Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


19. Possibility for Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory (


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


9. Global treaty to ban uranium weapons (vote)
- Before the vote:
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group of the European People's Party, I would like to add my personal endorsement of the proposal for a resolution presented today by the other groups, thus the PPE approves the wording in its entirety.
That is good news. It means the joint motion for a resolution tabled by six political groups, including the EPP, replaces all the motions for resolution on this subject, except for.


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


Membership of Parliament
Ladies and gentlemen, the competent Irish authorities have informed me that, with effect from today, 19 June 2007, Mr Colm Burke has been appointed as a Member of the European Parliament in place of Mr Simon Coveney. I should like to wish Mr Burke a very warm welcome to the European Parliament. May your work give you great pleasure.
Mr President, I should like to join with you in welcoming Colm here, replacing our colleague Simon Coveney, who has been elected to the Irish Parliament. I take this opportunity to wish Simon every success in his future in national politics. We have an excellent replacement in Colm Burke, from Simon's constituency of Cork South.
Thank you very much, Mrs Doyle. With your good wishes it must be a success!
Pursuant to Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure, until such time as his credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, and provided that he has made a written declaration that he does not hold any office incompatible with that of Member of the European Parliament, Mr Burke may take his seat in Parliament and on its bodies and shall enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.


8. Discharge 2005: Section VIIIA, European Ombudsman (vote)
- Report: Caspary


24. Future action in the field of patents (vote)
- Following the vote on Amendment 7:
(DE) Mr President, there are differences between the French and English translations of the original document of which we must take note. Whereas the English text makes explicit reference to accession to the Munich Convention, the French version talks in terms of discussion about accession to it, and there is a considerable difference between the two.
We now, therefore, do not know how the text is to be interpreted. If the English version is normative, then the French MEPs need to be aware that they are agreeing to accession to the Munich Convention, even though the formulation in the French version is rather softer. The differences are in the detail.
All right, then the English version is valid.


7. European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(EL) Mr President, I have listened most attentively to your message about the Irish 'no' vote. I fully endorse your statement on the need to continue the ratification process.
It is indeed perplexing that the Irish 'no' comes at a time when the EU is increasingly democratic, transparent and effective. However, Mr President, we need to decode the message from the factors supporting the 'no' vote. Irish citizens have made their decision and exercised their democratic right; however, this 'no' also calls on us to engage in some constructive self-criticism. I suggest focusing this self-criticism on two points: we are bombarded, Mr President, by the Commission's over-regulation; we, the European Parliament, cannot concern ourselves with every detail of this legal technicality and over-regulation.
Mr President, I know your dedication to European affairs, and I call on the European Parliament to rise to the occasion as a political body, a corps politique, a rallying point for the declared directions of the course of European unification.
Thank you for your words of encouragement, Mr Papastamkos, but I must also ask you to adhere to the time limit of one minute that is assigned to explanations of vote. Moreover, I was informed that you wished to speak on a different subject.
(ES) Mr President, although there was no time for my speech in the last sitting and a month has gone by since then, I feel I must mention that 12 May was World Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Day, two diseases that mainly affect women.
They are both gender-specific diseases, difficult to diagnose and for which few resources are available for research and treatment. They usually cause problems at work because people do not understand the way they reduce the capacity of sufferers and make them unfit for work.
We should take this situation seriously and urgently try to find out the causes of these diseases, provide more intensive treatment and compare the results, as well as raising social awareness and providing more information about their social, legal and employment impact.
Sufferers must not feel they have no protection. We owe this to our citizens.
(BG) The upcoming French Presidency of the European Union comes at a critical time for the European intergration process on the Old Continent. Topics such as the Sustainable Development Strategy, the European Immigration Pact, Europe of Defence and the reform in the Common Agricultural Policy are crucial for Europe. But the main question now is how to continue the Union reform and deepen the integration process in the aftermath of the Irish 'no'.
Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has once again put to the test the common will of Europeans to overcome the challenges of globalisation together. As a founder of the European Union, France and its president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have the task to pool the efforts of all twenty-seven member states together again, and come up with a legal formula and an action plan to find a way out of the Lisbon crisis because unless we overcome it, we run the risk of centrifugal and nationalistic passions taking the upper hand and putting a freeze on the process of further enlargement of the European Union. This watershed moment calls for us to realise these threats and deliver on our responsibilities and the expectations of the majority of European citizens for whom the Ode of Joy has already become a second national anthem.
(PL) Mr President, today I would like to speak of an incident that recently took place in Warsaw. A person closely associated with the Chinese Embassy in Poland attacked a woman distributing the opposition periodical The Epoch Times. Similar incidents have been observed for some time now in New York, where groups organised by the Chinese Consulate have been attacking Falun Gong believers as well as people demonstrating peacefully in favour of Tibet.
If similar practices start occurring in other countries, we shall be faced with a glaring breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that was adopted in 1961. What is more, despite the fact that the Chinese regime is doing all it can to show its positive side during the Olympic Games, it is continuing to persecute any groups that represent non-Communist ideologies. It is going even further, in that it is redoubling its efforts and is exporting this activity to the territories of democratic Western nations.
For this reason I am calling on the EU authorities and on Member States to monitor the situation with care and to react decisively if the circumstances I have described should be repeated.
(EL) Mr President, the General Affairs Council is meeting today. I do not yet know the result, but among the topics being discussed is the proposal to upgrade the EU's relations with Israel.
Furthermore, the fishermen of the Gaza Strip are today demonstrating against the inhuman measures the Israeli Government is imposing on them. Israel not only forbids them to fish in their open marine waters, but also deprives them of adequate fuel, so that they are forced to fish in the shallows where raw sewage is discharged without check. This situation threatens, immediately and alarmingly, to lead to epidemics.
