The European private company statute (debate)
The first item is the report by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on the European private company statute.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I feel particularly honoured to be able to see this topic discussed today, when you, Madam President, are chairing a sitting of this House for the first time.
The action plan on company law already envisaged examination of which additional forms of company might be considered as subjects for legislation within the European Union. As a result of the studies carried out at that time, these questions were, in essence, left open. Now, the Commission, a number of years ago, invited discussion of the company law action plan and subjected it to a wholesale revision. This House made a full contribution to this debate, and, following on from it, decided to produce and discuss an own-initiative report on the European private company.
Such is the background to this item on today's agenda. We have considered this question carefully and organised in this House a hearing on the subject, which drove home the fact that there is a real need for that sort of European private company and for the Commission to initiate legislation to create it. Smaller industrial companies in particular - export-driven businesses that are at present obliged to set up subsidiaries and companies in other Member States and in accordance with those states' laws on companies - would welcome with great enthusiasm the creation of a European legal form whereby they could organise their subsidiaries throughout the European Union. At present, they are in serious need of advice, which may well be good for the lawyers, but it does cost a lot of money, since there has to be, again and again, examination of individual cases to ascertain what rights and duties their directors and members of their supervisory boards actually have and what they have to do in order not to end up at odds with the law.
I think they will be able to avoid that if they can be offered a single European legal form that regulates a number of core matters, in particular directors' powers and questions of liability, in one way at the European level and thus offers something to businesses. There is, then, absolutely no question of additional bureaucracy, for companies can decide for themselves whether they want this legal form or not; it is simply something of which they can avail themselves, something that plugs a real hole in the law left over after we created the European Limited Company for bigger firms.
Let me also say, by way of an aside, that the insufficient progress made in the past in the development of European company law is one explanation for the European Court of Justice's rulings in such cases as Inspire Art, and this is where we can help to provide and create an exemplary structure in the European Union.
I believe that the Committee on Legal Affairs - which adopted this report by a large majority, or, indeed unanimously - has succeeded in finding a suitable compromise between the different approaches to the structure of such companies found in continental Europe on the one hand and in British legal thinking on the other, especially on the issue of equity, where we achieved a good compromise on the basis that equity ought, as a matter of principle, to exist, but without the obligation to make cash payments, which, as a means whereby registration may be made easier, is, in my view, a step in the right direction and also shows how it is possible for the Commission to submit a proposal with the Council then being able to find a rational compromise between the various legal traditions.
What we in the Committee on Legal Affairs - and I think, after today's vote, this House too - expect of the Commission is that it should, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, with our Rules of Procedure, and with the interinstitutional agreement, stir itself into action and, within the foreseeable future, take definite steps to put a definite proposal for legislation before this House and the Council.
As I draw to a close, I would like to mention another consideration that has had some input into the amendments, that being the debate on workers' participation in decision-making. Let me make perfectly plain something that was not a bone of contention in our deliberations, namely that nobody is seeking to restrict workers' rights in any way whatever. In so far as they are guaranteed at the national level, they are also to be guaranteed and maintained when this legislative project is put into effect. This is something on which there have been a number of amendments, which I do not regard as crucial, for they all have the same end in mind, that of protecting workers' rights.
One final comment - and yes, I do mean final, for I will then have used up my five minutes: I note with pleasure that the German Presidency of the Council has declared the European Private Company to be one of its priorities, and so I assume that the Council, too, will be as supportive of this as - I hope - an overwhelming majority in this House is about to be.
Member of the Commission. Madam President, firstly I would like to thank the Committee on Legal Affairs, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Lehne, for the excellent work done in the preparation of the report on the European private company statute on which you will vote today. My departments are already studying in detail the suggestions and recommendations proposed in this report.
We need to make it easier and cheaper for small and medium-sized companies to conduct cross-border business. It is important to take action that will help small and medium firms to reap fully the benefits of the single market.
The growth of small businesses is crucial for the competitiveness of the European economy. One means of facilitating the expansion of small businesses is to simplify the current legal framework and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. These burdens are particularly onerous for SMEs that do not have big legal departments at their disposal. That is why I have decided to present a communication on the simplification of EU company law in the spring of this year. This fits in with the broader programme of the Commission on simplification of the acquis communautaire which provides for a 25% reduction in administrative burdens by 2012.
I am all for initiatives that will give European firms, and in particular small and medium companies, a flexible regulatory framework. The European private company statute could be a useful option for them in this respect. The idea was supported by industry in the recent public consultation on future priorities for the action plan on company law and corporate governance. Many respondents stressed that such an option would create more choice for companies and reduce compliance costs for firms which wish to operate in several Member States. However, a number of our respondents also questioned the usefulness of such a measure and, as you know, in accordance with better regulation principles the Commission must carry out an impact assessment before any initiative is proposed. Accordingly, my departments are now examining the costs and benefits of such a statute, as well as alternative measures to address the problems at stake. I would only propose a European private company statute if the impact assessment clearly shows that this is the most appropriate instrument to tackle the problems SMEs face today and that the European private company form would be useful to them in expanding their activities and developing their businesses across borders.
Experience with the European company statute has shown that creating a new European corporate form can be a very long and complex process. The end result may be legal instruments that are not always easy to use. If a European private company statute is to be worthwhile, then agreement would need to be found swiftly. The end result would have to be simple for SMEs to use, thereby bringing real added value.
I note that your report and associated resolution are based on Article 192 of the Treaty calling on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal. Under the framework agreement, the Commission undertook to take account of any such request made pursuant to Article 192 of the Treaty. I intend to live up to these commitments. We will assess the practical suggestions set out in the report in detail. I want my departments to take the time necessary to consider carefully all possible options in order to provide the best balanced solution for SMEs. Upon conclusion of the impact assessment, I will report back to you on its results and the policy conclusions we draw from it.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I, too, as a former fellow-member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, wish you every success in the exercise of your functions. If every President were to keep the Chamber as quiet as you have done this morning, our deliberations would indeed be much more constructive, and so I can only ask you to carry on the way you have begun.
I can tell the Commissioner that small and medium-sized enterprises are the driving force behind the European internal market. That may well be reiterated time and time again, but the progress towards the achievement of this goal is often too slow. I, too, therefore, am among those who believe that the creation of a European legal framework with the interests of the self-employed and smaller businesses particularly in mind is an extremely important matter, not least for the Committee on the Internal Market.
Mr Lehne's own-initiative report is much to be welcomed, not least on the grounds that it sends an important signal to the Commission - and, let me add, to the Presidency of the Council too - and I would like to thank him for the splendid work he has done in this regard.
It is cause for thanksgiving that many small and medium-sized businesses already work across borders, and you, Commissioner, were able to see that for yourself when you visited Offenburg, my own electoral district. In many instances, though, their dedication and growth are hampered by bureaucratic restrictions and the lack of experience of the local legal situation, and small and medium-sized enterprises from the new Member States have hitherto been put at a considerable competitive disadvantage by this.
Offering in future a European legal form in parallel with the legal forms of the nation states therefore not only serves to further the completion of the European internal market, but also makes it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to set up subsidiaries in European countries other than their own, and hence to develop their activities beyond their own country's borders.
What is of the essence in this is that the consultancy and administrative costs involved in setting up and running a company can be reduced to a considerable degree and that cross-border business activity no longer involves the laws of more than one Member State being applicable.
A survey conducted by the German International Chamber of Commerce - I can refer only to German businesses - showed that enterprises were very keen that there should be a European legal form that met the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, and the businesses that responded said that they saw this as being a 'little sister' to the European Limited Company and believed that it needed to be slimline, practicable and - above all else - European.
I can therefore tell the Commissioner that what this House is saying by means of this report is that it wants to see the Commission presenting a legislative proposal on the basis of Article 308 before this year is out. We are of course pleased to hear you advocating the impact assessment, but we have also seen, from the example of other directives relating to the internal market and consumer protection, that, where the political will is present, an impact assessment can either be carried out briskly or limited to specific individual questions, and so I would ask you to move the impact assessment forward with some speed in order to arrive at a legislative proposal as soon as possible. I would also ask the German Presidency of the Council to process this dossier as soon as possible and with vigour.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Madam President, I believe that this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak while you are presiding over the sitting and I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will do your duties in your characteristically independent manner.
