr President, in a Parliament of the past you would certainly not have been able to give that speech.
(Applause)
Thank goodness that we live in a European democracy in which we can all express our opinions.
(Applause and uproar)
Ladies and gentlemen, we are one European family and, as in any family, there are differences of opinion. Mr President, I agree with you when you say - I only wish to make a few comments, but I feel obliged to do so - : we are a human community. A human community is characterised by having advantages, strengths, disadvantages and weaknesses. Together, we must strengthen the strengths and eradicate the weaknesses. I also agree with you when you say that we need to ask whether each decision that we take could perhaps have been taken elsewhere. Yes, but our national capitals must also ask themselves whether many decisions should not be taken in our towns and communities rather than at national level.
(Applause)
Allow me to make one final comment relating to our Parliament's understanding of itself: we thank you for your acknowledgement that this European Parliament is an important institution. If we were not so influential, we would not currently be the legislator in 75% of cases and we would not be a co-legislator in almost 100% of cases with regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, and then it would, in fact, be the case that decisions in Europe would be made by bureaucratic means. However, it is now the European Parliament that decides.
(Sustained applause)
Thank you, Mr President, for your visit. It was an expression of our diversity of opinion in Europe and of our European democracy, and in a democracy it is ultimately the majority that counts. I would urge us all to continue, together, to stand up for this democracy, for Europe, for unity and for peace.
(Standing ovation)


1. Appointments to parliamentary committees (vote): see Minutes


Mid-term review of industrial policy (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Jordan Cizelj, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the mid-term review of industrial policy - A contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy.
rapporteur. - (SL) The news concerning the formulation of the Lisbon Strategy has had a considerable response among the European citizens.
We soon realised that the objectives set out were too ambitious from the point of view of time, but the idea was made public and presented to Europe and to the world. We polished it somewhat in 2005, when the new Lisbon Strategy was prepared, still ambitious, yet much more down to earth. It was then that the Commission also prepared an integrated approach in the sphere of the industrial policy.
At this point, we are assessing what has been achieved and how to proceed. Although industrial policy remains within the competence of the Member States, the European measures, encouragement of development and economic growth have considerable influence here. Industry stimulates the creation of a knowledge society, it stimulates research, development and innovation, and at the same time it is also a consumer of these activities.
When deciding on initiatives at European level, we must consider only the priority areas of common activities. So, what is of genuine importance? Which are the topics that the European Parliament views as the priority areas?
I should like to mention that we welcome the Commission's report on the work that has been done, and we highlight the priority areas for our future activities.
First, without any doubt, are climate change and sustainable development. The commitments regarding a considerable reduction of greenhouse emissions do not only apply to energy and traffic. They have a strong influence also on industry, without which the development of low-carbon society is not possible. Sustainable industrial development therefore requires coordination, consistency and conformity.
We must ask ourselves what encouragement industry requires in order to develop cleaner technology. How do we encourage the use of more efficient technologies? Which are the right mechanisms to avoid damage to competitiveness, or for consumers to have a choice? How do we act beyond the Union's borders?
It is our vision to reduce global warming; therefore just moving higher-emission technology to third countries is not acceptable. Climate change is an opportunity and not a threat to the European economy.
Another priority topic must be the securing of natural raw materials, and taking care that natural resources are handled wisely. An activity of the Member States that has not been harmonised can cause rivalry and in the long run weaken national economies. This is why I expect concerted European activity with a strong international component.
A lot of work is still ahead of us in order to create a more conducive environment for small and medium-sized enterprise. Europe will truly open up for them only if they do not encounter new, disparate and complicated procedures and obstacles in each Member State.
Therefore I expect more unity, harmonisation and a reduction of administrative burdens, both at European and national level. I expect measures that provide an even greater impetus to personal initiative. At the same time I expect changes to the European system of values, to encourage European society to accept greater risk.
European society appreciates the acquisition and generation of new knowledge, research and innovation. The legislative framework must follow this. We must formulate adequate procedures for the protection of intellectual property. These must be European, and reasonably quick. The necessary financial means should not be an obstacle to action - I am talking about the so-called Community Patent.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I have listed just a few priorities, which have also been presented in our Report. I am now looking forward to your further debate, which I know will be productive, and I invite you to present your contributions, which like your amendments will add considerable value to this report.
Thank you.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three years ago we modernised the industrial policy of the EU and established it as a cornerstone of our entire economic strategy.
We are able to say today that it was the right decision. European industry is better placed as a major competitor when it comes to defending its share of the market. The excellent export performance of European industry contributes to macroeconomic stability, even in times of crisis.
On the basis of a mid-term review, we have presented you with a timetable and work plan for the coming years. I ask you to support this plan. I should like to thank Mrs Jordan Cizelj for drafting this report, and you will understand why I am truly pleased and want to express my delight that this report is so favourable and gives us such strong backing. Like me, the rapporteur sees the main functions of industrial policy in the creation of the right conditions for businesses, making the European Union a sustainably attractive location for industries and strengthening our industrial base so that we shall also have sufficient good and secure manufacturing jobs in future. Industrial policy in the 21st century no longer bears any resemblance to what used to be called industrial policy. Let me reiterate clearly that our industrial policy is based on the premise that our companies must face up to competition and that we cannot protect them from competition and indeed have no wish to do so.
Our task is not to protect industries. Our job is to provide them with conditions in which they can fully develop their potential. I am pleased that the parliamentary report endorses not only the aims of our industrial policy but also the method by which we are pursuing them. This method is based on a combination of cross-sectoral and single-sector initiatives.