I submit to you, Mr President, the request of these fishermen that under such conditions the EU should not go ahead and upgrade relations with Israel.
A further reason why this upgrading should not happen now, especially for us MEPs, is the fact that Israel recently showed, once again, that it does not respect even our human rights. Its forces tried to violently suppress peaceful demonstrations against the racist dividing wall from being built; they injured demonstrators, including our fellow Member Mrs Morgantini.
(BG) In this House, at the Commission, and in Bulgaria, there is a lot of talk about fighting corruption at the top levels of government. Yet 'corruption' is not just a word that exists in and of itself. There are real people behind it. I want to show you the face of official corruption at the top in Bulgaria.
Yesterday, the largest Bulgarian daily published photos of the leader of the Turkish ethnic party, MRL, Ahmed Dogan, who, three years ago, was granted a mandate to form the Bulgarian government. These shocking pictures reveal that Dogan lives in a huge seraglio which is registered as a four-star hotel, and there he indulges in luxury. This same individual, Dogan, authored the phrases that his party was surrounded by a circle of companies and that buying votes is an European practice. He told the Trud Daily that his main occupation was to run his business, something which he cannot do legally while a member of Bulgarian Parliament.
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of this House, Commissioners, Dogan is one of the heads of the lamia of corruption in Bulgaria. The destruction of this monster begins with investigating Ahmed Dogan's circle of companies and his business.
Mr. President, I submit to you the newspaper so that you can read about this yourself.
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the 862 415 Irish people who voted 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty in last Thursday's referendum. They voted for freedom, democracy and common sense. Were the British people to be allowed a referendum, they would undoubtedly vote 'no' in even greater numbers than the Irish. Given the chance, many of the other European nations would also vote 'no', just as the French and the Dutch proved in 2005.
With breathtaking arrogance and disregard for democracy, the European political elite intend to bulldoze onwards with the ratification of the Treaty. The Treaty is dead but the EU refuses to bury it. The EU's ongoing love affair with the Treaty is an act of political necrophilia. But the body is beginning to stink and, the longer it is unburied, the worse the stench is going to get. We must bury the Treaty. It is polluting the political atmosphere.
Mr Batten, your comparison is entirely inappropriate, if I may add my own comment. You are in a Parliament that is very much alive. If this Parliament did not speak, you, as a living being, could not have addressed it.
(Applause)
(HU) Thank you, Mr President. I will speak in Hungarian. In Slovakia a new education act has been passed by Parliament, and all that is needed for it to enter into force is the signature of the President of the Republic. The new act means that from now on, names of places and historic figures in history books intended for students whose mother tongue is Hungarian will have to conform to Slovakian spelling rules, thereby ignoring our centuries-old historic and linguistic traditions. The new act seriously infringes the rights of the Hungarian community in Slovakia to use their language. Slovakia signed and ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 2001. Commissioner Leonard Orban himself believes that fostering national minorities' mother tongues is a matter of strategic importance. In this European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, it is lamentable and unacceptable that Slovakia is acting in a manner that runs counter to European practice. Instead of broadening minority rights, it is doing the opposite and curtailing them. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, several thousand Hungarian-speaking settlements ended up outside the country's borders, and we have a right to call these places by their Hungarian names. Linguistic diversity is part of Europe's cultural legacy and a unique treasure that we all have a responsibility to protect. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
(ES) Mr President, in the early morning of 8 June, the terrorist group ETA attacked the offices of the daily newspaper El Correo while 50 staff were in the building and preparing the Sunday edition. Fortunately, no one was injured but there was significant material damage.
I would be grateful if you would send a message of solidarity. However, I would also like to comment on and have recorded in this Chamber the urgent need to eradicate the terrorist violence perpetrated by ETA against the media and guarantee the full exercise of freedom of expression. This is a good reason for Europeans to support the Treaty of Lisbon, which will make it possible to develop common policies for justice, security and anti-terrorism and not to depend exclusively on bilateral and intergovernmental cooperation. Our solidarity should therefore also be expressed in support for ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Mrs Ayala Sender, since you addressed me personally, let me say that we are a community based on solidarity, and that solidarity applies in every case, including the present one. I am grateful that you appreciate this point.
(HU) Ladies and gentlemen, at the previous plenary session the Leader of our Group, Graham Watson, addressed this Parliament in a one-minute speech because of the anti-Roma atrocities taking place in Italy. Today, too, I regret to have to inform you of similar incidents, this time in my own country, Hungary. A few weeks ago, 70 kilometres from Budapest in the village of Pátka, three vigilantes threw a dozen Molotov cocktails at three houses where Roma people lived. On 16 April in the village of Fadd in Hungary's Tolna district, unidentified individuals threw Molotov cocktails at two homes. A week ago my own colleague was attacked in Nyíregyháza by extremists yelling: 'Filthy gypsy, get out of our country!' Most of the residents of Pátka stand by their claim that the vigilantes are innocent, although one of the suspects has confessed that he was involved. Despite this, on Friday a demonstration was held by around 150 uniformed individuals proclaiming Nazi principles, and later on a number of unidentified persons wearing hoods again tried to mount an attack in the presence of 100 riot police. I too was present. At the same time, the police covered up the identity of the person injured in the Pátka incident. In Italy, our fellow EU citizens are living in prisons reserved for refugees; they too are Roma, of course. Commissioner Barrot, I hope that once your new cabinet is formed we Roma, too, will be able to enjoy the security provided by European Union democracy, and that the definition of EU citizenship will apply to me and my children as well as to my non-Roma fellow citizens. Thank you very much.
(PL) Mr President, even in situations where the issues are completely clear, the solutions that should be adopted should take into account the context and relations between different objectives, the importance of the issue in question and the costs involved in achieving the objectives. In every issue, especially one that affects the lives of billions of people in the way that climate change does, it is important to act with moderation, common sense and some degree of fairness when trying to resolve the problem.