Secondly, I would like to thank Mr Lehne for his report. I believe that he has done a good job, but I would like to point out a couple of problems that we have.
Firstly, I do not believe the Committee on Legal Affairs' current approach of presenting reports on an issue of legislative initiative with an annex which has not been sufficiently discussed to be the appropriate legislative technique.
We are talking about an initial phase of legislative proposals. What we are doing is asking the Commission to look into the possibility of presenting a report, and I believe that at this stage we should restrict ourselves to the first part of the resolution.
I do not believe that the annex to the motion for a resolution has been sufficiently debated. We cannot therefore take the view that these conclusions of the annex genuinely reflect the will of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Secondly, I believe that Mr McCreevy was absolutely right to point out that we should not be legislating for the sake of legislating - our failure in relation to the European Company should give us cause for concern in this regard - and the impact study is therefore clearly necessary.
Furthermore, it is clear that we in this House believe that it is necessary to draw up a statute to enable small businesses to operate and that we should work towards achieving that.
In doing so, we are faced with certain difficulties: for example, the problem of worker participation. We have held discussions on the text of recital H. In my political group, there have been certain reservations about the way Mr Lehne had worded it.
I believe that the final formula proposed by Mr Lehne is satisfactory and I hope that we in my group can approve it.
In short, I believe that Mr Lehne's proposal is a good one. We are not demanding that the Commission accept it, but we are asking it to look into this possibility.
I hope that Mr McCreevy will do everything he can to ensure that this Parliament's will in this regard is implemented.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, first let me also extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and the conduct of your first debate.
I must also start with an apology to the rapporteur because, although I attended the hearing on this subject, I was unable to participate in the debate in committee and I know it is a bit irritating when somebody then pops up in Plenary.
I broadly welcome the underlying idea in the proposal, but I have some concerns that I hope the Commission will investigate further during future work on this matter. Mr Lehne, you have said in your explanatory note to the report - and indeed the Commissioner has also said just now, and I agree - that the statute will need to focus on the needs of SMEs. But that of course covers just about all companies except multinationals. To me it is clear that if we follow all of the recommendations in the annex, those that are likely to benefit or choose this option are towards the medium rather than the small end of the spectrum of companies. They certainly would not be start-up companies. The suggested capital requirements ensure that is the case. I do not want people to say 'here you are standing there as a Brit not wanting any capital requirement'. I recognise that the capital does not necessarily have to be paid in and I welcome attempts to find a compromise on that, but it will still have an impact, especially on small businesses.
Smaller businesses, whether at the start-up or whether trying to expand, have enough cost and difficulty trying to give belt-and-braces guarantees to banks without there being an added tier of financial expectation. And, make no mistake, the fact that shareholders could potentially lose EUR 10 000, even if not paid in at the start, does add an extra tier of financial expectation.
Now, that may not matter at all since it is optional, and if you do not like the statute, you do not have to use it, but I would prefer that if you propose something, it would be liked and used and accessible to all companies.
While I have said that there may be little incentive in some quarters to choose this, that does not mean it is because small companies do not conduct cross-border business or do not aspire to do so. Many quite small companies do engage in significant cross-border business and European Court of Justice decisions make it clear that they can do so. But, as it is optional, maybe that is no matter. Or is that really the case? I would not like to see the situation where the new statute introduced a factor of discrimination where consumers were concerned that if you were not big enough to consider it worth being a European private company, you are not big enough to do business in Europe. That would run completely counter to the notion of a single market and the mutual importance of fostering and nurturing small businesses within that market. In a single market, size must not matter.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I fully support the view that the European Private Company Statute should be based on Community legislation and dispense with references to national law. The aim is to create a new legal form for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the driving force behind all European economies. A new legal form will help to foster cross-border activity too.
We must also keep in mind joint activities when it comes to promoting the development of the internal market, and consequently economic growth. If a single European legal form is created, consultancy costs will be cut. In the many countries involved, the law will no longer apply to cross-border activities. Instead, we shall have a single, uniform statute. For this type of company to be competitive on the market, it must be flexible and able to adjust to market requirements. This could be achieved by endowing such a company with a wide range of possibilities for transforming itself.
In this context, the issue of legal harmonisation arises, for instance, with regard to the cross-border transfer of registered offices. For an undertaking of this nature to be able to operate with maximum efficiency on the market, however, it must focus primarily on the security of business transactions and on protecting the company's creditors. We still need to give further consideration to these issues.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, I find this absolutely fascinating! Every time I come here I have to smile. What this place knows about running small businesses is absolutely unbelievable. When I look up the CVs of Members of this Parliament, I find that nobody has ever had any serious responsibility for a small company in their lives. It is amazing what we all know about these things!
In 1992 I started a small business. I thought about it and I bought some old-fashioned, second-hand furniture. I sucked my pencil and thought, 'My goodness me, what have I done? I have left a big corporation, where do I go from here?'. That business now has branches in Hong Kong, Jersey, the Channel Islands and South Africa, as well as London and York, which is my constituency.
I really do not think I could do that again. There are so many regulations, it is unbelievable. If you really want to fire up small business in the European Union, and particularly the United Kingdom, I would suggest that these people here and the Commission get their blasted noses out of everybody else's business and stop trying to tell us how we should run our businesses! Just let us get on with it, because if you do not, more and more businesses are going to go to Dubai, Bermuda and the Channel Islands - I am moving half my business to the Channel Islands as it is.
I would counsel you and the Commission to please keep your ill-informed noses out of small businesses!
on behalf of the ITS Group. - Madam President, this report is a contradiction in terms. Governments cannot micro-manage enterprise. Since when has the European Union initiated anything that improves trade, minimises costs, cuts red tape, generates new wealth, creates new jobs, frees up enterprise? When ever? Most governments can hope to contribute to economic growth only by clearing the decks of obstacles and creating an enterprise-free environment. Government ought to be about enabling people and their initiative to thrive. After that it should stand well back.
The UK has a huge, permanent and growing deficit with the EU. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by seizing control over company law relating to SMEs, the European Union will change or improve that situation? Do you really imagine that possible, especially as these proposals are based on German and French ideas of a social market?
I endorse what Mr Bloom has just said. How many of you here have ever started a new business at your own risk? Created jobs? Funded it for yourselves and successfully run it for, let us say, 20 years? How many of you have done that? How many people on that committee have done that? How many of you know what it takes to start a new business in the UK? Well, I will tell you. Less than a hundred pounds, ten minutes on the phone and you can do business anywhere. Compare that with these proposals. We have centuries of company law in the UK, thank you very much. And it works just fine. We also have SMEs trading all over the world and they do just fine. Most of their nightmares come from past misguided attempts by the EU to 'help' with trade on the Continent. Most of that 'help' merely interferes with their activities, and the idea of yet more 'help' will be greeted with horror.
Over the years we have seen masterpieces of unintended consequences from this place. There is the Working Time Directive, which finally proved to a business friend of mine that the EU was clinically insane. There is the drive for a level playing field, the very antithesis of wealth and job creation, which totally depends on finding differences. And now we have got the licensing of authorised economic operators, which hugely benefits those who qualify and undermines everyone else with extra costs and bureaucracy. Even the Socialist British Government has figured out that this proposal is expensive and dangerous nonsense and it belongs in the bin.
(PL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for a very sound and detailed report. In my view, it sends out an important message to small and medium-sized enterprises, indicating that their development and activity on the common European market will soon become much more straightforward. It also sends out a further message to SMEs, namely that European legislators recognise the role of SMEs on the Union's market and are making an effort to improve their situation.
The main aim of our activities relating to the common market should be to create an optimum situation whereby European enterprises are not hindered by unnecessary red tape or commercial and technical obstacles when they move from one country to another, or set up branches in various Union countries. It should be just as easy as if they were moving from one part of their own country to another. All companies should be able to operate on the same principles across the length and breadth of the Union. Only then will it really be possible to speak of a common European market with benefits for all.