There is certainly a need to act in numerous areas that have a great impact on the whole of European industry. Let me cite just three examples, namely cutting red tape for European businesses, strengthening their innovative capacity and fostering an enterprise culture. On the other hand there are matters that only concern specific industries.
Let me remind you that we have introduced a system which guarantees the safe production and marketing of chemical substances in the Union. We have just launched a comprehensive package of measures designed to strengthen the European defence industry, and there is an ambitious programme, adopted only this week, to simplify the legal provisions governing the automotive industry.
I could add many more examples to this list. All of these things have been done in close partnership, not only with industry but also with all groups of stakeholders. I attach great importance to the fact that we have done all this together with Parliament, with the trade unions and with the environmental and consumer organisations in open, transparent and verifiable processes.
I reject the idea of making industrial policy behind closed doors or in back rooms. European industry is the vital driving force of innovation in Europe and an absolutely crucial factor in safeguarding our position in global trade, and its achievements therefore merit recognition and praise; they merit measures to enhance the ability of European industry to maintain its performance in future as far as possible, and they merit efforts on our part to meet the challenges that lie immediately ahead. These challenges stem, of course, from the gathering momentum of economic globalisation - we should have no illusions about that. What we have seen so far is only the beginning.
The same surely applies to technological change and the pace at which it is happening, with all the implications for productivity, structures and jobs, and, of course, to the increasingly central question of the ways in which our climatic and environmental objectives impact on our industrial policy. Adjustments are needed here, and they will occupy us in the immediate future.
For this reason, the Commission's next major initiative, which is to be launched before the end of this month, is the initiative for sustainable industrial development, a sustainable industrial policy and sustainable industrial production. The political aim is to pursue an integrated approach comprising environmental, employment and industrial policies. We want a strong economy, safe jobs, less energy dependence and a clean environment. The way to these goals lies in products and processes that are innovative and designed to meet future needs, less environmental pollution in Europe and more support for other regions in their essential efforts to cope with climate change with the aid of modern technology made in Europe. That is the path we intend to pursue in our industrial policy.
In addition, we have also launched new initiatives on industry clusters and pilot markets. I shall present you with an action plan on standardisation and examine ways in which industry can obtain higher-quality and more competitive services. Two new sectoral initiatives have also been launched. The first deals with problems specific to the food industry, and that has now acquired great significance, of course, in the light of rising food prices, while the other relates to the challenges facing another of Europe's key industries, namely electrical engineering.
All in all, I believe we can say that our industrial policy is now well on the way to creating the right conditions for European businesses to flourish. Let me say again that our aim is not to intervene or to favour particular economic players, nor do we seek to relieve the Member States of their responsibility; what we are aiming for is partnership, optimum coordination and the common achievement of common goals.
We are in the process of dovetailing the industrial policy of the European Union more closely with those of the Member States, and I am delighted that Parliament has also given its firm backing to that effort.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Jordan Cizelj on an excellent and very comprehensive report. It covers everything that it should. I should also like to thank Mr Verheugen, Vice-President of the European Commission, for the statement he has just made which I support in its entirety. I shall begin by reminding the House that it was once said that the best industrial policy is no industrial policy. Fortunately, we have now moved on and things are different. It should be recalled that the Lisbon Strategy mainly relates to industrial activity. It concerns production, products and competitive products and covers all enterprises from SMEs to large concerns. I believe that there are five important points that apply to our industry, from the smallest to the largest companies. These points have already been mentioned, but I would like to emphasise them.
The first is innovation. This obviously calls for research and development, but that is a separate issue dealt with in the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme and also in national programmes. However, there are also some very important requirements, namely the creation of the macro-economic conditions necessary to ensure that innovation can triumph on the market, along with new technologies as opposed, for example, to state aid.
The second issue is to create appropriate conditions for banking operations and encourage banks to grant high-risk loans, because innovation involves risk.
Thirdly, we must combat monopolies on our market. This is what we are currently considering and debating in relation to a free market for energy. We all know this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, we must simultaneously protect our market against dumping from outside the European Union.
Fourthly, legislation needs to be simplified and better regulation implemented. We should support every action in this regard taken by the European Commission and by Commissioner Verheugen.
Fifthly, we must lay the foundations for genuine solidarity regarding energy and raw materials. This is a sine qua non for the development of industry. In addition, far-reaching standardisation and policy coordination at Union level should be introduced, linked to the policies of the Member States.
Every Member State has some way of coordinating its regional policy at national level. Similarly, the policy of every Member State should be coordinated from above. My final comment is that we have to comply with provisions on environmental protection and climate protection. It is our intention to continue to be leaders in this area, but in the interests of our industry we must proceed cautiously.
on behalf of the PSE group. - (RO) I would like to congratulate Mrs. Cizelj and thank her for the openness she has shown in the process of making this report. I submitted four amendments that we can find at items 18 and 27 of the report.
I begin by calling attention to the need to correlate industrial development with the improvement of social protection systems. All employees in industry should have decent working conditions. At Item 18 of Mrs. Cizelj's report, the European Parliament considers that industrial development is closely related to the availability of an efficient transport infrastructure at European level. A developed transport infrastructure will allow the development of industrial areas outside urban communities as well. Member States can also use the regional development funds for the creation of industrial and technological parks in rural areas close to large urban agglomerations.
Through another amendment I submitted, I requested the Commission and Member States to support and accelerate the achievement of the projects that the European Council declared of European interest for energy safety and diversification of the European Union energy sources. At item 27 of the report, the European Parliament calls attention to the need to further invest in education, professional training and research. Industrial development and the competitiveness of European products depend on the quality of human resources and their level of training, as well as on the innovations contained in the new products.
