The work of the Plenary and initiative reports (amendment of the Rules of Procedure) (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Corbett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure in light of the proposals by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform concerning the work of the Plenary and initiative reports.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I hope colleagues will bear with me yet again taking the floor on a question of changes to the Rules of Procedure, which always seem to be on a Monday night.
As colleagues will be aware, Parliament has had a working group very ably chaired by our colleague Dagmar Roth-Behrendt which has been looking into improving the workings of our Parliament.
We have shifted from being a talking shop to a co-legislature. Whatever happens to the Lisbon Treaty, that change has already essentially taken place. It is therefore rational and logical that we should look at how we organise our work.
One major aspect of that is inevitably and rightly a shift away from own-initiative reports from committees, with no legislative impact, to focussing more on legislation.
That is the first and perhaps most important part of the package of proposals that I tabled before you today. The working group's proposals, of course, were wide-ranging: only a few of them require adjustment to our Rules, but this is one of them.
The idea here is that we should differentiate between the types and significance of own-initiative reports. Some, of course, will continue to merit full discussion and voting in plenary; but perhaps some really do not.
We should not turn this Chamber into a drafting committee that rewrites, paragraph by paragraph, a detailed own-initiative report on a specialist subject by a specialist committee.
I would have liked to have gone further and ask: Why do such reports, that type of own-initiative report, not stand in their own right as a report of the committee?
Reports of the House of Lords, that we all talk about, are reports of House of Lords' committees: they are not voted on and rewritten by the chamber of the House of Lords, they stand on their own merits - often very good, deep, analytical reports. They do not use the Lords as a revising chamber, paragraph by paragraph. We should not do that either for this type of own-initiative report.
With this rule change, that will be possible; we will, of course - that is the compromise - still put the report to the chamber to give a yes or no to it. We will also allow groups that disagree with it to table an alternative motion for a resolution, but we will not start voting for hours on hours, paragraph by paragraph, to redraft a committee report of that sort. That, then, I think is a first, very important change.
Another change, of a completely different sort, is to liven up our debates and the way we conduct our speaking time. The role of the rapporteur will be enhanced: the rapporteur will present the committee's report which is in response to the Commission's legislative proposal, immediately stating what the Parliament thinks of the Commission proposal, and will wrap up the debate at the end, perhaps answering the points that different Members have made in the way that I attempted to do just now in our previous debate. That is something that should liven up our debates and is well worthwhile.
There is, however, one detail which seems to have attracted a lot of comments: this is the suggestion that we should have guidelines for written parliamentary questions in the same way that we already have guidelines for questions at Question Time to the other institutions.
I do not see why there is such a drama about this. It is not an attempt to create a power of censorship over questions. It is simply saying in the guidelines that written parliamentary questions, just like questions for Question Time, should be within the remit of the institution that is being asked to answer the question. That seems logical and rational, yet it is missing at the moment.
The fact that it is missing has allowed one Member of this House to table over a thousand parliamentary written questions on subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. That has clogged up the system, making all the rest of us wait longer for our answers, costing a fortune because all such questions have to be translated into every language, circulated around the Commissioners for a collective reply and collegiate reply, and is a waste of our time and resources. Simply laying down guidelines to say that questions have to be within the remit of the European Union and of the institutions seems to be sensible.
And who should judge this? Under my proposal, our President, the President of Parliament, should judge this. If we lay down guidelines, we will not leave it to the Commission to judge that and say: 'No, we are not answering that question or this question'. No, we will decide - and that is something to protect Members and should be a guarantee for Members. I am surprised that some Members who are not here tonight have seen fit to attack that in an e-mail to all Members of Parliament.
These are modest, sensible proposals coming out of the working group of vice-presidents and Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, and I commend them to the House.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, a reformed Parliament that promotes a livelier political debate on the EU is in the interests of all our citizens and also all the institutions. We need a more dynamic discussion on European affairs and I belong to those deeply convinced that debate is the lifeblood of any functioning democracy.
On behalf of the Commission, I would like to congratulate Mr Corbett on his report concerning the work of the plenary and the presentation of written questions. Over the years there have been an increasing number of parliamentary questions. In 2007, over 6 700 questions were answered by the Commission. That represents an increase of 12% compared to 2006 and almost 35% compared to 2005, and the trend so far this year suggests a further increase.
The surge in questions has at the same time meant a real challenge: almost 25% of the total number of written questions have been put by no more than eight Members of Parliament. Furthermore, quite a large number of questions are not related to issues falling under Community competence. I can give you some examples if you like.
The Commission is absolutely committed to fulfilling its responsibility and providing high-quality responses to parliamentary questions. It is a duty that flows from the Treaties; it is also a central feature of our accountability to the Parliament. The Commission welcomes the introduction of some guidelines and admissibility criteria for written parliamentary questions as proposed in the report. A system of guidelines is currently in place for oral questions addressed to the Commission and to the Council and the Corbett report suggests a method which is already implemented by Parliament and well known by the Council and Commission. The effective implementation of these guidelines will strengthen the opportunity for individual Members to address questions to the Commission and receive timely responses, as has already been explained by the rapporteur. We will be able to focus on questions that address issues really related to the Commission competence or of general interest.
Let me comment on another issue addressed in the report, and that is the order of speeches in plenary debates. The Commission recognises the logic and the opportunity of opening legislative debates with a statement from the rapporteurs. When it comes to the order of speeches and speaking time I would, however, like to stress the need to keep the principle of equal treatment of Commission and Council.
As a last word, let me recall that we recently expressed our position on the second interim report adopted by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and we are looking forward to having the opportunity to discuss these issues with Parliament before your institution adopts the final position on the reform package. I am confident that the spirit of good interinstitutional cooperation that both institutions have demonstrated so far will continue throughout the whole reform process.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Mr President, again we have been able to hear voices saying that this recommendation is about us restricting the activities of certain MEPs. I would like to draw the attention of the Eurosceptic MEPs to the fact that they should read the recommendation before saying this.
This report, and this change to the rules, should have happened a very long time ago, since the European Parliament has had major legislative powers for a long time. In the meantime, we should look at the fact that in total 17.4% of our time, the time we spend on debates in plenary sessions, is spent on legislation, and the rest on other activities.
In fact, this report makes it possible for Parliament to occupy itself with what the Treaties authorise it to do. In other words, we will actually be able to concentrate on legislation, and this does not mean that we would devalue the own-initiative reports, since these also contain very important points, but we must know between ourselves that their impact is significantly less than what we can achieve with legislation.
