Further convergence in supervisory practices at EU level (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Council, on further convergence in supervisory practices at EU level - B6-0010/2007), and
the oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Commission, on further convergence in supervisory practices at EU level B6-0449/2006).
author. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs thought it necessary that there should be a debate on supervision among the European institutions, and we wanted to be able to have one in the presence of the Council and of the Commission. We, members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, are very pleased about the relaunch of discussions and work, within the Council and the Commission alike, on the management of the crisis on the financial markets. More effective and better supervision and cooperation among supervisors is a matter of necessity, but, nevertheless, if we want the ultimate result to be success, we do think that, at this stage of the development and profound transformation of financial markets, the opening of an interinstitutional debate on this subject is, without doubt, the best way of making headway.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has done a great deal of work on the analysis of the European financial system and the implications of consolidation in financial services, not least in Mr Muscat's report, in which we express our support for the establishment of a Committee of Wise Men mandated not only to examine the implications of the consolidation of markets and of financial institutions, together with the implications of financial supervision, financial stability and crisis management, but also to come up with definite ideas about the existing structures and incorporate them in a report to this House.
The object of today's interinstitutional debate is to give a clear signal as to the need for the opening - or re-opening - of the great debate on the future of Europe's supervisory systems, which is essential in the interests not only of the competitiveness of the financial market itself, but also of the stability of the European Union's financial system.
Perhaps I might, at this juncture, be permitted to make certain observations. First, let me say that there have been profound changes in the financial system in Europe and around the world. Day in and day out, we are witnesses to incessant changes in the markets and to the innovations produced in those markets - developments that result, inter alia, in the gain of greater power by 'hedge funds' or 'private equities'. The ongoing consolidation of financial markets has made it possible for key actors to establish themselves and to act on completely transnational bases. Mergers and takeovers motivated by the quest for competitiveness and efficiency have grown, whether at the national or European level or globally. They have come to generate their own impetus, and hence the structure of the markets, as well as the way in which the actors operate on them, have undergone radical changes, a transformation producing new challenges, with new things at stake.
Secondly, I would observe that the consolidation of financial supervision structures must go hand in hand with the consolidation of the markets themselves, for one sometimes gets the impression that they follow different rhythms. This being so, one can find oneself wondering whether the present system of supervision in the European Union - in which supervisors have specific, and very different, structures for which they are responsible, have highly divergent competences, powers and responsibilities and act on the basis of a national mandate - is capable of ensuring the proper supervision of large multinational financial groups. One wonders whether the system is sustainable and whether it might perhaps jeopardise the financial stability of the European system itself.
Thirdly, I would highlight the peculiarities of the European Union's financial system, which is characterised by diversity and by the wealth of operators, be they local - local banks, for example - or actors operating across frontiers, on both sides of the Atlantic and on the global stage. That calls for a solid, efficient and well-adapted supervisory framework capable of responding to the challenges of regional integration, of globalisation, of innovation and of centralised management, while at the same time providing a high standard of supervision and ensuring that the system is sound and stable.
Fourthly, I would point out that improvement of the supervisory systems is in the interests of all the players - primarily, of course, in the interests of the system itself, but, secondly, also in the interests of the participants in the market, who are asking us to improve the supervision system in order to facilitate their operations on all markets. I am persuaded that the end user will also have an interest in the improvement of the system.
Fifthly and finally, the issue of European excellence in regulatory matters does have a transatlantic dimension, and it is with that in mind that it appears to me that the time has come for us to move forward.
I will sum up by saying that, in view of these observations, we, as Europe's lawmakers, face a major challenge: that of endowing Europe with solid and efficient prudential structures capable of ensuring the proper supervision of all financial actors, be they large multinational groups or high-street banks, and capable also of making supervision contribute to the competitiveness of the European model on the world stage.
The question therefore arises as to how to go about doing this: are we to set up a committee of wise men, or are we to consider that it is on an interinstitutional basis that we might perhaps be better placed to put the collective European intelligence to work? That, in any case, is the message that this House wants to convey in this debate today, and I am very grateful to the Council and the Commission for allowing the debate to be held in Parliament.
President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Berès has just raised a number of important issues in her speech, including with regard to financial services. I can assure her that the Council considers this aspect to be of key importance.
I should like to underline once again that the European financial system is also regarded as making an important contribution to the Lisbon Strategy and plays a pivotal role in strengthening the financial-stability framework in the EU. What is equally important, however, is that the efficiency of financial supervision be enhanced without encumbering the financial sector with an excessive supervisory burden or restricting competition. Allow me to draw attention to three key points in the Council conclusions mentioned.
Firstly, the Council stressed the importance of fair and non-discriminatory national supervisory practices to achieve a level playing field within the EU. It also attached importance to striking the appropriate balance of home/host country responsibilities, and emphasised once more the importance of an adequate and independent financial supervision to ensure financial stability.
