Type-approval of hydrogen powered motor vehicles (debate)
The next item is the report by Anja Weisgerber, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of hydrogen powered motor vehicles and amending Directive 2007/46/EC - C6-0342/2007 -.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again, we are talking about the car of the future - a topic that the European Parliament has already dealt with intensively this week in another connection.
Today we are discussing a technical opportunity that may be able to help us solve the environmental problems caused by vehicles. Let me repeat: it is something that may be able to help us. We do not know whether its potential can be implemented on a large scale, but we should make the most of the opportunity. That is what this is all about.
We all agree that sustainable mobility will be one of the key challenges that we will have to tackle in the years to come. We do not want to restrict the right of European citizens to individual mobility. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that this right to individual mobility - plainly speaking, the right to drive cars, to own and use a car - must be exercised in such a way that it does not destroy our environment, and that means that we need cars that do not harm the environment.
A comment in passing: it is not just because of the state of the environment that this is essential and urgent; it is also becoming increasingly important in economic terms. The traditional internal combustion engine is out of date because fuel consumption is so high. We must do everything possible to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels wherever it occurs.
Against this background, the question arises of whether we can facilitate the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. That is the idea that led to the suggestion made by the Commission, namely type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles.
I should like first to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Weisgerber, for her constructive, successful work on this proposal. I am delighted that, thanks to her work, agreement at first reading was possible.
At this stage, we do not know which technology is best for sustainable mobility. If you read the newspapers and watch television, you are confronted with a different conclusion every day. While some talk of fuel cells, others enthuse about the electric car, and still others mention innovative high-performance batteries. There are many options to compete with hydrogen power; electric engines and fuel cells at the very least.
Our task is to stipulate the necessary safety regulations for promising technologies while maintaining strict technological neutrality. Obviously, hydrogen is one of these technologies. Hydrogen can replace conventional fuel and make a sizeable reduction in the harmful effects of road traffic on the environment. However, I would like to add, in brackets, that all these considerations make sense only if we can produce hydrogen in an environmentally friendly way. If hydrogen is produced using dirty energy, then all we are doing is shifting the problem.
The proposed regulation will integrate hydrogen powered vehicles into the European type-approval system. That way, hydrogen powered vehicles will be treated like traditional vehicles, in that a single permit will be sufficient for the entire European Union. This permit process is less cumbersome and much more affordable. Manufacturers can take care of all the formalities at a single point of contact, thus making considerable savings. This makes European industry more competitive and means less administrative hassle.
Hydrogen has different properties to conventional fuels such as petrol and diesel, so the proposal makes a priority of determining the necessary safety requirements. In particular, we must ensure that storage of hydrogen in the vehicle is absolutely safe. This regulation will make all hydrogen powered vehicles put on EU roads as safe as conventionally powered vehicles. Hopefully this will also increase the public's faith in unfamiliar new technologies. The proposal also introduces a system for identifying the vehicles, so that they are easily recognised by rescue services.
Close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission has had a positive effect on the outcome of the negotiations, so that I can only agree with all the proposed modifications your rapporteur, Mrs Weisgerber, has made.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, fossil fuels are finite. Demand is increasing, pushing prices up - we see that every day at the petrol station. The expectation that oil, natural gas and coal will run out in the future is one reason for the rising prices. Therefore, we need to start immediately to investigate technologies that could replace fossil fuels in the future.
One of these alternatives - and the Commissioner quite rightly emphasised that it is only one, but it is an alternative - is hydrogen technology. Naturally, hydrogen vehicles are not yet ready for the market, but a variety of projects are under way to change that. The EU 'highways' project has just been completed, with an encouraging report.
EU research ministers set up a long-term public-private partnership in February with the aim of getting hydrogen and fuel-cell technology ready for the market between 2015 and 2025. It is planned to invest a total of approximately EUR 940 million in this research programme in the next few years, with public authorities and private investors contributing half each.
We see that the stage is set for hydrogen vehicles to be ready for the market. The fact that the price of fuel cells is still high cannot be used as an argument against hydrogen technology, as that is the way with all technologies of the future. The first 0.5 megapixel digital camera was developed many years ago for space travel and cost around EUR 10 million, but nowadays, almost everyone has a digital camera.
The present regulation will, in the future, provide harmonised technical regulations for the approval of hydrogen powered vehicles throughout Europe for the first time. Unified criteria are essential if this technology is to be promoted and a high level of safety and environmental protection maintained.
Hydrogen powered vehicles are not included in the EC type-approval system at present, so Member States can issue one-off permits for this type of vehicle. This is done in some Member States, but in others it is completely unknown. With permits being issued in this way, there is a risk that each Member State will set its own permit conditions and the internal market will be disrupted. This would lead to high costs for manufacturers as well as to safety risks.
Hydrogen is one of the energy vectors of the future. Therefore, our task, which we are fulfilling by adopting this regulation, is to establish the political framework conditions for the use of this technology of the future by creating unified approval criteria. I am glad that, across the parties, we have managed to achieve agreement at first reading, and that the cooperation with the Council and the Commission was so good. My thanks for the excellent cooperation go therefore to the shadow rapporteurs; I would also like to mention Mr Bulfon and Mr Manders by name. That is what made agreement at first reading possible. Our focus was on the issue of labelling hydrogen powered vehicles.
Hydrogen powered vehicles are just as safe as passenger cars powered by diesel or petrol. Under the regulation, they will have to pass safety tests that are just as strict as those for all other vehicles. However, it makes sense for rescue services to know if they are dealing with a hydrogen vehicle when they arrive at the scene of an accident, so that they can take certain details into account. This should not mean that hydrogen powered vehicles are viewed adversely because, as I have already said, they are just as safe as vehicles that run on other fuels. That is a very important point that I want to get across today.
We therefore suggest that hydrogen vehicles should bear discreet labels on the components that contain hydrogen. Working with the Commission and the Council, we made further improvements to the Commission's text and substituted 'identification' for the word 'label', because in the long term, this label should and could be replaced by electronic identification that involves an intelligent emergency call system called 'eCall'.