When we legislate, we create changes that will have a direct impact on the lives of 500 million people in the years to come, while for own-initiative reports this transfer takes much longer and is much smaller. Consequently, this Parliament has to occupy itself with legislation much more, and this report makes it possible.
We have also been able to reach agreement in connection with questions, since it is important that the questions really do receive real answers. Very often, we MEPs do not receive real answers from the Commission, although, as the Commissioner has said, every single MEP has the right to be given answers to his questions, but these must be questions that fall under the remit of the European Union and of the Commission.
I am also pleased that the Commission has finally rejected the restriction of only asking a total of two questions a month. This was a wise decision, but in any case we can achieve a better result and this new rule will help to make questions more effective, so I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Corbett. Thank you.
Mr President, own-initiative reports are certainly justified in this Parliament. We are a parliament of 27 countries and peoples, and there are many questions preying on people's minds, both within the EU and in our relations with other parts of the world.
However, I also agree with those who have said that Parliament has increasingly developed from being an advisory assembly to a legislative body. The Treaty of Lisbon will take that a big step further. Therefore, we must set priorities. I hear that we spend only 17.4% of our time on legislative work: this is not enough. We are under stress, under time pressure. We want better lawmaking, so we need more time and priorities.
It is also a good thing that we are now saying that not every report has to be discussed again in plenary. It is possible to vote without first debating, and Members can make a written statement if they want to express their views on the report. It does not have to be done orally in a plenary session.
Madam Vice-President, I feel it is right that the rapporteur has both the first and the last word in Parliament because, as a kind of 'chamber of the citizens', we must express ourselves at the beginning and the end of a debate. That is a good innovation.
Last but not least the subject of the questions. This system is very good, until it is abused. We have heard the figures - that eight Members are putting 25% of the questions. That makes nearly 1 700 questions from eight members. We can observe that they are very hardworking, but it looks very much as if the EU system is being wantonly abused here, as in many other cases, by opponents of the EU. We must introduce a rule for this, and the guidelines are a benchmark, a framework that we can work by.
Congratulations to Mr Corbett for knuckling down time and again to further develop Parliament. Thank you very much.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is a pleasure that I can be more consensual in this speech than in my previous one. The Liberal Group strongly supports the thrust of the reforms that are encapsulated in this set of proposals, especially upon the parliamentary questions.
I think it is quite correct that we dropped the rapporteur's first proposal to cap or to restrict the number of parliamentary questions that could be asked.
Frankly, I would propose two further minor improvements. The first is to broaden the procedure to stop bad quality committee reports - and sometimes, regrettably, there are some - from sliding through the plenary without improvement and here it would be appropriate to permit the committee itself and not simply the rapporteur or two political groups or 10% of the membership of Parliament to table amendments.
My second proposal is to add a catch-the-eye phase to the new sort of short presentation proposed by the rapporteur. I think that these two changes would slightly broaden the chance for parliamentary debate and exchange while not destroying the purpose of the working group which is, of course, to streamline and to vitalise the proceedings of the Assembly.
Mr President, I feel much the same way as Mr Duff. I should like to say at this point that we as a group can support the report overall, in contrast to the previous report, because it reflects the proposals of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and implements them as amendments to the Rules of Procedure.
What we cannot support, which I should also like to mention briefly here, is the proposal to no longer allow amendments to own-initiative reports. In our group, we are of the opinion that amendments are very much part of the political culture and political debate and, particularly, of the rights of individual groups - and this right of the groups should not be curtailed.
To finish, I should like to add that I believe that Amendments 13 and 15 by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are worthy of support. Even if we do not need long, detailed debates on individual reports here in plenary, there should be some discussion, and it should be brief - either one speaker per group, as the Verts/ALE Group suggests, or via the catch-the-eye procedure. Not having any debate at all would be doing ourselves a disservice. If we do not allow debate then we are not taking ourselves seriously, and I do not think that is good either.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, all legislative bodies must be subject to scrutiny at all times and must also be prepared, as we are, to carry out self-monitoring. I fear, though, that the self-monitoring in the present report goes too far; I would go so far as to call it self-censorship. If this report is adopted in its original form, it will mean Parliament itself proposing to restrict the right of its Members to put relevant questions to the Council and the Commission. This of course makes sense in itself, but the report also states that it is up to the President to decide whether the respective question may be put. Thus the President of Parliament is to decide which questions it is appropriate to put to the other EU institutions. We are thus introducing additional self-censorship and, on top of that, permitting the President of Parliament to exercise censorship too.
I should like to remind the House that we are the only directly elected body, and thus have a particular obligation. Our task is to exercise parliamentary control, and so we cannot on any account impose self-censorship, which is open to abuse. Of course, we all have a moral obligation not to waste any institution's time with irrelevant questions, but we cannot accept the setting of 'objective criteria' for relevance. There are no such things as objective criteria in politics and, if we set them, we risk them being abused.
Mr President, in its original incarnation, this report was far more draconian and anti-democratic than its final version. Our Euro-fanatical rapporteur showed much of his true colours when he proposed diminishing the rights of elected Members in this House to dare to ask questions of the unelected Commission and of the Council; hence, his monstrous proposal to restrict Members to three questions per month.
Happily he had to beat a hasty retreat but his report still bears some of the repressive character that lay behind that proposal. In particular, the veto which he seeks to give the President over what can be posed in a question is unacceptable; not least since this present President does not enjoy the confidence of everyone in this House, given his inability to abide dissent, as was evidenced by his punitive action against those in this House who dared to demand the right of their electorate to have national referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.
The President showed his intolerance, and a President handed censorship powers which will enable him to protect the European elite against probing questions from Members - such a President will gladly exercise that censorship. Therefore it is foolish, it is wrong and it is undemocratic to bind and to gag Members in this House in the way that our rapporteur, not surprisingly, seeks to do.
(EL) Mr President, parliamentary procedure is not a mere formality in our work; it is the very essence of the work of any parliament, even a parliament like ours, which has 780 Members from so many different countries, is so far from the public eye and, as a result, is often far removed from matters of interest to the public; a parliament with known procedures when it comes to debate - and the debate here in plenary is simply a formal procedure in relation to the real work carried out in the committees.
Any effort, then, to improve the work of this Parliament's plenary sessions, on the basis of certain principles, is always welcome: firstly, the principle of efficiency, so that we hold discussions in order to arrive at options and finally decisions; secondly, the principle of democracy, a level playing field for all, regardless of the power they wield, so that everyone gets a hearing; and thirdly, the principle of 'vitality', I would call it, so that what we say is of interest to the public.