Secondly, the Council invited the three level 3 committees to take into account the obstacles identified in the course of their work and in their reports, and also the report by the Financial Services Committee (FSC) on supervisory convergence, in their endeavours towards convergence of rules and practices. It is particularly important in this regard that they work on common formats for financial institutions reporting to supervisors, in order to avoid duplication of costs.
Thirdly, the Council declared its support for the Commission's intention to use its powers to also ensure compliance with the rules on competition and state aid. The Council considers it a priority to support the work of the three level 3 committees, for which they need suitable supervisory tools. The Council conclusions of May 2006 also contain a comprehensive short- and medium-term action plan for this field, based on a report by the Financial Services Committee. The thoroughly revised supervisory rules for insurance and securities firms and banks constitute a milestone, providing a new basis for cooperation between supervisors to the benefit of the financial stability and competitiveness of our financial industry.
The FSC report indicated three challenges revealing the need for further action. I believe that these challenges will be particularly significant in the immediate future. Firstly, supervisory convergence and cooperation must be further strengthened. Secondly, the efficiency of the supervisory regime must be increased and, thirdly, international supervision must be improved in view of the growing number of cross-border financial groups.
In the light of these challenges, the action plan approved by the Council in May of last year comprises a combination of several tools. These are aimed at fostering the creation of a European supervisory culture, a mediation and delegation mechanism, and also electronic data-sharing arrangements and common formats for reporting. I note that this last aspect has been emphasised also at European Parliament level, in the Muscat report. I welcome the convergence of views on this, too.
The Financial Services Committee has been asked to monitor the progress achieved by the three level 3 committees in implementing the various tools, in particular.
The FSC has also been instructed to monitor the convergence of supervisory powers at an adequate level. I know that the Commission is also devoting considerable attention to these aspects, and am confident that Parliament, too, will support this process within the framework of its dialogue with the level 3 committees. Further insights are expected as a result of the work of the Interinstitutional Monitoring Group.
I should now like to move on to the long-term prospects and the matter of tackling regulatory issues. Besides the existing challenges that have already been mentioned, the FSC must take into account issues arising from market developments when establishing long-term, strategic priorities. In this regard, the FSC recently set up a new sub-group, which is due to present a report on long-term supervisory issues by autumn 2007. This new strand of work will be based on the following bottom-up approach: further fundamental changes in supervisory tasks should be made only where there is proof of problems.
I should also like to emphasise that the overall issue of supervisory convergence must be seen in the context of the consolidation of markets and financial institutions. For this reason, I am particularly pleased that Parliament and the Council managed to agree, in the first instance, on the text of the Directive on the supervisory assessment of acquisitions in the financial sector as early as March. This is a clear indication of our common determination to improve the EU framework for the day-to-day work of our supervisory authorities.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that we must take account of all the challenges of this kind facing the EU bodies in the fields specified. These include strengthening financial stability by means of supervisory arrangements and procedures, and also fostering European competitiveness - both of which benefit from facilitating the consolidation of our financial industry. The process of doing so must also be conducive to the protection of consumer interests. The Council is working together with the Commission on all the aspects specified, and we also welcome the strong interest of the European Parliament, which is also demonstrated by this debate. I should like to express my particular thanks for Parliament's commitment to promote further progress.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, the European financial sector has changed dramatically over the last few years. Capital markets have expanded and are increasingly integrated. New investment techniques have emerged. The consolidation of the banking sector has accelerated. Pan-European conglomerates now play a major role on all national markets.
These changes are positive for the efficiency of our financial industry and should be welcomed. But they also present new challenges to policymakers. We must ensure that our arrangements for financial supervision are adapted to the needs of a more integrated EU financial sector. This is vital for financial stability and for the competitiveness of our industry.
Greater cooperation and convergence between European supervisors is of utmost importance in this context. It has been one of my priorities since I joined the Commission and will remain so until the end of my mandate.
Let me briefly recall what the Commission has already done to foster a more effective and efficient supervisory system in Europe.
Under the Lamfalussy process it has created European committees of supervisors in the areas of securities, banking and insurance. These committees have already led to greater supervisory cooperation and more convergence in supervisory practices. I expect them to continue and accelerate work in this regard. It is crucial for achieving coordination in crisis situations.
The Commission has pushed for more streamlined supervision of large financial institutions, in particular through the establishment of the consolidating supervisor concept in the capital requirements directives. The consolidating supervisor is responsible for ensuring proper information exchange between supervisors, central banks and finance ministries in the event of a crisis. His role is key and I therefore intend to propose further and more ambitious steps towards consolidating supervision in the area of insurance in the framework of the Solvency II project.
In investment services, we have the principle of more central control, with some limited exceptions for branches.