I do not see any fairness in the proposal to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. There are two solutions that are particularly offensive in this regard: treating highly developed countries that have been responsible for a large proportion of carbon dioxide emissions to date and for much pollution, but have better technological capabilities, in the same way as less developed countries, especially those whose economies are based on coal; and secondly, treating manufacturers of large vehicles, where reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% is easier, the same as manufacturers of vehicles with small engines and low levels of emissions, so that reductions incur higher costs. It looks as if the issue of climate change is not what is important here, just business issues.
Mr President, Europe's bees face extinction within a decade. Diseases and viruses have already wiped out one third of the colonies in America and now threaten our own. The American situation offers a dangerous snapshot of what we potentially face in Europe unless we act now. At least 70 crops that contribute significantly to the overall economy depend directly on pollination by the bees.
The US is having to import bees to make up the losses. In the current climate there are serious questions over the EU's capacity to produce enough food to satisfy demand, and the implications of a similar outbreak here would be disastrous.
Beekeepers across Europe already know about the threat caused by the varroa mites that have decimated bee colonies. They are having to deal with Colony Collapse Disorder, which is when hives are systematically abandoned and the bees effectively disappear off the face of the earth.
We need to provide funding and proper scientific research in this area. The UK Government currently provides just GBP 250 000 towards bee research. That is a drop in the ocean for such an important issue. Bees are an integral part of the food chain: without bees, beekeepers, crops, fruit and nuts will be adversely affected.
(FR) Mr President, I see from the agenda that we will be considering a codified version of the directive on static testing of roll-over protection structures of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. I feel that following the Dublin vote history dictates that we consider other, more urgent issues. We cannot subcontract a matter such as the Lisbon Treaty to the European Council alone. We MEPs may legitimately become involved, especially if we know the necessary ingredients for finding solutions.
First of all, the key questions must relate to certain vital institutional aspects and not cover several hundreds of pages. We need validation by European referendum, with an opt-out for countries that do not wish to follow that course and, finally, as the President said, we need a very tight timetable - 2009 - otherwise the electoral campaign will become impossible. Let nobody tell me such a scenario is impossible; it is no more improbable than the one on which the chancelleries are currently working. In any case, I, for my part, am ready.
Mr President, the Commission is currently examining complaints made by certain private businesses in Spain, France and Italy against cooperatives, and against the cooperative movement as regards its statute and tax treatment.
I would urge the Commission, in examining that complaint, to take due account of the particular needs and characteristics of cooperative movements. They are not like profit-making shareholder organisations. A cooperative is owned by its members and profits are distributed equally, not paid out simply to shareholders.
The European Union recognised the particular nature of the cooperative movement in 2003 in adopting the Regulation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society. I would urge the Commission to take due account of that and thereby earn the gratitude of the 55 million people in Europe employed by cooperatives and the 163 million people who are members of them.
(DE) Mr President, last week China demanded an end to the Tibet protests as the condition for further talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama. According to the Chinese Foreign Minister, the Tibetans must ditch their attempts to ruin the Olympic Games.
The protesting Tibetans, however, surely cannot be expected to accept meekly the crushing of their demonstrations in March. The Chinese Government has the opportunity to change the situation in Tibet radically. Given an honest dialogue without prior conditions, the Tibetan people will take part in a constructive process of change. The first priority is to send out a clear signal, not least by allowing foreign observers into the country to assess the situation for themselves.
Thank you, Mr Horáček! May I also refer to our resolution of 10 April, in which we called on all EU politicians not to attend the opening ceremony on 8 August unless the rights of the Tibetans had been guaranteed. I once more commend that statement of 10 April to everyone.
(HU) Mr President, when Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the Hungarian bishops regarding the burdensome legacy of the long era of Communist rule, it was most apposite. His comments are particularly topical today, which is the 50th anniversary of the execution of Imre Nagy, the martyred Prime Minister, and 60th anniversary of the start of the brutal religious persecutions and imprisonment of Cardinal József Mindszenthy. The ghost of this painful era, in which state violence was coupled with militant anti-religious sentiment, was raised by Magda Kósáné Kovács, post-Communist Member of this House, in her most recent intervention here in plenary, in which she sought to defend European values from Pope Benedict, or rather from the Catholic Church. A few years ago, former party chairman Mrs Kósáné Kovács made the defamatory claim that the Vatican, then under the leadership of Pope John Paul, was keen to get its hands on the whole of Europe and bring it under its control. As a bishop of the Reformed Church, knowing that the Christian churches themselves have helped shape genuine European values in this European Union which has its roots in the Christian Democrat movement, I reject every manifestation of anti-religious ideology and intolerance. Let us invite Pope Benedict to the European Parliament.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, fifty years ago today in Hungary, on 16 June 1958, Imre Nagy, Prime Minister of Hungary's 1956 revolution and struggle for freedom, was sentenced and executed following a summary show trial along with defence minister Pál Maléter and colleagues Miklós Gémes and József Szilágyi; Géza Losonczi, meanwhile, was killed while still in prison. Their corpses, tied with wire and wrapped in paper, were buried face down. Their trial was one of the most shameful events and biggest injustices of the twentieth century. Imre Nagy was a fervent Communist, and yet he opted for his country to return to free Europe rather than remain in the Soviet camp. This made him a national hero, a martyr of the revolution, a politician of European standing. His moral stance made him an emblem of freedom and of a European Hungary. The reburial Imre Nagy deserved did not take place until 16 June 1989, but by then the Communist regime had come to an end and Hungary was able to rejoin the family of free European nations. The message of these events is clear: freedom and national independence were what Hungary aspired to as it shook off Communism. This is what those who died fifty years ago gave their lives for; their sacrifice was not in vain.