How well are these principles served by the proposal in this particular report? Satisfactorily, I think, although there is room for some small improvements, which I shall suggest.
On the issue of the 'short presentation', I agree. There is one reason why it is a very good idea to have a short presentation: it means that there will never be a report that is not discussed at all. I shall give you an example: the very interesting report by Mr Duff, on which we shall vote tomorrow, concerning the way in which some kind of control is to be exercised over the Commission, will not be discussed at all, although it would be a very good opportunity to use this shortened procedure.
I therefore say 'yes' to this, but beyond that I would point out - we are seeing it today, we see it every time - how interesting the catch-the-eye procedure is, and how uninteresting a discussion is when only the rapporteur and the Commission take part, although it would be interesting if others could speak.
One final comment: with regard to questions, I think the course we are taking is quite correct. Lastly, on the own-initiative reports, I think amendments to these reports should be discussed.
Mr President, sometimes when writing these short speeches, it strikes me that it would really take the talent of a George Orwell to do justice to these reports.
This report from the unconscious satirist and humorist, Mr Corbett, is a case in point. What monumental undemocratic arrogance it is to suggest that Members of this Parliament should have their questions to the Council and Commission censored! We are told that this is to avert abuses by the right or stop use of offensive language.
Perhaps Mr Corbett is concerned that we might ask questions about some Commissioners' criminal records or their past careers as apparatchiks of Eastern European Communist regimes, or perhaps about former EU Presidents' alleged careers as KGB agents?
Recently the President of Parliament assumed arbitrary powers to control the right of MEPs to speak in this Chamber. Now Mr Corbett wants to censor what MEPs can say on behalf of their constituents to the Council and the Commission.
If I may respond to Mr Corbett's comment about my speech in the last debate, I was of course referring to his proposed rules on the formation of political groups in relation to the Independence-Democracy Group as it is currently constituted. It is the Labour Party that is facing annihilation in Britain. One reason is its Europhile fanaticism, and I can assure him that in 2009 UK Independence Party MEPs will return here in even greater numbers.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the questions represent precisely the range of information that citizens want from the EU. Since Commissioner Wallström is here today, I call on her to allow these questions to be worked through, and perhaps to have a brochure made in which the results of the questions and answers are also made available to the citizens of Europe, including on the Internet, so that they can see how the questions put by their MEPs to the Commission and the Council are answered. It would be fantastic for journalists and the citizens of Europe if that could be done before the elections.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have asked for the floor in response to Mr Leinen's speech. Mr Leinen, if you would listen for a moment: I want to speak about your remarks on own-initiative reports. The quality of the own-initiative reports that are tabled and then adopted here is open to question but, if you stop allowing amendments, how can own-initiative reports be improved? I should like to remind you that Parliament does not have the right of initiative on legislation. We are dependent on the Commission for that. How can we tell the Commission what initiatives we should like to see if we trim the own-initiative reports down or do not take reports in a direction that improves things? If I understand rightly, according to the Treaty, or what used to be called the Constitution, we ourselves do not have the right of initiative in the area of legislation. All we have is the ability to make known what we want in own-initiative reports. I think it is unfortunate if you devalue that, because it robs us of an opportunity. I believe you should think again - both you, Mr Leinen, and the rapporteur.
(ES) Mr President, the rapporteur does not need anyone to defend him; I have no doubt that he can defend himself, but I must say that I asked for the floor because I think that some of the speeches were excessive.
I think that in this House we need to have debates and set forth arguments. I have just listened to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's speech, and we always disagree on this, but I think that some of the descriptions, insults and caricatures ultimately damage this institution, and especially those responsible for them, Mr President. Given that we are in France, I think it was a French writer who said that anything that is excessive lacks value. Today there have been some speeches that have lacked value.
We appreciate what Mr Corbett has done, which is simply to reflect what is done by a group of Vice-Presidents of this House, in which all the groups in Parliament are represented. This is reflected in the Regulation, we have debated with him and we greatly appreciate the work that he does.
rapporteur. - Mr President, after our previous debate I am glad to see that we are still friends and that we can reach a wider consensus on these issues.
Just let me clarify a couple of points that have given rise to controversy. On parliamentary questions: we are not proposing any limit to parliamentary questions, we are simply saying that the same guidelines that we as a Parliament have already adopted for Question Time questions should apply to written questions, namely that they should be within the remit of the European Union and of the institution called upon to answer them.
Questions about hospitals in the UK under the National Health Service and the moving of staff from one hospital to another, which have nothing to do with the European Union, should not be parliamentary questions costing a lot of money at European level. This seems to me to be common sense: only UKIP and their friends can describe it as some sort of conspiracy or some sort of censorship. Censorship? On criteria that we ourselves decide, that our President is called upon to rule on, not the Commission or the Council? If that is censorship, then my goodness...
The second question that gave rise to some controversy was speaking time. Perhaps I did not explain this fully earlier. We will keep the two options that we have now for organising debates, and add a third one. At the moment we can have a full debate, which can already be a short debate with one speaker per political group. We also now have the option of the simplified procedure where the rapporteur simply makes a two-minute statement at the time of the vote: we will keep that.
What we are proposing is to add a third option: the short presentation, where the report is consensual and own-initiative, etc. and does not merit a full debate, though the latter always remains an option. Under the short presentation procedure, the rapporteur presents the conclusions of the committee, the Commission responds and everybody else if they wish can make an extra contribution in writing. That increases the number of options available to Parliament; it does not restrict the rights of any Members. It multiplies the flexibility with which we can deal with these issues, and again I commend it to the House.
Finally a couple of short questions. In response to Mr Rübig, the questions and answers are already on line. They are visible to all Members; perhaps we should make more use of this, but they are there, that is a tool that is available. To Mr Baringdorf I would say yes, the report does distinguish between different types of own-initiative report. The type of legislative initiative to which he was referring would not come under this simplified procedure that we are proposing: that would go through the normal procedures, as that particular type of legislative initiative merits. So we have catered for that.
As for the very strange remarks by Mr Batten from UKIP and his reference to the next European elections, we shall see. Yes, his party won as many seats as the Liberal Democrats in the last European elections in the UK, having outspent them, I think, by a factor of 10 - Mr Duff is nodding, so I suppose that is right. We will see how many millionaires he gets to contribute to his campaign this time; but I hope that this time there will be greater awareness, having seen their performance in the European Parliament over these last five years, of what it actually means when you elect somebody from UKIP to this place. And if the electorate is aware of that then I am sure they will not do so well in the next European elections.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


3. Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union (vote)
- Piecyk report
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (DE) I beg to point out that Amendment 1 should not be placed after paragraph 4 but after paragraph 146; that was agreed with the author of the amendment. This paragraph does not belong at the beginning but at the end of the resolution. I would be grateful if you could arrange for that to be done.
Our efficient staff have already seen to that.


Agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Sârbu, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security.
Mr President, it is an honour for me to present my report to you, which deals with the strategic importance of agriculture in ensuring the European Union's food security. Agriculture is a neglected topic in the discussions about the European Union's strategy and future. This report will show that Europe has not achieved food security, that farmers and whole rural areas are in danger of disappearing, and that new challenges, such as climate change, are likely to destabilise already dwindling food stocks, not only in Europe, but also worldwide.
Against a background where food production needs to increase by a minimum of 70% by 2050 in order to meet the world population's food demands, food security must be the topic at the heart of the debates conducted at both global and European level. The European Union must respond robustly to these challenges and this report is our attempt to propose today a number of specific courses of action.
First of all, we need a strong common agricultural policy aimed at guaranteeing food security for as many EU citizens as possible and also at helping ensure global food security in the context of limited resources and the impact from climate change. We cannot talk about food security if we do not tackle two crucial issues, specifically: market and price volatility and dwindling global food stocks.
On the subject of price volatility, I have called on the Commission, as part of the new CAP, to enhance the role of market intervention instruments and adopt more consistent measures for restricting speculation on agricultural markets. Global food stocks are much more restricted nowadays than in the past. According to estimates, they can cover the world's food requirements for just a month and a half. This is why I thought that the creation of a global food stock system would be beneficial, comprising both emergency stocks to reduce hunger and stocks to be used to regulate prices on agricultural markets, which comes under the international aegis and is supported by the expertise of existing institutions such as the UN or FAO. I believe that the European Union must initiate this action, which is why I have asked the Commission to take on this role.
Another important issue touched on in this report is the situation of young farmers. If we are reflecting on the future of European agriculture, we must focus more attention on young farmers. Just 7% of farmers across Europe are under the age of 35. This is why I have asked the Commission for measures to be provided to encourage them.
On the other hand, I have stressed the need to preserve European agriculture's diversity. In this regard, I mentioned that traditional agricultural practices, family farming, small-scale farms and organic farming can make a valuable contribution to food security. I also called for the development of EU-level programmes to support these forms of agriculture. However, we must not forget that poverty and hunger persist in the European Union and that millions of Europeans have requested food aid from the EU this winter. Consequently, in the current economic crisis, it is of paramount importance to use EU funding to maintain the EU's 'Food Aid for the Most Deprived Persons' programme.
Finally, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and my other colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their good cooperation and the contributions they made to the drafting of this report, as well as the Secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope that tomorrow, we will adopt together a report which meets European citizens' expectations.
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Sârbu, our rapporteur, for the excellent work she has done on this report and for her cooperation with all the shadows. This follows work which I carried out in the previous mandate on the role of the common agricultural policy and global food security.
I regret that we are debating this report just before midnight. Perhaps it will be at a minute to midnight that Europe and the world wake up to the realities of how insecure we are when it comes to food production.
This report is extremely welcome in our overall debate on this issue and in the context of our debate on reform of the common agricultural policy.
I had some concerns, but I think they are reflected in the final text. The idea that one form of production system is better than another - that organic, small, local is better - is not a good argument. We need all production systems to contribute to our food security. We do need to address market volatility and speculation and I do not think we have all the answers yet.
The single key problem with agriculture is low incomes for farmers. Young farmers will not work for nothing, and we have to address the low income problem if we want security of food supply.
(SK) Mr President, due to constant population growth, we are obliged to adopt a more intensive approach to the issue of food security, and access to an adequate, healthy and nutritious diet.
In order to ensure food security, it is essential to increase transparency and fairness in the actual food chain, so that we can secure a fair return for farmers, with profits and price controls, and a viable agricultural sector.
In my opinion, it is extremely important to apply a resolute policy on rural development, by means of which we can maintain the viability of rural Europe and boost the competitiveness of agriculture, support innovation and, ultimately, employment as well.
Agriculture is enormously important, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and it is therefore necessary to adopt stimulus measures to support agriculture in rural areas, attract more young people into agriculture, and help to reduce regional differences and secure sustainable development.
(PT) Mr President, I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations to my colleague, Mrs Sârbu, on the excellent job done on the report. I strongly recommend that the Commission take it into consideration, particularly in those aspects in which the complex dimension of agricultural issues - which extend well beyond the narrow boundaries of agriculture itself - requires the involvement of other areas, such as competition on the internal market and financial regulation, and merits attention on stages outside the EU, such as the G20 or the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The crucial determining issues for agriculture, for farmers, and for supplying sufficient good quality food to the people of Europe and the rest of the world, can only be tackled in reality if they are considered from all angles. The ambitious objectives of common agricultural policy reform can only be achieved if the reforms extend beyond the narrow boundaries of agriculture and if the objectives are also taken into account in the action required in other policy areas and in other global bodies.
This report makes this patently clear and I take my hat off to it for doing so.
(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mrs Sârbu for an excellent report, which I consider to be one of the most important in this parliamentary term.
There are increasing numbers of people in the world, while the amount of arable land available is falling. Food is becoming, to an ever greater degree, a strategic product. While crude oil can be replaced by solar or nuclear energy, there is nothing which can replace the food our planet produces. In the European Union, we sometimes behave as if we were continually struggling with the problem of overproduction of food. The entire agricultural policy of the European Union in recent years has been based on ways of limiting and reducing agricultural production. We can already see on the horizon, today, that the time is coming when there will be a shortage of food. It is very good that this signal, in the form of the Sârbu report, has come from Parliament, saying that the situation has changed and that the European Union's agricultural policy has to change, too. We must respect agriculture - it is the guarantee of our food security.