In order to deal more specifically with financial stability issues, my departments have set work in motion on five interconnected areas on which clarity is required if we want to improve our ability to respond to financial crisis. These are liquidity arrangements, crisis management, lender-of-last-resort issues, deposit guarantee schemes and the winding-up of financial institutions. There will be a Commission conference on these matters on 26 June, in which Mrs Berès, as Chairwoman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, will also take part.
The Commission's efforts have to be seen in conjunction with the work undertaken in the Ecofin Council. A crisis-simulation exercise took place in 2006. As a follow-up to that exercise, the Council will reflect in 2007 on how better to address cross-border crisis situations and clarify burden-sharing arrangements. In addition, the Financial Services Committee has initiated work on issues related to improvement of supervisory efficiency.
The Interinstitutional Monitoring Committee on the Lamfalussy process will also complete its final report in 2007. I hope it will contain useful recommendations as to how the committees of supervisors can improve their work and deepen their cooperation. This would place them in an even better position to address possible financial stability issues in the future.
Towards the end of this year, the Commission will also produce its own assessment of the way in which the Lamfalussy process works. Clearly, the functioning of the committees of supervisors will be a crucial aspect of this overall assessment. I look forward to hearing Parliament's views.
I am convinced that through close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission we can move this debate forward. Conclusions will need to be drawn from the various ongoing activities. I am open to suggestions on how to go about this. I think, however, that it would be too early to create a committee of wise persons at this stage. I would rather await the completion of the different initiatives later this year before envisaging the next move.
Let me conclude. EU financial markets are strong. We do not have a broken supervisory system in need of repair. Major progress has been made over the last few years in terms of modernising EU supervisory arrangements, but further improvements are also necessary. They are the consequence of integration. On this we are all agreed. We should continue our efforts to make the Lamfalussy structure the regulatory vehicle for delivering the effective, efficient and converged supervision required by a single market in financial services. Work has been set in motion in order to determine how the Lamfalussy structure and our financial stability arrangements can be further improved to meet the demands that arise from closer European integration.
I look forward to discussing with Parliament in due course what precise initiatives may be required to respond to the problems that have been identified, so as to equip our European financial sector with the best possible supervisory system. This is critical, because top-class supervisory and regulatory structures are crucial for long-term EU capital market competitors in the global economy.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, it is good that Mrs Berès' question on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is being discussed and answered here today. This follows on seamlessly from the Muscat report, and also from yesterday's debate in committee - in which the Commissioner also participated.
The crisis simulation with a view to reviewing financial stability in the EU that was presented at the Ecofin meeting in Helsinki last September has indeed revealed shortcomings. This scenario - that is, constantly evolving financial instruments such as hedge funds and derivative financial instruments - illustrates the need for further debate that takes sufficient account of consumer security. Thus, we need a system of functional, interlinked supervisory rules and practices in the EU.
Consumer protection, an effective financial industry and stable financial markets constitute the supreme objective of financial supervision, which must also help the industry fully utilise its potential and creativity. Therefore, good supervision must be guided by the existing risks and must take a principle-based approach instead of devoting itself to detailed individual analysis. It must not impose any additional burdens on enterprises, the rules must be developed in close contact with the financial industry, and cross-border financial markets must be dealt with at pan-European and global level in equal measure.
Supervision should be limited to what is really necessary and useful. Existing measures should be used in a more cautious, more market-friendly way, avoiding imposing unnecessary burdens. At the present time, I strongly oppose a centralised European supervisory authority additional and parallel to the national supervisory authorities, as this would cancel out the EU principle of subsidiarity and lack any democratic legitimacy. Not only would a body such as this meet with a lack of understanding on the part of many, particularly as it would create additional non-transparent bureaucracy, but it would also be accompanied by a serious loss of sovereignty for the Member States, as it would disregard national budgets in the case of crises.
Let us first wait and see how the supervisory bodies of the newly formed 27 come together and do their work. We do not need a uniform, centralised supervisory structure, but we do need a common supervisory culture characterised by the same values and objectives.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (MT) There has been constant reference to a report drawn up by myself, dealing with this area in detail and approved by this Parliament.
This report, which has now been adopted as the position of this Parliament, contains an analysis of a situation that is becoming ever more acute. One of the most important points is the fact that different practices and levels of supervision exist at national level. From a European perspective, this signifies a reduction in market efficiency, as well as further operating costs for institutions that operate in different countries. The report questions whether the present system ensures the effective supervision of large groups that operate in various countries and sectors. We even requested a more detailed examination of the European Social Model at the level of prudential stability and crisis management structures. We agreed on the need for an effective crisis management system at European level. The current market development trend means that a crisis, even if initially originating in one country, can quickly spread to other countries.
The reaction to a crisis such as this one is becoming increasingly complex because of the large number of institutions involved and the lack of clarity about what their role consists of. European consumers and investors are ultimately those who suffer the most from lack of action in this sector. Within this framework, Parliament agreed on the need for a committee of experts to study these implications and report back with their recommendations.