Mr Lehne's report is a further step in developing legislation designed to enhance the efficiency of the SME sector's activities on the common market. Its implications will certainly significantly contribute to increasing the economic activity of European companies, and consequently to improving all our lives and meeting one of the aims of the Lisbon Agenda. I was actually a businesswoman myself in the past. I ran my own business for 15 years, and employed some 100 people. I am well aware of the problems entrepreneurs face and am convinced that the proposal to develop a European Private Company Statute represents an excellent and much-needed solution for undertakings conducting cross-border business.
It is important, however, to proceed with caution and learn from the mistakes made when developing the European Company Statute. Companies of that type do not fully fulfil their role as European Companies because of the large number of references to national law. That is why the European Private Company Statute must be based mainly on Community law, with minimum reference to national law. Such an approach will result in a more uniform text and legal provisions. In addition, it will provide legal certainty, which is crucial to entrepreneurs. We must make every effort to ensure that the Statute is as uniform as possible, and that it makes minimal reference to individual legal systems whilst referring to Community law as much as possible.
(PL) Madam President, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Lehne, the rapporteur, for all the work he has undertaken on a matter which is of such vital importance to the future of European integration and the development of economic cooperation within the framework of the internal market. The current situation regarding the internal market is that we already have a European Company. It is intended for large capital-based companies. A legal form which will also make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to conduct cross-border business is therefore essential.
It is important to bear in mind that SMEs are the main driving force behind the European economy and the main source of employment for Union citizens. That is why further efforts should be made to enhance the economic activities undertaken by these companies. However, the new legal solutions we are proposing to our entrepreneurs do call for detailed consideration. We should learn from the experience gained when introducing the legal form for the European Company on to the common market. That statute took a long time to draw up and was the result of a compromise. In fact, the final compromise has not proved entirely satisfactory. We should therefore learn from our mistakes, as Mrs Handzlik suggested earlier.
As far as is possible, the European Private Company Statute should be a uniform European legal form. It must provide for the simplification of the principles of establishment and organisation. It will be important to retain a balance between protecting creditors, a flexible company structure, and ensuring the security of business transactions. In the interests of protecting the flexibility of such undertakings, provision must be made for ensuring ease of transformations such as mergers or changing the registered office. Therefore, there is every justification for the European Parliament's initiative containing recommendations to the Commission on the European Private Company Statute.
(PL) Madam President, there are several reasons why the development of a European Private Company Statute is such a crucial project for accelerating the economic growth of the European Union.
Firstly, measured in terms of GDP growth, the rate of economic growth of the United States is more than twice that of the European Union. This has been the case for many years. In addition, the rate of economic growth of the countries of South-East Asia is several times higher than that of the Union. Secondly, many internal barriers still persist within the common market created by the free movement of capital, goods and services. Thirdly, the draft European Private Company Statute is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of the economies of all the Member States of the European Union. Fourthly, a European Private Company would be a very useful instrument for the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, which places great emphasis on eliminating obstacles to the development of European entrepreneurship.
These reasons alone justify supporting the development of a European Private Company Statute. It is important, however, not to repeat the mistakes made when drawing up the European Company Statute. The market has refused to accept the European Company as a company form, despite the long and difficult process involved in developing this statute. An effort must therefore be made to ensure that the European Private Company Statute contains the minimum number of references to the national legislation of individual Member States, so that it is relatively flexible in nature and provides security for both owners and contractors.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this legislative proposal on the European private company statute is very important. It is, in fact, crucial not only to remove barriers to trade but also to develop the factor of production at Community level. To that end, there is undoubtedly a need to create unitary legal entities in order to overcome the current legal uncertainty.
It should not be forgotten, however, that, as well as trying to make markets transparent and to protect savers, the company law reform will also directly affect the future of the European social model. Therefore, if allowing companies to move wherever they like in order to take advantage of the single market is a legitimate aim, it must be fulfilled by giving our workers the same transnational rights.
That was the thinking behind some of my amendments, certain of which were accepted, which were aimed at safeguarding the rights to codetermination, information and consultation that exist at the time of a company's turning into a European private company. We are talking here about an important adjustment that will mean more careful attention being paid to aspects relating to the strengthening of social Europe, one of the fundamental elements of which must be worker participation.
We therefore endorse this important proposal and we thank Mr Lehne for his work. We would point out to the Commission that, if allowing companies to move wherever they like in order to take advantage of the single market is a legitimate aim, it must be fulfilled without the demands of the market prejudicing those of social equality.
Madam President, I should like to thank the Members very much for their comments on this important topic. The growth of small and medium-sized enterprises is crucial for the competitiveness of the European economy. It is, therefore, necessary to facilitate the expansion of these small businesses. Looking at the legal form of companies that operate across borders can make an important contribution to this.
I will take Mr Lehne's report into account. As it is under Article 192 of the Treaty, we are bound to do it in a prompt manner. But even if it was not under that article, I will still deal with it in as prompt a manner as possible. I give you that commitment.
Commissioner, I should like to thank you for your participation in the debate.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11.30 today.
Written statements (Rule 142)
(FR) The creation of the European private company statute has the support of both the Member States and industry, and I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report and his pragmatic recommendations.
I am very much in favour of the creation of this statute for at least two reasons. Firstly, because the adoption of this statute will help remove one of the obstacles to SMEs' mobility. All too often, company founders are reluctant to do business because they do not understand the legal environment very well, particularly when they establish themselves in another Member State.
Next, this statute will enable us significantly to enhance legal transparency and thus to build confidence among the various economic players. The fact is that confidence is crucial in trade relations and forms the basis for a prosperous economy.
I am therefore in favour of Mr Lehne's report, with one exception: its recommendation 7. Including legally reprehensible behaviour in the private company statute would mean amending Title VI of the Treaty and unnecessarily complicating the link between the statute and our national laws.
I therefore feel that this provision runs counter to the objectives of the European private company statute: to produce better legislation and to make European entrepreneurs' lives easier.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(EL) Mr President, there has recently been a growing clamour within the EU for the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, above all to meet Europe's energy demands.
The problem is the unchecked rise in the price of oil, the increasing demand from a number of countries with rapidly growing economies, regional disturbances in oil-producing countries, as well as the fact that renewable sources of energy or natural gas will cover a mere fraction of Europe's energy needs. As a result, the construction of nuclear plants is being tabled for discussion.
Many questions worry European citizens. Can the safe operation of nuclear power plants be guaranteed? Do appropriate early warning systems exist to guarantee sufficient notice in the event of an operational problem? Finally, how safe is the management of nuclear waste? For all these reasons, I believe that on the initiative of the European Parliament and with the collaboration of the Commission, a dialogue could usefully be conducted leading to clear, unambiguous conclusions for European citizens. I call on the French Presidency to make this issue a real priority in its agenda.
(BG) Mr. President, Dear colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to an issues that makes us responsible for the future of the European Union and the world at large. This is the trafficking in children.
In the 21st century, the age of high technologies and progress, this problems persists and it is too inhumane and brutal to be ignored or confused with other problems. The trafficking in children does exist. It is an encroachment not only against human rights; it is an encroachment against the future, as well.
The life of any child is a blessing and its destruction is a crime against mankind. The trafficking in children has atrocious consequences. It is called "modern slavery”. What follows is physical and mental mistreatment, sexual exploitation, homicide.
What we need is to join our efforts and cooperate in a common policy to reduce and minimize its existence. The European Commission should set up a separate programme and an action plan within the framework of the strategy for children and to undertake the measures needed for the establishment of common structures and policy.
(RO) Mister President, dear colleagues, European dependence on hydrofuels import has increased, oil prices have reached an alarming level and the European Union is increasingly vulnerable to OPEC countries and Russia.