Unfortunately, at the level of the European Union, in spite of the Community research programmes and the funds allocated to them, too little is invested in applied research and this is true especially in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. They are dealing with difficulties in providing the co-financing required for their participation in the research framework programme. In this context, I consider the banking system could prepare financial instruments to facilitate the participation of SMEs in the research framework programmes.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, let me begin by expressing my thanks to Romana Jordan Cizelj whose report truly touched on all aspects of a modern industrial policy and stressed the particular importance of creating the right basic conditions. I am very grateful to her. We cooperated well on this report.
In your explanatory statement, Mrs Jordan Cizelj, you say that, in general, industry in the EU is healthy and dynamic. Yes, we are even experiencing a renaissance of the so-called 'old economy'. I myself come from a highly industrialised state. No one ever thought, for example, that the steel industry would suddenly boom again. We are a vibrant global force. The state of our industry is robust, and our flagship, the euro, has indeed steered us through the straits. Nevertheless, in spite of the sound industrial base and the resumption of investment activity in Europe, we note that the tide is turning. The speed of technological change is breathtaking. The question is how we should deal with this. Is this the right time to be conducting a mid-term review of our industrial policy?
Without raw materials and cheap labour - neither of which we possess - we shall come under competitive pressure that we shall be unable to withstand unless we are creative. For this reason, I wish to congratulate the Commission first of all for having designated 2009 as the Year of Creativity and Innovation. Yet what does that mean? Innovation, as we know, must be far more effective in turning knowledge into wealth. We have established the EIT, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology - or, to be more precise, it will soon be established - and that is a good basis. Yet the creative people in the world are not only leaving Europe, they are now even quitting the United States. You should read the book by Richard Florida in which he reflects on this situation. What is happening with regard to the creative class in this world? Creative people will settle in places that fulfil three criteria, which Florida calls the three Ts - technology, talent and tolerance. The question is whether these three Ts are present in sufficient abundance here in Europe. I believe we have laid good foundations with the Seventh Framework Programme and the EIT, but that is not enough. We must do a lot more. The three Ts need more money. The clusters are a sound initiative. It is essential, however, to select the right specialisations; the cluster initiative must be coherent, as must the whole industrial policy of the EU, and it must be appropriate and balanced.
In the case of the car industry, of course, we see some lack of consistency; we see that, in certain respects, we are overtightening the screw. That has to do with our policy on climate change, which is increasingly becoming a fanatical moral crusade, subjecting Europe to a form of lifestyle regulation that sometimes goes over the top. How else can it happen that CO2 emissions from exhaust pipes are penalised 24 times more heavily than emissions from chimneys? We must ensure, Commissioner Verheugen, that the policy of the EU is coherent. We cannot be the lead market and possess an 80% share of global trade in premium cars and yet pull the rug from under our own feet in this very part of the market. We must take care to act consistently.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the value of the rapporteur's work deserves to be fully recognised. The review undertaken presents an encouraging picture of the state of many sectors of the Union's industry. We must, however, recognise the challenges facing our Community. These challenges mainly relate to the pace of technological change, notably regarding new materials, to the need to save energy and water, to environmental protection and also to demographic conditions affecting the labour market. We need to improve our approach to the implementation of innovative solutions in all areas, including technical and organisational, legal and financial. The current legal, administrative and bureaucratic barriers are detrimental to the competitiveness of our industrial products. The question of the transition from idea to production should be raised in this context, as should the subject of patents and European discoveries. Every effort must be made to devise solutions that will be acceptable to small and medium-sized enterprises as well as to large ones. European products can and must succeed through their attractive design, finish, excellent quality, creativity and outstanding service.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the sole objective of this report and today's discussions is simply to conceal a glaring reality in the European Union: industry is in crisis and the damage being caused is substantial. The figures provided are certainly dream-like: 80%, 73%. They could well have been replaced with billions of euros to show them off to everyone. They fool no one, however. They do nothing but hide the real state of affairs.
One of the major concerns of industry as a whole is that the only thing that counts is the profit margin. The endangered species of captains of industry has now been replaced by sombre-talking slot machines. No matter what decisions are taken and their consequences for the women and men of Europe, profit must be as high as possible and it must be immediate.
I am well aware that some people will tell me that never has so much been invested, produced, exchanged and earned by industry. That is true, but what is the significance of huge financial reward benefiting a handful of people when most are suffering and seeing their little dreams of happiness going up in smoke?
We cannot fail to see that the theme of employment is not a feature of this report, and nor are the concepts of land planning, population needs, taxation and social issues. The fact of the matter is that the commercial success of major industrial groups in Europe is now making ever smaller contributions to EU development. The large European groups are relocating and outsourcing to countries that operate dumping in terms of wages, welfare, health, taxes and the environment, and meanwhile the EU refuses to enact any industrial policy.
This policy is also strangling small and medium-sized enterprises and encouraging them to do the same. It is obvious it is not the ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr Henin, the time was not established by us, it was established by your group. Unfortunately, you have got one minute and thirty seconds. So, if you protest, just send this protest to your group.
(NL) Europe is rightly staking a lot on maintaining and strengthening competitiveness and we know how to keep our market share in essential sectors but, as the Commissioner has just said, we are only in the first wave of globalisation. We really need to keep on the edge of our seats.
Then there is the question of this new combination of research, development and making and selling innovative products in a way that is actually profitable. This report by Mrs Jordan Cizelj does put the emphasis in the right place. We have to eliminate the bureaucracy and we actually have to talk about more efficiency in laws and legislation. The action programme gives the initial impetus for that, but I should like to make a heartfelt plea. It is still difficult for industries to find their way through the typical European instruments. The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme are central top-down instruments to be decided in Brussels. The structural funds are decentralised in nature. All have their own front doors, their own criteria, you name it.