Other questions also arose. At the end, perhaps, I will return briefly to the question of hydrogen filling station infrastructure but for now, I am looking forward to the lively discussion and am eager to hear what you have to say.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (SL) I would like to thank my colleague Dr Weisgerber for her excellent report and express my satisfaction that we have reached such a high degree of consensus with the Council so quickly. This regulation puts us convincingly on the side of the new energy and environment policies, which will certainly have a positive effect on public health too. I agree with the Commissioner that we have to take full advantage of this opportunity. This regulation is one of the opening moves; it is part of the answer to contemporary energy and environmental challenges, where hydrogen plays one of the key roles. We do not mean just hydrogen alone, but hydrogen as well, and not just individual Member States, but the entire European Union.
It is very important to engage correct dynamics to provide the entire implementation context. In this we should also take into account everything that our citizens are considering, starting with the infrastructure. The dynamism of development, and especially the problem of the rapid development of new technologies, is very important in this exceptionally demanding energy situation. I see very significant possibilities for the new technologies, in the sense that they enable the decentralised production of hydrogen to take place; also, if solar technology is involved, it is actually possible to disperse production of, and reduce dependency on, the currently known energy sources. It is my opinion that the Commission could successfully promote and accelerate development in this direction.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I want to warmly thank Anja Weisgerber as the rapporteur on behalf of the committee and, of course, as a member of my own group who, once again, I think, has shown her mastery of complex, technical dossiers, having also worked very effectively on a number of the emission dossiers as rapporteur for the opinion. But I am delighted now that she has her own report, and I congratulate her on the very thorough way that she has approached this important task. I know how much work is involved, having been the rapporteur myself on the overall Type Approval Directive.
I also want to thank Günter Verheugen and his team in the Commission for moving very quickly and in a timely way to give us this important proposal, which will effectively incorporate into the master Type Approval Directive the specific requirements for hydrogen vehicles. I think, by the way, that shows the important of finally having now achieved this common type approval framework for motor vehicles, that we have the flexibility to be able to respond and include these new developments in it.
In that connection, I just want to emphasise what a number of colleagues have said already, but particularly from my perspective, having worked with the Commission as a Member of this Parliament on the Cars 21 group, which was formed to put in place a competitive automotive regulatory strategy for the 21st century - that is what Cars 21 meant - and this is clearly a 21st-century proposal. But the important thing is that it gives the manufacturing industry - but not just the big manufacturers, the many companies who are involved in developing the systems and components that will help move forward the hydrogen-powered vehicles - it will give them a clear legislative framework within which to work now. They do not have to wait for it. That is a huge benefit, and it means that we will have one framework for Europe - one framework - and that means that, if you then comply with those requirements, you can sell your vehicle everywhere else.
But, actually, this is not enough, and I am pleased that Anja has included in her report a specific request to the Commission to say, 'We want to make hydrogen vehicle safety requirements global requirements. Across the world people are working on hydrogen vehicle standards. It is absolutely the right time to put that into the global vehicle working party, because we should start as we mean to go on and have that set of global standards for hydrogen vehicles. At the same time, we want Europe to be a leader in developing those technologies, and we can achieve both with the foundation of this proposal.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, an EU-wide, unified permit procedure for hydrogen powered vehicles would overcome at least one of the barriers to the development of environmentally friendly forms of mobility. There are already several promising projects in the area of local public transport, which mean that series production of hydrogen powered passenger cars is not far away at all. However, we have to ask how the hydrogen will be obtained. Whether the final result, in terms of CO2, is favourable depends very much on how hydrogen will be produced in the future. It is no use if manufacturing it produces more CO2 than is saved by hydrogen power. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the appropriate filling station infrastructure is created and built, because even hydrogen powered cars have to be filled up. This is a challenge for the Member States, particularly.
The clear guidelines in this report create a legal framework that facilitates the further development of this promising technology and many other innovations. The president of this Chamber, Mr Pöttering, has reported on hydrogen powered vehicles from his own experience. It would be worth considering using his experience to adapt Parliament's fleet accordingly - at least it is a suggestion worthy of consideration.
Finally, I would like to thank Mrs Weisgerber most sincerely for her warm cooperation in the assembly and production of this report.
in the name of the ALDE group. - (BG) The inclusion of hydrogen-driven vehicles in the overall normative framework of the European Community is of exceptional importance, because the currently existing statutory procedures on type approval do not guarantee that vehicles of identical quality can be released on the entire market of the European Union.
The adoption of an European Union regulation would guarantee that all hydrogen-driven vehicles released on the market are manufactured, tested and identified in accordance with a common standard and that their safety level is at least the same as that of conventional motor vehicles. The common regulation would also guarantee alignment of the efforts to introduce hydrogen as a fuel in an energy sustainable manner so that the common environmental balance from the introduction of hydrogen as a fuel in the case of motor vehicles would be positive. The all-European regulation should also provide common requirements in respect to the monitoring of these motor vehicles and the necessary infrastructure - the fueling stations.
The adoption of a regulation of the European Union would also guarantee application of the common standards in respect to the production and exploitation of hydrogen-driven vehicles manufactured in third countries - the United States, the Asian Economic Community - and would help defend the interests of Europe.
Let me point out that at the lack of action at European Union level member-states would adopt differing standards in respect to hydrogen-driven vehicles, which will lead to an unfavourable situation concerning the common market, saving on costs as a result of large-scale production and delay in the development of the vehicles.
At the moment when one, only one approval will suffice for each type of vehicle so that it could be released on the European Union market, EU member-states should open up for hydrogen-driven vehicles. Approval will accelerate the introduction of this environment-friendly technology powering vehicles, which in turn will allow the environmental benefits from using hydrogen-driven vehicles to appear sooner.
Last, but not least, investment in the production of hydrogen-driven vehicles, of the materials for their manufacture and the means of their monitoring would receive additional impetus, which would contribute to the faster introduction of the hydrogen technology in European Union countries.
Madam President, Commissioner, the introduction of hydrogen powered vehicles will have an impact on environmental and health protection and on the greenhouse effect, and is of political and economic significance given the shortage of traditional hydrocarbon fuels. The main step that needs to be taken so that they can be introduced is to establish a directive on type-approval of hydrogen powered motor vehicles. I have two comments to make concerning the draft directive and amendments.