There is a need to approach the foreign relations in the energy field with joint efforts. The bilateral agreements between the Member States and third countries must reinforce the common European approach and not weaken it. The agreements signed by Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria with Russia in terms of building the South STREAM, a pipeline designed to avoid a Member State, like Romania, without any economic reasons, seriously affects the cohesion of European energy policy and represents political strategies that must be avoided among Member States. I was expecting a firmer position by the European Commission in condemning this situation.
With regard to the legislation on energy security that is to be adopted in the second half of this year, I believe we should show an ambition level comparable to the one in the case of the legislation "Energy - Climate changes”. The speaking with one voice principle must become functional and the Commission should propose a mechanism regarding agreements with third countries, perhaps inspired from the nuclear energy field. If we want to be successful, we must act together.
(DE) Mr President, last Sunday reactionary nationalists brutally beat up homosexuals at a peace rally in Moscow, thereby hammering the image of an unfree Russia into our consciousness once again. There is still discrimination against gays and lesbians on a massive scale. In recent years, the German Green politician Volker Beck has been beaten and arrested at rallies. It cannot be emphasised often enough how badly organised civil society is in Russia.
At the end of June a new EU-Russia Agreement is finally to be negotiated in Siberia. We owe it to the people of Russia and of other autocratic regimes not to allow the issue of energy security to overshadow all other sectors. Human rights and basic democratic freedoms must form the basis of this new agreement.
(PL) Mr President, the Polish shipyard industry is under threat of total closure because the European Commission is demanding the return of sums provided from public aid. The effect of this will be that thousands of employees on the Baltic will lose their jobs, and tens of thousands of employees at factories that work with the shipyards, both in Poland and in other EU countries, will likewise be out of work.
The European Commission is hiding behind the slogan of free competition, not wanting to admit to itself that during a period of massive price rises on a global scale some sections of the economy need to be protected, as Asiatic countries are doing. The European Commission is unwilling to recall that the eastern Länder received more than one and a half billion marks in aid from the German Government, and that included shipyards located on the Baltic.
I am asking whether the people and the place where the solidarity movement began - the fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of Europe - must fall victim to arbitrary decisions taken in Brussels in the interests of speculators who are looking to make their fortunes out of the rubble and soil of the shipyards. We are demanding that the European Commission take decisions that will enable the shipyard industry in Poland to be salvaged and developed.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like your support for a review of Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007, or for the return to the original material from 2005, because of requests by breeding organisations trading in exotic birds in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic. The amendment basically relates to the ban on imports of exotic birds from the wild to the Union. Taking into account the practical situation for breeding small birds, the conditions imposed on their import are difficult to fulfil. It is obvious that the media hysteria surrounding bird flue was used to carry through the above-mentioned standard. The EU has a system of quarantine facilities whereby avian diseases that pose a threat to people are intercepted. On a number of occasions breeders have helped to return various animal species to the wild. They respect the law protecting the most endangered species listed in CITES. Banning only results in counter-pressures and attempts to bypass it. The black market will take off, smuggling will flourish and the prices of birds will rise. Health risks may also increase as a result. If the standard and tried and tested veterinary regulations are observed, including the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, there is no need to retain this Regulation.
(PL) Mr President, I wish to use the forum of the European Parliament to protest against the unlawful termination by the National Fund for Environmental Protection, which is subordinate to the Polish Government, of its contract with the Lux Veritatis Foundation to implement a geothermal investment for Toruń, while at the same time announcing that there will be no refund of the vast sums that the Foundation has spent on this investment. The circumstances indicate that this decision has been dictated by political considerations, and it runs counter not only to domestic Polish law, but also to Community law, which proves that in the name of the battle against people perceived as political foes, the law is not being observed and support for renewable energy is not being permitted, which also breaches the fundamental EU principle of non-discrimination on political or religious grounds. The former authorities of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management say that the application by the Lux Veritatis Foundation was checked very carefully and not found wanting in any way.
(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I want to inform you about an incident that happened in the United Kingdom recently. A Slovak citizen who was working there legally exceeded the deadline for re-registration of his vehicle by four days and for this offence the British police threatened to destroy his vehicle. While making their enquiries, the police behaved in a xenophobic and insulting manner, taking advantage of his passive knowledge of the English language. All his documents were confiscated for no good reason, he was given a newspaper scrap instead of an official certificate of vehicle confiscation and his documentation, such as his European car insurance (Green Card) or Slovak authorisation, was not accepted by the British authorities either. For this offence, and I mean just an offence, the British police and authorities threatened to scrap his vehicle.
I want to express my gratitude to my fellow Member Mr Chris Davies for his help in investigating this unfortunate case as well as to the other British Members who have taken an interest in the case. I trust that such action by the British police is an isolated incident and that this attitude towards citizens working legally in the United Kingdom is the exception rather than the rule. The deadline for the return of the vehicle expired yesterday, and as yet we have no information as to whether the vehicle has or has not been destroyed. One way or another, our citizen does not have his vehicle even though the British authorities have received all the necessary documentation.
(BG) Mr. President, Members of the European Parliament, In ten days, on 14 June 2008, Bulgaria will pay tribute to the memory and life work of Alexander Stamboliiski, statesman, reformer and leader of the agrarian movement in the country.
He came to power in Bulgaria in 1919, after two national disasters, dedicating his efforts to the national cause, to the modernisation and democratic renewal of the country. He was overthrown through a coup d'etat in 1923. He was killed most brutally but he remained immortal with his ideas of free and independent Bulgaria on the way to construction and integration into Europe.
Stamboliiski's lessons in statesmanship sound particularly relevant today, 85 years after his tragic death, when Bulgaria is a member of the European Union. The protection of national interests in the big European family, the preservation of the national identity side by side with the rapid adaptation to new realities should consolidate the efforts of all of us, citizens of unified Europe, for whom values are not just a hollow notion but a type of conduct, attitude and social response.
(BG) Mr. President, the Bulgarian operational programmes within the framework of the EU funds were among the first to be approved by the Commission for the period from 2007 to 2013.
WE must admit that, being a new Member State, we are confronted with various difficulties in their specific implementation. Problems range from insufficient information to irregularities, even abuse with resources from the EU funds - "disorders” that do not spare any single EU Member State.
The Bulgarian Government finds the absorption of funds to be a major task. This has brought about radical reforms in all institutions responsible for the EU funds. A Deputy Prime Minister has been appointed to ensure the overall coordination of the process.
The unsatisfactory results of the absorption of funds so far become arguments in a vehement campaign of the domestic opposition that has repeatedly tried to discredit the country even here, in the plenary hall of the European Parliament.
The references to anonymous sources predicting an apocalyptic report of the Commission for Bulgaria in July even before it has started writing it are suggestions for domestic political purposes only but they do not contribute to the resolution of problems. Regrettably, the only thing they achieve is undermining the good name of my country. I want to declare very clearly that the Bulgarian State undertakes radical measures in the respective spheres and has the firm will to overcome the existing problems.
Mr President, you are probably aware that the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg contain a more widespread presence of asbestos than was originally anticipated. Work for upgrading purposes and, more recently, for removal of the asbestos has been carried out since 2004 - apparently while the buildings have been in use. This is, in my view, unwise and hazardous behaviour, because any work on asbestos-containing structures inevitably releases carcinogenic fibres into the atmosphere.
It is my opinion that the European Parliament in Strasbourg must not be used unless and until all asbestos is appropriately removed and the buildings have been thoroughly decontaminated. In the interest of public health and transparency, I request that the President of this House make a fully comprehensive statement on this matter of asbestos removal from the European Parliament in Strasbourg as soon as possible.
(ES) Mr President, we are currently facing a major fisheries crisis in the whole of the European Union, which is going to demand a rapid response from the European institutions. I think that it is essential that we create a tripartite committee involving the public authorities, the unions and the shipowners.
In order to tackle the crisis once and for all, we cannot paper over the cracks; we need to formulate a complete, structural proposal that covers every aspect of the crisis in the sector. We obviously advocate responsible fishing; we need to resolve the marketing of the product; we need to deal with the shortage of crew in the fleets and ensure fair employment relations and a way out of their precarious situation for the workers.