My message is that there should be more combination, more coordination, more choice of priorities and their definition, even within the European Commission. Then I would see the effect in the regions. I would see clustering develop in successful sectors. Last month in my region we set up an office, a one-stop shop, for the various instruments and that provides clarity.
In conclusion, fragmentation and bureaucracy are unnecessary. We need to know what we want and that also increases the visibility for businesses and the public that is so necessary. They have to say that Europe has chosen well and implemented properly. On that point there is still a great deal to be desired.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I was delighted to hear the statement by the Commissioner just now. I should like to refer to three points he made in it. Firstly, Commissioner, you emphasised that we must individualise our approach to certain sectors of transport. Secondly, you said that specific regions require greater assistance. Thirdly, you referred to the issue of innovation.
Some parts of our industry operate at global level and others at local level. I would like to mention the shipbuilding industry. Typically, this industry is linked to coastal regions. It is, however, one of the industries experiencing difficulties at global level. Not only is Poland affected, but also for example Malta, along with other Member States of the European Union.
Contracts span several years, Commissioner. Three years ago nobody anticipated that the rate of the dollar in relation to the euro would fall. Nobody anticipated either that the rate of the dollar and of the euro would fall in relation to the Polish złoty, for example. This has resulted in very serious economic problems. I appeal to you, Commissioner, to deal with protection of the European shipbuilding industry by way of the European Union's policy, so that ways of protecting the former can be found, precisely within the framework of these global conditions, in the context of competition with Chinese and Indonesian shipyards. I feel sure that this must be a matter close to your heart, Commissioner, as you are an honorary doctor of Szczeciń University.
(LT) The implementation of EU industrial policy, which is within the competence of the Member States, is facing a number of obstacles that prevent better results and higher competitiveness from being achieved. I will highlight some of these - regulation and sustainable development.
Industry in the EU is challenged by excessive regulation and bureaucracy. Small and medium-sized enterprises suffer the most because of the unbearable burden of administration.
Small and medium-sized enterprises account for more than 90% of all enterprises; they are known for their innovation, dynamism and flexibility and their important role in withstanding competitive pressure as well as creating new jobs. I therefore call on the European Commission and the Member States to make major changes and simplify the regulatory environment of SMEs.
Sustainable development is the horizontal dimension of all EU policy. In the EU we must strive to achieve the transition to industry based on lower CO2 production and efficient use of resources, allowing a reduction in environmental pollution, the export of pollution to third countries and the effect on climate change. Sustainable development should be based on new technologies, so funding for scientific research should be improved, since we lag behind the United States and Japan in this sphere. However, the cost of patents should be reduced to facilitate the spread of innovation.
Although industrial policy falls within the national sphere of competence, I have previously urged the Commission to take on a more substantial role, especially in carrying out studies and delivering forecasts along with preparing recommendations to governments on which spheres would be competitive, which is very important in terms of moving production to third countries. I therefore welcome the Commission's new sectoral initiatives in electrical engineering and the food industry, the problems of which are most acute nowadays.
(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to two issues in this debate. Firstly, as a result of the financial crisis and subsequent economic crisis in the United States, the rates of economic growth and employment within the European Union in both 2008 and 2009 will be lower than previously forecast. This may cause serious difficulties, particularly in relation to the operation of SMEs.
Secondly, the European Commission has set ambitious targets for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide by European industry, when the best that can be said about other countries in the world is that they are being careful regarding emissions. As a result of this approach, the cost of production in Europe will increase, just as economic growth is set to slow down. A further negative consequence for the activities of European manufacturing relates to allocation of carbon dioxide emissions between individual Member States, without considering how far some of them lag behind in terms of development. The impact on the new Member States has been disastrous, notably in the case of particularly sensitive economies based on coal, such as the economy of my country. It seems that the report before us today does not consider these two issues, especially where their effects on economic development and employment in Europe are concerned.
(PT) The central issue in this debate is the priority that must be given to the defence and promotion of existing industries in the various Member States, bearing in mind their specific natures, whether these are textile, clothing and footwear industries, or automobile, naval or chemical industries, or any other traditional sector or new sector involving new materials and innovative technologies.
This priority demands not only measures to stimulate innovation and effectively support micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, but also an international trade strategy which takes account of the current situation and the industries existing in our countries, defence of employment with rights, promotion of development in our regions and social inclusion.
It is not enough to say that we want a forward-looking industry. We urgently need to look at the present and place industries and their social impact at the centre of the decisions that must be made in terms of macroeconomic, financial and commercial policies at both Community and national level.
(PL) Mr President, within the framework of the new Lisbon cycle, the emphasis should be on industrial policy, because a flourishing industry is very important in terms of making full use of the European Union's economic potential. It is true that industrial policy falls largely within national competence. Nonetheless, better coordination between action at national and European level is needed in order to guarantee the effectiveness of political strategies.
The new Action Plan on Sustainable Industrial Policy should take account of aspects such as better legal regulations to reduce the administrative burdens that are particularly onerous for SMEs. It is the latter, however, that play one of the most important roles in generating economic growth and strengthening competitiveness in Europe through their potential for innovation, dynamism and flexibility.
Environmental objectives such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy efficiency should also be taken into account. After all, the advantage resulting from the implementation of innovative solutions could turn European industry into a world leader in the area of environmentally friendly and socially acceptable technology, products and services.
(PL) Commissioner, Europe's updated industrial policy, the new approach, the reduction in the number of regulations, increased competitiveness and innovation are all due to you, Commissioner Verheugen. I should like to make that very clear.