Firstly, the draft excludes the need to check the instructions for servicing and use when type-approval is being performed. Hydrogen fuel, with its very high energy value, is a particularly hazardous product, and vehicle users will be dealing with it for the first time.
Secondly, the setting in the draft of a review date of one year from its establishment in order to give consideration to conclusions arising from its functioning and established international norms in this area.
The Union for Europe of the Nations Group supports the introduction of the directive. I thank Mrs Weisgerber for a businesslike report.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, on reading the explanatory statement for the regulation under discussion, I was unpleasantly surprised. On the one hand, hydrogen allows for the storage of energy and, on the other hand, it practically eliminates a significant proportion of emissions. The Directive, however, provides for categorisation according to traditional systems. Put more simply, this involves the use of hydrogen through combustion.
Apart from the problem of combustion of a methane-hydrogen mixture, something which I know about since my dissertation concerned combustion, it would be necessary for normal engines to also use urea to achieve clean combustion products in accordance with EURO 5 to 6 for the elimination of nitrogen oxides.
One of the objectives of the European Union is to expand the use of hydrogen in transportation in the near future and there should be dramatic growth by 2020. It is true that the technical problems associated with the storage and handling of hydrogen require clear, unified regulations, including the labelling of systems working with hydrogen. I fully agree with the rapporteur on this. I should also like to point out that many countries prohibit parking vehicles with pressure vessels in enclosed spaces, especially underground car parks. Simple labelling is essential for this too.
Hydrogen fuel cells are one of the promising experimental vehicle drive systems. Many cities in the European Union have long been operating buses using this energy source. I believe that the regulation under discussion will provide for the unification of the basic requirements for hydrogen powered motor vehicle equipment. I hope that it will provide a better framework for the further rapid development and operational verification of the different components of hydrogen vehicle systems. It should considerably speed up the practical usage of hydrogen cells in particular but hydrogen must not be widely used in 'traditional systems', in other words combustion engines, as this makes no sense to me. With this proviso, I warmly recommend approval of the document on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Weisgerber's report is a perfect example of they way European politics adapts to changing markets and moves quickly to create proactive standards and legal bases for technological innovations. The Council intends to deal with standardisation in a few months and draw conclusions on that. In that discussion, the questions of how quickly standards respond to technological progress, how quickly legislators respond to technological progress and how quickly standards adjust to economic reality will once again play a role. I believe that this report on type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles will make Europe the trailblazer of a unified regulatory platform for the development of hydrogen powered vehicles.
It is a valid point that it has still not been determined whether, in the end, the use of hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles will conform to the principle of sustainability and be ecologically sustainable, but nor can it be excluded yet. Therefore, I believe that, with this report, we are creating a good foundation for further research for the leading research institutes in the European internal market and particularly for the leading enterprises. This is particularly important given the background of the discussion on CO2 policy for vehicles and the desire to achieve greater diversity amongst the various technologies in order, ultimately, to establish with certainty which vehicle and which engine technology is best for the environment and for people.
From the point of view of the internal market, I think we should particularly welcome this report, because a truly integrated internal market can be achieved only by harmonising type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles in the different Member States to make the most of the synergy effects of this market. As was pointed out earlier on, any worldwide type-approval should naturally also be founded on this basis. We hope we will get it all sorted out. Wishing you every success!
Madam President, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Weisgerber, and the shadows for producing this report and negotiating a very good agreement with the Council and the Commission, while preserving Parliament's priorities. At a time when petrol prices in Europe have doubled and citizens in Europe and people around the world are ever more concerned about the effects of climate change, it is clear that we need new hope for future fuels.
This European-wide law on hydrogen-powered cars can pave the way for full-scale production of these cars and provide European drivers with real alternatives in the not too distant future. Sales of alternative-fuel vehicles, for example, in the United Kingdom alone have grown from just a few hundred in the year 2000 to over 16 000 last year. Sales of electric cars and other alternatives have soared, but hydrogen cars are only on the cusp of large-scale production. I believe that this new law will boost the development of these vehicles, while ensuring they are reliable and safe. With the help of the law, mass production is now predicted to start in Europe by 2015, with around 5% of total EU road stock set to be hydrogen-powered by 2025.
The environmental benefits of hydrogen cars will depend on the energy source used to produce the hydrogen. They can directly tackle air pollution caused by petrol and will reduce our dependence on oil, but they will only help tackle global warming if hydrogen is produced in a sustainable way. That is why I strongly back Mrs Weisgerber's negotiated amendments to ensure hydrogen fuel is produced sustainably and, as far as possible, from renewable energy.
It is important to stress that hydrogen-powered cars can be just as safe as those that run on petrol and, in the event of an accident, emergency crews need to know what they are dealing with. That is why Mrs Weisgerber has ensured that vehicles will be readily identifiable by emergency services. This legislation does what only the European Union can do in a strong internal market. It ensures a European-sized market for goods with common rules and high safety requirements. It is this market that is capable of producing the hydrogen cars of the future and I believe this law today, when we vote for it, is crucial to achieving that goal.
(LT) The Commission proposal on type-approval of hydrogen powered motor vehicles is very important for solving the problems related to the search for alternative vehicle fuels, environmental protection, climate change and people's health. I would like to draw your attention to a few issues that are of great importance in the development of hydrogen powered vehicles.
Firstly, the main problem of hydrogen powered vehicles lies not in the vehicle manufacturing process itself, but in refuelling. So far there are only about 40 hydrogen filling stations in the whole of Europe. There are two such filling stations in France, for example, and one in Spain, while there are none at all in the new Member States that joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007. In the United States, only California has a significant number. That is why I agree with the speaker that it is necessary to create a standardised hydrogen filling station network across the whole of the EU as soon as possible. Without appropriate infrastructure, hydrogen powered vehicles will remain unitary.
Secondly, hydrogen is merely an energy carrier, not an energy source, and that is why it is important that hydrogen fuel is produced in a stable and environmentally friendly way. We need to be more active in carrying out scientific research that would lead to avoidance of the use of fossil fuels and suggest alternative methods of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. One such method could be photolysis, although thorough scientific research still needs to be carried out here. Furthermore, pollution-free hydrogen production would allow it to be used in areas outside transport.