I am well aware that there are different opinions on this initiative and on the form it ought to take. However, I believe that the time has come for a full debate on the matter, with all the institutions participating. What we do not need is for everyone to try to leave each other out of the debate when it comes to deciding what shape the supervision of European financial markets will take. I believe we must focus our efforts more on the urgent need to debate this point, and stress that we have no time to lose.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) I would like to say that perhaps most countries have a saying about starting preparations for winter during the summer. As we discuss this issue, we would like to remind the European Commission and Council of that old truism. Because up to now we were always told that working groups would be formed and this question would be discussed. Without a doubt, consolidation has its positive aspects; however, with it comes an increased systematic risk in the market. Financial groups operate in all European Union countries and quite often dependence on their activity and the influence of their activity is quite high. When we talk about reforming supervisory processes, we must first ask ourselves something that I usually ask the heads of European supervisory bodies: if a subsidiary firm is operating in a certain country, and because of its unsatisfactory operation, that country's economy is starting to suffer, who will pay? Who will be responsible? Which country's legislation will apply? Another question. If a crisis situation develops in the subsidiary firm, how will it be managed? At the national level or the financial group's level? Unfortunately, as yet we have no answer to these simple questions. I am quite pleased with the information that Council and Commission representatives supplied for us in relation to what is being done; however, once again I would like to stress that as new risky products find their way onto the market, we must speed up all processes and get together to resolve the basic issues, and not to get lost in details, because talking about various types of coordination and suchlike is all very well, until a crisis develops. The reference point for our decisions about reforming supervisory processes has to be what we would do in a crisis situation.
Madam President, I would like to thank the Chairwoman of our committee, Mrs Berès, for her timely contribution. We started discussing the van den Burg report in committee this week, and one of the key topics also in the post-FSAP agenda is how to develop a good supervisory system for Europe. It is very important for us to hear what the Council and Commission think about the future in this joint agenda.
The Financial Services Action Plan is now more or less complete, so the focus is now on implementation and supervisory convergence. We think that even though national regulators have already been able to develop quite good practices, the work must go on, and beyond the Lamfalussy committees. It is for example very positive that we now have colleges of supervisors handling big, multi-jurisdiction, pan-European cases, but sometimes these colleges lack authority; they do not have enough resources; they do not take enough majority decisions, for example, so it would be very good if we could consider more qualified majority voting in Level 3 committees as well as in the colleges of supervisors.
I would also like to point out that in Mrs van den Burg's draft report we have promoted a new idea that, for top pan-European players, we should have a well-equipped European supervisory authority inside the system. We would like to create a European supervisory authority, but it should not be outside the scope of the Commission's current sphere of responsibility. It should be inside the system. I think this idea could also be considered by the Commission.
Finally, it is also important to develop cooperation at global level. We know that the financial risks and prudential challenges are not only European, but also very much involve the big market players in America, and so on, so it is very good that the Commission has taken this financial services dialogue with transatlantic partners seriously, but there needs to be continual further development.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members for their very valuable contributions.
As I said earlier, the development of financial supervision is of critical importance. A stable financial environment is a prerequisite for the economic growth that the EU needs, and the protection of consumers. So the prevention of financial crises is important. Supervision needs to be as efficient and effective as possible. We need to make practices of national supervisory authorities converge in order to minimise the burdens on cross-border firms. We need a common supervisory culture: more supervisors doing more things the same way.
These are important issues that I look forward to working on with you.
The debate is closed.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(EL) Mr President, as you know, we are witnessing a worrying decline in international trade. Consequently, an immediate reversal in this situation is a fundamental parameter in the economic recovery which we are seeking. It is estimated that the increased cost of borrowing and the reduction in the flow of credit are responsible for approximately 10-15% of the slowdown in trade. The multilateral trade finance package adopted in London by G20 is without doubt a positive move. In my opinion, the Union is also being called upon to continue to play a leading role in the practical application of the London package in three directions:
firstly, targeted intervention by multilateral and regional financial institutions;
secondly, coordinated public intervention at national level; and
thirdly, adjustment of the relevant multilateral rules.
This message is directed to the European Commission so that it can take the necessary initiatives.
(FR) Mr President, we have whiffs of Islamophobia in the speeches of a populist extreme-right leader in the Netherlands; we have an increase in attacks against the Roma in the Czech Republic; and we have unspeakable, intolerable remarks by the Iranian President concerning the creation of a racist government in Palestine, alluding to the creation of the State of Israel in a UN conference on racism, intended primarily to promote tolerance and diversity.
How could our Parliament, aside from showing indignation, not send a strong and symbolic message to promote that diversity, and the tolerance required in a globalised world, by forcefully condemning such remarks? How could it not call on the European Council and the Commission to send a solemn warning to states that subscribe to this aggressive logic, and even voice it, since history has taught us all too often that actions are unfortunately never far behind such remarks?