We are all agreed that the undue amount of regulations affecting enterprises should be reduced. This includes reducing administrative burdens, especially for SMEs. We have made high demands of industry in terms of quality requirements, environmental standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy saving, and ensuring suitable working conditions. All this increases costs. At the same time, we want the products manufactured to be competitive on the market. How can this be achieved? Is it even possible?
I should like to add that the Union and its industry need appropriately qualified workers suited to the needs of a knowledge-based economy. It is therefore necessary to support measures to improve the quality of human capital through all types of training, and to fund investment in the development of individuals.
(RO) I would like to call attention to the insufficiency of European funds to support the ambitious objectives of the European Union regarding climate change. The Commission has come up with legislative initiatives that would have an important impact on the different industrial sectors, measures that have no correspondent in the Union's budget either.
I also consider that an ambitious industrial policy has to go hand in hand with a European employment strategy. The free movement of people, combating illegal immigration and, in particular, respect for the rights of all European citizens can ensure equitable work conditions. Compliance with the rights of legal immigrants in a Member State will also ensure the protection of the rights of all workers in that Member State and avoiding social dumping.
(PL) Mr President, I venture to take the floor again as I saved a few seconds of the time allocated to me earlier. Commissioner, you referred to monopolies in negative terms. I would prefer us to speak of monopolistic practices as something we could overcome.
I wonder, Commissioner, how you might react to what are known as natural monopolies in economic theory. Within the framework of our industrial policy, will we allow natural monopolies to remain in certain areas? After all, on the one hand we are in a position to control them, and on the other to ensure economies of scale.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in these last two minutes, I should like to try and outline how I expect things to develop in the period that lies ahead. We shall continue to have a strong European industrial base. There is no danger that industry will disappear from Europe. I am also quite certain that European industry will continue to generate growth and create jobs, though not necessarily in Europe. That is the problem.
We are already seeing more and more large European companies achieve their growth and their profits outside Europe, and they are also creating their new jobs outside Europe. That is resulting in a jobs problem here, and the only way to redress the balance and truly resolve this principal social issue of our time, namely how to create enough good jobs, is actually - as several speakers have said, and I fully support them - to focus initiatives more sharply on enterprise by placing greater emphasis on small and medium-sized businesses.
The key to the long-term success of our economic strategy does not lie with the large industrial undertakings, which are well able to look after themselves. No, the key to success lies with the numerous small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe, whose potential is far from exhausted, and they are the focus of our policy.
The other point is that the conditions in which European industries compete will change very rapidly. It is wrong to imagine that we can go on regarding competitors such as China as suppliers of cheap products for the masses and ourselves as the manufacturers of finer and more expensive goods. The Chinese are already producing and exporting high-quality and technologically complex goods. We shall very shortly be challenged in those areas in which we are still particularly strong today. This means that we must strive to become even better.
For this reason, everything that has been said here about research, development, innovation, education and training is correct. The European economy, and European industry in particular, will be successful if it forges ahead resolutely with the transition to a knowledge-based economy. It will also be successful if it realises that the major environmental challenges of our time, especially those relating to energy and climate change, can actually create economic opportunities too, and that these opportunities must be grasped.
The Commissioner has mentioned the positive approach. And I believe that with goodwill and cooperation we shall succeed in transferring this too from a European level to a national level and create an even stronger link between the industrial policy of the European Union and that of Member States.
Ladies and gentlemen, I do not see industrial policy as a protection of undertakings either. I see it as a policy that we create for the good of European citizens, which, of course, we can accomplish by creating favourable development conditions for undertakings, for investment, innovation, and for the creation of more new jobs.
It has not been mentioned today, but politics can also do a lot with appropriate public procurement orders. I agree with the initiative that we have to be careful and pay special attention that industrial development within the European Union is balanced, both in geographical terms and in terms of the scope of projects. It is true that our view of industrial policy, or of any other requirements for it, must not be too narrow.
I too am convinced that European industry is in good shape, although it may need, of course, some additional impetus, and I believe that we share the view that we primarily seek more innovation.
What causes bottlenecks for more innovation? In my opinion, one of the bottlenecks is insufficient human resources. It is in this sphere of our European society that we can do something about new values, not just in politics, but I expect greater responsibility also from the undertakings.
If undertakings really understand that they too have their share of responsibility for the creation of the necessary human resources, I think that they will actually be able to demonstrate what possibilities people have if they participate in activities that have a closer link with the creation of innovation.
Mr Commissioner, I am convinced that the initiative in connection with grapes will prove to be successful, and I believe that the European Technological Institute will prove to be successful as well.
I thank you for your productive discussions, and I wish you success also in your future work.
Thank you.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written statements (Rule 142)
, in writing. - (FI) There is an especially problematic point in the report, where it reads: 'Welcomes the Commission's proposals on consolidating the European market in defence equipment and improving the global competitiveness of the EU defence industry'. This means we are building a military-industrial complex on the US model for the Union, an organisation which is marketed in the name of peace.
It is obvious that that will also include the Galileo satellite positioning system, which has come to be financed entirely by the Union. It is just as obvious, moreover, that the legal basis for the militarisation of the whole EU is the new constitution, i.e. the Lisbon Treaty. The people are not being told about the way military matters are being fiddled about with; instead, the Union is marketed as a peace project for civilians, which it no longer is. The Union will have functional and quasi-judicial powers to launch offensive operations, far beyond its borders, which are illegal under international law.
, in writing. - The European Union is the most important global actor and leading exporter of technology in the world today.
Sustaining its leading position entails a series of challenges. Among these, attention should be given to the need to sustain European exporting industries in the global market by ensuring that unfair competition is challenged, while resisting the temptation of protectionism, and also the need to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU through the reduction of administrative and market access obstacles. Special attention needs to be directed by the EU institutions towards supporting the SME sectors of the economies of new Member States, so they can close the developmental gap with their peer SMEs in the EU.