(DE) Mr President, I listened very attentively to the Member who spoke before Mr Szájer and attacked my colleague Magda Kósáné Kovács in a totally inappropriate manner.
Mrs Kovács is my deputy on the executive of the Socialist Group. She is not present here, which means that she cannot defend herself against that attack. I know that Mrs Kovács is a convinced democrat and a committed campaigner for European unity. She certainly does not deserve to have any Member abuse the privileges of this House in order to settle some domestic score or other that may exist between them in Hungary. I consider the remarks in question to be totally inappropriate and a grievous slur on the character of Magda Kovács, a slur which I reject with the utmost repugnance.
(FR) Mr President, first I want to welcome the Commission's initiative to grant fishers emergency aid. Even if that aid is certainly not enough to resolve the problems in the sector, it does at least seem necessary at this point. The current situation is indeed critical: in the space of a year, the price of diesel oil has risen from 35 to 73 centimes a litre. So there is a heavy bill to pay for the oil price rise and in my constituency, the Baie de Somme, professional fishers are very much concerned and very bitter. Aside from the question of oil prices, fishers want above all to sell their fish at the right price and are opposed to the unjustified margins taken by intermediaries. This is more than a crisis; it is a structural issue for the fisheries sector that we must tackle at European level. As we have seen, the protest movement has taken on a European dimension. That is only logical given the fact that the fisheries policy is one of the oldest European policies. We must help the fisheries sector to modernise so that it can rid itself of the constraints imposed by the price of diesel oil, while respecting our obligation to protect the environment and manage fishery resources. With that in mind, I hope the plenary debate scheduled for Wednesday will conclude with a resolution that benefits the European fisheries that are now at risk.
Mr President, Chee Soon Juan was released from Queenstown Prison in Singapore two days ago. He has been convicted and imprisoned several times in the last few years. Chee Soon Juan is not a criminal. His 'crime' is very simple: he is leader of the democratic opposition. He is constantly struggling for freedom and democracy in his country.
Since his last release, the state-controlled media in Singapore started to discredit him, to destroy his credibility, with baseless personal attacks and character assassination. We have a strong solidarity with Mr Chee Soon Juan and his fellows, who are struggling and fighting for democracy and human rights in Singapore.
We call on the Singaporean authorities to stop harassing the democratic opposition, to stop the violation of human rights and to start respecting the basic right of free expression. We hope very much that Singapore will go along with our strong wish to respect basic rights.
Mr President, last week the Irish people made a democratic decision on the Lisbon Treaty which must be fully respected. While many of us who voted or campaigned for a 'yes' vote are disappointed in the result, I think it is important that we reflect on that result.
In response to Mr Batten's remarks, I want to emphasise that Ireland is not anti-European. Ireland remains completely committed to the European idea. We are mindful of the fact that Ireland is one of 27 Member States, but this is not just an Irish problem. It is a problem for all Member States. Europe has faced many challenges in the past and it has overcome those challenges through mature and wise leadership. I would ask for the same to be shown here on this issue and on the challenges that we face. We are in uncharted waters and I think it is very important that we avoid knee-jerk reactions or hasty decisions. We need some reflection and maturity to make sure that we can fully address the present situation and try to get Europe back on the road so that it is fully accountable to the citizens of Europe.
(EL) Mr President, the European Parliament's offices in the Member States are the line of communication between Parliament and the citizens. One of the main purposes of these offices is to inform public opinion, through various activities, about what is happening in the European Parliament. One such activity involves inviting journalists to come to Strasbourg to cover proceedings in plenary.
On 24 January 2008, Mr President, I submitted a question to the European Parliament about the decision to reduce the budget for inviting the press. In spite of this, about five months have passed and I have not yet received an answer. Something similar is happening to other committees, so that legitimate questions put by MEPs remain unanswered. I wonder whether this policy can have any positive effect on the operation of Parliamentary institutions and the competent departments, at a time when the EU is in need of fully functioning procedures as provided for in its Rules.
(FR) Mr President, I want to draw MEPs' attention to Sami Essid's expulsion from Italy to Tunisia on 3 June, in total violation of Italy's commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, Article 3 thereof. Why? Because Mr Essid is accused of terrorism and the European Court of Human Rights has established without any doubt that any person accused of terrorism was without fail tortured in Tunisia.
That is why the European Court asked Italy to suspend the expulsion measure. Nonetheless, Italy expelled him on 3 June, in total violation of its commitments. I ask both that Italy be reminded of its obligations as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and as a Member State of the European Union, and for assurances that Mr Essid, now deported to Tunisia, will not suffer inhumane and degrading treatment there.
(Applause)
(GA) Madam President, the Irish vote last Thursday against the Treaty of Lisbon was not a vote against Europe. Ireland's place is in the European Union, where it has obtained social and economic benefits - both north and south - due to its Membership.
People were concerned about the weakening of Ireland's voice, and that of other small countries, in the European Union; about neutrality and military affairs; about workers' rights and public services. Not only were those concerns raised on the doorsteps, but they were also voiced in the opinion polls published throughout the campaign. Their automatic right to a referendum on future significant changes is also important.
Some of those issues have already been raised in France and the Netherlands. We must address those concerns.
(HU) Madam President, I speak now as a Member representing a country whose Parliament, supported by all the political parties, was second to ratify the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe and first to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. In this capacity I would like to remind you that the greatest danger in Europe today is national egoism, or nationalism. We must give some thought to whether we should be rewarding those who constantly demand more, or should we instead be sanctioning this kind of behaviour? Protecting national interests is a fundamental duty of every country's government and its representatives in the European Parliament, but the European Union cannot function unless sober compromises are reached among the various national interests, and unless there is solidarity among its nations and peoples. I therefore strongly urge our Polish friends to lend their support, as the other twenty-six Member States have done, to establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology in Budapest. In the case of Frontex in Warsaw, Hungary too seemed to be in the running for a while, but did not use its veto. It would therefore be unfair if our Polish friends did not reciprocate with a similar gesture. Hungarian and Pole are two good friends; as the saying goes, 'Magyar and Pole, two friends so fine; together they fight and drink their wine'.