Thirdly, I agree with the Commissions proposal to use mixtures of natural gas and hydrogen, but only as a transition fuel and only in countries that have a well-developed natural gas infrastructure. I would also like to emphasise that the United States and Canada are leading the way in the field of development and manufacture of hydrogen powered vehicles, while Japan is catching up, and we ourselves should not fall further behind.
(PL) Madam President, a future with hydrogen powered cars is an exciting prospect. Although much time has yet to pass before this technology is widely applied, it is nevertheless of exceptional importance that the regulations on their type-approval are harmonised now.
The principal objective of the regulation we are looking at today is to introduce EU criteria for the type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles in order to ensure the proper functioning of the market. The different type-approval criteria in individual Member States are currently hampering the functioning of this market, causing an unnecessary rise in production costs, threatening safety and - something we must not forget - constituting a significant barrier to the development of hydrogen technology in the EU. In particular, we must not allow this point to pass us by because hopes for the substitution of oil in the transport sector lie specifically with hydrogen, along with biofuels and electricity. Perhaps the most important thing, however, is that the process of hydrogen combustion gives rise not to carbon dioxide, a substance that is still harmful to the environment, but to water, with the obvious consequence being to cut down on air pollution and reduce CO2 emissions, something to which we are devoting a great deal of effort, not least within the forum of the European Parliament.
Clearly the attainment of all these objectives will depend on the spread of these technologies, which - as the rapporteur, whom I congratulate on a very good report, rightly points out - depends, among other things, on the existence of a network of hydrogen filling stations. Such stations should come into being at the same time in all Member States to enable every European consumer to have access to them. I also hope that vehicle manufacturers will respond to rising consumer demand for hydrogen powered vehicles so that a common market in this sphere can function properly.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this is a good example of how politics is able to take action, because type-approval permits for hydrogen powered vehicles will be available in the future, even though the technology itself is not yet available.
We talk a lot about reducing CO2 produced by vehicles, particularly trucks. This could be one way of reducing CO2 emissions, but it is important - and I am speaking as a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for which I was the shadow rapporteur - that we generate the hydrogen from renewable energies. This also offers the possibility of storing energy from renewable sources, which we could then use for vehicles, and that would be a good direction to take. We should continue to concentrate on this in future.
However, it is also important to create a filling station infrastructure. We see, for example, that the infrastructure for CNG vehicles is still very patchy. The vehicles are available but the customers, the drivers, are still holding back from purchasing them because availability of the fuel is not guaranteed. We need to keep the focus on that in future discussions.
(PL) Madam President, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, and also the Commission, on an initiative that is aimed at seeking out new power sources for vehicles and sources from which energy may be obtained.
There are three important objectives: firstly, our continuing escape from dependence on oil. The second objective relates to CO2 emissions. Finally, the third objective - and this is an important one - is to stabilise and lower the costs of vehicle use for those using them.
In my view, the document under discussion covers three areas, and these are: one - the labelling of hydrogen powered vehicles; two - requirements for filling stations (their siting and introduction). Finally, the third area that I consider important is the safety of operation of hydrogen vehicles. This regulation firstly establishes a legal framework that lays down how we should utilise this energy and secondly provides the infrastructure requirements, ensuring that the basic ex ante conditions for developing the new technology are essentially met.
(RO) In the transport sector, constant efforts should be made towards introducing alternative fuel vehicles in the market, which contribute to the significant improvement of air quality in the urban environment.
Common standards for the approval of hydrogen-powered engines are required in order to guarantee the safe use of hydrogen for vehicle propulsion. The use of hydrogen as fuel, either as fuel cells or as internal combustion engines, generates no carbon emissions or greenhouse gases. The type-approval of hydrogen powered motor vehicles is based on the specification and meeting of the technical requirements for hydrogen-based components.
Taking into consideration the characteristics of hydrogen, vehicles require specific treatment from rescue services. I emphasize the need for Member States to invest in the infrastructure required for the storage and distribution of alternative fuels, without which the number of less polluting vehicles cannot increase significantly.
(PL) Madam President, as I wished to keep within the time limit, namely one minute, I failed to get across an important point, which I would like to emphasise as an advantage of the solution. This is that we are coming up with a proposed solution well ahead of time, creating conditions for modernity. This may also mean an incentive to look for even more technologies, and for that reason I would like to express recognition for both Commissioner Verheugen and the Commission.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to see that this debate has shown broad consensus in many respects: firstly, a broad consensus that hydrogen technology is an interesting potential way of helping to solve our energy problems; secondly, consensus that hydrogen technology is a potentially interesting option for road traffic; and thirdly, a very wide consensus that, of course, hydrogen technology in general makes sense only if the overall ecological effect is positive - that is, if hydrogen is made from clean sources of energy. That is a very important result.
I would also like to inform you that the Commission has placed particular importance on the development of hydrogen technology in the 7th Framework Research Programme. EUR 800 million have been made available for research into hydrogen technology, and not only for vehicles, in a joint technology initiative. I want to avoid giving the impression that we are spending EUR 800 million to enable research into hydrogen as a fuel technology. That is only part of the project; overall, the project is about creating clear principles in terms of the extent to which hydrogen can actually contribute to drastically reducing our society's CO2 emissions.
Along with the President of this Parliament, Mr Pöttering, I had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen powered vehicle for a time. My personal impression was that the technical problems connected with the use of hydrogen in vehicles have basically been solved. The technology is there. It can be done. What is totally lacking - and this has been mentioned several times already - is the infrastructure.
I can imagine that, once this proposal has been accepted and provided encouragement to the industry, we will then have to deal with the question that Mr Bulfon also raised in this debate. That is the question of whether perhaps those who run large fleets of vehicles used mainly locally, such as parliaments, including this Parliament, national parliaments, governments, and the European Commission, should set a good example as soon as practicable and, through their procurement policies, facilitate the bringing onto the market of vehicles of this type. At the moment that is still only a pipe dream, but it is something we should think about when the time comes.
Let me thank the rapporteur again for her truly excellent work, as well as all the speakers from the groups and committees, who have shown that we have a common vision here of what the future for vehicles in Europe could look like.