With regard to the opportunities presented by sustainable industrial policies, the EU has to take into account the potential presented by the industries of the new Member States.
The urgent adoption of a comprehensive Small Business Act will contribute greatly to the development of the SME sectors in all Member States, thus also contributing to the reinforcement of the leading role of Europe in sustainable and technology-oriented industrial production.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


2006 Annual report of the EIB (debate)
The next item is the report by Jean-Pierre Audy on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control on the European Investment Bank's annual report for 2006.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, President of the European Investment Bank, ladies and gentlemen, my first words will be to thank you, Mr Maystadt, for the excellent relationship you have built up with the MEPs on the Committee on Budgetary Control, which has made a significant contribution to enabling the report we are about to debate to be written. I would extend these thanks to your team of staff, and especially, Philippe de Fontaine Vive, Vice-President, with whom I was able to work in complete transparency at the Bank's headquarters in Luxembourg.
You carry out your role, Mr Maystadt, with a great deal of competence, warmth, determination and courage, but also with wisdom and, I would add, with elegance.
The EIB, which was set up by the Treaty of Rome, celebrates its fiftieth anniversary in 2008. Its members are the European Union Member States, and their finance ministers form its board of governors. Its mission is to contribute to the development of the common market, using the capital markets and its own funds. It is a Community instrument, but within it power is exercised intergovernmentally.
It is a good thing that citizens' representatives are talking about these issues at a time when citizens themselves are demanding results from the European Union; they often benefit from the EIB's services without realising it. First I would like to congratulate the Bank for its action, its ambitious plan of activities and projects; I particularly welcome the excellence of the new strategy for 2007-2009 including transparency, the reinforcement of added value and the gradual increase in risk-taking, activities for the benefit of SMEs and local government, the use of new financial instruments and the stepping-up of cooperation with the European Commission. The important role of the Bank in the neighbourhood policy should also be underlined, and the report calls more specifically for further development of the facility for Euro-Mediterranean investment and partnership, or FEMIP, within the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean policy.
I believe, however, that the time has come to go even further, faster and better, in terms of both control and support for the European Union in financing its investments. In terms of control mechanisms, I think the time has come to set up genuine control of banking regulation, and I suggest that the EIB itself apply to the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, based in London, to look at the conditions for this task of regulation and in particular decide who could carry it out in the regrettable absence of an official European banking regulator.
Concerning support for the European Union in financing investment, where needs have been estimated at EUR 600 billion for the trans-European transport networks alone, I suggest that a reflection be carried out on the role of the European Union in terms of the development of our territory. The funding allocated by the Member States and the EU is far from able to meet these needs. Is it not understandable, Commissioner, that the European Union should have difficulty finding EUR 3.4 billion to finance as strategic a project from an industrial, scientific and military point of view as Galileo, under these circumstances?
I suggest that, given the quality of the EIB's human resources, its detachment and its experience of financing major infrastructure, the Commission gives it the task of carrying out a strategic study on the funding of investments, excluding no possible scenarios: subsidies, payment of sums subscribed by the Member States to the EIB's capital, loans (including special loans from the Member States as provided for in Article 6 of the EIB's Statute), innovative instruments such as risk sharing, loan guarantee instruments, financial engineering appropriate to long-term projects that are not immediately profitable according to market-based financial criteria, creation of an investment section within the European Union budget, financial consortia between European, national and local authorities, public-private partnerships, etc.
These, Mr President, Mr Maystadt, ladies and gentlemen, are the ideas put forward in this report. I look forward to hearing the debate that will follow and thank you for your attention.
Member of the Commission. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Audy, who has produced and just presented to us an excellent report on the annual report of the European Investment Bank for 2006. I think that, as the report reflects, the productive dialogue established between the European Investment Bank and Parliament in recent years is very important, as it benefits democratic transparency, which is very important to both Parliament and to the financial institution.
The EIB contributes significantly to launching and developing many European policies, and we should therefore welcome the quality of this dialogue, which is undoubtedly being strengthened with Philippe Maystadt at the bank's helm.
The activity of the European Investment Bank is also being strengthened through the new financial framework, with the new financial perspectives for the European Union for the 2007-2013 period. Obviously we are debating the 2006 report. The progress of these perspectives in this initial period of 15 or 16 months is not yet covered by the report, but with the new funding instruments launched thanks to these new perspectives, this cooperation will continue to take place and to become more ambitious and effective in many fields: in policies on research and development, regional development, trans-European networks, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, etc.
Also, with regard to the external actions of the European Investment Bank, on the basis of these financial perspectives the new EIB external mandate has already been adopted. It is not only in the Bank itself, but within the European Investment Bank group that cooperation is also being increased, with the European Investment Fund. Proof of this, for example, is the Jeremy programme.
In addition, we are satisfied with the tripartite agreement between the European Investment Bank, the EBRD, which is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Commission, for actions by each of them in countries bordering the European Union to the east, and also with the development of the new FEMIP, which Mr Audy referred to, which is doing a great deal of work, and these are examples of an increasingly close link between the activities of the Bank and the external activities of the European Union.
Mr Audy's report highlights, and in my view rightly so, the potential of the European Investment Bank for developing innovative funding instruments that are capable of having an enormous effect in terms of increasing the resources available in the European budget for implementing a whole series of policies.
The Commission is aware of this potential. Not only have we already made some agreements with the European Investment Bank, which have been approved by the Council and Parliament, to do more with the same budgetary resources in areas such as trans-European networks or research and development policy, but also, in the context of the review of the Community budget that we will propose at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009 for debate, we are looking at extending these new funding mechanisms, and the resulting increase in capacity for action through the budgetary resources available, to other priority areas such as energy and climate change.
