2. Common approach to the use of the spectrum released by the digital switchover (


Joint Undertaking for the European air traffic management system (SESAR) (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) - C6-0002/2006 -
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges on which you are invited to give an opinion is a thorough-going, high-quality report. I wish to thank Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, together with Mr Bradbourn, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Legal Affairs, for their support for the Commission's proposal on SESAR, a major European project.
Your report, Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges, coincides with the Commission's position, and we support most of your amendments. I shall not go into the details of the debate on all of the amendments that have been tabled, but limit myself instead to a few general remarks.
First of all, I note that Parliament and the Commission take the same view of the strategic importance of major technological and industrial programmes like SESAR and GALILEO. SESAR is a vital programme for the competitiveness of the European aviation industry. It forms part of the Community's technological innovation programme, which lies at the heart of the Lisbon Strategy.
In a sector as crucial for the European economy as this one, it is vital that public bodies and the private sector pool their resources to build together what will become the most efficient, most reliable and safest air traffic control infrastructure in the world. This public-private partnership requires a clear division of roles, together with transparent procedures, so that potential conflicts of interest can be pre-empted. The Commission therefore welcomes the amendments tabled by Parliament along these lines.
As regards some of Parliament's means of intervention, there is a matter of principle at stake. SESAR is a partnership between the public and private sectors, and the essential prerequisite for private sector participation is that the programme is managed as a business. Furthermore, and Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges highlighted this point very well in her report, voting rights in the Administrative Board of the SESAR joint undertaking must be balanced and weighted in proportion to financial contribution, which is one of the sound principles of good management in any private business.
It is accordingly difficult to accept Parliament's amendment aimed at gaining representation for Parliament on the Administrative Board. As Parliament is the Community's main budgetary control authority, it cannot perform its monitoring duties and, at the same time, sit even as a simple observer on a Board that it is charged with monitoring.
On a similar theme, the industry is keen for the choice of executive director to be based on objective criteria of experience and technical knowledge, rather than on political criteria. It is important to acknowledge that the SESAR joint undertaking is an instrument for managing a technological research and development programme and has no regulatory-type role.
Consequently, it would make no sense for Parliament to be directly involved in the process of selecting an executive director of the SESAR joint undertaking. The Commission does support, however, all amendments aimed at ensuring that Parliament be kept properly and continuously informed about the SESAR programme.
Madam President, I am delighted with Parliament's work. I am convinced that a few differences of opinion will not hamper our joint efforts to make this programme a success for the EU. I should like to add that the whole of our environmental policy will receive a further boost, insofar as SESAR means aircraft being able to take off on time and not needing to be stacked, with the result that energy will be saved and needless carbon emissions prevented. This is why, from all points of view - passenger safety, energy saving and environmental quality - SESAR is an absolutely vital project.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are today examining a report aimed at establishing a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR).
As the technical arm of the single European sky, SESAR is tasked with adapting air traffic control to new technologies, ensuring the safety and regulation of flights, organising air navigation services and defining the respective roles and responsibilities of surveillance authorities and service providers.
As you said, Commissioner, the project is, on various levels, of paramount importance to the future of European civil aviation. It is also one of the joint infrastructure projects identified by the 1994 European Council. We have already lost a good deal of time.
SESAR will be indispensable, given the fact that air transport, which contributes some EUR 220 billion to the European GDP and employs 3.1 million people, is set to more than double in the next 20 years. Given that, because of its old age, the reliability of the control equipment, whose technology dates back to the 1970s in some cases, can no longer be guaranteed, SESAR will have a major impact on safety.
The same goes for the environment. Once the project is up and running, it will be possible to make appreciable savings on fuel, due, on the one hand, to the optimisation of trajectories and better use of air space and, on the other, to a reduction in stacking. The Commission estimates that greenhouse gas will be reduced by 4% to 6% per flight. Passengers will also see their waiting times at airports reduced as a result.
The Commission is proposing the establishment of a joint undertaking. It is to get off the ground quickly, even before the end of the definition phase, which runs from 2005 to 2007, and is to receive some EUR 60 million in cofinancing from the Community budget and Eurocontrol. Between 2008 and 2013, the joint undertaking will take charge of the development phase with a budget of EUR 300 million per year divided between three partners - the Commission, Eurocontrol and a consortium of private businesses. Then comes the deployment phase, which will be taken charge of by the industry and which is predicted to last from 2014 to 2020.
This first public-private partnership in the field of civil aviation will bring numerous job opportunities. It will also be a major research and development project that may extend into markets outside the Union, provided this does not delay its entry into force. The enhanced cooperation procedure between our two parliamentary committees reflects the relevance of this project to two areas, namely research and transport networks.
The Commission based its project on Article 171, meaning that Parliament was not involved in codecision. I should like to mention, however, the positive spirit of collaboration with the Commission and to say that Parliament will keep a close eye on events and that it will do all it can to help even if it is not represented on the Administrative Board.