That concludes this item.


Inland waterway transport (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the promotion of inland waterway transport: NAIADES, an integrated European Action Programme for inland waterway transport.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to convey my heartfelt thanks to the Vice-President of the Commission for 'NAIADES', the Action Programme for inland waterway transport. Parliament is your ally, because inland waterway transport must be given a prominent place on the European agenda. Our report has received unanimous support from the Committee on Transport and Tourism and I should like to extend warm thanks to my fellow MEPs, the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the staff for their efforts.
Mr Vice-President, although Parliament backs your goals, we do think that more ambition is called for if they are to be capable of being achieved. In the report, Parliament underlines, above all, the importance of reliable inland waterways. This is, after all, the key to their success and to their expansion. Reliable inland waterway transport hinges on sound infrastructure and transhipment facilities, and the current maintenance backlog of the inland waterways infrastructure in Europe is one of the most urgent problems to be resolved. In this respect, the new Member States, with their specific problems, must receive special attention. Prime responsibility lies, of course, with national or regional authorities, which give too little priority in this area.
This House also wants to see more funding within the framework of the TENs, especially where priority projects are concerned, and we are still waiting for the appointment of a TEN coordinator. Could you promise that you will come up with a proposal shortly? Parliament would also like greater priority and a higher preferential rate of 20% for all inland waterway projects of common interest, which will make it possible to back many small infrastructure projects, for the bulk of the funds have, so far, in fact been diverted to rail and road, which has to change if we take the NAIADES Programme seriously.
River information services projects must also be considered for a contribution from the multi-annual programme. This is something Parliament will be voting in favour of tomorrow, and is also what the Finnish Presidency has proposed in the Council. If you can give it your backing therefore, things are bound to fall into place.
Parliament is also ambitious where the environment is concerned. We hope that the Commission will present regulations for cleaner fuel as quickly as possible. Last Friday, we received additional information from your offices, for which we are indebted. Clearly, much research has been done, also into the technical and economic impact. The results appear promising, and that is why I should like to ask you to table a sound proposal when the directive is reviewed. It is important not to lose track of the prospect that IWT will be just as clean as road transport. This is also something the sector itself is in favour of. I have read in the paper that the sector believes it could achieve more via the Central Consultancy Register, since the Commission is said not to want to rush things. I hope you will be able to put my mind at rest about this.
Much has been said about the innovation fund, which, in my view, is a wonderful instrument to flesh out this fine Action Programme. The sector has good ideas of its own, and EUR 40 million have been set aside in Brussels. This House is of the opinion that the Commission and Council should also show commitment and should match the same amount, so that EUR 120 million would become available. The Council has produced little in the way of concrete commitment, but would you be in a position to convince them? Even more importantly, would you be prepared to make these EUR 40 million available over the next few years? I consider this to be a test case to demonstrate whether you really want to implement the Action Programme.
The Action Programme contains various other points we are very happy to endorse: a funding manual, guidelines for state support and the announced screening of existing legislation, which is desperately needed in order to trim down the administrative burden. I should, in this connection, like to draw your attention to problematic environmental legislation.
It is not for no reason that I have left the institutional issue to last, something for which I have set out a clear course in my report. We must focus on cooperation, take into consideration the current competences of all participating parties and capitalise on the expertise of international organisations. A battle over powers will only have a delaying effect. We must start implementing the Action Programme as a matter of urgency.
Finally, the Commission will also need to show a real commitment to action. By rolling up their sleeves, the Commission will prove that it is really taking inland waterways to heart and only then will the time be right to consider, if necessary - and I am not convinced of this yet - the institutional relations.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Wortmann-Kool on this excellent report. The Resolution shows that there is broad agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the promotion of inland waterway transport. Inland waterway transport is safe, low-polluting and energy efficient, and offers great reserve capacities. Despite the advantages it offers, inland waterway transport is under-used: it represents scarcely 6% of the total overland goods transport in the Union, even though, in a few Member States, its modal share stands at 40%.
Today, Europe has 36 000 km of inland waterways. We are talking here about a genuine trans-European network. We need a European approach in order to promote this mode of transport. It can achieve a far greater modal share if, as you just pointed out, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, our approach is accompanied by concrete action.
I am grateful to Parliament for the support that it has given me via this report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool. I am going to confine myself, Mr President, to a few remarks about the main points, starting with the improvement of market conditions. We must develop new multi-modal, innovative services, so as to enable inland waterway transport to play its role among the large seaports and the big cities in the Hinterland. More than 70% of the inland navigation sector is made up of small businesses, often owner-boatmen. We need to create conditions that will help strengthen their position in the market: for example, improved access to funds through the removal of any regulatory and administrative barriers and clear indications as to what State aid is available. The Commission is going to start work on State aid for this sector. These guidelines will be published in 2008-2009. That is all I have to say on market conditions.
As regards the modernisation of the fleet, inland waterway transport must improve its logistical efficiency and its performance in relation to the environment and safety. Innovations must be focused on the construction of boats - for example, the engine and the propulsion system - and on information and communication technologies for what are known as river information services. A regulatory framework already exists, but we must ensure that the system is actually implemented. That also applies to the standards applicable to fuel intended for inland navigation. Stricter standards, which we should propose by the end of the year, will enable us to further improve the environmental quality of inland waterway transport.