With regard to the mechanisms for cooperation with the Bank, I would also like to inform you that we are already finalising the negotiations with the Bank on a new memorandum of understanding to cover all of our cooperation relations, and we hope that it will enable these relations to be even more effective.
I cannot give a response to the suggestion from the rapporteur, Mr Audy, whose concern I share, regarding what the right solution is for the European Investment Bank to be supervised as a financial institution. I do not have the solution, but I think this is a very pertinent question, on which we should all cooperate in order to provide a suitable response.
Finally, Mr President, I would like to reiterate the Commission's satisfaction with this high level of cooperation between Parliament and the European Investment Bank, and I hope that in the future this will enable all of us - all the European institutions - to contribute to better achieving the Union's objectives.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (BG) The report is an example of good cooperation between the European Parliament and this financial institution which has the task to contribute for a balanced and sound development of the Community by using capital market tools and its own resources. I congratulate the rapporteur on his good presentation of the European Investment Bank, his reasonable suggestions aimed at enhancing cooperation, efficiency and transparency of operations. The Bank's report lists ample examples of achievement in terms of the main goals and priorities of the Union such as the geographic allocation of investments, strategic direction and project applications. Future efforts should focus on several areas such as to encourage private business to implement investment policies, including social responsibility projects in line with the EU social cohesion and territorial balance policy; to identify internal audit and internal control mechanisms; to set up offices in the new Member States; and to establish new financing mechanisms. I support the amendments made in plenary which deal with more stringent control over capital.
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Maystadt, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has made a number of recommendations and I agree with three of them. I would also like to ask Mr Maystadt to respond to this in his reply.
We are happy that the European Investment Bank operates a zero tolerance policy with regard to fraud and corruption. The European Parliament would actually like to further reinforce that policy. We recommend measures, for example, for implementing an exclusion mechanism with regard to companies that are suspected or have been found guilty of corruption. We support a reinforcement of the policy on whistleblowers and we are in favour of a revision of the existing tendering procedures. What does Mr Maystadt think of these?
A second element: many billions of euros are invested in trans-European networks. As the European Parliament, we should seek to support those projects in particular that have a smaller or negative CO2 footprint.
Finally, with regard to external loan operations, we would like supervision to be exercised to ensure that such activities, particularly on the African continent, are in keeping with the European consensus with regard to development and also the millennium objectives.
As President of the European Investment Bank, how does Mr Maystadt respond to Parliament's recommendations?
(NL) Mr President, we applaud the fact that this report emphasises the EIB's zero tolerance policy with regard to fraud and corruption and also highlights the increasing number of investigations being conducted by OLAF. However, experience in contracting loans has shown us that the EIB is not without sin. Recently, for instance, a loan of EUR 100 billion to a large-scale mining project in Congo came under heavy criticism owing to all kinds of major irregularities, such as a lack of transparency in the negotiation process and in the final award of the contract. There was a serious conflict of interest. Since 2000, the European Investment Bank has already invested more than EUR 700 million in all manner of mining projects in Africa.
What I would like to stress here is that these many millions come from European taxpayers and that our institution's loan and contract policy must therefore also be subject to the most thorough supervision possible, particularly when funding projects outside Europe.
(DE) Mr President, President Maystadt, I would like to congratulate Mr Audy, because he made the point very well that trans-European networks have particular significance for us. I can imagine that, in this respect, the EIB also provides an incentive instrument for ownership unbundling.
We now have the Commission's proposals before us, that is, to increase the focus on ownership unbundling in the energy and telecommunications sector. My suggestion would be to concentrate on creating incentives here rather than focusing on making statutory obligations.
My second point is that the export industry is currently having difficulty in maintaining its performance, especially now the euro is strong. Would it not be possible to focus on special programmes to provide guaranteed support for the export performance of our European businesses?
President of the European Investment Bank. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank you for giving me the chance once again to continue our dialogue with the European Parliament. I think it is important that an institution like the EIB should regularly have to explain itself to the representatives of EU citizens.
I would particularly like to thank Mr Audy for his report. I can bear witness to the fact that he has put a great deal of personal effort into writing this report. He took part in many working meetings both in Brussels and Luxembourg, thereby taking up the constructive dialogue we began with his predecessors. In his presentation this morning, he highlighted two points.
The first issue is one we have already talked about in previous reports - I remember Mr Schmidt's report and Mr Lipietz's report - and it is the issue of whether the European Investment Bank, because it is a bank, should be subject to banking control or supervision. This is not provided for as the texts currently stand. There are, of course, audits of the European Investment Bank: the audit by the Court of Auditors, to the extent that the EIB uses EU funds, and also the audit by the audit committee, composed of experts appointed by the governors, who report directly to our governors. It is true, however, that, if we want to apply the best banking practices to the EIB, it would undoubtedly be desirable for a specialist body to check that these practices are correctly applied to the EIB.
Theoretically, we can think of three possible avenues. The first is written into the Treaty of Maastricht, in Article 105(6). This would be the possibility of the European Central Bank exercising this supervisory role. The Treaty states that the Council, acting unanimously, may confer a prudential supervision role on the European Central Bank. This is an avenue that exists theoretically but realistically it is doubtful whether the Member States, at the moment at least, would be unanimous in conferring this new role on the European Central Bank.
Another possibility is the one we have embarked on informally, namely calling on a national regulator. At the moment it is the Luxembourg regulator, the Supervisory Council of the Luxembourg financial sector, which also performs this role in relation to the European Investment Bank, particularly when it comes to checking Basel II is being applied correctly.