I think that it is very important at the moment for the European Parliament to lend its support to finding a way out of this crisis, because it also affects quality employment, and we need to be able to deal with circumstances that arise.
Mr President, my London constituent, Mr Budd Margolis informs me that his Lithuanian relative, Rachel Margolis, has published her memoirs recounting her experiences in the Second World War. She escaped from the Vilna Ghetto and then worked with the partisans fighting against the Nazis. The Lithuanian authorities are now using her memoirs as evidence to prosecute surviving Jewish partisans as war criminals. These include Yitzhak Arad, the former director of Israel's Holocaust Centre, and Fania Brancovskaja, the librarian at the Yiddish Institute at Vilnius University.
Lithuania is under an obligation to prosecute surviving Second World War criminals but so far has not successfully prosecuted one. Jewish partisans who fought against the Germans and their collaborators are regarded by some as traitors to Lithuania.
On behalf of many of my Jewish and non-Jewish constituents, I ask: where is the justice in persecuting Jewish partisans who fought against the Nazis, while the murderers of the Jews go unpunished?
Mr President, across Europe we have seen wholly justified protests by fishermen about the sky-high price of fuel. Some governments have faced up to their responsibilities; others, like my own, have not.
We are supposed to have a common fisheries policy, but in many regions of Europe the approach is anything but common. In my constituency local, small-trawler owners are paying a fuel bill of over EUR 2 000 per day. Their plea for short-term aid has fallen on deaf ears, even though it lies within the power of the local minister to pay de minimis aid under state rules. She has shamefully refused to do so. Yet in France and Spain, government action has been taken.
How can you have a viable common fisheries policy with such disparity on the basic commodity of fuel? I condemn Minister Gildernew's indifference and call not just for short-term aid but a long-term fuel strategy for our fishing sector.
(GA) Mr President, the Irish government is about to launch a national broadband scheme. Broadband is unavailable in 10% of the country and the majority of that
10% is located in the region I come from - namely the west and the midlands. Although broadband is growing, the rate of growth is not satisfactory and does not coincide with the European Union average.
In Ireland, there is an 86% availability of broadband in urban areas, but the availability of broadband in rural areas is much less. Something must be done. We are envious of the situation in the north of the country where broadband is available in every area. I would like the European Commission to put pressure on the Irish government so that we can achieve the aims of the Lisbon Agenda.
(RO) In a short time, the reports of the European Commission will be published reflecting the progress that Romania and Bulgaria have made regarding the justice reform.
Today, a year and a half after integration, more and more dissatisfied persons are speaking up on a European level, reaching the point that the progress achieved up to now is regarded as insignificant, compared to the assumed objectives. Even though in some experts support that Romania and Bulgaria, should have been accepted to the European Union much earlier, I consider that these two new Member States must be further assisted and supported by the Commission and the Parliament.
Taking into account that next year the elections for the European Parliament will take place, I am convinced that the following months will be essential for Bulgaria and Romania to fully prove its European membership.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to raise an issue of linguistic discrimination within Parliament: the interface of MEPs' computers functions only in English. It is only possible to navigate our operating systems and access files using our computers if we have a command of the English language.
This seems to me to be totally discriminatory as regards those MEPs who, although they do not know English, would like to manage their work directly on their own computers. This is a problem of linguistic authorisation which our friends in the Esperanto movement are trying to tackle at the United Nations, and I am not too sure what the francophony movement is dealing with if it is not also dealing with this issue. I hope, Mr President, that this problem can be remedied, and that a remedy can also be found for the technological discrimination I encountered when I tabled a written question on 2 June in an open format - the ODF format - different from the Microsoft format which is currently in use. The reply I received from the department responsible was that it was not possible to table questions in an open format.
I hope that these forms of linguistic and technological discrimination may be promptly overcome.
(EL) Mr President, the price increases of all mass-market consumer goods, transport and services combined with low wages and pensions, and drastic cuts in social welfare benefits have inflicted repeated damage on people's incomes while generating enormous profits for monopoly business groups.
Prices have risen uncontrollably for ordinary working-class families in all Member States. Those who try to blame the high prices on a few bad speculators are deceiving the people. They are hiding the fact that high prices are fuelled by the profits of monopolies, and free market and competition policies, which are at the very basis of the EU itself and its policies that have been shaped and implemented by Member States and their governments. High prices start with the monopoly on production and trade, which is dominated by the business groups plundering people's incomes, and crushing thousands of small businesses and undertakings.
We call on the workers to step up their struggle for real wage increases, pensions, social welfare benefits, and the abolition of VAT on common consumer goods, services of general interest and fuel, in a bid to reduce the prices of public utilities.
(HU) On 15 May, a piece of legislation was created in the USA which is a milestone in the crisis surrounding illegal logging, which can be experienced worldwide. Congress was the first in the world to pass such an Act, which bans the import of illegally logged wood. In 2006, 10% of imports to the United States were produced from illegally logged wood. Following the adoption of the Act, analyses have emphasised that this Act is helping the competitiveness of American factories, protects jobs, and sends a clear message to which forestry communities will listen.
My question is this: how long will the European Union wait, and what is it waiting for? It is shameful and disgraceful that we are waiting with our arms folded. But we MEPs can do something: I recommend that everyone sign petition 23, which was presented a couple of months ago and the aim of which is for us to persuade the Commission to introduce legislation at last, after the United States, while we still have forests. Thank you very much.
Mr President, I want to draw your attention to the plight of one of my constituents, Alan Jones, from Knighton, a rural town in the West Midlands, who is a striking example of an entrepreneur in Europe who has been let down by the absence of high-speed broadband connection in rural areas. He wants to set up a small online company that will offer photo-framing services. He, as a person with a disability, working from home, would be ideal to start up a new business. However, there is only one Internet service provider who has a monopoly of broadband in the town and, although it is expanding, the connection is extremely slow and simply not conducive to running a business.
The Commission has a plan to bridge the digital divide and expand broadband to rural areas, and it urgently needs to solve the problems of Internet service providers and ensure there are adequate resources, and that areas are not lagging behind in terms of quality and high speed and low cost.
What I would like you to do, Mr President, is to make sure that the Commission ensures that entrepreneurs like Mr Jones are not prevented or frustrated from starting up businesses, which prevents the creation of much-needed jobs in rural areas.
(LT) The European Commission and members of the WTO are rushing to finalise the Doha talks on agriculture and the opening of the market for industrial goods, NAMA. The significant influence of the current situation in the United States, the election, is evident. However, compared with the suspension of the round in 2006, the NAMA issue is obviously a step backwards. Highly developed countries are managing to maintain an almost unchanged environmental situation. EU textile and clothing tariffs will be down from 12 to 4%. The markets of emerging economies will not open, as it is not tariffs, but the obligations of maximum tariffs that are to be curtailed. Besides, an 18-year transitional period is to be applied to China, the country that flooded Europe and the rest of the world with low-quality goods. The tabled NAMA project is unacceptable to Lithuania and other EU countries, as it would jeopardise their competitiveness. There is an obvious balance between agriculture and NAMA. The EU should not race to complete the Doha talks merely on account of its economy. I would urge the Commission to take its time and represent the EU countries' interests fairly.
(PT) Mr President, I should like to congratulate the fishermen from different countries of the European Union, and from Portugal in particular, on their fight to protect the strategic fisheries sector, as well as jobs, decent wages and living conditions for thousands of fishermen and their families.
Faced with a common fisheries policy and a European Union that is indifferent to the longstanding socio-economic crisis this sector is undergoing, that has become all the more acute due to increases in the price of and financial speculation on fuel - diesel and petrol - fishermen have finally shown that there are solutions and measures that should have been taken a long time ago. Solutions and measures requiring the European Union to stop turning a deaf ear, adopting new policies that protect and promote the fisheries sector, not its slow agony and ruin. Fisheries have a future.
I cannot conclude this brief intervention without acknowledging the thousands of workers who will be demonstrating in Lisbon tomorrow in defence of their achievements and labour rights.