(DE) Mr President, it is the case in politics as it is in daily life: we do not fully appreciate what we have. Thus, it also clearly seems to be the case that we in the European Union have an excess of food, and there is, of course, always plenty to buy. If we compensate for animal feed exports, we have in the European Union a self-sufficiency rate of 88%. That means that, in the European Union, we, too, must endeavour to ensure that we maintain this self-sufficiency rate in terms of agricultural products and foodstuffs.
I am therefore very grateful to the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, for bringing this problem into the spotlight once again. In the European Union, we also need a common agricultural policy that can supply our citizens with sufficient food. In view of the increasing global population, the effects of climate change and increasing energy prices, it is clear that farmers in Europe will not be able to manage this alone in future. For this, we also need strategic coordination on a global scale.
(HU) Mr President, security of food supply in the EU will be one of the most serious challenges facing security policy in the coming decades. Herein lies the key asset of the Sârbu Report, which highlights the fact that in one or two decades, food and fresh water will be strategic products just as oil and natural gas are today. The timing of the report is particularly fortuitous because discussions are currently under way about the future of the common agricultural policy, the post-2014 budget is being planned, and many are keen on curtailing the budget of the common agricultural policy. It is very important that this common agricultural policy has adequate resources in the future, and to guarantee that it does, the finance ministers and decision makers must be convinced that the agricultural economy in the European Union produces not only food but also public goods, including public environmental goods, which we would not be able to guarantee or produce without agriculture.
(HU) Mr President, speaking of the food security issue, I am bothered by the fact that the report is treating EU countries as a single integrated unit. The situation in new Member States is entirely different from that in older ones. For instance, let me ask one question with regard to Hungary: how is it possible that we are talking about childhood starvation in a country with exceptional agricultural resources? Children and adults alike are starving in the centre of the European Union. My other question: how is it possible that our agriculture has taken such a dysfunctional turn that we are producing raw agricultural products on vast areas on an industrial scale, primarily in some - forgive me for the expression - colonial way, only to have them processed abroad, where the profits are made, and then returned to Hungary, where they are sold at high prices? Something is fundamentally wrong here.
(GA) Mr President, like other speakers I want to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, for her good work on this subject.
In four minutes, Mrs Sârbu covered a multitude of issues. I am not going to go over all the things she mentioned, but I would like to reiterate two points. First, there is a need for a well-funded CAP. I hope this Parliament will play a key role in ensuring that the CAP is not demeaned or diminished in any way. Second, we need to ensure that young people are encouraged to go into farming as a livelihood.
Furthermore, we have a policy of encouraging the growth of energy crops on good agricultural land. In view of the fact that we may be facing a food shortage worldwide, with a population increasing at a rate of 80 million per year, should we reassess that policy? Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul, or perhaps robbing Paul and Peter and finishing up with nothing? That is the question I would like to ask.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear from the report that things in agriculture cannot continue as they are, either. We, or rather, large enterprises, cannot continue to transport agricultural products from one end of the world to another. Of course, we can carry on without any compelling logic. apples, peppers, tomatoes and meat products are transported into Europe, including into Hungary - but mostly not from Spain or from the Netherlands, but from China and from Brazil. We could certainly continue on this path, but the products must be loaded onto transportation equipment such as ships, on which they travel for weeks or months. These products must be kept fresh with various preservatives that are toxic when consumed in large quantities. Now, people buy these products in large commercial chains and then wonder where all these diseases, cancers and tumours come from. It is, of course, obvious that they are caused by food colourings and artificial additives. I must add that instead of supporting multinational corporations, we must support smallholders so that they can be Europe's lifesavers in a developing food crisis.
(PT) Mr President, the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security that this report speaks of is inseparable from the recognition and promotion of the concept of food sovereignty. The greater the food dependency and food insecurity of a country, the more difficult it is to guarantee a sufficient supply of food to its population, in terms of both quantity and quality.
Food sovereignty is the best insurance against food product price volatility, an issue that has dramatically re-emerged on the order of business. This volatility has its origins fundamentally in the financial speculation carried out on food products, an area on which the speculators, investment funds, hedge funds, pension funds and large banking institutions have focused so much of their attention that the other speculative bubbles have either dried up or burst.
The only way to stop this speculation is to do away with the instruments that make it viable, namely, certain financial products such as over-the-counter derivatives.
Sadly, the measures that the European Union has adopted in this area are far from being capable of putting the brakes on this sinister wave of speculation and its inhumane consequences - as is acknowledged in a recent United Nations report authored by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
Mr President, we are discussing the poorest of the poor - the European Roma - and, together with the new Hungarian Presidency, we are all addressing the European Roma strategy.
Among inter-sectoral issues that concern the poorest of the poor, agriculture is very rarely addressed, notably because no land is owned by the poorest of the poor in Europe. So we are talking not just about food security but about having food on the table. As one of my colleagues has already said, this is an essential question for the EU today. I believe that the agricultural sector - and the Commission's work on these documents - has to be in line with all the EU micro-regional development projects which are concerned with fighting poverty and securing food on the table for future generations.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission very much welcomes this timely report, as food prices are rising sharply, mainly due to erratic weather conditions and natural disasters, but also to increases in energy prices that impact on the cost of food.
Therefore, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts.
Food security is fundamental for the almost one billion people around the world that still suffer from hunger, but it is also important for vulnerable populations across Europe. For them, the common agricultural policy makes a real difference. The - sometimes criticised - CAP has managed to provide EU citizens with food at affordable prices and has ensured food security in Europe. This must continue. Food security is identified as a central issue in the communication on the common agricultural policy towards 2020 that was adopted on 18 November by the Commission.
The report that Mrs Sârbu has put in front of us underlines the issue of excessive price volatility, which is closely linked to food security because of the impact it has both on farmers and on consumers.
The Commission fully agrees that there is a need to tackle excessive price volatility. We must collectively look for better regulation, supervision and transparency to address market issues, and this requires not only better financial regulations but also substantially improved transparency on the market.