How, during this sitting, Mr President, could our Parliament remain silent in the face of such racist, xenophobic attitudes, in a context of economic crisis in which the withdrawal of nations into themselves, protectionism, is sadly sprouting like seeds in spring?
(RO) I am extremely concerned by the events which have occurred recently in the Republic of Moldova. The most serious of these include human rights violations, arrests, kidnappings, torture, intimidation and the expulsion of journalists. The will of Moldovan citizens has been undermined by the authorities through the numerous irregularities which can provide arguments to support the assumption that the elections have been rigged. This includes the supplementary lists, the extra vote papers printed, harassment of the opposition, the ban on access to public television stations and the campaign which the state institutions have run for the Communist Party. Although there have been many voices during these weeks which have protested at a European and global level, unfortunately, the situation in the Republic of Moldova has not improved. I hope that during the discussions this week and when the ad-hoc mission goes to the Republic of Moldova, but especially through the resolution which we are expecting at the final session in May, the European Parliament will send out a very clear message that the European Union does not tolerate human rights violations and will openly call for the elections in the Republic of Moldova to be rerun.
(PL) Mr President, on the morning of Good Friday, 13 April, before dawn, a huge tragedy occurred in the Polish town of Kamień Pomorski near Szczecin. Over 20 people, including children, were burned alive in a building. This caused and is still causing great anguish throughout Poland.
Today, I would like to appeal from this Chamber to the governments of all the Member States and to local and regional authorities to take urgent steps to check fire safety provisions in all residential buildings, and especially in buildings used by welfare services. I am thinking both about the use of suitable materials in the construction of these buildings and about a rigorous inspection of compliance with fire safety regulations. The drama in Poland is one of many such incidents which, unfortunately, have occurred in Europe. May this fire and its victims be a great cry of warning for the future.
(HU) In the speech I made on 23 March, I asked the European Parliament and the European Commission to intervene to protect the Romanian town of Verespatak (Roşia Montană) whose vulnerable population, architectural heritage and natural environment are under threat as a result of plans by a Canadian-Romanian joint venture to develop a mine.
The fears we had then have been realised as, after a two-year reprieve, the new Romanian Government finally wants to clear the way for the investment, which will result in the use of production methods based on cyanide technology, in breach of European norms, thereby threatening not only the immediate environment, but also the entire area along the Romanian-Hungarian border with an ecological disaster.
I would like to use this opportunity to join other fellow Members in submitting a request to Commissioner Dimas for cyanide technology to be banned. I call on the European Commission, in keeping with the spirit of Europe's environmental protection policy, to send an inspection body to Romania to ensure in the long term that appropriate EU-level regulations are applied to mining operations.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to talk about what has happened at Fiat in Brussels. With the sole aim of undermining the trade union, Fiat has falsely accused its workers of having taken its managers hostage - an event that in fact never took place. There was no kidnapping, either on 9 April or ever. The rumour has been deliberately spread by Fiat in an attempt to discredit the workers, who are trying to protect their future in the face of 24 lay-offs. Fiat is refusing to have any meetings, discussions or negotiations with the trade unions representatives. The sole aim is to lay off 24 workers, 12 of whom are trade unions representatives. I think it would be a good idea for Parliament to discuss not only this fact, but also the anti-union conduct by Fiat and a very large number of major European multinationals, which is devoid of respect for workers' rights. While these multinationals benefit from national and European Union rules and, in several cases, also subsidies, they do not respect workers' rights.
(EL) Mr President, a few days ago, a large group of MEPs visited the southeast borders of Europe.
What we saw and experienced in the area we visited gave us no cause for pride whatsoever. I have to tell you that there are European citizens there living on small islands with a population of between 120 and 130, on each of which 150, 200 or 250 illegal immigrants land every day and where they are all living together in miserable conditions because there is no infrastructure.
I keep hearing talk in this House of Darfur, of Southern Sudan, of Myanmar, and rightly so, but be that as it may, at some point we need to look at these European citizens living there, who are just as European as those living in Paris, Madrid or Berlin. I felt it my duty to mention this to you, Mr President, and I trust that you will act.
(BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment there is a danger hanging over Bulgarian society. Namely, the police force is changing from an organisation intended to protect the public into an agency involved in political racketeering and carrying out gangsters' orders. On the evening before Easter Sunday a councillor from Burgas municipal council, 64-year-old Petko Petkov, was knocked to the ground and beaten by two uniformed policemen before the very eyes of a large number of witnesses in front of a church. In the official police report filed the next day there was no mention at all of the incident. This is another example of police violence against members of the Attack party, in the wake of the beating suffered by the MEP, Dimitar Stoyanov, and a municipal councillor from Sofia. Not one of these attacks has come under investigation.