(CS) Mr President, the enlargement of the Schengen area was excellent news for the citizens of my country, a symbol of the equality of Czech citizens with the other countries of the Union. Sadly, today's newspapers are full of headlines about Czech drivers being hassled by German and Austrian police. Since April systematic and detailed checks on buses and private cars with Czech registration plates have been carried out in Germany and Austria. After just over a month of general checking, Austria announced its intention to carry out checks, starting in June, in connection with the European Football Championship. That is fair enough. However, I strongly object to general checks on Czech drivers in Germany. This is a one-sided decision that is difficult to explain and it is damaging neighbourly relations. I get letters from citizens asking for the Czech authorities to retaliate. This is not a good situation and it will also affect the political climate prior to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. I have already submitted an appeal and now I am asking my fellow German Members to look into this matter at home in Germany.
(RO) Dear colleagues, I would like to welcome the shares program initiated by the Council of Europe, which aims to eliminate all forms of violence among children and I am convinced that in 2009 physical punishment will be forbidden all over the world.
Yet, I would like to underline the need for a common campaign on a European level, by means of which children become aware of the fact that violence towards them is against the law and that they must confess any ill treatment they are subjected to. In some EU Member States, parents regard physical punishment as a normal method of education and children assume this as being normal.
The future of the European Union depends on the way children's rights are observed, and during their education we must have in mind an approach that forbids any form of violence.
(PT) Eurofound recently reported that 25% of redundancies in Portugal between 2003 and 2006 stemmed from company relocations. Records show that several multinationals have done so after having received millions of euros in community aid and after making millions in profit, which is unacceptable.
There are cases of workers still not having received the compensation to which they are entitled, as is the case in Vila Nova de Gaia and Brax, whose workers went to the Courthouse door yesterday to call for the compensation money that they have been owed for five years.
Unemployment is also acting as a justification for ever more precarious employment, to which the Government responds with more attempts to set back labour rights. I therefore welcome the day of action that the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP) is holding tomorrow in Lisbon, Portugal.
Mr President, I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the conference that is taking place in Rome on the global food crisis. We have expressed our concerns in this House about this issue in our recent resolution on food prices.
One of the key issues is the under-investment in agriculture, both in the developed and the developing world. The extent of that problem was brought home to me at a conference in Ireland just last week, when a Missionary Sister of the Holy Rosary, Nora MacNamara, mentioned very clearly that, when she was involved in agriculture many years ago in Africa, there was investment. And then, she said, Africa - or rather agriculture - became a dirty word when looking for funds to support projects in this area. We need to go back to our roots in terms of investing in agriculture.
Can I just say, in the debate on the Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland, that this Treaty will actually enhance the European Union's role in the developing world and, in my view, will assist us in meeting the food crisis which we are now facing not just in Europe, but globally.
(HU) In February this year, Mr Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, gave an extremely controversial speech in Cologne, in which he called assimilation a crime against humanity. From a position of freedom to choose one's identity, this statement is unacceptable; preserving cultural diversity is an important goal, but the decision cannot be taken away from the individual.
The natural situation for Turks in Western Europe may be dual identity. Erdogan's requirement for a Turkish-language university in Germany is unrealistic, since in many countries of the Union the indigenous national minorities who have lived there for many hundreds of years do not have their own state university, like the Hungarians in Transylvania, where the Hungarian community was deprived of an independent state university during the Communist dictatorship.
It is important that Turkey does not manipulate the migrant minorities living in Western Europe for interior policy aims. It would also be good if Prime Minister Erdogan put his own house in order in the areas of the situation of the Kurds, acknowledging the genocide of Armenians and equality of rights for women.
(RO) Mister President, European socialists hope that Europe becomes an example for the whole world in terms of life quality. The 27 Member States are now building a new social Europe which will bring prosperity to all citizens of the European Union.
From the Union's budget for 2008, almost 45% is allocated to growth, innovation, job creation and economic and social cohesion, and 42,6% is allocated to agriculture. Rural areas represent 90% of the European Union territory.
Despite the EURO 41 million allocated to agriculture in 2008, the increase of costs for agricultural works and the increase in energy prices brought about an increase in prices of agricultural products and caused the economic situation to deteriorate. I consider that the grants policy for agriculture and adequate conditions for the promotion of investments in the field are the answer to part of the challenges the Union will encounter in the following years.
A developed agriculture will allow all European citizens to have access to healthy food and sufficient quantities, at affordable prices. Healthy nutrition is a fundamental aspect of life quality.
That concludes this item.


Structural policies and EU cohesion (debate)
The next item is the report by Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the impact and effects of structural policies on EU cohesion.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the European Commission on the timeliness of this initiative report.
It is timely both in terms of the fourth debate on cohesion and in terms of the forthcoming debate on the review of the European Union budget 2008-2009, since the cohesion policy will probably be the European Union's biggest budget line, and this policy's added value will be clear to all of us.
My intention in this impact report has therefore been to deal with that impact in four broad areas: the social, the economic, the territorial and governance, making a series of proposals pursuing various objectives.
Firstly, of course, to optimise the synergy between the European Union and the Member States' various public policies.
Also to strengthen innovation and the territorial dimension of cohesion.
We also aim to measure more precisely, with new indicators, the convergence between the regions and the impact of the cohesion policy.
Finally, to improve governance and raise the cohesion policy's visibility, because our aim is to bring that policy closer to the European citizens.
In this regard, I would like to highlight some of the proposals in the report. On the one hand, the need to strengthen administrative capacity in the implementation phase of the new cohesion policy, through the setting up of a network of accredited trainers in order to implement all training measures and, in particular, to implement them at all levels, especially at local level, where I believe most work needs to be done.
With regard to the synergies between the various public policies, this report urges the Commission to explore new ways to combine the Structural Funds with other policies and other Community aid with a view to promoting competitiveness, research and innovation.
To this end, it proposes, in addition, of course, to promoting good practices and measuring the impact of this Fund, that ESPON be endowed with the resources and functions needed to enable it to act as a genuine observatory of good practices.
Furthermore, we aim to strike a territorial balance between rural areas and urban areas, and it is therefore proposed to stimulate the exchange of good practices in networks - in territorial networks - and in particular to support economic areas that are remote from major urban areas.
We must also work on the leitmotiv of the territorial dimension, which is polycentrism, and, of course, the use of new technologies.
With regard to innovation, a factor that is clearly implemented by the cohesion policy, the report proposes, on the one hand, adopting the Aho report, which proposes earmarking at least 20% of the Structural Funds for promoting R+D+i, and that it be used not just for major projects, but also for smaller projects and particularly in the least-favoured regions.
Similarly, given that more than 90% of Europe's productive fabric is made up of small and medium-sized businesses, we believe that it is vital to provide them with easier access to European aid and programmes, particularly with regard to innovation.
We have therefore proposed technology tsars at regional and local level, who, in association with regional projects and networks, will undoubtedly help to make these SMEs more dynamic.
I am sure, ladies and gentlemen, that these and other measures proposed in the report will make it possible to raise the visibility of the cohesion policy and its practical results for the European citizens.
Furthermore, to a certain extent as a result of the events that have recently been taking place in relation to possible relocations in all production sectors and in all countries, including my own, I would like to mention that I have tabled three amendments to my own report that stress and, above all, reiterate the measures already taken up in resolutions approved by this Parliament on relocations of companies and ways to guarantee that companies that receive Community funding do not relocate their activities. And, above all, that, should they do so, sanctions are imposed on them.
I would call upon you to support these amendments, because I believe that they have already been debated and approved in this House.
I would like to end by thanking all of the shadow rapporteurs and all of the Members whose proposals have enriched this report, which I hope you will support.
Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to come before Parliament to exchange views on the report by Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar, launched by the Committee on Regional Development. I am told by my colleague, Commissioner Hübner, who apologises for not being able to be here today, that, as in the case of the previous reports, it shows again how excellent and efficient our collaboration is.
I fully share the view that cohesion policy is essential to reducing internal EU disparities on the one hand and closing the gap between the European regions and the world-leading economies on the other. This is so because cohesion policy is based on a modern paradigm of sustainable development which may be best described as a conditional grant.