A third avenue for exploration would be to strengthen the audit committee provided for in our Statute, and to convert it into a quasi-banking supervisor. The Reform Treaty provides for the enlargement of the audit committee. A first step might be to appoint a number of banking supervisors, who would bring to the audit committee the necessary experience to check that the EIB is actually applying best practices in this matter.
The second point highlighted by Mr Audy was the special role he would like to see the European Investment Bank play in infrastructure, particularly the trans-European networks. As you know, the EIB already plays a relatively important role in this. Last year, we financed the trans-European networks to the tune of nearly EUR 9 billion. We use various instruments, including our structured finance facility, which allows us to take more risks than is generally the rule. For example, we recently did this for a motorway in Greece. This is a good concrete example of the use of this particular facility to encourage the private sector to take more risks with the operation of a motorway.
With the European Commission very recently, we developed a new guarantee mechanism to cover a particular type of risk, the risk of insufficient traffic during the first few years of operation of an item of infrastructure. Experience has shown that the first four or five years are often the trickiest. These are the years when income is not necessarily at the level hoped for. This causes problems for private operators, so to encourage the private sector to take on the financing of such infrastructure regardless of this problem, in conjunction with the Commission we have developed a new guarantee mechanism.
I would add that the European Investment Bank has taken the initiative of setting up a European expertise centre in public-private partnerships to share our experience in this area with national representatives. Mr Audy, this is certainly an area in which the EIB is eager to continue its action.
Mr Staes asked a question about the anti-fraud policy. We have just published our anti-fraud policy following a consultation procedure that required several rounds of talks. In relation to the specific question he raised, about a debarment system that would prohibit companies guilty of fraud or corruption from continuing to participate in projects we were financing, we announce in this policy that we hope to be able to use the same system that the Commission is attempting to set up. If we could not - and we should know this by the end of the year - if, for legal reasons, we could not use the same system, then we would set up our own debarment system.
As regards our financing in the energy sector, we have reviewed our policy on financing energy projects in the light of European guidelines on combating climate change. As a result, we have decided to give priority to investments of the type that will reduce CO2 emissions, and this already shows up in the figures for 2007, since finance for electricity generation products using fossil fuels accounts for only 25% of our financing in the energy sector. In 2007, the amount committed to renewable energies, for example, far exceeds the amount committed to these more traditional forms of energy generation.
Finally, as regards the millennium development goals, we are obviously trying, as far as possible, to make sure our projects contribute to their achievement. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that when we intervene outside the European Union, we are acting on the basis of specific mandates given to us by the European Council. The millennium development goals do not feature as such in the mandates we have received from the European Council. That is why it is not possible to make as direct a link as you would have liked.
Finally, to Mr Dillen who, if I understood correctly, mentioned a project he said we financed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I can say that for several years now we have not provided any more finance in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Our board of directors has in principle approved finance for a mining project in Katanga, but nothing has yet been paid out for this project. The loan agreement has not yet been signed. Why is this? It is because the new Congolese Government quite rightly wanted to renegotiate the licence conditions to ensure more of the revenue went back to the Congolese state, and we suspended the signing of the contract until a satisfactory agreement had been reached between the promoter and the Congolese Government.
Mr President, those are a few answers I can give to those who spoke, and I would like to thank Parliament once again, and particularly the Committee on Budgetary Control for our excellent collaboration.
(Applause)
Thank you very much, President Maystadt. We are very grateful to you for your presence here this morning, for your report and especially for the work you do for the European Union as President of the European Investment Bank. Thank you again and all the best!
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I would in turn like to thank the Commissioner, Mr Almunia, and the President of the European Investment Bank, Mr Maystadt, for these specific answers. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs from the political groups, who supported the writing of this report.
I would just like to share a few thoughts on the debate we have just had, firstly on the task of regulation. I believe it is in everyone's interest that banking regulation of this kind should be set up. Obviously I do not have the solution. The idea that it is the European Central Bank that should do it seems to me a good one. For the Luxembourg regulatory body to play a stronger independent role, a genuine regulatory role, could also be a short-term solution. Nevertheless, I believe Parliament will be very interested in the opinion of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors if the Bank applies to it as the report suggests.
Finally, regarding the financing of infrastructure, I would like to say that the European Union is clearly at a cross-roads and that financing is not enough now, but that debt should obviously not be used to fund operation, which is sadly what is happening in some Member States. Debt used skilfully for investment is, however, a key part of economic and social performance in Europe, which is competing with all the other economic regions of the world. I believe the time has come for a major development policy for the land, partially supported by investment. There needs to be public investment, because if there is not, we cannot expect there to be private investment. It is a problem of collective confidence in the future of the European Union and I am delighted that the European Investment Bank can offer its expertise thanks to its experience and the quality of its human resources.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (DE) Mr President, President Maystadt, Mr Audy, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur most warmly and congratulate him on the good, balanced work he has carried out. I congratulate the EIB on its successful activities and ambitious business plan. When it comes to energy and innovation, the EIB is helping the EU to implement its policy. Without the EIB we would not have got the CIP off to such a good start.
The EIB's strategy for 2007-2009 provides for reinforcement of the value added, the gradual increase in risk taking, the use of new financial instruments and the stepping-up of cooperation with the Commission. I heartily endorse this strategy.
The evaluation of the activity by the EIB rapporteur and the suggested next steps are correct. However, we must not forget that the role of Parliament is limited. Although the EIB is one of the Community's institutions, its power is exercised internally according to intergovernmental rules, which means that the Member States are the most influential shareholders. The European Parliament has been commenting on the EIB's activity reports regularly since 1999 and this has developed into a close, trusting, successful relationship of cooperation. I would particularly like to praise the cooperation with President Maystadt, which is exemplary for relationships with other institutions.