I now come to the promotion of employment and skills. Inland waterway transport suffers from a dearth of crews and a worsening shortage of candidates to take over businesses. The strategy must be focused on an improvement to onboard working and living conditions and on professional training. I plan to propose harmonising the requirements relating to crew members and to boatmasters' certificates in 2008 via the mutual recognition procedure.
With regard to the image of waterway transport, we must correct the one that inland navigation currently suffers from. We must make people aware of the real potential of inland navigation by implementing a network to promote inland waterway transport, as exists in certain regions.
With regard to waterway infrastructure, there are, within the network, bottlenecks that curb the competitiveness of inland waterway transport. We must therefore remove the existing obstacles. That is primarily a responsibility of the Member States, but the Community can help thanks to the trans-European networks. In this context, the Commission prioritises the development of the two major waterway routes: the Rhine-Meuse-Danube route and the Seine-Scheldt link.
In the new financial regulation submitted for Parliament's approval, we have proposed a 30% rate of support for the waterway projects and the inclusion of these projects in the multi-annual programme. I hope that the Council, like Parliament, will support our proposals. The contribution of intelligent transport systems is vital. We are preparing to implement river information services, by which, in practical terms, we mean a system for managing information concerning inland waterway transport, which will enable boatmen to plan their journeys better, to reduce the time they wait at locks and to constantly monitor transport.
Mrs Wortmann-Kool, you mentioned the appointment of a TEN coordinator. I must say that we welcomed the positive results obtained by the six coordinators who have already been appointed. Mr Costa, for his part, has also called for the appointment of a coordinator for both inland waterway transport and maritime transport. I can tell you that my intention is indeed to select two coordinators over the next few weeks.
The NAIADES programme provides for a range of very different actions: harmonised legislation, strategic promotion and coordination measures. All of these actions will only be effective, however, if the institutional framework is suitable. The fact is that, today, we are faced with fragmented resources and efforts spread over different levels. We therefore need to adapt the framework to the demands of an enlarged European market. We are in the process of analysing different options. The results of this analysis will be discussed with all of the parties concerned, with the Member States and with the international river commissions.
To conclude, we need this NAIADES programme to be a success and, to that end, we need to be able to rely on the support of decision-makers at every level: national and regional authorities, river commissions and businesses. I am grateful to Parliament and to you, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, for sending out, with this report, a strong signal in favour of the promotion of inland navigation, which Europe needs now more than ever.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Vice-President Barrot has sketched a wide-ranging programme concerning inland waterway transport, on which we can only congratulate him. Speaking from the perspective of Parliament, we consider this parliamentary report, prepared by Mrs Wortmann-Kool, to be a worthy statement and report on this wide-ranging programme. On this matter our intentions perfectly match those of the Commission.
From among the various strategic ramifications, I would like to underline a single issue, that of infrastructure. Recent floods have demonstrated that in terms of infrastructure, and within that, specifically with regard to trying to improve navigability, we have to proceed cautiously in order to guarantee navigation on a permanent basis. Floods render navigation unreliable and unpredictable; therefore, the most important goal of the NAIADES programme is paying close attention to flood control. I would like to stress the programme's environmental considerations - which require special emphasis - such as the creation and conservation of floodplains. I believe that we have to act with care and in harmony with respect to environmental and navigational requirements.
Just a brief comment on another point. For the navigability of the Danube, it is important to be able to count on high quality shipping conditions along its entire length. Among the third countries concerned, I would like to highlight Serbia. For Serbia, the value of the Danube as a waterway has increased considerably, and therefore, I suggest close cooperation on this matter among the future Member States of Romania and Bulgaria as well as the Black Sea region. All these proposals are put forward in the report, for which I express my thanks to my fellow Member, Mrs Wortmann-Kool.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, a moment ago I was saying to the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that, so far tonight, all of the speakers in this debate have been women. Then they will say that transport is only of interest to men. Perhaps NAIADES inspires us, and perhaps the Commissioner should take note and appoint two women coordinators for NAIADES. Let us return to serious issues though, and the report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool.
In principle, we formally support the Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterways, known as 'NAIADES', and the idea of giving it a greater political profile. It is true, and we have noted this, that the use of inland waterways varies a lot throughout Europe, from 0.1%, in countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, and even a little less in my country, to 40% in the Netherlands, which has a greater number of these waterways. Unfortunately, in some cases canals and rivers have been abandoned.
Admirable attempts at recovery are being made, however. In my country, due to its mountainous nature, canals and rivers are used more for carrying irrigation and drinking water than for transport, but we nevertheless are aware of and support the initiatives relating to the navigable stretch of the Guadalquivir from Seville to the sea, which is also hoping to be included in the trans-European network. Furthermore, I am also delighted by the current efforts of my city, Zaragoza, which will host Expo 2008 and which, within that context, wishes - and this has been proposed within the context of the objective of promoting water and sustainable development - to restore the navigability of the River Ebro. We are therefore pleased to be able to include ourselves in this European project.
We are talking about sustainable development when we refer to inland waterways' potential to help reduce the impact of CO2 emissions by up to 75% compared to roads and also - and this is why it is so important - to promote this inland waterways network at European level and to support new formulae so that this sector can be more competitive and efficient.
Mrs Wortmann-Kool has done an excellent job as rapporteur, and we are eagerly awaiting the Commission's coming proposals to enhance the economic and competitive impact of this new sector. We particularly support the strengthening of infrastructures. That is to say, for thousands of kilometres of inland waterways and hundreds of inland ports, with lock infrastructures, etc., which have already been named, to finally become a connection network that strengthens regional and territorial cohesion. To this end, some of the amendments that we presented in committee and which have been included propose greater inclusion of this sector in the trans-European network programmes. We have also proposed supporting river information services, which we believe will very much increase the efficiency and safety of the sector.