In order to benefit from the policy, Member States are required to draw up a medium-term strategy for the use of the resources, to cofinance European aid from national budgets, to work in partnership at national, regional and local level and to respect EU laws and policies. These conditions have resulted in the development of an efficient management system shared between European, national, regional and local levels - a system of multi-level governance.
On top of this, as the report correctly points out, cohesion policy makes a substantial contribution to the increase of commercial flows within the internal market and, as a result, has spill-over effects outside the regions and countries in which the policy is implemented. We all have to admit, however, that the impact of our policy has probably not been sufficiently measured, explained or appreciated.
Clearly, cohesion should be assessed on the basis of multiple dimensions and should not be limited only to GDP since, in the short- and medium-term, this fails to reflect many important aspects of the impact of European cohesion policy. Therefore, the fourth cohesion report will carry out a thorough analysis of economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union with the help of a wide range of indicators.
Certainly, one of the keys to its success lies in the fact that cohesion policy is an integrated, fully-fledged policy. It is not a bundle of sectoral approaches, but a policy that integrates different policies in the overriding context of development strategy. That is why it can deliver specific tailor-made solutions for each European region or territory. At the same time, it is a new policy that critically depends on coordination and synergies with other EU and national policies.
This brings me to the link between the strategy for growth and jobs, and cohesion policy. As early as this year, each Member State will set out how cohesion policy contributes to the implementation of the national reform programme. Equally, the Commission will, in its annual progress report to the Spring European Council, summarise the progress towards achieving the Union's priorities of promoting competitiveness and creating jobs, including meeting the objectives of the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs for 2005-2008. We have also introduced an earmarking approach which assures that the predominant share of policy resources is invested in key Lisbon drivers.
As you know, the programming phase has not yet been finalised. However, according to the available data, we can already state that the reinforcement of the strategic approach of cohesion policy and its concentration on the growth in jobs agenda has been a success. In fact, around EUR 200 billion will be invested in Lisbon priorities between 2007 and 2013. If we add to this cofinancing and private resources leveraged by cohesion policy intervention, we may well see this figure double, and we need to compare this to EUR 150 billion in 2000 to 2006.
In addition, in the new 2007-2013 period, we have reinforced the coordination mechanisms inside the Commission, both in the context of the programming documents and in day-to-day operation. In a way, the preparation for the 2007-2013 programming period became a meeting point between different EU priorities. Take, for instance, research and development and innovation. At EU level, new synergies have been established between cohesion policy, the seventh Research and Development Framework Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme. The last two programmes will take more account of the specificities of the regions that are lagging behind. Cohesion policy, on the other hand, will significantly increase its contribution to the financing of R[amp]D and innovation activities.
The departments within the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, in cooperation with those of Mr Potočnik, are working on a communication to provide information and advice on how to combine the resources of cohesion and RDT policy in order to increase their respective effectiveness, which is to be adopted in July.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank you for giving me the floor as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. Indeed, during a unanimous vote, the Committee on Budgets issued an opinion on the impact and consequences of the structural policies on EU cohesion.
It is not necessary, here, to point out at length that these policies are the supreme expression of the solidarity of the European people. However, while, in fact, it is clear that these policies help gradually to align Europeans' living standards by means of economic lever effects, we note that there is a lack of common indicators to measure their real impact. Our Parliament which, I would remind you, is jointly responsible for the budget, must be able to have these EU-wide indicators so that it can make best possible use of the Community budget resources and also improve the way in which the budget implementation is monitored.
That is why I should like once again to stress the need for us to create a new measuring instrument that is shared by all of the Member States and counterbalanced by the various indicators. These indicators would take account - as was highlighted a moment ago by the Commissioner, to whose remarks I fully subscribe - not only of economic growth, of course, unemployment, the level of equipment and the level of research and innovation, but also of points connected with people's quality of life, such as life expectancy, birth rates and the level of earnings of our fellow citizens. We could therefore genuinely improve the lever effect for the well-being of all Europeans.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I should like first of all to pay tribute to the very high quality of the report by our fellow Member, Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar. I should also like to say what a pleasure it was for us to work together on drafting this report. I believe that the rapporteur has covered all the main points, as has Mrs Griesbeck, with whose remarks I wholeheartedly agree. I should like, however, simply to draw your attention to four points.
Firstly, we need to evaluate the situation properly and, to that end, indicators, which have just been mentioned, seem crucial. At the moment, we only have GDP, which is really not enough.
Secondly, we also need to integrate properly the new territorial challenges that we are going to, and that we already, face. I am thinking about the ageing of the population, energy, climate change and also agricultural policy, which unquestionably influences cohesion policy.
Thirdly, the EU structural policies will very soon represent the first EU budget. That is why an integrated approach not only with the other EU policies, but also with those practised in each of the Member States, is extremely important.
As for the fourth point, Commissioner, I believe that we need to discuss it seriously: it concerns the structural policy and the Lisbon Strategy. Of course, the structural policy must contribute to the practical expression and success of the Lisbon Strategy, but let us be careful to ensure the balanced development of the territories. It seems entirely obvious to me that, in itself, the Lisbon Strategy does not make for balance: I believe that we must be very mindful of that. Very soon we will have a further opportunity to speak about this matter: when Parliament receives the fourth report on cohesion and when we carry out our work on this subject with the aim of knowing how to develop this policy in the future.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying how very grateful I am to the rapporteur for her dedicated work on the fine report that she has put before us.
Like a number of others that are currently under discussion in the Committee on Regional Development, this report is one of the building blocks of a future structural and cohesion policy, and by 'future' I mean that, while this will be reviewed in the course of the 2009 mid-term review, 2014 will see us having to start redesigning the cohesion policy that we are preparing today.
I am very grateful to Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar for having brought three important points back into the debate and given them added emphasis. There is no doubt about it: the competitiveness of the European Union as a whole is one of the challenges of the twenty-first century, and, as the rapporteur rightly points out, the development of research and technology is an essential element in that, one that must, of course, also be, in the areas of cohesion policy, the basis of development, not least of the less developed regions.
Territorial cooperation is something else that needs to be put much more at the heart of our policy-making now that the European Union has 27 Member States, for urban centres, and the issue of how they relate to rural areas, constitute a challenge that we will, over the coming years, have to face with greater determination.
The third problem that Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar addressed - and I fully endorse the way she did it - is the requirement that we do much more than we have before for the regions that are affected by depopulation, which young people are abandoning because they see no opportunities for themselves there. The issue of demographic change throughout the European Union, in every one of its Member States, is a completely new challenge for cohesion policy, and the rapporteur is right to treat migration as a problem.
Let me conclude with a personal observation, which I will address to my good friend Paca. Paca, I am so glad to see that you are able to be here again today and to take part in the debate on your report. I speak for all our group when I say that I wish you lots and lots of strength and energy for the coming days and the coming week, so that you may come back here restored to health and vigour, ready to carry on playing your part in the work of this House.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) The coordination of efforts in the area of structural policies will be a challenging administrative test for those countries that joined the European Union in 2004 and later. It is in everyone's interest for this to be carried out as smoothly as possible.
If, at the end of the budget period, we are to speak about the success of the integrated European structural policy, we need to encourage communication among the various parties at both national and regional levels, to foster the exchange of experiences and to encourage people to learn from good examples. The rapporteur proposes indicators which would serve to compare individual practices with each other. Our political group also believes that the amount of funding from structural funds that is allocated to innovation will determine the fulfilment of the development goals for the entire European Union.
An orientation towards renewable energy sources is an area where national development interests are interwoven with the goals of the Community. Moreover the sustainable development of cities demands some coordinated thinking about the use of various structural policy tools, since this touches upon numerous objectives, ranging from housing to employment and waste management, as a special aspect of the attitude towards natural resources.
We agree with the rapporteur that the indicators for measuring progress must be such that they encourage those implementing structural policies to seek synergies in various fields. The promotion of competitiveness, especially in the small enterprise category, is one of these possible synergy effects that should be closely monitored and analysed.