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the very interesting speeches. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission, the representatives of the Council and the staff for their fantastic cooperation, which was the key to achieving this political unity at first reading.
As we have seen, hydrogen is a technology of the future. Hydrogen can be part of the answer to the challenges posed by climate change and the need to reduce emissions. It is a clean alternative to fossil fuels and the use of hydrogen as an energy vector - as has been stated, it is indeed an energy vector - is totally sustainable if it is produced from renewable energies or nuclear energy. This is the direction we have to take in the coming years.
I am fascinated by the idea of having a totally hazard-free hydrogen cycle in which hydrogen is ultimately produced from renewable energies and then vaporised. It is truly fascinating. I supported this technology long before I came to the European Parliament, and have also worked voluntarily on it for a long time.
Today we have set things going in the right direction. We have created the necessary preconditions so that we can eventually have unified type-approval regulations. We have also shown the way to an international type-approval regulation and set the future direction for research and development.
The technology is already here, as Commissioner Verheugen has rightly said. Now we must deal with the other questions relating to infrastructure. The question of filling station infrastructure will be handled by a public-private partnership. Perhaps then we will find that it will not be long before hydrogen powered vehicles are on our streets, and not just as prototypes.
Thank you once again for the good cooperation.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (SK) Reserves of raw materials for the production of traditional hydrocarbon fuels are constantly declining and therefore the subject of research and development of new alternative drive systems in the motor vehicle industry is most urgent.
The EU Seventh Framework Programme allocated EUR 800 million for research into hydrogen technology. On the basis of research, hydrogen appears to be the ideal alternative to traditional fossil fuels. The use of hydrogen as a future fuel in road vehicles offers a solution which is exceptionally favourable for the environment. It causes zero emissions of carbon compounds and greenhouse gases. The first prototype cars have already been successfully tested in the European Economic Area.
In order for the internal market to be able to operate and also to provide a high degree of safety for the population and environmental protection, there is a need to lay down European-wide rules for the design of hydrogen powered motor vehicles. Unified approval rules throughout the EU are the minimum prerequisite for placing hydrogen powered vehicles on the market. The successful introduction of new technologies also depends on the timely construction of an appropriate network of hydrogen filling stations.
I believe that today's debate will improve the confidence of European consumers in the use of new technologies in the motor vehicle industry and increase the share of such vehicles on the European market.
I am convinced that only a technically well-prepared EU will be able to achieve success in competition with the USA, Japan and Korea where there has been considerable activity in this field. In view of this, I consider this initiative to be very positive.
(The sitting was suspended at 11 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.)


24. European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (
Before the vote:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have reached an agreement with the Council and the Commission concerning Amendments 37 and 52. The compromise refers respectively to the financing of small non-governmental organisations and the maximum level of financing of NGOs. The Commission and the Council have agreed to include a statement with the first-reading agreement and I would like to ask the Commissioner, whom I do not see here, but he made the declaration last night during the discussion; he presented the statement included with the agreement... I do not know if there is anyone here who wants to present the agreement on behalf of the Commission. In any case, I would like to ask my colleagues, provided that they agree with this statement, to vote in favour of the report so that we can proceed with the first reading vote.


Situation in Ukraine (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


24. Black Sea fisheries (


Explanations of vote
in writing. I welcome the Busk Report which should lead to significant simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy. While I want to see further reform of CAP I accept the Rapporteur's argument that this should not be by the "back door".
in writing. (SV) It is good that the legal framework is being simplified, but both export subsidies and other aid in the form of intervention also remain in place. That is a state of affairs that I can never accept, and I am therefore abstaining in the vote.
in writing. - (FR) I question the reasoning behind the Commission's action which, despite the quite appealing appearance of concern for the simplification of administration, is liable to take less account of the specific details of certain modes of production. I also find it regrettable that neither my fellow Members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development nor I have had the time to study, under the right conditions, the Commission's proposal, as a consequence of the diabolical timetable laid down by the Presidency of the Council. This whole process was worthy of being considered in greater depth within the European institutions, and I find it regrettable that more time could not have been found for a subject of such fundamental importance.
It is for that reason I decided to abstain from the final vote.
in writing. (SV) The European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has again prepared a report opposed to reform of the common agricultural policy.
We wish to abolish the common organisation of the market in cereals. However, we support the Commission's proposal, as opposed to the approach of the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, because the said committee now wants to oppose the abolition of maize intervention.
The June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of providing heavy subsidies to all the various farming groups.
I voted for the Glattfelder Report on the Common organisation of the market in cereals not because I entirely support its contents but because it is in line with CAP reform. I also accepted as a compromise the phasing out of public interventions to support cereal crops.
in writing. - (FR) Reform of the system for intervention in support of maize is a matter of necessity.
Although it is thought of as a safety rope in the event of difficulties and as a means of getting production flowing, the system is no longer - particularly in Hungary - playing only this primary role and constitutes nothing other than a business opportunity.
It must not, however, be abandoned overnight, and certainly not only on the basis of an economic study relating to two exceptional marketing campaigns, and based on the problems of one Member State, namely Hungary.
The Commission's proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of being premature and incapable of being managed by producers under favourable conditions. One must not treat speed and haste as being the same thing.
Limiting the quantity eligible to benefit from the intervention system and re-examination at the time of the health check would be a good compromise between the need to act and the need to take the time to do so.
Solutions to local problems need themselves to be local in nature, and Parliament's response to the radical and ill conceived measure proposed by the Commission shall be to propose progressive reform, reflection, listening to agriculturalists and a re-examination at the time of the health check.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall limit myself to pointing out the regrettable fact that the vote that has been taken in favour of our colleague will easily be overturned by the European Communities' Court of Justice, and the reason why this is so is that you have variable-geometry case law.
When the scandalous attempt was made to deprive Mr Le Pen of his mandate, you had recourse to national competence and were unwilling to confirm for yourselves that the French authorities were interfering with his rights. You saw fit to act similarly when it came to the verification of the credentials of another Member of this House, Mr Ruiz-Mateos, when, again, you had recourse to national law.