The report recommends the creation of a global food system. Not an easy subject. We have had experiences in the past of commodity boards. They have proved not to be successful and therefore, this topic undoubtedly requires more detailed debate. It also requires analysis of the experience we have gained, for example, from the EUR 1 billion Food Facility adopted by the Commission in 2008, and also from the work that the Commission undertakes closely with the FAO and the World Food Programme to ensure that bumper stocks are pre-positioned in order to soften the blow of rising food prices.
All these efforts can be developed when the G20 looks closely into the food stocks issue, and you can be assured that the European Commission will be an active participant in the related deliberations in the coming weeks.
The report has made a call, echoed by many of you here this evening, for a strong agricultural and rural development policy in Europe, capable of ensuring food security for all, with the support of research and innovation to face the challenges of producing more with the fewer resources we have and will have.
The Commission fully agrees with this. There is no more relevant instrument to fulfil these objectives than a strong common agricultural policy able to guarantee the economic and environmental competitiveness of agriculture and - as some of you said - able to bring young people into the agricultural sector of Europe.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 18 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Food security is a political priority at both European and world level. The globalisation of the food chain means that new challenges - and sometimes risks to health and consumer interests - are constantly emerging.
One of the main challenges that the European Union will have to face up to is developing agricultural and food reforms in order to satisfy the needs of the global population. According to recent figures, the world's population is steadily increasing, and it is thought that it will increase by around 40% by 2050, creating an increase in demand for food which is expected to double current requirements.
To tackle the rising growth in world demand for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the Member States and the Union will need to ensure the security of food supply. To attain this objective, the EU will have to guarantee the security of food products bearing in mind their specific characteristics and, at the same time, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.
Lastly, I should like to ask the Commission to look at all possible measures to improve training for young people at work and to create job opportunities for graduates in the field of food security, with the principal objective of contributing to employment in the agriculture sector.
It is quite right to emphasise the importance of food security for the inhabitants of the EU, as it is their basic human right. The EU must therefore strive to ensure that healthy and nutritious foods are financially and physically accessible to all EU citizens, enabling them to lead an active and healthy life. We must strictly monitor compliance with the highest standards for food and agricultural production, for the safety and quality of foods, and also for their environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, in these circumstances, it is also necessary to point out the strict need for similar quality and safety standards in relation to foods imported from third countries, in order to protect the competitiveness of European farmers. I would also like to support the measures, which will motivate farmers to improve energy efficiency, as energy costs are a key factor in the profitability of farming activities. In my opinion, the most important aspect of the whole report is the emphatic appeal to the Commission to secure, in the public interest and in cooperation with Member States, public access to information on the results of food security monitoring, particularly through the rapid communication of this information between Member States. We simply cannot allow another failure like the selling of meat containing traces of dioxin, as is now happening in Germany, when other Member States were given insufficient and late information as to the situation that arose.
in writing. - As we begin to consider what the final make-up will be of the CAP post-2013, the themes of food security, food shortages and sustainability are coming ever more to the fore. This is something that almost everyone in this House, and everyone who will be involved in drawing up the bill, will recognise. The biofuel boom several years ago, coupled with the global food crisis in 2009, has shown us how scarce a resource food is beginning to become. As such, our vision must be narrowed: the sustainability of food and the needs of those who do not have automatic access to food must be put first; farming practices and innovations should be geared towards more food, and the correct crops; and, as we draft the new CAP bill, we should finally ensure that the new CAP will work towards a carbon-free Europe, and one which does not exacerbate the current carbon problem.
We consider security of food supply to be one of the basic human rights. In today's world, there are 900 million people suffering from constant hunger due to poverty. The world's population is set to exceed 9 billion by 2050, and global food production will have to increase by up to 70%. Agriculture must, on the one hand, boost output, and, on the other, cope with high energy costs, an ever diminishing area of non-polluted land and the consequences of climate change. We must address the instability and fluctuating prices caused by speculation on the commodity markets and declining food stocks. The future security of supply of basic foods requires a strong common agricultural policy (CAP). The CAP must improve food security by boosting productivity and supporting both environmentally sustainable food production and traditional agriculture, small farmers, organic farms, and the local and regional distribution of foods. These agricultural models contribute to food security, as they employ methods and procedures proven for generations in individual regions of the EU. Agriculture is the most strategic EU policy, the success of which will help to ensure the survival of Europe's population in a time of food crisis. In order for the CAP to be capable of combating the effects of climate change, maintaining food prices at an acceptable level and increasing the supply of healthy foods, it is essential for its budget to be preserved at least at the existing level.
in writing. - (LV) European agriculture is one of the Union's strategically most important sectors, as it provides more than 500 million people with their food supply. So that European agricultural policy may carry out its most important task, namely, to provide Europe's population with healthy and good quality food at reasonable prices, while ensuring an adequate income for farmers, it must be competitive in the global market and there must be a guarantee of fair competition in Europe's internal market. Hence, what we must achieve with CAP reform is a level playing field for all Europe's farmers. EU Member States have not encountered food security problems. Nevertheless, such risks will exist in the future, and we have to react accordingly, before that occurs. We must take into account that farmers are already having to work for minimal incomes or even at a loss, and this has an adverse effect on their ability to maintain production. It is also a fact that natural disasters affect food prices in the shops and hence, how available food is to people. We must acknowledge the strategic importance of agriculture in the European Union and do all we can to ensure that in the future, the people of Europe will not have to experience food shortages as a result of the failure of EU politicians and governments to have spotted the risks in time and to avert them. The recognition of agriculture as a strategically important sector for food security is an important step towards avoiding food security issues in the future.