Furthermore, we believe that it is an excellent idea to obtain greater economic support for the sector's potential for container traffic, although there are still great deficiencies here. In the report on logistics, which I hope to be able to present to this House, I will clearly also include Mrs Wortmann-Kool's proposals on improving logistical aspects and innovation and technological progress for reducing operational costs.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the Commissioner has emphasised - and I am obliged to him for doing so - 6% of all goods and persons transported are carried on waterways, and so an ambitious programme is required if these unused capacities are to be put to work and the existing infrastructure improved.
It has to be said that the greatest deficiency in this area is the lack of intermodal nodes; if transport links - including these means of transport - are to be developed, the first thing to be done is to establish ports and terminals.
In other transport sectors, innovation has made great strides; here, though, it is limping along behind. There is still a lot of lost ground to be made up where fuels and materials are concerned, and this programme should provide an opportunity for that to be done, but we must also - as my colleague has already mentioned - give very serious attention to the environment, and I attach particular importance to this.
I would also ask you to support an amendment that we have tabled, which has to do with the transport of hazardous goods on waterways, which must be subject to regulations every bit as stringent as those applicable to road and rail, for an accident with hazardous goods on a waterway can do enormous and irreparable damage.
Another issue is the threat of flagging-out - the re-registration of vessels under flags of convenience - which poses a risk to social standards, among other things, and that is a danger we absolutely must take into account from the very outset.
I want to thank the rapporteur for her superb report and the shadow rapporteurs for their good cooperation. Thank you all very much, and I hope that it will, tomorrow, be adopted as it now stands.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, for years, old canals were neglected or closed, inland waterway transport appeared to be a thing of the past and there was a massive growth in the transport of goods by road. Nowadays, everyone across the party-political boundaries welcomes the fact that the water-borne transport of goods is coming back into fashion. This consensus conceals different opinions, as was evident in this House during the debate in February 2003 on the subject of the White Paper on transport 2010. To my group, as to some others, water-borne transport is an alternative to ever more and widening motorways. It is a way of being economical with space and the environment. This is in contrast to another view, which wants more of everything, including, therefore, even more motorways.
By creating overcapacity, entrepreneurs are given more freedom to make fresh choices within this overcapacity to decide which mode of transport is most advantageous to them at that particular moment in time. An example of overcapacity is the expensive Betuwe line that has been built as a TEN project for transport of freight by rail in the Netherlands alongside the rivers Waal and Lek, that are perfectly navigable, at the lower reaches of the Rhine. More pressing projects than these projects that are probably underutilised include the widening of the narrow canals that connect Northern France with Belgium and the Netherlands, or returning the ever dwindling transport across the Danube between Hungary and the Black Sea ever since the bombardments of 1999 back to its original level.
My group is opposed to overcapacity. Even in the case of waterways, this is at the expense of space, nature and the environment. The adjustment of rivers impacts on flood plains, biodiversity, the supply of drinking water and flooding surrounding low lands. In addition, water-borne transport is not a panacea that magics away all the risks of polluting and harmful substances. Their transport entails risks not only for the rivers themselves, but also for the residential areas and areas of outstanding beauty that are located downstream. We need more than just cleaner engines and sulphur-free fuel. Together with the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, we would propose infrastructural levies in order to promote fair competition between different modes of transport, a better environmental impact assessment of European development plans, a tightening of legislation for the transport of dangerous substances and preventing inland waterway ships from being put under flags of convenience, because this adversely affects social, security and environmental standards. Only when our water-borne transport meets quality requirements of this kind, is its growth a step in the right direction.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her extremely comprehensive report and thank her for the good cooperation. Like the other speakers, I should like to express wholehearted support for the NAIADES Programme. Inland waterway transport can, provided it is correctly backed by flanking policy, substantially contribute towards solving the problem of transport. I am pleased that this message is also being sent to the national, regional and local governments. Both old and new Member States are urged, in their economic and planning policy, to give due consideration to the scope that inland waterways offer in order to meet the transport needs of enterprises, not only for bulkier, but also for slimmer, flows of goods.
In addition, the recommendation for active improvements in the fleet's environmental performance also receives my unqualified support. As in road transport, incentive schemes for the introduction of the reduction of emission and energy-saving measures in inland waterway transport also help make the fleet more environmentally-friendly.
Finally, I hope that the Member States will approach this Action Programme with the same positive attitude and commitment as the Members of this House have done in the recent weeks.
(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw particular attention to the title of Mrs Wortmann-Kool's report. It is a report on the promotion of inland waterway transport. Inland waterway transport most certainly needs aid. This might not be the case in the Netherlands, where the report's author hails from, but it is certainly true of many other European Union countries, including Poland, my home country. The Oder Programme was adopted a few years ago in Poland, and was initially called the Oder 2006 Programme, but was later extended to last until 2015. However, all these schemes amount to empty words, because nothing is actually being done.
The virtue of the report we are currently debating is that it sets out to deal with European inland waterways as an autonomous field, and here I emphasise the word 'autonomous' which means not treating inland waterways as a complement to road and rail transport, as an unimportant addition to them. Instead, inland waterways are perceived as an independent, autonomous whole. This is very significant, because the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania will provide a unique opportunity to create a European network of inland waterways.
I would like to tell the House about one of my dreams. It is a dream I think many members of my committee share, and it involves a journey along the old and new inland waterways in Europe. It may be an old-fashioned journey, but it is a very beautiful one. In order to be able to undertake it, however, further significant investment is needed.
I think it is worthwhile recalling a couple of significant ideas that have formed part of the aspirations of far-sighted politicians over the centuries. One of these is the plan for a canal between the Oder and the Danube, which would create a link between two important bodies of water.
I urge the European Commission not to end the studies, but to continue working on a European network of inland waterways. Studies in this field should be continued, and I wish the venture every success.