Yet now you want to defend the prerogatives of this House, and why ever not? In any case, the end product of your attitude was a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Communities which, unfortunately for you, found against you, thus confirming the truth of the Latin dictum, 'Hodie mihi, cras tibi' - my turn today and yours tomorrow. This House's acting as judge is defensible only if the House judges all its Members equally.
The issues raised in this report are complex and have far-reaching implications. At the heart of the matter is the sovereign power of Member States to nominate MEPs and to define how they are represented in the European Parliament within the context of the existing regulatory framework for elections to Parliament.
I do not wish to go into detail regarding a procedural and legal issue that rests exclusively with the Member State in question, but, according to the report before us, the Italian authorities have decided, on the basis of a decision by the Italian Council of State, to nominate a particular politician to the European Parliament whose credentials are called into question by this report.
We take the view that, given that all the criteria and conditions for the nomination of an MEP by a Member State have been met - at national and European Parliament level - the Member State in question should be allowed to proceed with the nomination, in compliance with the internal legal framework.
(DE) Mr President, I just wanted to make known that I abstained from the vote on CITES: not because I did not agree with many things contained in the resolution but because, as so often happens, this House is dictating to developing countries behaviour that seems right to us, but that those countries may not consider so appropriate. That is why I abstained.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement aimed at ensuring that the international trade in certain species of wild fauna and flora does not threaten their survival. 171 countries are signatories to the Convention, including Portugal, which ratified the text of the Convention in December 1980. It entered into force in Portugal in March 1981.
Given the vulnerability of many species, CITES is of acute importance. There are currently 5 000 animals and 28 000 plants protected by CITES including species found on Portuguese territory. The species covered by CITES are divided into three appendices according to the level of protection needed.
The legal trade in animals and plants has for a number of years constituted a serious threat to many species and, although many countries have stepped up the fight, and have become increasingly vigilant, the threat level unfortunately remains high.
As in other kinds of agreement and protection plans for wild species, the success of CITES also depends on the adoption of a balanced approach based on scientific criteria and recommendations by accredited bodies thus ensuring the validity and credibility of its actions and the effective implementation of the agreed recommendations.
The report views innovation as a variable in the internal market. It calls for the liberalisation of the markets and the systematic removal of obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and capital, to freedom of establishment and to the mobility of the workforce, all of which forms part of a capitalist approach based on competition and concentration.
In order to deal with the under-funding of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development, the report follows the trend of providing for the use of structural funds and seeks 'to promote and strengthen public-private partnerships', in other words to put public investment at the mercy of private profit.
What is needed is to promote public investment in research, education and innovation, on the basis of sustainable development strategies, in every country. This would help improve the quality of life, create jobs (with rights) and generate (fairly distributed) wealth. What are needed are strategies that oppose the commercialisation of knowledge, education and research and that oppose the idea that only highly profitable research, with market opportunities, can actually take place. What are needed are strategies that promote greater investment in education and training at all levels and that actually make it easier for SMEs to access existing programmes and actions.
(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. (PL) The report basically highlights the need for a broad innovation strategy in Europe, which would improve the competitiveness of its economy. The innovation strategy should be based on the creation of specialised areas of knowledge, the reform of patent laws and the introduction of tax incentives for companies investing in research and innovation.
In order to make the exchange of knowledge between research institutions and economic entities easier, the rapporteur sees a need to promote specialised areas of knowledge in the Member States, greater trans-border cooperation and more intensive cooperation with experts from third countries.
In keeping with the spirit of the report, I would say that the European Institute of Technology should create the necessary conditions for connecting centres of knowledge with companies by means of an emphasis on innovation and efforts to foster competition in economic sectors focusing on innovation.
Another important part of the report is the emphasis it places on the need to reform European patent policy. We cannot deny that reliable and fair copyright protection and patent systems are key elements for building an economy, and a society, that is based on innovation and knowledge.
I voted for the Gierek report but against all amendments which could have led to reviving discussions on the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive. Given the efforts to find a majority in the first place for this directive it would not have been helpful to reopen the debate.
There is a long-established idea that close relations between higher education and business can only benefit both parties. There is sometimes a discrepancy, however, between that idea and the reality. The public authorities are often engaged in creating conditions (depending on methods and times) that are conducive to scientific and academic research, but do not always do so - or do not always succeed in doing so - as effectively in the business community.
Support for innovation in the business sphere of course follows different rules and methods from those governing investment in research in the academic sphere. Even so, bearing in mind that a major part of innovation comes directly from business activity and from the quest for responses to what the market is looking for, I feel that this report by Parliament makes a useful contribution to the proposals contained in the Commission communication. Let us hope that the national and regional authorities make the most of these opportunities.
Mr President, I would like to explain the way I voted on Mr Gierek's report on innovation.
I voted in favour, since the rapporteur has done a difficult and necessary job on an issue that is crucial in terms of achieving the Lisbon objectives, but which we have yet to deal with.
In order to become an advanced knowledge-based society, not only do we have to be strong on technological research and development, that is to say on our capacity to generate, absorb, assimilate and communicate new knowledge and capacities to society and to companies, but we also have to be strong on the capacity to convert this knowledge into wealth and social well-being. That is innovation.
Not all of the EU's countries are at the same level in terms of the indicators defining a knowledge-based society, nor in terms of innovation efforts. Reducing these differences would benefit everybody.
Innovation is probably the only instrument that can enable us, within a reasonable space of time, to achieve such important objectives as:
1) Improving the quality and competitiveness of our companies;
2) Making economic growth compatible with preserving the environment, and with quality of life and social cohesion.
3) Innovation makes it possible to maintain traditional sectors;
4) Naturally, innovation can contribute to substantially improving working conditions and also the integration of certain groups, such as disabled people.
The most up-to-date economic analyses establish a direct relationship between research, development and innovation efforts and productivity, which is of particular interest to the majority of our countries with economies based on the services sector, for which productivity is perhaps one of their greatest weaknesses.
All of this is taken up to a greater or lesser extent in the report, and for that reason I have voted in favour.
I am voting in favour of Professor Adam Gierek's report on 'Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for Europe'.