The amendments that we have introduced clarify the text as regards potential conflicts of interest. We also asked the Commission to produce a new document dealing solely with the third phase in order to dispel a significant proportion of the doubts raised by the first project.
SESAR is a project that will serve the citizens' interests, that will place the European civil aviation industry at the cutting edge of progress and that will enhance our competitiveness. The industry's interest in the project justifies its financial involvement, and the distribution of voting rights will have to prevent any cumbersome administrative procedures. Parliament believes it has done the right thing in keeping open the possibility of creating a levy given that the industry's contribution, supported by figures, has yet to be confirmed.
All that remains, Commissioner, is to express the hope that SESAR suffers neither the delays that affected Galileo, nor the debacle that beset Airbus, and that it shows that European research, Eurocontrol's know-how and the capacities of the industries concerned can come together in the interests of progress. Finally, it goes without saying, Commissioner, that the Member States will have to be prepared to organise the distribution of air traffic control on the basis of technological development.
To conclude, I should like to thank all those who contributed and, primarily, Mr Bradbourn, my co-rapporteur.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - Mr President, the SESAR project is one which will greatly benefit not just Europe's aviation sectors, but the consumer as well. When SESAR is launched, airline efficiency will be improved, with more direct routing, less congestion in the skies and greater reliability for passengers. The environment will also benefit from the system, because it will shorten routes and reduce stacking and thus reduce the CO2 emissions caused by aviation.
However, it strikes me that, with such an important project, it is unacceptable, given that the original single skies legislation was dealt with under codecision, for the implementation process only to be carried out under the consultation procedure. That surely raises the question as to why the Commission feels it can pick and choose about when to involve the only democratically elected EU institution in the development of such proposals. More worryingly, the Commission and Eurocontrol are attempting to accrue to themselves 60% of the voting rights on the Administrative Board.
The SESAR project should be driven by industry, not by bureaucrats. We cannot expect industry to pay for the development of a project when it will have little control over its direction. That is why I and the co-rapporteur on the lead committee, on behalf of our group, have tabled an amendment to reduce voting rights, to give industry and the air navigation service providers the incentive to be involved from the outset.
The SESAR project can help shape the future of European aviation. It can be a positive force for change if it is given the support of all players in the sectors on a fair and equal basis. I therefore call on the House to support our amendment to give this important project just the direction it needs.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, over the coming years, we will see more traffic on land, on water, and - above all - in the air as well, and more traffic means new problems, and more of them. The increase in quantity must be managed, the associated health and environment issues must be satisfactorily addressed, and all that will cost a lot of money.
What we need to deal with the issues I have just mentioned is above all intelligent solutions, new technologies and better logistics, and it is on these things that we actually ought to be concentrating today. Unfortunately, though, we have not got that far yet. A number of things are already in the pipeline, though, and one that springs to mind is Galileo. At present, though, we are still concentrating on preparatory matters such as: how the administrative organisation should be structured, what we should do about Eurocontrol, how to involve the private business sector in our project, and much else besides.
I would like to say a few things of an admonitory nature about public-private partnerships; it is right and proper that we should discuss these and focus on potential conflicts of interest, but we should be doing much more to get the business sector actually involved in our project. It has to be said, though, that previous experience with PPP models has scarcely ever been really successful. One exception I would point to - not least because we will be kicking off its successor in a few weeks' time - is the Marco Polo programme, where we managed to come up with the right mix of incentives for the private sector and the public interest, and that is the sort of thing we should concentrate on this time - more so than we did before.
Quite apart from all that, I want to say how very grateful I am to both rapporteurs for the work they have put in, and that I hope that we will, despite the question as to whether this House should exercise codecision or only be consulted on this issue, head for our goal with concentration and in unity. Perhaps we will manage to tighten up the timetables a bit. That would have a very, very beneficial effect.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DA) Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her sterling work on the report on a common European air traffic management system, SESAR. I agree that there is a need to develop a new generation of European air traffic system so that we might guarantee safe and smoothly flowing air traffic in Europe over the next 20 years. The current air traffic control systems are outdated and governed unduly by specific local conditions. They are, therefore, not especially suited to a rapid, reliable and economically sustainable development of air traffic in Europe. Therefore, SESAR is basically a sound initiative, which will make the air traffic management system in Europe more efficient. SESAR will mean safer and more efficient transport than is offered under current air traffic control systems, and at a reasonable price.
When, however, it comes to environmental considerations, the Commission proposal sheds insufficient light on the challenges posed by increasing air traffic over the next few years in Europe. SESAR must not merely guarantee the safe management of air traffic. The environmental advantages must also be present. I am therefore able to support the amendments emphasising that SESAR must lead to more energy-efficient air routes that require less fuel to be used and are kind to the environment.
Another important consideration is that it be made clear what benefit the Member States are to gain from SESAR, that is to say in terms of property rights to the material and non-material assets created through the SESAR Joint Undertaking. At the moment, it is not clear what is to happen regarding the rights of ownership of the assets produced through the SESAR Joint Undertaking when the ownership of SESAR is at some point transferred to industry. It is therefore crucial for the knowledge and assets created through SESAR continuously to be accessible to the constituent members for the purposes of their own, non-commercial product development. We do not want to end up in a situation in which all the Member States have standardised their technology in a European air traffic management system while, at the same time, the rights to this technology are owned by a private undertaking.
I would again thank Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges for her report and hope that, through our joint efforts, we can launch SESAR within the planned timescale.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work. We need a new-generation air traffic management system for Europe to improve air transport safety and environmental performance. SESAR will deliver what the archaic and fragmented current air traffic control technologies are incapable of.
The SESAR joint undertaking must be established now in such a way that we avoid unnecessary problems and delays further down the line. The approach of a public-private joint undertaking is still quite a new one and I hope that the Commission will be up-front and transparent on lessons learned from the Galileo joint undertaking. The SESAR joint undertaking needs to be reviewed periodically to make sure that the teething troubles experienced by Galileo are not repeated.
Parliament, as well as the Council, should be kept informed and consulted on issues such as the accession of new members and the appointment of the executive director. It was strongly felt in committee that the appointment of the executive director must be made following an open competition and on criteria of competence and experience. In no way should it be a political appointment or a perk.
The committee also stressed the ongoing importance of Eurocontrol. Its involvement is essential, given its experience and expertise.
Finally, on the issue of where the joint undertaking should be located, I agree with the original Commission proposal that for practical reasons the seat should be in Brussels. Opening up the seat as a discussion point would unnecessarily waste time and could prolong the establishment phase of the joint undertaking. This is a point which will not be lost on those MEPs who deplore the waste of time, money and energy caused by the failure to locate Parliament permanently in Brussels.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if it is used properly and enters into effect as soon as possible, SESAR will be able to make an important contribution to reducing the gases that are detrimental to climate. It will be possible, by means of good cooperation with weather services and proper arrangement of flying altitudes and speeds, to reduce not only the numbers of aircraft circling over cities while waiting to land, but also the condensation trails that more recent research highlights more emphatically as causes of climate problems.
Its efficient functioning is dependent on, among other things, the creation of regions of airspace that are well suited to helping to saving on fuel; it is unfortunate, though, that work on these is progressing very, very slowly, and this is an area in which Austria, like its northern and eastern neighbours, has work to do.
The organisational form was a major topic of discussion in our committee, and I do not believe that Eurocontrol should under any circumstances be marginalised. There needs to be some central body to defend the public interest - which includes, and must in our view include, such things as climate protection - and Eurocontrol is probably better suited to doing that than the votes of industry alone, and industry's participation in this area can be ensured by other means.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, air traffic above Europe is gradually beginning to come up against restrictions arising from the large concentration of airports and the need to cope with ever more aeroplanes taking off. Some of these problems have already been solved by means of the International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement and other legislation adopted at various levels. The issue of air traffic is solved mainly by means of an international convention on managing medium height air traffic above central Europe, which has yet to enter completely into force. The SESAR programme should pave the way for significant progress in this matter.
I should like to take this opportunity to raise two questions. The first concerns the funding of the projects. I feel that we should be very wary of using private capital, because this is one of the key projects in this area. It is important, in my view, that the lion's share of the funding should not come from the private sector. Funding should, rather, come from Eurocontrol charges and from the EU budget.
A second question which is certainly important and has long been left unresolved is the definition of the parts of the air fleet to which the new air traffic system will apply. The question of differentiating between aircraft and ultralights remains. There is a different classification in force in Europe to that in the United States. I should therefore recommend that the determining factor be defined in the charter of the joint undertaking as an aircraft standby weight of 600 kg. I believe that harmonising the definition in this way will be beneficial for future negotiations relating not only to air traffic but also to air transport as a whole. To conclude, I wish to say that my group firmly supports the SESAR project.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work. The problems of air traffic, which is currently growing at a rate of approximately 5% annually, demand a solution that is quick, comprehensive and effective but at the same time caters for the long-term perspective. If the necessary steps are not taken immediately, Europe's airspace will soon be in gridlock. It is therefore good that we are implementing the joint undertaking SESAR, which will serve aviation management and safe operation of European airports. I am pleased by the news that the measures will improve the punctuality of connections and air safety, as well as having a positive effect on the environment.
This undertaking should provide jobs for many highly-qualified people. The cofinancing of this project by the European Union and the private sector is a very important issue. I hope this project is approved, as it deserves implementation. It should, however, stimulate compatible solutions in other parts of the world. We should also continue to search for radically innovative solutions, for example, airborne air hubs.
Mr President, Commissioner, the SESAR is a very good idea, but you will, however, need to tell us directly something that not even you know: what will its scope be? Where is Europe's airspace on the southeast side? Do we know? We need to determine this space. A few months ago a Turkish military aeroplane shot down a Greek military aeroplane southwest of Rhodes in European airspace, while a passenger aeroplane from Egypt was flying overhead within eye contact. Can you imagine what might have happened?
How, therefore, shall we determine its scope, when the Turkish FIR rather than the Nicosia FIR apply when you pass over the northern section of Cyprus, which is a member of the European Union. First determine the scope and then we shall welcome the SESAR which, in all events, is designed to speed up passenger movements. Fine, we shall succeed in the air, but what is happening on the ground when, for various bottles, perfumes and so on, we delay another half an hour so that someone does not take an extra gramme of deodorant. This is all stupid and ridiculous. If you want to determine something properly, go the whole way.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of its contribution to employment and to doubling GNI in the next two decades, the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) will be one of the priorities of the EU and its Member States and a vital factor in meeting the challenges of the decades ahead. It will deliver security and fluidity in air transport at European and world level, and improve the functioning of the market, competitiveness, environmental impact management and European cohesion.
I should like to mention some important points. Firstly, the legal basis should not only be Article 161, but should be based on both Articles 161 and 163, with a view to increasing and enhancing Parliament's involvement. Secondly, as you suggested, Commissioner, with a view to delivering efficient air traffic management and technology, without placing too great a burden on the taxpayer, private initiative, the industry, the operators and the scientific community should be guaranteed a role in the management model, and an absolutely central role should be given to the Commission and Eurocontrol, which are the partners with the biggest public responsibility in terms of financial contribution and participation in the vote.
Mr President, the European Union had to develop this system of air traffic control, bringing together the 40 different networks currently in place in the EU, as a result of the projected increase in the volume of air traffic. That is why I believe the SESAR system to be of tremendous importance, and I congratulate both rapporteurs on their work.
As an aside, I do not believe that an EU-US open skies arrangement will be possible in the near future, owing to the outcome of the recent elections in the United States. European governments will therefore have to strike individual agreements with the American Government in this area. Indeed, a member of the Irish Government has signalled that this is the route it will have to take in order to put in place an aviation agreement.
I would also like it to be put on record that any such arrangement should guarantee the future of Shannon Airport in the west of Ireland, in its present form, owing to its importance to that region as a vital economic hub.
Mr President, I must thank the speakers who have all shown Parliament's interest in the SESAR project, which will have a highly beneficial effect not only on air transport, but also in terms of environmental quality and energy savings.
I should like to say to Mr Bradbourn that we have chosen the legal basis that we felt was most suitable for the purpose of this regulation. The objective at hand is to set up a joint undertaking charged with managing a technological research and development programme. This legal basis is Article 171 of the Treaty, as Mr Fernandez has just said, and this has been confirmed by Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and by the Commission.
I wish to stress the point, as mentioned by Mr Rack, that this is an example of a good public-private partnership (PPP), with, of course, the support not only of Eurocontrol - something on which you insisted - but also of the whole air transport industry, which of course will be the main beneficiary and is therefore very interested in seeing SESAR get off the ground. Even though this procedure provides for consultation with Parliament, rather than codecision, it goes without saying, Mr President, that I shall make it my business to keep Parliament regularly updated, in a most transparent way. As Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges, the rapporteur, emphasised, we must of course do everything to prevent any delay to the programmes in question.
This is what I wanted to say. I extend a warm vote of thanks to Parliament for the invaluable help it has given us in implementing this project which, as I said before, should give the EU the best possible air navigation system.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.


Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 14:30)


Joint Programming of research to combat neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's disease (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on
joint programming of research to combat neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's disease - B7-0218/2009)
The author, Herbert Reul, has indicated that he is running late. If he arrives, he may be given the floor at the end.
Mr President, in the absence of Mr Reul, I will repeat this question that we are putting to the Commission. In accordance with the legal basis of Article 165 of the treaty, the Council Recommendation on measures to combat neurodegenerative diseases calls for Parliament to be consulted.
We want to know whether the Council can confirm its intention to adopt conclusions on this issue during the Competitiveness Council of 3 December 2009. Moreover, since Parliament was consulted on the Commission's proposal, is the Council prepared to take Parliament's views into account when drafting its conclusions?
Next, regarding possible future joint programming of research activities, can the Council confirm its opinion that these initiatives should, in principle, be adopted using the same legal basis?
I should like to point out that we have drafted a resolution. This resolution has the support of all the political groups and it is important because, quite simply, it highlights the challenges of an ageing population - these challenges that mean that, today, in Europe, we have more than seven million people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a figure that it is estimated will double over the next 20 years.
It is therefore crucial to plan, invest and cooperate in this area in order to control the social costs of these diseases, and to offer hope, dignity and a healthier life to the millions of sufferers and their families. These health and social problems, which affect the whole of Europe, require coordinated measures designed to ensure the effectiveness of the prevention, diagnoses, treatment and care provided to the people concerned.
Special attention must be paid to support for the research and innovation work carried out by public and private operators in an effort to find new cures and to prevent the development of these diseases. Health research is even more fragmented at European level, and the number of public-private partnerships must be increased. The example of the Innovative Medicines initiative, launched in February 2008, must not remain a one-off experiment.
I shall conclude by saying that this really is a race against the clock, for we must forestall these diseases as much as possible. Research today shows that there are already initiatives aimed at pre-diagnosis. It is on these concrete issues that our fellow citizens are expecting signals from the Europe for health, which must give guarantees and anticipate the development of age-related diseases.
Mr President, the proposal for a Council Recommendation on measures to combat neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's, which was adopted by the Commission on 22 July, is based on Article 165 of the treaty. This article talks about coordination of research and technological development activities between the Community and the Member States, precisely to ensure greater consistency between national policies and Community policy.
Article 165 accords with the objectives for joint programming initiatives. These objectives are based on the idea that we jointly establish the challenges that our societies are collectively facing and that, through increased political commitment on the part of the Member States, we can agree on joint or coordinated responses to these challenges. The aim, of course, is to increase efficiency in the public financing of research in Europe.
However, I believe that the problem and the key to your question is that Article 165 does not give the Council the right to act. This article constitutes a legal basis for the Commission to take possible initiatives to promote coordination between the Member States and the Community's policy. There is no other legal basis in the treaty under the heading of research that the Commission could use to propose measures relating to joint programming initiatives.
There is, of course, a very strong political commitment within the Council for introducing pilot initiatives for joint programming aimed at combating Alzheimer's, in particular, as soon as possible. In the light of this, it is the Presidency's view that the Council should adopt conclusions on this joint programming initiative on the basis of the text that has been tabled by the Commission.
I know that the European Parliament gives high priority to the fight against Alzheimer's disease. In a declaration issued in February, Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to recognise this fight as a European public health priority. You are, of course, familiar with the Commission's proposal. The Presidency will try to ensure that Parliament's views are, as far as possible, incorporated into the conclusions that are to be adopted when the Competitiveness Council meets on 3 December this year.
As regards possible future joint programming initiatives, the Council shares the Member's view that a common approach should be chosen to adopt these initiatives under the research heading. Unfortunately, there is currently only one method available and that is to adopt Council conclusions for each separate initiative. This is because the treaty contains no appropriate legal basis for adopting other measures.
The Swedish Presidency wishes to adopt in December the conclusions regarding the measures to combat neurodegenerative diseases without even waiting for Parliament's view on this issue.
I was rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on this dossier and, given these circumstances, I support the adoption of a resolution to express Parliament's position on the measures to combat neurodegenerative diseases, especially Alzheimer's disease, through joint programming of research activities.
Neurodegenerative diseases pose a major health problem in Europe. Advances in medical science and the standard of living in developed countries have created conditions resulting in an increase in life expectancy, but the number of people affected by neurodegenerative disease has also risen.
This is a problem which has a number of different aspects to it. Some aspects relate to the quality of life of those affected by these diseases, the impact which the disease has on their close family or on those who care for them. It is equally a problem affecting the sustainability of the health care systems which will have to cope with an increased number of patients, at a time when, as a result of the ageing population, the proportion of people no longer working is on the rise.
The Commission's proposal focuses on the research-related aspects. The resolution which we are proposing equally emphasises the results which will be achieved through coordinating research activities and the extent to which they will help improve the current situation. Therefore, I urge our efforts to be focused in two main areas: scientific research and ensuring that the efforts made are reflected in the results achieved in terms of the quality of care which patients can enjoy.
Bearing in mind the interest which Parliament has shown over time in this area and the importance of this dossier, which is a pilot project for the joint programming of research activities, it is vital that Parliament's position is taken into account when drafting the Council's conclusions.
Parliament must be involved in all initiatives relating to future joint programming in the field of research. In fact, Article 182 of the Treaty of Lisbon ensures a suitable legal basis for future developments in this area.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the initiative that we are about to launch is very important for two reasons: the first is the subject of the research, which concerns the fight against neurodegenerative diseases, and the second is the joint programming methods for the research.
Clearly, we would have preferred Parliament to have been more directly involved in the pilot project - this has been said and it is the subject of our question. While we must press on now and not bring matters to a halt, we are nonetheless asking for guarantees that our opinion will be taken into account in the Competitiveness Council's deliberations, and that a more certain legal basis will be defined in future so that Parliament can be fully involved and there can be a greater sense of ownership in this field of research.
We must now intervene with adequate means and resources to prevent and eradicate the widespread scourge of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and the other diseases, which are destined to become more common as our population ages. We call for efforts to be focused on extensive, large-scale studies, aimed both at diagnosis and at identifying cures. Research into biomarkers, into early diagnosis methods based on a multidisciplinary approach, the compilation of vast databases, and the search for curative medicines and appropriate treatment and service models would appear crucial.
I wish to make just one request in this House: that we ignore neither the individual circumstances of patients, which are too often excluded in the context of these types of disease, nor the involvement of patients' and relatives' associations. From a methodological point of view, we believe that joint research projects are very important because they fulfil an essential requirement: that of pooling efforts and resources and overcoming these divisions, these duplications, and therefore being able to create a critical mass that is sufficient to produce satisfactory results from this type of research.
If we consider that, in other parts of the world, joint public and private efforts manage to invest tens of millions of euros, we realise how much there remains for us to do and how much we still have to do, by directing our efforts towards joint projects, towards strategic lines of action and joint programmes between the Member States and Europe and towards common programmes between public and private operators, without disregarding that international framework that puts us in contact with major scientific developments at international level.
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, today we are debating a motion for resolution on neurodegenerative diseases. The intention is actually for this to become a directive, and so next time, we should also be debating a directive on this subject. The diseases that we are discussing today - Alzheimer's disease, although Parkinson's disease is also referred to in the text - are diseases of the brain which constitute a major challenge for Europe. The long-term costs are set to soar and there is still a lot of research to do. Unfortunately, there is a lot of duplicated research and bureaucracy in Europe. Thus, with this motion for a resolution, we want to eliminate the duplicated research, bureaucracy and fragmentation.
The Group of the United European Left - Nordic Green Left has tabled a motion for the research results to be made publicly available. I think this motion is a good one. Unfortunately, the wording is wrong, and I would therefore ask for it to be reworded so that it can be incorporated better. Essentially, there is a problem with regard to European patents. It would be good if the Commission, and the Council, too, could take up the subject of European patents in the areas of pharmaceuticals and bio-research and make it clear that we need this. In any case, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports this motion for a resolution.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I should have been rapporteur on this dossier, so I feel a bit disappointed. However, I am happy that we are moving forward. It is not the time for an interinstitutional dispute. I am happy that the Council is prepared to move.
I have a number of observations to make. Indeed, we hope here in Parliament that the Council will take on board the ideas in the resolutions that we are going to vote on tomorrow.
I would emphasise the need to have the right balance between - like in climate change - mitigation and adaptation. Here, I am speaking about preventing this disease and understanding why it happens, what the factors are, so we can really prevent it effectively, because that is always the most effective and also the least expensive way of fighting disease.
Is the joint programming initiative enough? Well, not in the sense that this should become the norm, that in such major undertakings, working together should be the norm, not just a voluntary thing, but something that would really bind all Member States into working together effectively.
Secondly, on financial priorities, the first question is: are we spending enough on these types of diseases? We believe this is not the case and we would strongly encourage, within the forthcoming framework programmes, taking some money from big programmes like ITER, which the best scientists are telling us will pay off maybe in 60 years, and put some of that money into research into Alzheimer's disease and other diseases of a similar nature. I think that this is really needed.
First of all, I would like to express my complete support with regard to the question that was asked by Mr Reul and, in particular, to point out that the fundamental issue - the fundamental political issue here - is precisely a matter of joint programming of research.
What happened on the issue of joint programming on neurodegenerative diseases and, in particular, Alzheimer's disease, was that the rules changed in the middle of the process. We went from having a report to having a resolution, thereby taking away our codecision powers on this issue. We stopped being MEPs and instead became advisers. I would therefore like to know, at least, whether what we recommend will be taken into account or not.
Programming research activities, in any area, is a political choice and not a technical choice and, in this regard, Parliament's role should be emphasised and strengthened. In my view, defining priorities that are political means that they should be scrutinised, should be transparent and should be democratic. What happened in relation to the joint decision and joint programming of research on Alzheimer's disease is a process that should not be repeated. Should it ever be repeated, please at least give us plenty of warning. I therefore hope that the last thing that can happen is that the decisions and the recommendations tabled by Parliament on this issue are not taken into consideration.
Madam President, in my constituency of Northern Ireland, we currently have 16 000 people suffering from dementia. They, their families and their carers will welcome a proactive approach to tackling this disease, which can be so devastating to both sufferers and families.
It is in areas like this that I believe it is good to see cooperation across European states. I believe that a coordinated approach to tackling disease can bring forward new evidence, new medical breakthroughs and, in time, hopefully improve treatment and cure.
In the United Kingdom, we currently have just over 400 000 people suffering from Alzheimer's. This United Kingdom figure is likely to be something in the region of 750 000 people by 2025. It is therefore imperative that something is done to improve our diagnosis, treatment and prevention and social research into the welfare of patients and their families, particularly families who act as carers. A coordinated approach and a sharing of research are vital, as long as that research respects the sanctity of human life in all its forms.
(PT) I welcome the initiatives and the actions undertaken at European level to combat neurodegenerative diseases and, in particular, Alzheimer's disease. The Member States have been developing research efforts in this field. It is important that cooperation among Member States is encouraged, to ensure increased coordination in terms of scientific research and technological development, and avoid fragmentation.
Joint programming of research is a valuable tool for reducing fragmentation by involving, at European level, the Member States, the public sector and the private sector. This joint programming tool will be vital for the future of the European Research Area. Developing the European Research Area lies at the heart of the research policy of the Treaty of Lisbon.
However, I am concerned about the implementation of this joint programming tool in terms of bureaucratic complexity and delays in administrative procedures. I would therefore like to ask what the plans are for using a process based on economy of scale, combining efficiency, simplification and fast-tracking of administrative procedures so as to promote excellence and to encourage collaboration at European level, as called for by the importance of this issue.
Madam President, as a former health care professional of over 30 years, it was distressing to learn that Parliament would not be consulted regarding the Commission's new proposals on Alzheimer's disease. However, we must move on.
As Europe's population becomes older, the impact of Alzheimer's will become deeper too. The number of Alzheimer's cases worldwide is predicted to grow from 35 million today to 107 million cases in 2050.
One of the most harrowing aspects of Alzheimer's disease is the many people it affects apart from the patient. In Ireland, for example, there are 50 000 listed carers to cater for Ireland's 44 000 sufferers. This disease is often called a family disease because of the chronic stress of watching a loved one slowly decline.
The further role of the European Parliament in the fight against Alzheimer's disease should not be discounted. Any new direction by the EU should take account of Parliament's unique voice on the matter and should move to assist not just Alzheimer's sufferers but also the many carers who work to increase their quality of life.
Madam President, obviously, coordinating research in this area is really important, and this is not just about Alzheimer's disease, as the term 'neurodegenerative' covers a multitude of diseases.
Parliament actually has a very significant role to play in how that research will be done. I draw attention to the ongoing discussions between Parliament and the Council on the issue of the welfare of animals used in scientific experimentation. I am concerned - and hopeful, because of our rapporteur and the direction of the talks - that we continue to allow necessary research using animals in a way that is more welfare friendly than perhaps it is now. This is because we need research in this area in order to do the things that have been spoken about to prevent, and to treat people - and we may be amongst them ourselves in time - who unfortunately may be affected by these diseases.
I hope we can have an early agreement at second reading on this very important directive. While we may not have had a great input into this particular issue, we will have had one into the ongoing research.
(PL) Madam President, the question of the battle against this disease was raised - and credit should be given for this - during the French Presidency. It was said then that the EU should take action in this matter. It would be good if the next Presidency took up this matter and treated it with equal importance. It has already been said here that this problem affects millions of people and their families, who are all suffering.
When we meet our constituents, we often hear this question: what does the EU do for the citizens of Europe? What are you there for? What are you responsible for? What do you do? It is just this type of question which should be the subject of efforts to build an image of authority and importance for the European Union. This is what our citizens need. Joint efforts to combat diseases of this kind must be a priority for the EU institutions.
(EL) Madam President, I take the problem of combating neurodegenerative diseases - and especially Alzheimer's - extremely seriously.
It is therefore very useful to have and achieve coordinated action between the Member States of the European Union in combating the causes and in addressing the problem of prevention and treatment and the consequences which such diseases have on patients, on society as a whole and on the public health of the citizens of the European Union.
I believe that the priority and main approach should be in the field of prevention and not in the field of medication. The Member States should also be encouraged to set up monitoring centres for patients and their carers and to secure equal scientific participation by the Member States in this research endeavour by the European Union.
Finally, the database created in agreement with the Council and the Member States must be under public and state ownership within the framework of national systems and the conclusions must be publicised at a public world forum. Finally, it is up to us to control the budget for this issue.
(LT) Certainly, I agree that at this time, it is particularly important to devote attention to scientific research to ensure help for people suffering from Alzheimer's, as our European Union unites 27 Member States and not all states are equally able to offer assistance to Alzheimer sufferers. There are different health care systems, different social service systems, different support for those families with such a patient. Therefore, this scientific research is vitally important and we must concentrate and find, first of all, funding, coordinated work and coordinated activities. Secondly, it is very important that there is funding to implement that research and offer real support to people suffering from that disease, as well as their families.
(DE) Madam President, I will be very brief. The importance of this has already been stated by several speakers. It is a disease that affects many people and that number is growing. It is even more essential for the Member States to work together, to combine forces, in order to be effective. As far as this goes, this is a right and sensible path to take.
It is a shame that, when it comes to the procedures, we have difficulty getting Parliament involved. It is regrettable that this resolution had to be prepared at the last minute. However, if a good result is achieved in the end, then that is what is important.
Madam President, Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases are dreadful. I believe that many of us who have seen a relative affected by Alzheimer's know how it can destroy a previously healthy person and how painful it is for family and other relatives, and I feel very strongly that we need to invest more resources in researching this terrible disease.
It is clear that we need to take new steps to better coordinate our knowledge and research in Europe, and the Commission's pilot initiative aims to mobilise the best researchers we have to attempt to understand, cure and prevent both Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases.
Within the framework of the current troika between France, the Czech Republic and now Sweden, we discussed at an early stage the importance of including Alzheimer's as a joint priority issue in the context of the work relating to public health. The French Presidency held a very important conference, as one of the honourable Members mentioned, and the Swedish Presidency held a conference in September on dignified ageing, with Alzheimer's as one of the items on the agenda.
As I said, the Council intends to adopt conclusions on this on 3 December, and we will, of course, take into account the excellent resolution that you have produced and that you will vote on tomorrow. I am certain that the issue of Alzheimer's will come up again within the framework of the research programme and similar initiatives in the very near future, so thank you very much for raising this very important issue.