The own-initiative report recognises the fact that agriculture is of strategic importance in the context of global food security. A glance into the future shows how urgent the need for action is. By 2050, experts estimate that global demand for food will double. Agriculture must be in a position to be able to meet the enormous needs of the growing population for safe and adequate food. At the same time, the obstacles resulting from the limitation of natural resources, high energy prices and climate change need to be dealt with. I supported the report, which clearly demonstrates that food security is a central concern in the European Union, too, and requires coordination of the individual policy areas. Only if the areas of agricultural policy, development policy, trade policy, financial policy and energy policy, as well as research, work together can improvements be achieved. Securing the incomes of farmers and an adequate supply of good quality food must therefore be key goals of the common agricultural policy. The greatly fluctuating market prices in the agricultural sector are the result of crop failures, speculation and a concentration in trade, and these are significant uncertainty factors. Interventions and stockpiling are the crisis mechanisms that will put a stop to market abuse and speculative transactions. It is important that these market intervention mechanisms play a central role in the future common agricultural policy. Another important point is the recommendation for the development of a global system of food stocks and emergency reserves.
Europe needs a common agricultural policy which will guarantee the development, and not the stagnation, of European agriculture. Agricultural policy must respond to European and global challenges, particularly when we take into account the fact that, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production has to increase by at least 70% to meet the needs of a world population which, by 2050, is set to exceed 9 billion. It can be seen, then, that the common agricultural policy needs to increase food security by increasing efficiency, while at the same time promoting an environmentally sustainable food policy. I would like to point out that regulations in this area should be transparent. I appreciate initiatives which recommend the promotion of agricultural diversity and the use of traditional and ecological agriculture. In addition, it is important to ensure that young farmers have access to land and loans in order to achieve the objectives of the CAP, such as innovation, modernisation, improving competitiveness and, above all, modern agriculture.
The link between the European common agricultural policy (CAP) and global food security is an important theme that must be taken into account during the process of drafting the CAP post-2013. Indeed, the priorities of the CAP must be viewed against the backdrop not only of the aspirations of our modern-day society, but also of the constraints that will be imposed on us throughout the world in the future. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production must increase by at least 70% if it is to meet the growing needs of the world's population. Europe must take account of world food security and must increase its production with a view to limiting imports. In addition, I support the proposal to review our financial legislation in order to combat price volatility, which is caused mainly by speculation. To be effective, however, this review must be carried out simultaneously at international level. I am delighted that one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the G20 in this area is to combat food and commodity price volatility.
The increase in global demand for food, resulting from the planet's growing population, obviously has an impact on natural food resources and entails new food security regulations and precautions. The EU's priority task is to guarantee Member States the right to food security and to support developing countries in achieving a sufficient food security level. I think that it is important to promote the production and sale of local traditional foods. Numerous benefits can be derived from regional food products: lower transport costs and a lower risk of food perishing. There are many regions with significant agricultural potential which has remained untapped due to social or economic imbalances, against the background of an increasingly ageing rural population or of industrialisation. Indeed, large areas of farmland are not used efficiently. Regional authorities can play a key role in food security by supporting the agricultural capacity of the regions which have this potential. The EU is one of the global leaders in the field of research and innovation, including in the agricultural sector. A steady rise in the urban population's majority poses a new challenge: how much of a priority is the development of urban agriculture with a view to guaranteeing food security, using various models such as vertical urban agriculture?
I support the approach suggested by the resolution adopted today in this Chamber: food safety is a basic human right and it is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to suitable, safe and nutritious food. In the European Union, around 80 million people still live below the poverty line today, and many of them are helped through food aid programmes. A proper diet is necessarily a key factor in our health, and there are still too many doubts being raised about genetically modified organisms by part of the scientific community. For this reason, I am against the text's openness to GMOs, particularly the part that provides for extending the approval process for importing genetically modified foods from third countries into the European Union. For the sake of consistency, I do not believe that we can forbid our farmers from using a technique that we then tolerate in the production of imports. However, I do support the measures to encourage young farmers, who currently represent just 7% of the total, with installation premiums, subsidised interest rates on loans and other incentives which have been implemented by Member States through their rural development budgets, safe in the knowledge that European agricultural production can maintain its current high levels of quality and safety.
I welcome the report on recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security. However, I also wish to express my dismay that Parliament decided to allocate so little time to debating it. This topic is particularly current at the present moment when we have realised how the food crisis can affect states' stability. One of the causes of the uprising in Tunisia has been the increase in food prices. Algeria, India and Bangladesh are also states where rising food prices have caused serious tensions. The increasing cultivation of biofuel crops, financial speculation, producers switching very rapidly to more profitable crops and, last but not least, the change in the eating habits of citizens in many states, are also new topics closely related to the subject of today's report.
I wish to make one final comment. In an index produced by a Japanese bank indicating vulnerability to food price rises, four of the forty most vulnerable countries are Member States of the European Union, with another state soon to become an EU member, and three states are the EU's immediate neighbours. This is an interesting index which must give us food for thought.
If we regard agriculture as a strategic area, then an essential precondition for ensuring the security of food supplies is for the European Union to be self-sufficient, at least in the production of basic foods and animal fodders. EU dependence on imports of agricultural products causes food price rises, and undermines the EU's direct producers in the marketing chain. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), demand for food and animal fodder could rise by 70% by 2050. It will therefore be necessary to use all available forms of agriculture, and to provide significant support for financial investment into scientific research in this area. The efficient use of traditional agricultural varieties that are characteristic to certain regions also requires greater support and public interest. For example, assessment of the environmental impact of food production and transport distances is easily understood by the consumer. Current wastage levels of up to 50% in the overall production chain, and the disproportionate growth in freight transport, are not factors compatible with ensuring the security of food supply. We cannot pretend to ensure food security and protect the environment while at the same time tolerating a dependence on products grown on another continent and imported over thousands of kilometres. Such practices create an enormous environmental footprint and, at the same time, oblige developing countries to import almost all necessary foods, making them dependent, ruining their economies, impoverishing their inhabitants and destroying their environment.