At the moment, there is a great innovation divide in the world. On the one hand, there are countries who create 'innovation fronts', which group together the great majority of the scientific, research and development sectors, while on the other there are the sidelined countries, which can only participate as importers or countries where innovation is diffused. The world leaders in terms of innovation are the USA, Japan and the countries of the European Union, and the competition between these economies provides a stimulus for further innovation.
However, in the European Union, there has recently appeared a so-called 'innovation paradox'. Economic results for the Community can be seen as disappointing in view of the opportunities that the single European market offers. The plan to transform the EU into the 'most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'” is, on the one hand, a sign of the fact that the Union is aware of the need to fundamentally reform its social and economic system and, on the other hand, a sign of the ambitious and optimistic view that such change is possible.
In the report, the rapporteur very aptly points to the main reasons for this situation in the EU and, above all, highlights the need to develop an effective innovation strategy for Europe.
(CS) Today's recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council concerning the development of a strategic concept for tackling organised crime is an extremely important and welcome piece of news for Europe's citizens. It is proof that the Union is fulfilling its central role in an area that requires the closest possible international cooperation. Such cooperation is already working extremely well, but it is no longer enough. Terrorism and other forms of organised crime know no boundaries and are also, quite literally, exploiting the benefits of our democratic system. We must therefore weigh up what are the most important values in any given situation: combating crime or unfettered freedom. The time has come for us to cut back on our wonderful unlimited freedom in situations where that freedom prevents us from protecting the most precious thing of all, namely life itself. The time has definitely come to change tack and to remove some internal obstacles, including those which protect illegally acquired economic and financial resources. The Council must provide Europol and Eurojust with greater independence and authority. This is a new strategic task, and it is a responsibility that we have towards the 500 million citizens of the EU.
in writing. - (FR) I am happy that Mr Newton Dunn's own-initiative report has been adopted by a very large majority; for our House is thereby making several recommendations to the Council in respect of the drafting of a strategic concept for combating organised crime.
The abolition of internal borders between the Member States belonging to the Schengen area is certainly a major advance for our fellow citizens, but it is also helpful to organised crime, and so the European Union has a particularly important part to play in this area.
One fundamental and urgent requirement is that a policy of prevention be implemented and effective instruments put in place. If there is to be greater trust between states, and between their respective police forces in particular, then a great deal of progress needs to be made, and the countries from which we all come need to be pressed to set aside sufficient budgetary resources for their exchange and training programmes.
Finally, this House of ours has highlighted the need not only for victim and witness protection schemes to be reinforced, but also for the promotion of campaigns making public opinion more aware of the traffic in human beings.
For all these reasons, I have given the rapporteur my backing and have, in the final vote, cast my vote in favour of this report.
I welcome the report by Bill Newton Dunn on tackling organised crime. It is vital that the EU has the necessary tools to promote and strengthen a coordinated strategy to tackle organised crime. The roles of Europol and Eurojust need to be enhanced and the public need to be made more aware of the EU's role in this matter.
I voted for the report on the fight against organised crime presented by Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE, GB) because it will ensure that Europol's role as a criminal intelligence body is strengthened, allowing it to fulfil its task of providing Member States with information and intelligence leading to more effective results in preventing and combating organised crime.
The EU has always played an important role in the fight against organised crime and it is now necessary to provide the Union with a more powerful and ambitious instrument to work more closely with Member States to improve cooperation in order to combat organised crime more effectively.
More than a matter of choice or duty, the need for cooperation when it comes to fighting organised crime is clearly of practical value, as organised crime becomes more sophisticated, better equipped and more efficient in its use of the most up-to-date technology.
As well as the opening up of physical borders arising from the process of EU integration, one must be mindful of the fact that globalisation and its mechanisms also come into play when it comes to crime. As with all technological innovations, it is always open to being used for good deeds and bad. I therefore welcome the overall thrust of this report, which advocates enhanced cooperation and the need for a strategic approach that encompasses this fight and everything connected with it at all stages.
That being said, the recommendation will only prove useful, and be at its most effective, if in addition to passing laws, steps are taken aimed at actually enhancing mutual trust between the institutions responsible for fighting crime in the various Member States. Trust of this kind, which is not always in evidence, has been shown to be vital to the success of this mission.
in writing. - (FR) The European Union needs to equip itself with the instruments that will enable it to fight more effectively against organised crime, which knows no frontiers and is, lamentably, on the increase.
In view of organised crime's activities being spread over different areas, the European Union must coordinate and maximise the effect of its actions; while it must be able to respond, it must also put in place a policy of prevention. Putting this strategy in place will make for deeper understanding of problems and will make available the tools with which organised crime can better be fought, and one of our priorities is greater cooperation between the police in criminal matters by means of Europol, Eurojust and OLAF.
A multi-disciplinary approach is of primary importance if we are to find the best possible way to keep organised criminal gangs in check, for we need to dismantle such organisations, bring the criminals in them to justice and deny them the proceeds of their crimes. The fight against money-laundering and weapons trafficking is among Europe's priorities in this conflict, for these two types of organised crime serve the interests of terrorists.
in writing. - (EL) The report uses the existing problem of organised crime as a pretext to promote a harsher policy to restrict fundamental individual rights and strengthen the police state and the uncontrolled action of the repressive mechanisms of the ΕU.
Within this framework it proposes: the approximation of the criminal law provisions of the Member States, thereby paving the way for the 'communitisation' of criminal law and limiting one of the most important foundations of the national sovereignty of the Member States, the creation of joint investigation teams acting for the repressive mechanisms, the autonomy of Europol and Eurojust and the strengthening of their character and competences, so that they can act as a 'moving spirit' in the exercise of the policy of the Member States, the recognition of the fundamental role of the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and the adoption of an informant mechanism, calling for 'a formal status for collaborators of justice at European level'.
Of course, after all that, it is hardly surprising that the report makes no reference to the link between organised crime and state institutions and the repressive state mechanisms themselves, even though their underground relations are common knowledge.
It is clear that, ultimately, the real aim of the report is to 'combat' democratic rights and grassroot freedoms, not organised crime.
in writing. (SV) Because we believe that it is not at EU level that foreign policy should be conducted or, by extension, foreign policy statements made, we have voted against all the amendments and against the report as a whole. There is no doubt that many of the proposals are commendable in themselves, but neither the EU nor the European Parliament should have competence in these issues.