A motion for a resolution to wind up the debate has been tabled under Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I welcome the proposal for a recommendation of the Commission on joint programming of research in the area of neurodegenerative diseases. The population's mental health is a vital issue for ensuring a decent quality of life. Diseases of this type are affecting an ever-increasing number of people in the EU. This is why efforts are required to combat the factors responsible for triggering these diseases. However, in order to combat these factors, they need to be identified through research. I believe that the pilot project for joint programming of research activities offers a definite advantage in terms of pooling the efforts for funding research, which will result in a more efficient use of the funds earmarked for research in this area. Furthermore, cooperation based on networks created by national research centres and the joint use of the required infrastructure are all the more beneficial, given that not all Member States have the necessary resources to undertake research activities at their own expense, even though they are facing a high number of cases involving neurodegenerative diseases. It will be paramount for the research results to be used to inform the population about the ways of supporting mental health, thereby helping reduce the number of patients and maintain the viability of national public health care systems.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's communication to Parliament offers an optimistic analysis of the expected benefits of cooperation in research among Member States and of the coordination that the Commission can carry out, in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme, with regard to neurodegenerative diseases, and Alzheimer's disease in particular. The measures proposed in the communication only concern the principle of making better use of existing resources and programmes: the 'Health' Programme, the Seventh Framework Programme, the EU Action Plan on disabilities, the open method of coordination and the Statistical Programme. Will optimising our use of these resources be enough to achieve the expected results? What coordination mechanisms is the Commission proposing that could not have been implemented before the communication? What added value does it provide? What new, practical measures is the Commission thinking of adopting to stimulate cooperation in research, in a situation where resources and teams already exist, although they are fragmented? Will giving greater visibility to the issue and using existing instruments be enough to resolve it?
in writing. - I support this Resolution welcoming the proposed pilot project for joint programming of research activities in the field of neurodegenerative diseases. Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease affect more than seven million citizens of the European Union. No cures are currently available for neurodegenerative diseases and knowledge about prevention, treatment, and identification of risk factors is very limited. Indeed, most of the research effort in the field of neurodegenerative diseases is carried out by Member States, with a relatively low level of transnational coordination, leading to fragmentation and limited sharing of knowledge and best practices among Member States. Joint programming could be highly valuable in reducing fragmentation of the research effort, leading as it would to a pooling of a critical mass of skills, knowledge and financial resources. However, Article 182(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as inserted by the Treaty of Lisbon, which establishes measures necessary for the implementation of the European research area, could provide a more appropriate legal basis for future joint programming initiatives in the field of research. The Commission should consider using Article 182(5) as a legal basis for all future proposals for joint programming of research activities.
Madam President, Alzheimer's disease is a confusing illness that changes the sufferer's world into somewhere unknown and perilous. Life becomes a highly dangerous 'now', where there are no past memories and lessons learnt to build a bridge of security to the present moment. Moreover, this fateful human tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that there is no known cure for the disease at this time. The illness also involves the suffering of close relatives. It is sometimes called a family illness, with relatives often suffering from chronic stress. The social impact is enormous and takes a heavy toll. As the population ages in Europe, neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, are becoming more and more a public health issue: there are now more than seven million patients, and that number is expected to double in the next decade. Medical science, however, still does not even fully understand the causes of the disease. There are some promising findings from research, but we need coordinated efforts if we are to achieve a breakthrough. In order to compile the data from the research of private and public organisations and the Member States and coordinate their innovations, we need Community programming: that way, there is hope that more effective prevention, diagnoses and treatment with regard to these diseases will become a reality as soon as possible in practical care work. I am convinced that the people who are struggling with neurodegenerative diseases - the patients, relatives and carers - will vigorously support any collaborative attempts to look for new ways to deal with these conditions. It is just these sorts of projects that tell our citizens why we are here today at all: they justify the Union's entire existence. I agree with my colleague, Mr Reul, that procedure and competence take second place when one is actually headed in the right direction.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the summer, the Commission adopted the Council's recommendation urging the Member States of the EU to engage in joint programming of research into neurodegenerative diseases. This is important if even better use is to be made of the limited resources for research. We need to remember, however, that, in addition to research, Europe needs a more extensive action programme on dementia. Earlier this year, the European Parliament approved a written statement calling on the Commission to draft an action plan on Alzheimer's disease. Parliament's statement emphasised the importance of four issues: developments in research, early diagnosis, improved quality of life for patients and their carers, and the status of the Alzheimer's associations. I would like to remind everyone that the programme is urgent and the Commission needs to get started on the action that Parliament has asked it to take.
In our increasingly elderly society, the number of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's or senile dementia will continue to increase. In order to be as prepared for this as possible, we need to create better research structures and make better use of the existing facilities. The planned pilot project in this area is an ideal starting point for interlinking the current research efforts better. However, prevention is also important alongside providing the best possible care for those affected. The Member States need to step up their information campaigns regarding an active lifestyle.