Another example of the deliberate inaction of the police in cases where they are 'under orders' is the fact that not a single case of abduction has been reported in Bulgaria, even though 15 cases have already occurred, the last two again this month. Our society has become gripped by a sense of fear and helplessness. As a result, policemen in Bulgaria have become synonymous with 'money-grabbing' businessmen. When the officers of law and order are criminals, who can we protect ourselves from and who will defend the people? This question remains unanswered.
Mr President, I draw the attention of this House to the impact of the unlawful blockade of the cross-Channel ports of Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk by members of the French fishing industry last week. This industrial action brought very serious disruptions to flows of freight through this vital trans-European route. It adds enormous cost and delay to industry and severely disrupts and inconveniences the lives of people living in the South East of England.
This has been a frequently recurring problem, and I ask of the Commission that they use their powers to intervene to ensure that this interruption to the free movement of goods and people within the European Union is brought under control. Furthermore, I ask of the Commission: is, in their view, the award of EUR 4 million to the fishermen by the French Government state aid, and would it therefore be anti-competitive and unlawful within the rules of the common fisheries policy?
Mr President, the recent negative developments in Moldova illustrate a number of issues worth mentioning. The first is our response to the violations of EU core values by the Moldovan authorities during the reprisals against young people and journalists, following the protests against the results of the elections. Any lenience on our part would cast a shadow over EU credibility in this respect.
The second is the EU response to the procedural breach by the Moldovan authorities in implementing their agreements with us and by discriminating against European citizens on nationality grounds. Again, EU credibility and authority are at stake.
The third is EU solidarity in the face of the false accusations against one of its members, a possible pretext for freezing the military situation in the area in breach of important undertakings in the field.
Fourthly, the EU reaction will emphasise once again the difference in status between countries sharing a similar destiny in 1940 and indicate the future direction of EU-Russia relations.
Mr President, if one of our constituents fraudulently claims welfare benefits, they will be prosecuted and could go to prison.
Sometimes things seem different here. Newspapers reported publicly last November that one of our Members, Den Dover, had paid expenses worth GBP 750 000 intended for the employment of staff to a company owned by his wife and daughter and had used some of this money for the purchase of expensive cars and for other matters of personal gain.
Most people regard Dover as no better than a thief, a crook who should be in jail, and I invite you, Mr President, to tell us how much of that money has now been repaid.
This Parliament should be a shining example of openness, honesty and transparency, and instead there sometimes seems to be a code of secrecy here to keep hidden the true extent of abuse of allowances by some Members. Our refusal to introduce the same sort of principles of financial transparency that we would expect of any other European institution brings shame upon us all.
Mr Davies, you can be sure that in this case, too, the matter will be dealt with in accordance with the law.
(PL) Mr President, the month of April brings another opportunity for reflection on the effects of both totalitarian systems. It recalls the Katyń Massacre, the murder of thousands of Polish officers - held as prisoners of war in camps at Ostaszków, Starobielsko and Kozielsko - sentenced to death in March 1940 on the orders of Lavrenty Beria. It recalls, too, the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Rising in 1943, in protest against the mass transportation of Jews to extermination camps by occupying German forces.
The tragedy in the ghetto is being overcome in today's March of the Living, which guarantees to commemorate such events and to prevent their repetition. Unfortunately, the Katyń Massacre and its perpetrators have still not been judged and sentenced. Adoption by our Parliament of the written declaration on the proclamation of 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism nevertheless inspires hope.
Mr President, I understand that Mr Davies may have made a speech about a situation concerning myself, and, therefore, I would like the right of reply on that matter. I only heard the last 10 words. He at least sent me an email in the last 20 minutes saying that he intended to speak on it.
All I would like to say is that the big fuss and bother about my parliamentary assistance expenses, covered by the media over the last nine or twelve months, has been a harrowing experience. I have lodged my papers with the Court of First Instance, so I intend to fight a very robust case. I understand I have a very good case and, along with that, I have gone for interim measures, which means that no money will be payable until the Court has heard all the evidence and made the appropriate decision. I beg leave to delay the House and thank you for this opportunity.
Mr President, after 36 years of membership, what has the European Union meant for Britain? It means that we no longer govern ourselves. Between 75% and 85% of our laws now come from the EU and not from our own parliament. The EU costs Britain at least GBP 56 billion per annum - or the equivalent of GBP 900 per annum for every man, woman and child. We no longer control our own borders and suffer unlimited and uncontrolled immigration.
EU human rights legislation means that we can no longer effectively protect ourselves from foreign criminals, illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers. The European arrest warrant and trials in absentia mean that we have lost our most basic protections from unjust arrest and imprisonment.
EU membership is a disaster for Britain. It is a grievous and unnecessary self-inflicted wound. The only solution to the problem is Britain's unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.