The European Parliamentary Labour Party is pleased to have been able to inject a degree of balance and impartiality into this report, which was severely lacking in the first draft presented to Committee.
In relation to amendments 16 and 34, we express our deep concern regarding the suspension of the Pakistan Chief Justice and subsequent unrest that has led to over 40 deaths. Protecting the independence of the judiciary is of vital importance in a modern democratic society. However, referring to this case is inappropriate in a report dealing specifically with the Kashmir dispute.
With regards to combating terrorism, we have supported the more constructive and forward-looking language in amendments 55 and 56, which acknowledge that there has been progress in decreasing the levels of infiltration by militant groups, but that further action needs to be taken in parallel with meaningful demilitarisation.
In voting for amendments 18 and 56, we reaffirm the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people, which can be expressed through a plebiscite when the conditions are right.
Reluctantly, I voted for this report. I recognise that it is radically different from the one-sided version originally put before the Foreign Affairs Committee and thank those involved for those changes. Kashmir is a region divided by history and has become a cause of conflict, which has been perpetuated at times by government and militant action on both sides of the Line of Control.
This is not simply an issue for governments but also for the Kashmiri people. I regret that Parliament did not vote to strengthen the commitment to the right of those people for self-determination through a plebiscite. I also regret that we did not strengthen our calls for the demilitarisation of the region. I recognise the role of insurgency but we must acknowledge that the Indian side has one of the highest ratios of military and security personnel to the population of any part of the world. We call for confidence-building measures and greater democracy: democracy cannot flourish in such circumstances. So, I wish the final report had been stronger on these crucial areas but I also recognise that this version now has a political value in EU relations with the peoples concerned.
I voted for this report, which is more balanced than the text put to Committee. I abstained on the amendment which expressed regret at the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan not because I disagree with the criticism but because I did not see it as relevant to this report. I voted for the amendment calling for a plebiscite at a future date because I believe that the people of Kashmir should be in charge of their own destiny.
Having visited Kashmir and seen some of the devastating effects of the past violence but also having seen a people ready for peace, I support this report based on the importance it has for the way the European Union seeks, by offering best practice measures and experience, to show other countries how an economic zone can develop peace and prosperity in regions that have a history of war.
I herald the confidence-building measures proposed in this report, in particular the joint monitoring cell for the sharing of data on seismic activity to provide early warning against possible earthquakes. I also see the importance of community development measures that will stimulate the economy and activate untapped economic resources in the region.
Furthermore, I believe it is of utmost importance that the region of AJK has proper representation in the Pakistani Government, which it does not yet have.
(LT) Mr President, first I would like to thank my colleagues who voted for the resolution on Estonia. Today's vote in the European Parliament showed that EU common foreign and defence policy is not just a declaration on paper or a collection of slogans. It showed that it is an operating policy. Today the European Parliament demonstrated something else too; namely, that solidarity in the European Union is alive and an operating principle. It is easy to declare and demonstrate solidarity when there are no problems and everything is fine. However, it is much more important and more complicated to implement solidarity at critical moments, in times of crisis. Today the European Parliament also showed that there is no disjuncture in the European Union between old and new, or large and small European Union Member States, and that there are no important or less important Members whose interests can be sacrificed for the benefit or interests of the large countries.
UKIP deplores the behaviour of Russia towards Estonia, but cannot vote in favour of any resolution from the EU Parliament whose legitimacy we do not recognise.
We are firmly opposed to the resolution adopted by Parliament today, which trivialises and obfuscates the true, serious significance of the recent events in Estonia and forms part of attempts to rewrite history. Hence our vote against the resolution.
The point must be made that the resolution fails to make any reference to acts of Nazism and Fascism in Estonia, such as the renewed veneration of collaborators with the Nazi occupiers, thereby hiding their participation in the brutal repression and systematic murder of thousands of people.
The recent decision to remove a World War II memorial in honour of those who lost their lives in the cause of defeating the Nazis and Fascists - entailing the removal of human remains - from the centre of Tallinn is a further provocation which forms part of this revisionism. The citizens of Estonia legitimately expressed their opposition to this decision and their actions were brutally repressed. Added to this provocation is the unacceptable discrimination towards large sections of the Russian-speaking Estonian population, who are refused citizenship by the authorities.
This is an issue that goes way beyond EU relations with the Russian Federation. All anti-fascists and democrats should join forces to express their indignation.
in writing. (SV) I support the resolution because we believe that Russian interference in what happened in Estonia is very serious and is unacceptable.
I do not, however, agree with paragraph 8. It is up to each sovereign state to decide whether or not a dialogue should be begun. Paragraph 7 comments on the Internet attacks carried out. These are very serious actions, but I do not believe that the EU should devise a plan in this connection, because the issue is best dealt with at Member State level.
I supported the resolution on Estonia, which showed solidarity with the country in the face of interference by the Russian authorities in the internal affairs of Estonia. In particular, I support the call on the Russian Government to respect the Vienna Convention on the protection of diplomats.
I voted against the compromise motion for a resolution on the recent events in Estonia, as did the left wing of the European Parliament, because it is governed by unilateral perceptions and because I believe that it is unacceptable for anyone to revise history, whatever they suffered from the Soviets. The monument whose removal was the cause of the demonstrations and tension is a monument to the victory over fascism. No one can call it otherwise in the name of opposition to Soviet sovereignty. The unilateral approach to the matter cannot be accepted. Not only does it not help to reduce the tension caused between Estonia and Russia, it feeds it.
in writing. (PL) The riots in Tallinn and the attack on the Estonian embassy in Moscow have made Member States aware of the current government's policy towards individual Member States. However, on this occasion, Moscow, which has adopted a very aggressive stance towards one of the smallest European countries, has bitten off more than it can chew. For the first time, Europe has presented a unified front towards Russia. This is an important day in the history of the European Union, as solidarity is one of the fundamental principles on which the Community is based. That is why I am pleased to have been part of the majority of Members who supported the adoption of the previously mentioned resolution.


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes