Composition of committees: see Minutes


3. Piracy at sea (
- On paragraph 4 part 2
(ES) Mr President, I refer to the first part of paragraph 4 in the split voting. I should like the vote on the first part of the original paragraph to be repeated.
I can see that the House agrees. We will vote on this again.


7. Draft general budget 2009 as modified by the Council (all sections) (
- After the vote on Amendment 1:
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, we have of course attempted to take account of the new situation in our oral amendment. We wish to reiterate to the Council our willingness as Parliament to enter into negotiations on the EUR 5 billion that the Commission has proposed for revision. Our amendment reads as follows, therefore - I shall read it out in English, as we have been working in English, so as to get all our fellow Members on board as quickly as possible:
'Expresses its strong willingness to enter into negotiations with the Council on the basis of the Commission's proposal for a revision of the MFF 2007-2013 for EUR 5 billion in the framework of the proposed European Economic Recovery Plan; takes note of the conclusions of the December 2008 European Council in that respect'.
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, this concerns the European schools in Brussels. We have discussed this at length in the course of many talks. The figures previously in the text need to be tightened somewhat, as we want the Commission to really take action. Therefore, the new text also sets a deadline for it to do so. I shall read it out in English again:
'Notes with concern the situation of present and future young pupils in the European Schools in Brussels resulting from the delayed and still pending opening of the fourth school in Laeken and the current enrolment procedure leading to long and unacceptable travelling times for the children; expects the Commission, in cooperation with the Secretariat-General of the European Schools in Brussels, to present a revised enrolment procedure by the end of March 2009 with objective and comprehensible criteria (including the principal residence and already enrolled siblings), which will come into force with the next enrolment period'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- After the final vote:
Very nice, very nice too!


Documents received: see Minutes


10. Mandate for the trilogue on the 2011 Draft Budget (


Order of business
The final draft agenda for this part-session, as laid down by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting on Thursday 3 April 2008 pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been requested to this draft.
Thursday:
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has requested that the report by Mrs Jäätteenmäki on the Statute of the European Ombudsman be postponed until the next part-session in Strasbourg and that voting time be brought forward to 11 a.m.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, that is indeed our wish. This is not because the report is a bad one - I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on behalf of my group, too, on a very good report - but there are still one or two critical issues unresolved. We should like to be able to discuss these in peace, which is the reason for our motion; and, as the President has just said, if the House were to agree to it, we could then vote at 11 a.m. - but this is not the reason.
Mr President, for form's sake, I should like to notify my fellow Members on this occasion that I shall also be putting forward a motion - not now, but tomorrow - that the vote on the report on FYROM, or Macedonia, likewise be postponed until the Strasbourg sitting. I shall state the reasons for this tomorrow; I just wanted to let my fellow Members know now. Here, too, there is just one small unresolved issue. This is our group's wish.
Would anyone like to speak in favour of the motion?
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I believe Mr Swoboda's argument was admittedly brief, but it was concise. There are indeed one or two aspects, and therefore I, too, am in favour of postponement.
Who speaks against the motion?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the committee agreed the Jäätteenmäki report to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman by 19 votes in favour to none against.
It is a question we have discussed for some time. It seems to me now to be quite extraordinary and, indeed, deplorable that the PSE and PPE-DE Groups have acquired cold feet upon the important question of the Ombudsman.
The transparency of Parliament depends upon improving the Statute of the European Ombudsman. The Presidency is requesting that we fast-track the question for conclusion, and I would strongly urge Parliament to press on with the agenda as agreed.
(Parliament approved the proposal by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament)
The order of business is thus adopted.


3. Repeal of Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 on budgetary discipline (vote)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


9. Improving the quality of teacher education (


Maintenance obligations (debate)
The next item is the report by Genowefa Grabowska, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation on international jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - C6-0079/2006 -.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the proposed instrument on maintenance obligations seeks to improve the precarious situation of people who depend on maintenance to meet their everyday needs.
In the European Union, where people are increasingly mobile, maintenance creditors - especially children - should not face obstacles to recover money due to them, particularly when the debtor, such as a parent, leaves or has moved abroad.
I would like to thank Ms Grabowska, as rapporteur, for the efforts she has made to give a voice to stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations assisting maintenance creditors during the very important public hearing on 11 September.
We generally welcome Ms Grabowska's report, which supports the proposal in its essential elements.
I have just a few remarks on some proposed amendments. First of all, on the legal basis. We are of the opinion that the current instrument relates to family law. However, I understand Parliament's concerns, given the existing legal context. That is why we have invited the Council, in a communication adopted at the same time as the proposed regulation, to decide - in accordance with Article 67(2) of the Treaty - that the present instrument be adopted according to the codecision procedure. That is my opinion, and I will continue to ask Council to act on this invitation.
Concerning the other amendments on the rules on applicable law. Last month, negotiations on a worldwide convention on maintenance obligations were finalised successfully at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Given the satisfactory results of the Convention and the accompanying protocol on applicable law, the Community and its Member States would like to adhere to those international rules. Consequently, the rules of the regulation and related amendments proposed should be revised in order to ensure consistency with the international rules.
The report proposes allowing the courts to apply their own law when cases come before them and when this would accelerate the resolution of the dispute. While we recognise the concern to speed up litigation, we believe that the proposed solution does not allow for sufficient legal certainty, and there is the danger that it would not serve the interest of maintenance creditors, who should be protected by application of the same substantive law, regardless of which court is considering the case.
Finally, Parliament is now voting on its report. An international legal context has become clear. I strongly hope this project will be resumed at full speed in 2008. I very much trust that the Council will give it the highest priority in the coming months.
rapporteur. - (PL) Madam President, let me begin by expressing my thanks. I want to thank the European Commission very much for its excellent cooperation at working level. I also thank the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the shadow rapporteurs, especially the Committee on Legal Affairs and Diana Wallis, who drafted its opinion, for their truly excellent cooperation. Mrs Wallis took on the heavy burden of convincing the Commission of the need for amendments to the legal basis.
I should perhaps start with the legal basis, given that the proposed resolution was referred to us under a procedure that is not acceptable to Parliament. We wanted the regulation to be adopted according to the codecision procedure, rather than the consultation procedure. I was therefore pleased to hear what the Commissioner told us, and I am aware of the Communication to the Council inviting it to give us that opportunity. I would add only one thing to what the Commissioner said.
I do not question the fact that the maintenance relationship arises out of family law. I would argue, however, that, taken as a whole, the maintenance relationship has a mixed character. The fact that it originates in family law does not mean that it remains within those bounds. It has consequences for the common market and the economic situation of both parties, i.e. that of the maintenance creditor and that of the debtor. We are accordingly entitled to extract the maintenance relationship from its origin in family law and associate the execution of maintenance obligations, not with family law, but with areas in which this Parliament holds itself competent, namely the common market, family care and human rights. In which case, it seems to me, there should be no difficulty in changing the procedure.
I therefore consider that this proposal warrants not only Council's attention but acceptance by Council. In preparing this regulation we held hearings that were, in truth, one uninterrupted lament. Women, mainly, told us of the difficult situation in which they find themselves when they try to enforce maintenance payments for children whose other parent lives in a different country and appears not very interested in raising his child or paying for its upbringing.
Many different tricks are employed. I shall not mention them all but confine myself to one example. It is enough to change a single letter of ones surname in order to disappear in Europe almost without trace, and the maintenance obligation vanishes along with the debtor. By means of this regulation we seek to ensure that no maintenance debtor in Europe feels safe in thinking that by leaving the country in which a child remains for whom maintenance is not paid, by moving away into the open European Union in which internal borders have been lifted - especially now when the new Member States will be joining the Schengen area in a few days' time - he can take advantage of a situation that works in favour of a person who does not take responsibility for his family.
Let me mention the two measures in the resolution that seem to me the most important and constitute an innovation. A maintenance order issued in the state in which the creditor normally resides will not have to be confirmed in the state in which the maintenance debtor is living. The regulation thus proposes abolishment of the 'exequatur' procedure. I realise this is something new, but if we want to ensure effective enforcement of maintenance obligations we must take that step. If we keep 'exequatur', the whole attempt to achieve effective enforcement falls by the wayside.
I realise we shall be respecting all the provisions adopted in the framework of the Hague Convention and Conference, but the international system grinds exceedingly slow, and the ratification of agreements in the sphere of private international law can take years. The European Union must go forward and ensure that children are provided for when their fathers or mothers forget about them. This regulation must therefore be implemented quickly for the good of the children. It not only takes care of the children but also protects the creditor. Therefore, thanking the Portuguese presidency for the work it put into preparation of the text, I place the matter in the hands of the Slovenian presidency in full confidence that it will see the text through to conclusion and that we shall obtain a good regulation.
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very positive statement. I should also like to thank Ms Grabowska for her wonderful cooperation on this matter.
This is one of those proposals that could make Europe a reality for those we serve. It could add practical value at difficult times in their lives. I do not know how many times, as an elected MEP, I have been contacted by constituents who are having difficulties getting maintenance from somebody in another Member State. All too often, I have been unable to give a practical and positive answer.
With this regulation, I hope that in most circumstances we would be able to do much better. The proposal potentially allows the EU to go much further than states can through the Hague Conference process, which has already been mentioned. We should indeed be able to go further. After all, we have encouraged our citizens to move freely across old national borders within the EU, and should be able to provide an answer, in the form of a good, simple, functioning justice system, when they hit rough times in their marriages or partnerships breaking down. Above all, we should be able to offer help to children suffering the financial consequences of marriage breakdown. This proposal would give us a simplified one-step process, instead of the current nightmare of applying in one court and then having to go through more or less the same process of enforcement in a foreign court. That is too much for people at vulnerable and desperate moments in their lives.
The Legal Affairs Committee has been happy to endorse most of this proposal, whilst trying to make some technical improvements. In this respect I am very grateful to my colleague, Mr Casini. However, like the rapporteur, we cannot accept the choice of legal base. It should have been codecision, not consultation. I believe the Member States have been entirely unreasonable, both in terms of the content of the legislation, and as regards the implications for our citizens. I hope they will respond to the Commissioner's appeal.
Speaking on behalf of my Group, we do not want to see the effectiveness of this one-step system undermined. We must, of course, respect the rights of the defence - the judgement debtor - but this should apply to the originating court. We should not allow the re-opening of the case in the enforcing court, or we will destroy the very benefits we are seeking to deliver. We therefore want to see deletion of Article 33(a), and have grave doubts about amendment 61, which still leaves the door open too wide.
Finally, I want to make some comments as a UK Member of this Parliament. The UK opt-out or failure to opt in to this instrument is bad news for many EU nationals from other Member States now living in the UK, and is also bad news for many Brits whose partners move to another Member State. Indeed, there are all sorts of permutations where the opt-out will create chaos and confusion. People will be second-class citizens in respect of the justice system available to them.
However, what I most regret is the failure of the British Government to appreciate the untenable position of British MEPs in these issues. Should we actually be working on, speaking on - and, more importantly, voting on -proposals on things that, as they currently stand, will have no application to those who elected us? Others are beginning to question the legitimacy of our position. These opt-outs are democratically untenable and destructive to the coherence of the EU civil justice system. Pick-and-mix, opt-in and opt-out merely hits those who are vulnerable and in most need of the law's protection.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Grabowska, on her initiative in raising this issue and on the very positive view she has expressed this evening.
Fellow Members, the round of consultations of the Hague Conference, which began seven years ago, is drawing to a close. The question arises: what progress has been made on the issue of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in international private law? Where is the declaration that the principle of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments is the cornerstone of judicial and police cooperation in the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice? The answer is that no great progress has been made in this direction. The 2004 Hague Programme has not been promoted to the degree that was needed, despite the efforts and initiatives of the Commissioner responsible, Mr Frattini.
Unfortunately, the misuse of appeals to national sovereignty by some Member States is a hindrance to the harmonisation of the law, not only on substantive matters, but also on questions of procedure. These general observations do not, of course, negate the value and significance of the proposal we are discussing. On the contrary, they underline the need to adopt further proposals for Council regulations, covering the whole field of family law: divorce, separation, maintenance and property matters. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 on recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility is in need of radical reform and modernisation. This need is indeed being addressed to a large extent with the proposal for the amending regulation, but unfortunately only on the question of maintenance. The differences in the substantive law of the Member States, under the vital heading of justice, remain. There is still a long way to go. Even so, where there is scope for convergence, this harmonisation of the law should be pushed forward.
The amendments proposed by the European Parliament fill many of the gaps in the proposal and improve its content. Above all, they overcome many obstacles which hinder the enforcement of maintenance judgments anywhere in the European Union, and they limit the debtor parent's or spouse's scope for evading justice when he or she has moved from one EU Member State to another. Precisely this point is addressed by the amendment which I have tabled to Article 33a, in which I attempt, firstly, not to leave unlimited scope for non-enforcement of an order on grounds of a change of circumstances and, secondly, to allow latitude for dealing with the situation in this way when there are serious, really serious, pertinent circumstances which give the court precisely this right to revise its opinion.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Genowefa Grabowska, most warmly for the work she has put into the regulation before us and her report. The splendid result does not surprise me, as Professor Grabowska is one of Poland's leading experts on European law.
Bearing in mind that the number of divorces and separations in the European Union is rising, the problem of legal impediments to the recognition and enforcement of decisions on maintenance obligations is increasingly important. Furthermore, given the degree of integration of the Member States and the still large number of binding legal sources within the European Union, an advanced legal system is essential.
There is no harmonised system in force in this field at European Union level at the present time. I am therefore in favour of the regulation, which contains highly pertinent proposals concerning the problems we are discussing. It should be noted that it is the outcome of a long-term programme of work, the Hague Programme for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. I agree that effective enforcement of maintenance obligations will improve the living conditions and education of many children who are first-line maintenance creditors. That is a very important matter for European socialists.
The proposed regulation not only tackles certain problems of modern society: it can also help improve the operation of the internal market, specifically by removing barriers to the free movement of persons who could suffer as a result of differences in Member States' legislation on the execution of maintenance obligations.
For the good of all citizens of the European Union, we must strive to achieve rapid and, if possible, cost-free execution of maintenance payments. At present, institutions must sometimes resort to drastic measures to enforce the payment of maintenance, while creditors often live in reduced circumstances.
I also support the idea that court decisions should have the same force as they have in the Member State in which they were issued, without any additional formalities.
Finally, I would stress the need for greater involvement of the European Parliament in the adoption of decisions on matters of such importance for the future functioning of the European Union and the internal market.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the report we are examining is to eliminate most of the obstacles to the recovery of maintenance in Europe, making it possible to establish a legal context in keeping with the legitimate expectations of maintenance creditors.
The most significant starting point is that in the vast majority of cases the maintenance creditor is the weaker party and therefore needs very vigorous protection, and it is evident that the main problem lies in the actual circumstances of maintenance debtors. However, it is advisable to do at least what is possible, i.e. to eliminate any unnecessary red tape and to make the applicable law certain, to establish a preference for the law of the place of residence of the creditor and to give immediate effect to the legal decision under which maintenance has to be paid, even in countries other than the country in which the decision has been given.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, called upon to give an opinion under the enhanced cooperation procedure on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, has played an important role in the drafting of the text, achieving a major compromise agreement between the main political groups, for which I should like publicly to thank Mrs Wallis. The main aims of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs are to draw up a clear definition of maintenance obligations, extend the scope of application, protect the most vulnerable parties involved and simplify the proposed text.
It has been necessary to draw up an unambiguous definition of maintenance obligations and to include in the scope of the regulation all orders relating to the payment of lump sums. Particular attention has been paid - as I have said - to the most vulnerable parties and, here, the text of the regulation needs to be further simplified. In conclusion, as my speaking time has come to a end, I am sure that the PPE-DE Group will give this decision its full support.
(PL) Mr President, the regrettable increase in marital breakdown, coupled with the growing mobility of people living in the European Union, is inevitably leading to an increase in the number of cross-border conflicts concerning maintenance claims. At the present time, in order to enforce a claim against a maintenance debtor living in another Member State it is necessary to apply to the judiciary of the state in which the decision is to be executed. Unfortunately, that does not always work, so there is clearly a real need to lay down detailed rules on jurisdiction in regard to maintenance claims.
The purpose of the draft resolution is to reduce the formal requirements for a court decision to be delivered in any Member State and to ensure its effective execution. Upon entry into force, the new regulation will enable an entitled person to obtain a binding enforcement order anywhere in the European Union. It will also simplify and unify the enforcement system. While welcoming the measures adopted by the Hague Conference, I fully agree with the rapporteur that the regulations applying in this matter in the European Union must be more progressive and more rapidly implemented.
The increasing mobility of EU citizens is leading to any increase in the number of marriages in which spouses are of different nationalities and live in different states, or live in a Member State of which neither is a national. Where an international couple decide to divorce, they may therefore invoke different laws. The broad subjective and objective scope of the regulation is justified by the frighteningly low rate of obtention of maintenance payments in certain EU Member States. In my own country, Poland, for example, the figure is just 10%.
The regulation will also enable the mother of an illegitimate child to claim from the child's father payment of the costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the costs of her upkeep during childbirth. At present such a claim is not recognised in many Member States as a claim for maintenance, which makes it considerably more difficult to pursue.
Before my country joined the European Union, more than one thousand claims for maintenance from abroad were lodged in the courts every year. As a result of the opening of borders, all forecasts predict a drastic rise in the number of such claims, both in Poland and in other countries. The opening of borders and labour markets may lead some fathers to run away from their maintenance obligations, and it is mainly the children who will suffer. This we cannot accept.
Member of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be very brief. I would like to thank all those who have spoken, the rapporteur and Members who have taken part in this work. In forthcoming months, we shall, in my view, have three objectives before us and I hope that the Slovenian Presidency will be able to take them forward successfully.
First: to convince the Council that if we feel it is useful to amend a legal base under Article 67 of the Treaty, we do so to give a better democratic basis to an initiative which objectively protects vulnerable groups of people, especially children following the breakdown of the family unit.
The second objective is to ensure that creditors receive the same protection irrespective of the place at which the matter has been brought before the courts: it would be very odd if the so-called lex fori criterion led to a substantial variation in the protection afforded to creditors. Another essential objective is therefore to try to harmonise the rules.
The third objective, where, in my view, work is needed, is that of actual enforcement: in too many cases we affirm the principle of protection of creditors in family matters, but then we do not ensure that it is enforced, or we allow the substance of the case to be reopened when a payment order should be made. That does not work in the case of maintenance; were it the case, the measure would be deprived of any meaning.
We have drawn up fairly innovative proposals: temporarily freezing a proportion of the debtor's bank account if the debtor does not want to pay, or a mandatory periodic payment order against the debtor's assets for the sum that the debtor should pay. As you know, there has been dissent and opposition from the majority of the Member States in the Council because that is what really makes a difference for a regulation: either the measure can be genuinely enforced or it is pointless to continue to affirm the importance of protecting children or separated spouses who are maintenance creditors!
We shall have to work on these three issues in the coming months and, clearly, in this case, more than in others, the Commission and Parliament are in agreement and we shall have to persuade the Council that this is the right road to take.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2007.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (RO) For the moment, there is no single European system to acknowledge and enforce the legal obligation to grant maintenance abroad. The Community provisions in this field are insufficient instruments for pursuing debtors who try to avoid their obligations to pay maintenance.
According to the present regulation, any judgment regarding maintenance given in a Member State must be rapidly and correctly enforced in any other Member State.
Thus has ensured the simplification of citizens' lives, namely the recovery of child maintenance from the parent or other debtors when such persons reside in a different country to the child, implementation of one of the European fundamental rights, the right to private and family life and child protection, homogenization and simplification of the European legal norms on the entire EU territory and construction of the European space of freedom, security, justice and facilitation of internal market operation.
I think that the courts notified should check the independent status and competence of legal consultancies and take into consideration the situation of the parties during the proceedings. The creditor of the maintenance obligation should benefit from the legal provisions in the country of residence, litigations in this field should be solved less expensively and searching for the most favourable jurisdiction should be avoided.


Financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) 1905/2006 (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Berman, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006.
I, too, am pleased that Mr Deva has taken a seat, for now Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will be able to hear me, which is a great relief.
This unprecedented economic crisis, which is biting hard, spells renewed disaster for developing countries. The crisis leads to a drop in prices for raw materials, fewer investments, less trade credit and less money being sent home by immigrants. Meanwhile, the gross domestic products of all the rich countries are dwindling fast, which means that the budget for development cooperation is also being decimated as this is 0.7% of GDP, or at least that is what it is supposed to be, and even then, most countries fail to live up to their promises.
This is the context of the discussion about the new policy instrument that is being held here. If Spanish students receive a grant to study in Latin America for a few months, or vice versa, then such an exchange is useful, necessary and desirable, but a project such as this cannot be exclusively financed with funds that are intended to fight poverty. Whilst EU funding in this area is to be welcomed, it is not fighting poverty. It is frustrating to have to withdraw projects like this simply because there is no legal basis on which to back them.
That is why we have been looking for a modest instrument with which the EU can implement policy in developing countries that does not, strictly speaking, fall within the scope of fighting poverty. A financial source and a legal basis that do not come under development policy will need to be found. The legal basis cannot, therefore, lie in Article 179 of the Treaty of Nice, because that is precisely the statutory basis for development policy that should be avoided here.
The EU's own interests - European students making study trips - may not be financed under Article 179. Moreover, the EU, when spending development funds, has to meet the criteria legally prescribed in respect of development cooperation, namely those of fighting poverty.
With a little bit of creativity, there are other sources. Extending the Industrialised Countries Instrument is an option which the Committee on Foreign Affairs has put forward and which is also backed by my own committee. What is also an option, though, is a combination of Articles 150, 151 and 170, education, culture and research. With this combined legal basis, the European Parliament would maintain complete codecision with regard to this instrument, and the money, about EUR 13 million at the moment, is not taken out of the development policy kitty. Neither is it taken out of the foreign policy kitty.
As rapporteur - and the Committee on Development will back me up on this - I cannot agree to Article 179 as the legal basis. If it was, this new instrument would become ineffective, seeing as its exact aim is to prevent development funds from being used for other purposes. There should not, therefore, be a legal basis for this instrument that could make this compulsory.
For this reason, I plead with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to withdraw its amendment as a matter of extreme urgency. It flies in the face of our shared desire to protect the budget for development cooperation, even in times of economic crisis.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to confirm the undertaking I gave, on behalf of the Commission, to carry out the mid-term review of the financial instruments in 2009. This was in response to Parliament's request during the final negotiations on the instruments.
That review will take the form of a communication, accompanied by legislative proposals where appropriate. The adoption of the communication is foreseen for April 2009 and is included in the Commission's legislative work programme.
The review is about the implementation of the instruments. It should be distinguished from the other mid-term review currently underway - and also foreseen in the regulations - which relates to the programming documents and the strategy papers for 2011-2013. This new programming will give rise to a round of democratic scrutiny, as for the first programming exercise covering 2007-2010.
The two exercises are different, but they are complementary. It is important to fix issues related to instruments before the new programming period. The strategy and programming review will take place during 2009 in order to be ready in 2010 for democratic scrutiny by Parliament.
As regards the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), our preliminary reflections confirm an issue that will be at the core of the review: the legislative gap as regards non-ODA activities for countries covered by the DCI.
What are these non-ODA activities? They are of various natures, but the current four preparatory actions initiated by this Parliament give a good outlook on what we are talking about: cooperation with middle-income countries in Asia and Latin America, which is not covered by the DCI, and business and scientific exchanges with China and India.
On these kinds of activities, we agree with you on the need to have legislation to cover measures which promote EU concerns in DCI countries. This could be done either through a new legal instrument or through amending the existing Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI) Regulation.
When we prepared the new external relations instruments in 2006, we agreed that they should also cover the external dimension of our internal policies. We agreed that this could be done under the legal basis for external actions. This represented a considerable simplification compared to the previous situation.
It will be difficult for the Commission to follow this approach. We consider that the legal basis must reflect the objectives and content of the instrument. We recognise that there is a problem with non-ODA activities. By their nature, such activities do not qualify as development assistance. Therefore, a proposal that deals only with such activities cannot fall under development cooperation - under Article 179, as you mentioned.
Given that we want to cover known ODA activities, it seems likely that Article 181a of the Treaty will be the most appropriate legal basis, since it covers economic, financial and technical cooperation. However, before making any proposal, the Commission will consider the question carefully in the light of the position expressed by Parliament. It would be helpful to have Parliament's position so that we can finalise our proposals before the elections, as we promised.
Finally, I see that the report calls for more resources. We will have to look into it. You know the very tight situation of Heading 4 of the financial framework. One could argue that emerging countries are in transition and that the current assistance envelope should accompany that transition - that is, with a gradual shift from the development focus to non-ODA activity. We will examine this as part of the review.
These are the Commission's initial considerations on the report that we are discussing today. We consider it to be a good basis for our common work, and I look forward to hearing what the Members have to say.
Mr President, the Committee on Budgets believes that it is of the utmost importance that each of the budgetary instruments be clearly demarcated. Therefore, the most realistic option seems to be the creation of a new instrument for actions other than public development aid for countries falling under the Regulation.
From a budgetary point of view, the financing proposal from the Committee on Development does not appear to be adequate, as this money does not exist and these lines do not have funds allocated on a multiannual basis. There is funding for 2009, but not beyond that.
In any case, given that the financing of this new cooperation instrument must be compatible with the 2007-2013 financial framework, it is worth pointing out the importance of the mid-term review of the financial framework. This should allow an adjustment of the different headings' ceilings.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I welcome very warmly the statement made by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner just now, and I ask my political group to withdraw its amendment so that this report can go through. If not, I am in a rather difficult position, but I will have to support the Socialist rapporteur on this issue.
I have to say that I believe the development instrument is for development purposes. But if one looks at what the development instrument - particularly Article 179 - gives, even with all the constraints, the ODA instrument allows the promotion of museums, libraries, the arts, music in schools, sports training facilities and venues - all these count as ODA. But, of course, sponsoring concert tours or athletes' travel costs does not. Cultural programmes in developing countries, whose main purpose is to promote the cultural values of the donor, are not reportable as ODA. It excludes military aid but it does not exclude peacekeeping. It covers a wide variety of activities - even civil police work to supply and increase the capacity of training of policemen, the demobilisation of soldiers, monitoring of elections, removal of mines and landmines - all this is ODA.
So here we are asking ourselves, in this Parliament, how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin when, in fact, the main area of the work is covered by the ODA instrument. So, I welcome Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's statement that Article 181a is there to make it possible to look for the funds to do what some of my colleagues are hoping to do.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, it is crucial to solve the current legislative gap concerning the financing of non-ODA actions in countries covered by the DCI. This proposal for an instrument to address this gap must preserve the DCI unequivocally as an instrument for ODA and it must allow for a clear separation between financial sources allocated to pure ODA development cooperation and those allocated to other types of non-ODA development cooperation with developing countries. This separation is a very relevant political message in itself and it would give proper visibility to the EU's development cooperation policy.
The new or revised instrument should also be sufficiently broad to cover a wide range of actions that do not comply with the OECD DAC guidelines, but which are crucial for the EU's cooperation with developing countries, for instance, the development of the Akkas gas fields in Iraq or cooperation on aviation security with India. This is why I am not in full agreement with the restrictive legal basis proposed. I fully back Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner in finding Article 181a, possibly, a more adequate legal basis, which would provide for these kinds of concerns that I am highlighting. However, I am not convinced either by the alternative presented by the PPE-DE Group amendment that we are supposed to vote on tomorrow.
Therefore, I hope that, under the guidance of our rapporteur, Thijs Berman, we may find more time to have a thorough discussion on this matter and consider what is the best legal basis, namely, the proposal made by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank Thijs Berman for his report. It points out an important aspect in development aid that the Commission should, in my opinion, seriously consider. Activities such as cultural, scientific and economic exchange programmes, citizen-to-citizen contacts or political dialogue are regrettably not covered by existing European legislation, those being just a few examples.
The European Union has set up numerous programmes and financial instruments under the auspices of different agencies, each covering only certain limited aspects of the problems that the developing countries are currently facing. I find that, without a central European Union agency and a comprehensive and coherent policy, the efforts that we are making to improve the situation in developing countries are not of notable extent.
We all agree that the purpose of the European Union development cooperation policy is to reach as many people in need as possible, but yet we have chosen a rather inconvenient path to that goal. At the moment, the European Union is both institutionally fragmented and legally hindered as far as development aid is concerned. This much appreciated report deals with the results of those deficiencies.
The European Union and its Member States have contributed immensely to the official development assistance and it should never be underestimated, but much remains to be done to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutional framework as well as congruence of the legislation covering development aid.
(DE) Mr President, to be quite honest, I was somewhat surprised to find that the Berman report had already been drawn up and a proposal was being presented before the completion of the Mitchell report, the actual report that is to assess the experience gained with the DCI.
My fellow Member is right in terms of the substance of his proposal. Given the design of the DCI, the legislative gap was inevitable. I support the conclusion that a different instrument is needed to close this gap for non-ODA (Official Development Assistance) activities. I can conceive of both the alternatives he proposes in paragraph 3 of his report.
I should like to make it clear, however, that non-ODA actions are also relevant to a country's development: it is only the choice of legal basis that is in dispute. In my opinion, it is the rapporteur and his committee against the rest of the world in this regard. The Committee on Development opts for a narrow interpretation of Article 179 and must therefore resort to articles intended for domestic policies as a legal basis. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs, Parliament's Legal Service, the ECJ, the Council and the Commission all read Article 179 differently.
Therefore we, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, decided today not to withdraw this motion tomorrow, but to table an amendment to change the legal basis envisaged, nor shall we be supporting the postponement, as we agree that only the legal basis is at issue in this matter. I am therefore sure that we will achieve clarity in the matter tomorrow.
(RO) The report from our fellow Member, Mr Berman, offers a clear solution for plugging the gap in the legislative structure for financing external actions which are not an emergency and which do not come under the category of development actions as defined by the Development Cooperation Instrument.
Financing actions of this kind is important from a political perspective as it can ensure continuity of the European Union's presence in the countries and regions which have already gone beyond the initial development stage. However, it is vitally important that the funds used to finance these actions do not come from sources earmarked for development, but from different budget lines.
The purpose of the legislative proposal requested by this report is to encourage development and not to restrict it by reducing the funds available for development policies in favour of other measures. This is why it is vital for the distinction between actions provided for under the Development Cooperation Instrument's scope and those provided for by the new legislative provision to be reflected when determining the funds earmarked for financing them.
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for this report. I endorse his first comment about the economic crisis, its particular impact on the developing world and, indeed, the fact that we are not reaching our target of 0.7% in aid. This is very regrettable because, when the developed world shrinks, the developing world really takes the brunt of it.
I came to this debate because I was anxious to hear the arguments about legal bases. It seems to me that, underneath all of this, there is a fear that the budget will be spread too thinly. Let us just call a spade a spade. Let me quote the comments made by an aid agency which contacted me today: 'While we support Parliament's request for a financing instrument for non-ODA activities in developing countries, we strongly believe that it must be established on a legal basis which is appropriate to the activities which it intends to finance. The use of Article 179 as the legal basis for non-development activities is clearly not appropriate and, as such, would contravene both the EC Treaty and the acquis communautaire. It also opens the possibility that, in future, non-ODA activities may be financed from budget lines which are intended for genuine development activities. We very much hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.'
So, as a member of the PPE-DE Group, I am here tonight to listen to both sides of this argument, but also to put forward some of the lobbying that I am receiving from very genuine people in the development area, whose concerns I need to address.
I repeat the point that, if we were awash with funds, our legal basis might not cause us so much grief. The difficulty is that we are not. There is concern among those involved with the development agenda - the focus of concern - who are fearful that the money available will be spread over too many activities. However, I remain to be convinced.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to discuss not the legal basis but the basis for survival. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a very special role to play in this. Creditworthiness is particularly important during financial crises, so that these enterprises can still obtain microcredit.
I wish to point out in particular that the instrument of microcredit has actually very much proved its worth worldwide and that, particularly within the framework of the WTO round, which is hopefully approaching the final stages, we should consider how to bring about the relevant trade facilitation for the affected families in these areas.
After all, prosperity is created where something is produced, where people can live off the proceeds themselves and feed their families. If, in addition, they manage to sell something, prosperity is assured. It is with this in mind that I hope development policy takes the right course.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, after hearing all the different contributions, it is clear that the Members' main concern is the choice of the legal basis.
I stated in my introduction the direction in which the Commission seeks to go, but I will certainly be very happy to take up your suggestions also.
You know that we want the best development assistance for all countries, and this is the main thrust of our thinking. So let us work together in order to find the right solution.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I am not a lawyer, and I am not well versed in law, but I know that one should avoid stretching the interpretation of legal texts. That is my fear if we use Article 181a, because it talks about economic and technical cooperation, whereas we are talking about students who go abroad on exchanges between universities. It is a bit hazardous. I am not against this if the Commission sees it as a way out for the non-ODA activities we all deem necessary and important, and I will go along with it. Perhaps I am concerned because I am a journalist. I like texts and I take words seriously, which is the essence of Europe - its humanism, taking texts seriously and taking language seriously. You have to be very careful when using words, so Article 181a is a maybe, but I am not very happy about it.
I was happy, however, with the comment made by Mairead McGuinness, to the effect that she needed to be convinced. She is Irish, she has her convictions and she is firm in her principles, as indeed we all are. If it is impossible tomorrow to reach agreement on the right legal basis, then I would prefer to refer this back to my committee and to take time to decide on a proper legal basis, because we all know that non-ODA actions are necessary.
I thank the Commission for its comment that non-ODA actions will, over time, become more and more important in developing countries and in middle-income countries, etc. We all agree on their necessity, and we all agree on the need to find a legal basis. Some of us agree that Article 179 is not the basis we are looking for.
If I cannot reach agreement with the PPE-DE Group before we vote tomorrow at noon - which will be a pity - I shall ask for a referral back to my committee. I am ready to do that and I will do so when the amendment is voted on tomorrow. I would be very sorry if this is the position of the PPE-DE Group, because we all agree on the need to maintain development aid at the level it is today, and we all know that it is shrinking with the economic crisis.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
The review of the new foreign policy financing instruments has revealed defects in cooperation with third countries, and so we propose reforming the industrial instrument.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs does not consider it desirable to limit the new legal basis for the instrument to a few areas of cooperation. In addition, the policy fields currently envisaged (culture, youth, research) are borrowed from European domestic policy and have not, up to now, been intended to define cooperation with third countries. This is just one of the uncertainties that worries the Committee on Foreign Affairs. What happens, for example, if, in the near future, it becomes desirable to cooperate with other countries in matters of climate policy? Do we have to create a new legal basis for the instrument each time? Do we mean to do that every time there is a change in the area of cooperation?
The reform of the foreign policy instruments is very important to us all, and so it should be made clear that we are not fighting against one another.
This is the only reason why the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, together with the second rapporteur from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, withdrew the amendment on Monday.
In terms of content, we believe our proposal is more far-sighted and that it is the one that enables a coherent foreign policy. However, this report is just a recommendation to the Commission. We shall see what it does with it.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is the world's largest donor of development aid, accounting for 60% of all funding. The Union's central role as a key actor in development cooperation should be strengthened even further in the future.
In order to stabilise the economies of the developing countries and bring peace to them, it is vitally important that the Union keeps to its target to increase its share of development aid by 0.7% of GDP by the year 2015. This alone, however, will not be enough.
It is essential to achieve general coherence in development cooperation among the different institutions. Financial investment and projects intended to build infrastructure and for more satisfactory adherence to the notion of human rights need to be undertaken in such a way that they support one another. The EU needs to establish the necessary instruments for implementing coherent development policy measures.
The Union's current legal basis for development cooperation, however, is flawed in terms of legislation, and that is why I would like to thank the rapporteur for raising what is an important issue. Projects aimed at improving the transport, technology and energy sectors and the dialogue between the scientific community and NGOs are essential for the social viability of developing countries. The main goal of such projects is not, however, to foster economic development and prosperity in the developing countries, and they do not therefore meet the criteria for official development aid as set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In future, official development aid should focus specifically on the elimination of poverty and improving people's living conditions.