(DE) Mr President, a few weeks ago, an unholy alliance of pro-European Czech Social Democrats, President Klaus, who opposes the EU, and the Communists brought about the fall of the Topolánek government. Work is now under way to establish the interim government, which is to undertake the governmental work from May until after the new elections in October. I hope that this new cabinet will lead the Czech Presidency, which has so far performed its role very well, to its conclusion and help to enable the necessary ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Czech Republic. This would be an important, positive sign for Europe.
(HU) During recent months, a climate of fear has reigned again in Vojvodina in northern Serbia among the several nationalities which live there, mainly Hungarians. Although our Parliament adopted in both 2004 and 2005 a resolution in response to the physical and psychological attacks carried out against non-Serb inhabitants of this area and also took the exemplary action of sending a fact-finding delegation to the area in 2005, incidences of violence, intimidation and humiliation against the minorities living there, primarily Hungarians, are not only continuing, but seem to be getting worse.
Since the start of the year, a total of fifteen psychological and five physical attacks have been carried out, two of them serious. Unfortunately, there is little confidence in the police. This is supported by the fact that in the case of ethnic attacks, so far none of the sentences passed have actually been enforced, which indicates the inadequate operation, and, unfortunately, based on many years' experience, the lenient attitude of the judiciary. This is also supported by the fact that the Serbian majority cannot acknowledge even now that we must also remember many tens of thousands of people executed without any verdict and individual guilt.
For how much longer can the European Union put up with indigenous inhabitants speaking a European language being terrorised physically and psychologically by a prospective Member State at the start of the 21st century? Do we not even have the least concern for our reputation?
(DE) Mr President, yesterday the United Nations' anti-racism conference opened in Geneva. Twenty-two EU countries are participating and five countries have decided not to participate. This shows the unity of the European Union in relation to such an important event in a poor light.
However, I now read that a few countries are still considering travelling to Geneva during the course of the week, and therefore I would ask you to bring your influence to bear on the Czech Presidency so that we, as the EU, can take a united stance on this anti-racism conference.
A dreadful speech by the Iranian President must not be allowed to divide the EU and weaken the UN. That must not be the outcome of this speech, and therefore I believe that we must strive once again - as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also requested - to ensure that all 27 EU Member States and the EU as a unit actually support the final document arrived at there to help the millions of people in the world who are affected by racism and discrimination. Thank you very much.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the last part-session I asked you to respect Parliament's obligations and to publish data on attendance by MEPs at parliamentary activities. Mr President, you gave me your word that at the next meeting of the Bureau - which is the one to be held in exactly 40 minutes' time - this point would be discussed. However, I now find that this item is not on the agenda for the Bureau meeting to be held at 6.30 p.m. Since there is now only a little more than a month until the elections and since Parliament has made an undertaking to publish data and information on attendance by MEPs at parliamentary activities, and now there will be very few opportunities, I do not know whether a meeting of the Bureau may be held to formally deal with this issue. The Secretary-General had made a commitment to provide a report on the basis of which the Presidency would have been able to take a decision; I therefore ask you, Mr President: will the citizens, the European electorate, be able to have this information, as requested, stipulated and decided by this Parliament, before the European elections in June, or will we have to break our own promise and go against our own decisions?
(HU) The new Hungarian socialist government was formed yesterday. I do not actually want to talk about the political aspects of this event, but about the fact that the new government does not have a single female member. It certainly is strange that in Europe in 2009 a new government can be formed which does not have a single woman among the 14 ministers making up the administration. In the Scandinavian countries more than half the members of their governments are women. France is also approaching this proportion. More than a third of the members of the German Government are women. This is the generally accepted practice in Europe.
In this House we have adopted 11 reports on the subject of gender equality over the last five years. This is an important objective, based on Europe's values, but is meaningless if it is not put into practice. I therefore call on my fellow Members, in this case from the Socialist group, to exert their influence so that these important and noble aspirations are also put into practice in their countries where this has not yet happened.
Mr President, the other day I was in Birmingham. I was knocking on doors - a particularly British way of campaigning - and, unsurprisingly, not a single person whose doorstep I was on had the slightest clue that there was to be a European election in less than six weeks' time.
I am sure that you know that statistics in the UK show that only 16% of the public know about the elections, but what should be of concern to you is that these statistics are no better across the other Member States. In fact, 30% have no intention of participating in the forthcoming elections. This lack of interest and awareness is as much the responsibility of this Parliament as of anybody else. The millions that have been spent on communications with the citizens have been to no avail.
What is particularly frustrating for me is that the promised election awareness advertisement has spectacularly backfired. A work-life balance advertisement has upset working women and groups trying to encourage breastfeeding. It is yet another own goal. Mr President, you need to deal with this situation urgently, have the offending advertisement withdrawn and make sure that we have a simple message as to why people should participate in the forthcoming elections. This needs to be visible and easily understood.
(EL) Mr President, I too should like to speak on the same issue, namely the turnout for the forthcoming European elections, which does not promise to be particularly high. The reasons include the pre-election campaign organised by Parliament, which is not spectacular enough, and, more importantly, the attacks on the achievements of the European Union, the social market economy, the model which we have fought so hard to develop and which is bearing fruit for workers in the European Union. Citizens are looking with a negative eye on developments, which do not promise to be pleasing and satisfactory. It is therefore a pity that we are in confrontation here on issues which should unite us in the interests of the citizens of Europe.
(FR) Mr President, on 14 and 15 March I, as a member of the Committee on Budgets, travelled with Mr Botopoulos to the Peloponnese regions worst hit by the floods of summer 2007. We discovered, to our great surprise, that the EUR 89.7 million pledged and due to come from the European Union's Solidarity Fund have still not arrived in those areas.
We therefore formally draw the Commission's attention to this matter and we should like to know where the implementation of the decisions taken by the budgetary authority is being held up. How is it that this aid, which was voted on several months ago, has still not had any significant impact on these regions, where the need for European solidarity is becoming more obvious by the day?
Aside from the retrospective monitoring carried out by the Commission, we should like to receive some explanations from the Greek Government regarding the use of this European aid. This really is a matter of urgency - human and economic urgency. Two years is really far too long to wait.
(RO) I would like to draw attention to the fact that the increasingly frequent undesirable events which started last year with Armenia and have continued this year with Georgia and Moldova give us food for thought, given that there are two things which they have in common: all three countries are members of the Eastern Partnership and the scenario is identical for each of them. I think we should take this fact into consideration.
Last week President Voronin of Moldova even declared that he wants to withdraw from this Eastern Partnership so that he can push ahead with the unwelcome actions which he is taking against human rights in Moldova. I believe that the European Union should work closely with the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
Mr President, glorification of terrorism takes many forms, but when a Member of this House eulogises vile murderers, whose killing careers came to an end when they met their just desserts at the hands of lawful security forces, then that Member has put herself at variance with everything that this House has ever said in condemning terrorism and those who sanitise and justify it. Yet this is exactly what Sinn Fein Member de Brún did on Easter Sunday, when she described IRA terrorists as decent, selfless and honourable. There is nothing decent or honourable about terrorism, past or present. Shame on any Member who proclaims such obscene adulation of men of blood!
(SL) With his populist and hard-line nationalist rhetoric, President Ahmadinejad is causing great damage to Iran's image and reputation. He is also threatening moderate Islam in the West and spreading negative stereotypes about it.
We have to take decisive action against such provocation. In sentencing Roxana Saberi, the Iranian regime has demonstrated that it is essentially weak and cowardly. In its verbal confrontation with the United States, it chooses to take hostages, in this case a woman and a journalist, in order to mobilise its people ideologically. It is making a mockery of all democratic standards.
Fundamental human rights form the bedrock of the European Union, as does the fight for the right to information. The fourth estate, that is the media and the press, are an important tool in restoring democratic standards. Any power which is afraid of the press will first strike against them. Non-democratic regimes remain in perpetual fear, which is why they persecute journalists, imprison and torture them, and even kill them.
(HU) On 1 May it will be five years since we became members of the European Union, together with numerous other Central and Eastern European countries. It seemed then that each of the new Member States would observe the EU's basic principles and the ban on discrimination, as well as protect and value linguistic diversity and the rights of national minorities.
Even after five years of EU membership, there may still be instances where the majority language is protected in an open, discriminatory manner to the detriment of the use of the indigenous national minorities' languages. This is currently the case in Slovakia, where the language law passed in 1995 and subjected at the time to harsh international criticism has now been revived. This draft language law jeopardises the use of minority languages in every aspect of life, which also affects, for instance, the half a million-strong indigenous Hungarian minority who live there. Instead of promoting linguistic diversity and protecting the minority's identity, it allows language monitors and inspectors to go into minority communities and impose heavy fines if they fail to comply with these regulations, which can only be described as madness from a Brussels perspective. This is why I call on the EU's commissioner for linguistic diversity to intervene and put linguistic diversity into practice in Slovakia too.
(HU) The 10 new Member States have been in the European Union for five years. It is time for us to take stock of the situation. Our term is also coming to an end. To begin with, there was distrust among the old Member States, but this gradually disappeared. In fact, after a while it transpired that on many issues, such as the Services Directive or freedom of employment, the new Member States championed EU reform. This is why I believe that we can say that these five years have been a very sharp learning curve. At the same time, we must highlight that new Member States still face discriminatory measures. I only need to mention the fact that farmers from new Member States are receiving yet again this year only 60% of what farmers in the old Member States receive. I should also add that joining the EU was a win-win situation and I would therefore like to thank the European Parliament for welcoming us new Member States. We feel that we have been treated here as full equals during the last five years.
This item is closed.


Opening of the sitting
(Posiedzenie zostało otwarte o godz. 09.00)


Documents received: see Minutes


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