Finally I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Pleguezuelos, for her successful work.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Committee on Regional Development has recently tabled a couple of important own-initiative reports. Today, we are to debate the document drawn up by Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar. I should like to take this opportunity to thank her publicly for her work.
We have already talked a great deal about cohesion within our community. Essentially, cohesion means levelling out the differences between the richest and the poorest regions. Implementation of this policy is always linked to solidarity within the Union. This should not be forgotten, bearing also in mind that under the current Financial Perspective EUR 310 billion is allocated to regional policy. That equates to almost 36% of the Union's expenditure. It is our taxpayers' money and must be used as sensibly as possible.
It is therefore worth emphasising the usefulness of creating an integrated structural policy, linking the effects of actions undertaken in the framework of the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund with the other areas of Union policy. In his address to the House, the Commissioner referred to scientific research and to the Seventh Framework Programme. Full cooperation between the Union's institutions, Member States and regional authorities must be ensured. This involves recognising the particular circumstances of individual regions, and taking account of both economically backward areas and also of areas with difficult geographical or social conditions.
What is at issue is not giving equal shares to all, but promoting equality of opportunity for all, notably as regards access to education, healthcare, and environmental protection. Such equality must also apply to the disabled.
It is worth emphasising the achievement of harmonised development of urban areas, where some 80% of the Union's inhabitants reside. Appropriate action in rural areas is also required, to ensure that living conditions in the latter are not significantly different from those in the cities.
In addition, the House must keep in mind the need to take account of issues pertaining to the family and family policy in the broader Union action programme.
I am glad we recognise the virtues of inter-regional and cross-border cooperation. A levelling-out policy based on solidarity is called for, together with a sustainable development policy also based on solidarity.
We also have a practical question to pose: what is the best indicator with which to assess cohesion? It is right not to restrict ourselves exclusively to per capita GDP.
I am quite sure that this report will do much more than simply stimulate an interesting debate. It will also make it possible to draw on experience to date and on best practice relating to Europe's actual economic, social, territorial and cultural cohesion. We deserve as much.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) In the context of the own-initiative reports that Parliament has presented on the future of the EU's structural policy ahead of a fourth report on cohesion and the debate on the Community budget set for 2008-2009, we wish to restate our view that the objective of regional development policy should be that it become the main instrument for effectively reducing regional disparities and for promoting genuine convergence between Member States by means of economic and employment growth.
For this to happen, the redistribution element of the Community budget needs to be guaranteed and boosted. Similarly, funds for cohesion must be increased, and cohesion should take precedence over any other objectives such as those enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy.
Accordingly, we are opposed to the attempts at making the award of resources under future cohesion policy conditional on the implementation of what are known as 'beneficial growth' policies at national level, such as those forming part of this report. We disagree that the granting of funding under cohesion policy should be conditional on economic performance criteria laid down at Community level, which would be an extra instrument to exert pressure on the Member States over the way in which they define their economic and social policies. As such, the economically least developed countries would be penalised twice over.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar on this report, which deals with the important issue of the effectiveness of structural policies.
The European Union's cohesion policy draws on structural policies and is a permanent and ongoing element of the European Union's policies, although its content and methods change over time. It is worth emphasising that the Lisbon Strategy is just such a transitional and temporary policy. Cohesion policy, however, is a permanent and ongoing European Union policy.
Cohesion policy is effective when it attains its aims, thus increasing economic, social and territorial cohesion. Its effectiveness depends on several factors.
Firstly, it is essential to ensure the complementarity of individual European Union policies, both Community policies and national ones, coordinated at Union level.
Secondly, cohesion policy should be adjusted to the European Union's current development challenges, for instance reducing the discrepancies between regions regarding development of a knowledge-based economy and the rate of innovation.
Thirdly, all types of public authorities must be committed to the implementation of cohesion policy. Mrs Pleguezuelos Aguilar is therefore to be commended on her many references to national, regional and local authorities. Multi-level management is a sine qua non of effective cohesion policy.
The debate on this report coincides with the European Commission's presentation of the Fourth Progress Report on Cohesion and represents a useful political recommendation for the analysis of data contained in the report and for developing conclusions based on the analyses contained therein.
(PL) I should like to highlight the following issues relating to the new cohesion policy.
Firstly, in the programming period currently under way, cohesion policy is particularly important for the new Member States, because most of the resources from the structural funds are allocated to these countries.
Secondly, the new Member States have established ambitious aims within their development strategies. For example, one of the aims Poland has set itself in its national strategic reference frameworks is to increase employment from the current 50% to 60%.
Thirdly, it is important to achieve a territorial dimension of cohesion, and above all to strive to reduce the imbalance regarding the development of rural and urban areas.
Fourthly, new indicators to assess the impact of cohesion policy are needed. Per capita GDP is not sufficient on its own. It very often happens that the GDP level in a particular area is close to the Union's average, even though many parts of that same area are significantly under-developed. This is the case in Mazovia, the Polish Vovivodship I come from.
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the House for this debate and Members for their comments.
Let me make two points here. First, it is true that the cohesion policy is working, but we still need more visibility and more knowledge about its impact. We have already reinforced our communication strategy so as to enlarge the visibility of the interventions. The Commission also counts on Members of the European Parliament to help in this communications effort in your national and regional contexts, and the Commission is open to any new ideas coming from your side.
Secondly, globalisation entails new challenges but also opportunities. Consequently, cohesion policy must be able to face the former and to seize the latter. We must ensure that our labour force is adaptable to new challenges so that economic restructuring can take place as a continuous and low-intensity process, with no negative effects accumulated in space and time.
In addition, we must ensure that the approach to the competitiveness of our regions takes proper account of issues like population ageing, migration flows, climate change, energy and increased commercial competition. However, we should not be too pessimistic: there are many regions in the Union which rank among the most competitive and innovative regions in the world and which are benefiting from globalisation. This has been achieved by investing in new skills, building or attracting new reservoirs of talent and encouraging networks and clusters.
It is by building on these successes and development strategies that the Union can mobilise all its potential and place its economy on a high-growth, sustainable path.
On the point concerning the importance of research and development, I would like to stress that the R[amp]D Framework Programme has evolved over time and now incorporates specific measures for the benefit of the regions, in particular those with the weakest R[amp]D capacities. Likewise, the importance of an integrated EU approach to innovation, mobilising a mix of instruments from R[amp]D to cohesion policy, has been acknowledged. Cohesion policy, on the other hand, has substantially increased its investments in R[amp]D and innovation, up to almost EUR 50 billion in 2007-2013, in order to make it possible for all EU regions to have sufficient capacity to access the framework programme on a competitive basis.
Regarding the issue of new indicators, I wish to underline that the cohesion policy framework was fixed from 2007-2013. On 7 June 2007 Commissioner Hübner will present the fourth cohesion report in Parliament's Regional Development Committee.
Finally, I would like to assure you that I have taken due note of your suggestions, ideas and concerns, which will be forwarded to Commissioner Hübner, who will certainly give them her full attention.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 22 May.
Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. - (FR) Cohesion policy, which is going to become the main item in the EU budget, must better combine the Structural Fund measures with the other Community policies, in order to increase the synergies aimed at promoting competitiveness, research and innovation in our regions.
The structural policies conducted in the outermost regions would have an even greater impact if the Union demonstrated greater flexibility in agreeing to rid itself, as and when necessary, of certain 'Community dogmas' and in respecting the special conditions of the outermost regions, whose territories are cramped, far from the single market and subject to regular natural disasters.
An analysis of the multiplier effect of the Structural Funds, in terms of how it attracts private investment, must make it possible to increase cooperation between the public and private sectors, for the benefit of sustainable, polycentric and balanced development in the European Union.
Accordingly, the EU structural policy must stimulate the spirit of initiative, with the aim of developing centres of excellence in the outermost regions. It must do so by relying on sectors that make the most of their skills and know-how, such as waste management, renewable energies, student mobility, research into climate change and crisis management.