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


1. Agreement between the EC and Nepal on certain aspects of air services (


Order of business
The final version of the draft order of business as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 17 September 2009 pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed.
Mrs Bauer's report on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities has been rejected following a vote in committee.
In addition, the following reports were not received in time:
Mr Böge's reports
on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund: Italy, the Abruzzo earthquake and
on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Germany - telecommunications sector, and
Mrs Haug's report - Draft amending budget 9/2009: earthquake in Italy.
These four reports have, therefore, been removed from the order of business.
Mr President, as regards the two reports on the use of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the benefit of the telecommunications industry in Germany and the Solidarity Fund for the tragedy which occurred in Abruzzo in Italy, the Committee on Budgets adopted the four reports at the beginning of the week, but not in time for translations to be prepared. I merely wished to correct what you said: these reports have been adopted in committee. There is no legal obstacle. They were even adopted unanimously.
Thank you for that comment. It is a pertinent comment. Nonetheless, these reports are not on the order of business, because they have not yet been translated. There was not enough time. I share your opinion entirely. I am sorry. I went too far in what I said.
Before Mr Lamassoure's statement, I made two proposals for changes. The first was for the Council statement on the situation in Guinea to be placed on the agenda as the second item. The second was about voting on motions for resolutions on passenger compensation. I would like to ask if there are any motions on these matters? We do not want to confuse items.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the Committee on Budgets, and also speaking on behalf of Mr La Via, I would like to take the floor briefly just to express our disappointment over the postponement of the vote on mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund for the Abruzzo region. The vote has been postponed by two weeks and will take place during the part-session in Strasbourg.
Although we realise that there are technical reasons for it, we also understand that some people are still living in tents - and L'Aquila and its region, Abruzzo, are some of the coldest areas in Italy.
We simply wish to emphasise the importance of changing and streamlining the procedures for mobilising this fund.
We must act in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. It was difficult to do the translations in such a short time, and the rule which we apply in such a case is deferral of the matter. I am also very sorry about this, but I would like us to proceed and work through our agendas item by item, because otherwise we will end up with enormous confusion.
A moment ago, I asked about two things: the Council statement on the situation in Guinea, and voting on motions for resolutions on passenger compensation. Are there any questions about this?
There are no questions. The discussion is closed.
(Parliament accepted these proposals)
(IT) Mr President, my apologies for going back to the subject of Abruzzo. It is true that we all have respect for people who have suffered an earthquake, but we cannot celebrate only when things happen and not respond when it is within our means to do so.
I agree with Mrs Matera and call on the Chamber, which remains sovereign, to approve the release of the Solidarity Fund, without translation if necessary. I do not believe that problems of this type should exist when we have tragic situations to deal with.
(Applause)
Colleagues, those remarks were very important. We must overcome these difficulties. I will ask the services whether it is possible to deliver some crucial translations by tomorrow, and then we can vote tomorrow as well. It is a very urgent decision.
(Applause)
It is, of course, against our rules, but I think this time we should do it, so it will be organised.
In connection with the Commission statement on freedom of information in Italy, I have received a request from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for this item to be withdrawn from the order of business.
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I call for Parliament to make a statement on the withdrawal of the debate on freedom of the press in Italy and then on the vote on a resolution on the same subject. Every person of good faith knows that my group, the PPE, is deeply attached to the defence of freedom of expression and the freedom of the press.
(Protests)
(Applause)
Please respect my freedom of speech. I have always respected it in this House and I have always respected my fellow citizens here in Parliament.
(Applause)
That is why we did everything we could for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to become binding under the Treaty of Lisbon. However, the debate scheduled for tomorrow only targets one country and does not cover the question - on which we are prepared to have an in-depth debate - of freedom of the press in Europe. The PPE refuses to allow this Parliament to become a place in which purely national political accounts are settled, which is what we shall witness tomorrow if this debate goes ahead.
(Protests)
(Applause)
So yes to the defence of the liberty of the press in Europe, but no to this Parliament being used for purely partisan and national ends. I shall repeat tomorrow, as you will see, what was said by President Napolitano, who is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, because I have worked a lot with him, as you will see tomorrow.
Mr President, I do not have much to add to the proposal made by Mr Daul in his speech. We all love freedom in its various forms, including freedom of expression and press freedom in the broadest sense, in other words, not only the written press but also television and other media. It is therefore right that we defend it and support it.
It is not right, however, to exploit the situation by pointing the finger at just one set of circumstances, because anyone in Italy who logs on to the Internet, goes to a news-stand or watches the TV, can see that freedom of the press is under no threat whatsoever. To sum up, if you really wish to accuse someone, use Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 7 of the Treaties and have the courage to follow it through to the end.
Mr President, Mr Daul is quite right in what he has just said. Yes, it is true that Mr Daul is someone who respects all aspects of the freedom of expression. He is well-known for this. However, there are clearly some people in Europe who do not respect the freedom of expression to the same extent as Mr Daul does, but instead have a different understanding of the freedom of expression. That is why we need this debate.
We therefore believe it to be appropriate, given the debate that is going on in one of the Member States, namely Italy, although not only on account of the Italian situation, but on account of the question of whether, as a result of the concentration of economic, political and media power to an extent the like of which we have not known in Europe before, freedom of expression poses a risk to democratic development in Europe. That is precisely the point that we want to discuss. We should therefore do that and reject the motion proposed by Mr Daul.
(Applause)
The Commission statement on freedom of information in Italy shall remain on the order of business.
I have received another request from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) that the debate not be wound up with the tabling of motions for resolutions.
Mr President, Mr Daul, we are a parliament that should, quite rightly, vote on and take responsibility for providing money for the people in Abruzzo as quickly as possible.
We are also a parliament with a responsibility. When we debate something, we must subsequently vote on a resolution so that the debate serves a purpose. We are therefore in favour of adopting a resolution after this debate.
(Applause)
Mr President, I wish to speak in support of the motion for there not to be a resolution because I heard Mr Schulz say something which, in my view, is very important: if we really want this debate to encompass 'Europe' and not just Italy, there is no point then voting on a resolution entitled 'Freedom of information in Italy'.
Let us, in any case, have the debate tomorrow: subsequently, we will find the time and the means to address the issue in the context of Europe and vote on a resolution on the freedom of information in Europe.


Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes


16. European Ombudsman's activities in 2006 (vote)
- Sbarbati report


2. Sudan: situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile State (


Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes


9. (


7. (


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)


1. Application of Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania (


Voting time
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to welcome you all most warmly. I am particularly pleased that we are joined by Czech Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Karel Schwarzenberg. Mr Schwarzenberg, I wish you a very warm welcome to the European Parliament.
(Applause)
The next item is voting time.
(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)


3. EU - Russia Summit on 18 November 2009 in Stockholm (vote)
(DE) Mr President, I would like to table the following amendment, which was formulated in consultation with the author of the motion. I will read the text out in English.
'Condemns the brutal assassination of Maksharip Aushev, a popular human rights activist and an opposition figure who was shot dead in Ingushetia;'. Then we would have a deletion, but it would continue as follows: 'calls in particular on the Russian authorities to adopt preventive protective measures as regards human rights defenders, such as starting an investigation as soon as threats faced by them are known by the prosecutor and the judicial system;'.
This would have a clear message, and therefore I would like to support that kind of amendment, together with the Green Group, which has put the amendment to the vote.
Mr President, as the withdrawal of Russia's signature from the Energy Charter Treaty is not a single event but a method used several times now, it would be worth inserting a note to the effect that the latest withdrawal 'undermines the reliability of that country's signature in general'.
In striving for new signatures, we should ask our honourable partner to be more serious in the future.
Mr President, there is a mistake in recital H, either through a drafting error or an omission, because it mentions the recent conflict 'between Georgia and its breakaway regions', in spite of the true picture. A word is missing there.
According to the report of the fact-finding mission, it was a war or military conflict in Georgia between Russia and Georgia, where some additional units of Russia's allies and mercenaries from the north Caucasus were involved as well. So, in a resolution that is not looking to be naive or biased, we should make the following addition: 'between Russia and Georgia and its breakaway regions'.
Nobody really thinks that the army of South Ossetia was bombing Gori and approaching Tbilisi. That is why President Sarkozy flew to meet President Medvedev and not President Kokoity.
Let us fill that accidental gap with a clear mind.