(DE) Mr President, as is well known, Austria is a land of mountains, but it is also - and Austria's national day being tomorrow, perhaps I might be permitted this allusion - described in its own national anthem as a land on a river, the river in question being the Danube. This makes inland waterways an important subject for us Austrians, as we are connected by water to the West, to the Rhine-Main-Meuse system that is to be found there, but also, and above all, to the south and east.
We in Austria know how important it is - not only for our own country, but also for Europe as a whole - to have a better, by which I mean above all better-functioning system of waterways. Although reference has been made to the environment and technological dimensions, and to much else besides, we also know that it is above all for the sake of the new and future Member States of the EU that alternatives to roads are needed, for without them, we really are going to end up as roadkill, and what better alternative could there be than a well-developed and therefore well-used infrastructure in Corridor 7 of the Trans-European Network? I am glad that the Commission is willing to attach greater importance to this mode of transport, and I can do no other than agree with much of what Vice-President Barrot has said today. While, though, we do need plans and programmes to be set out, they also need to be implemented, and as soon as possible.
I hope that the contributions made at the Vienna conference on inland waterways staged by the Austrian Presidency of the Council were useful in terms of our subject overall and will therefore be relevant to our future opportunities.
I particularly want to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool for the very good work she has done on this document and for her good cooperation, and, in particular, for her willingness to be talked into contending not only for the priorities of 'old Europe' but also for the openings and opportunities afforded by the new. Let me repeat what I said earlier: now is the time for us to make use of these opportunities!
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the neglect of internal waterways in the EU has been going on for many years to a positively criminal degree. NAIADES is a means whereby we want to change that. We want internal waterways to make headway in terms of job creation, on the markets, in terms of infrastructure and the fleet as a whole.
These depend, above all else, on the reliability of internal waterways and on the availability of multi-functional inland ports, not least with regard to multimodal transport links, and I would, in this regard, like to do as Commissioner Barrot has already done and highlight the importance of RIS as an important contribution to the use of inland waterways, and would argue that its potential ought to be used to the full by its being incorporated into the TEN programme.
Back to NAIADES, though. The report on the subject highlights the need for tighter emission limit values to be laid down across the Community, particularly by promoting the use of low-sulphur fuels. So far, so good, but I see it as counterproductive if more stringent emission limit values were to oblige the internal waterways sector, most of the operators in which are, of course, small and medium-sized enterprises, to pay out a great deal of money that they cannot afford for refits, and so we have to work towards incentives, provided not only by the Commission but also by the Member States, for a more rapid introduction of environmentally-friendly engines on ships.
It strikes me as important that the planned European Waterway Transport Innovation Fund be established subject to conditions agreed on with the inland waterways businesses themselves, and that the Fund should be able to help with the funding of communications offices.
Further to the Commission's initiative for the production of information source on financial issues, in the shape, for example, of a funding handbook, what is also needed is a European development plan containing an up-to-date inventory and more detailed information on European waterways, which must draw on existing expert studies and reports, as well as on the experiences gained by the coordinators. It would, after all, be wrong to keep on reinventing the wheel, and, since, additional bureaucracy is undesirable in the implementation of the action plans, we have to take particular care that it is avoided.
I will conclude by thanking our rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, for her dedication and for her cooperation, which really has been good and constructive.
Mr President, I should like to begin by echoing what was said in this excellent debate and by thanking all of the speakers. Inland navigation is not, as you said, an added extra. It is a genuine option, and we need modes of transport other than roads in today's Europe. I am therefore fully determined, just as determined as your rapporteur and yourselves. Nevertheless, you are right: we cannot just make declarations; we need to act. I am therefore going to provide you with a few answers.
Let us begin by focusing on the innovation fund: the Commission services, together with representatives of the profession and the Member States, are currently looking into the possibility of creating a fund for innovation in the field of inland waterway transport. This fund would be an important instrument for implementing the NAIADES programme. We are examining different options, such as how this fund can be sustained by the inland navigation sector, the Union and the Member States. The Commission will draft a report on the state of play and on the results of the assessments in 2007. You did in fact place great emphasis on this innovation fund, Mrs Wortmann-Kool.
On the issue of pollution from ships, it is true, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that we must think about reducing the level of sulphur in the fuel used for inland navigation purposes, but we must not go too far. The idea is to bring this level of sulphur down to the level of the diesel fuel used in road transport. This reduction in the sulphur level is key to reducing air pollution. We are carrying out a review of the directives on air pollution with the aim of substantially reducing this sulphur level. However, I have taken full note of what you said about the investments required to that end.
Mrs Lichtenberger, you asked me about the monitoring of dangerous transport. On this point, I should like to make it clear to you that a proposal is currently the subject of an interservice consultation and is due to be adopted before the end of the year. As a general rule, the improvement of infrastructure, Mr Meijer, will be accompanied by impact studies, in order to reduce as far as possible any harmful effects of infrastructure works.
Generally speaking, I would say to all of the speakers that infrastructure obviously requires investment. This investment is the responsibility of the Member States. Nevertheless, it is true - and I am addressing you, in particular, Mrs Ayala - that we have proposed in the financial regulation to prioritise inland waterway transport by providing for a 30% cap. May I call for Parliament's help, Mr President, in adopting this financial regulation? I am well aware that there is some reluctance on the part of the Member States, but I am sure that Parliament will give priority to the inland waterways.
There are undoubtedly other solutions to propose, but my aim with these few answers was to tell you that my intention was obviously to act. As you pointed out, we, in Europe, have several magnificent waterways, such as the Danube, and I have taken note of your comments about the need to involve all those who live along the Danube. I must say that we are aware, Mr Rack, of the importance of these waterways and of the major role that they can play in the future.
That, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to say to you, in the hope that we can carry out this crucial work together and accord Europe's waterways the full importance they deserve.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.