2. Ban on the elections for the Tibetan government in exile in Nepal (


The role of culture in the development of European regions (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Doris Pack, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, on the role of culture in the development of European regions (B6-0226/2009).
Madam President, Commissioner, we are meeting at an unusual time, but still, the oral question that we put today was born in the 'A Soul for Europe' intergroup. We believe that we will find this soul in our oldest units - the regions - where people communicate with one another with their particular accent, a specific dialect or even a regional language, where the local cuisine has its own specific taste, where truly local fruit and vegetables are sold at markets, where particular folk songs still reside, where particular tales and myths originate: in short, where people feel they belong, where they feel at home.
The march of globalisation threatens to standardise so much, and many unique features will disappear. Only Europe's wonderful regions can safeguard that specialness and they must be able to rely on the protection of the European Union. The richness and variety of the regions of Europe - they were often enemies, they were occupied, they were divided up, they were destroyed by war and re-united - must be retained. The regions are like our stem cells. The European Union has maintained something like a culture of the small and is bound by human rights in this area, too.
Our brief debate today and the resolution should spur the Commission into finding ways to make the cultural richness of the regions even more visible and into finding ways for the EU to contribute to its preservation and continued development. Europe's cultural potential must be used strategically. In 2009, the year of creativity and innovation, the possibilities of integrating ideas and initiatives from the public and civil service sector at the local and regional level should be exploited in a meaningful way.
I would like to say to the Members of the Committee on Regional Development that we have absolutely no intention of curtailing existing regional policy - we merely wish to add to its cultural dimension. We implore the Commission to do its part, too.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, allow me first of all to thank you for the opportunity, on behalf of Commissioner Figeľ, to address the place of culture in our policies and its particular contribution to the development of European regions and cities. The importance of culture is taken into consideration in different ways at Community level.
In the context of the EU's cohesion policy, regional and local strategies have successfully integrated culture to support creativity and to promote innovation. Cohesion policy supports, for instance, the protection of our cultural heritage, the development of cultural infrastructure and services, the development of regional attractiveness and its link with sustainable tourism, but also the regeneration of local economies and the development of cross-border strategies.
In 2007, the Commission launched the European Agenda for Culture, which is now in its first stages of implementation. This new strategic approach to culture sets common objectives and aims to propel the economic, social and political value of culture by strengthening its transversal role. In this framework, the Commission and the Member States are cooperating under a new open method of cooperation to strengthen joint efforts in areas with a direct impact on local and regional development strategies. This will, for instance, help maximise the potential of creative and cultural industries, in particular SMEs; promote access to culture, and encourage the mobility of cultural professionals.
Feeding into the ongoing reflection, the Commission will soon launch an independent study on the contribution of culture to local and regional economic development as part of the European regional policy. The results of this study will help underline the value of investing in the cultural and creative sectors and will illustrate the links between such investment, specific regional development objectives and the Lisbon Agenda for growth and jobs. The study will also contribute to the preparation of a green paper on the potential of cultural and creative industries, which is currently under preparation and is due for adoption by the Commission in early 2010.
The Commission regularly organises conferences with representatives from local and regional authorities. Let me simply highlight the open days, which every year bring together in Brussels a large number of stakeholders to debate a wide range of issues relating to regional and cohesion policy. Aspects relating to culture have been regularly considered in the context of these workshops.
Moreover, within the context of other European policies, such as the EU's integrated maritime policy, the Commission also endeavours to involve civil society actors in highlighting Europe's rich maritime heritage. Thus, next May, during the European Maritime Day celebrations in Rome, stakeholders will examine the links between maritime heritage and sustainable regional tourism, amongst others.
Finally, I also wish to mention the European Cultural Forum, which will be organised for the first time by the Commission, in the context of the European Agenda for Culture in Brussels, on 29 and 30 September, and will bring together representatives of the cultural sector and national authorities, including local and regional authorities.
Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to start by welcoming the initiative on such an interesting issue as the role of culture in the development of the regions of the European Union. Cultural heritage is an important element in the identity and in the history of the development of the peoples of Europe. Protecting and maintaining it is therefore especially important to the education of the young generation and, at the same time, to respect for the European identity. Regardless of its European, national or local dimension, cultural heritage is a fundamental value for European citizens. We all know that the focus is on the large towns where the most famous museums and monuments are to be found.
However, it is a fact that the European countryside, which accounts for 90% of European territory, is suffering from abandonment and economic stagnation. European programmes with a cultural content therefore help considerably in developing economic activity in the regions. It is not only the supply of work and employment, it is the creation of poles of attraction for cultural and historic tourism that will contribute to the sustainable development of these areas.
We therefore consider that culture contributes directly towards the development of the cultural education of Europeans and indirectly towards economic prosperity, especially in the regions which are most in need of focus and development.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I am very pleased indeed to have this opportunity to discuss this debate. It is only unfortunate that we are doing it on a Thursday afternoon when it is not quite as well attended as perhaps it should be.
I do think this is an important debate in the context of the current economic climate. We have already heard discussion about culture and jobs and how culture industries and people working in culture can contribute to the economy and can really help. At the precarious times we are facing now - which we have heard already in this Parliament - it is important that we discuss these matters as fully as we can.
I am here also because I do actually represent one of those big cities that the previous speaker mentioned. London, as you all know, is one of the cultural centres of the EU with - as we all have - enormous history and very much to offer. It is also the centre of, certainly the British, cultural industries. So I think I have a role here to speak for the people that I represent and to fight for those jobs which, when things get bad, are very often the first jobs to go. So I very much welcome what the Commission has said about the role of cultural industries, about how we want to preserve and to build on those and how there is an economic role for culture. I feel that, very often, that economic role is ignored, and we do not talk about it; we do not even think about it, and we relegate culture to second-class status. That is not acceptable, particularly when culture can be so very important in our national and regional development. I hope that one of the things to come out of this debate today - that we take back to our Member States, and the Commission and the Council take back - is that we are very concerned about how this regional development happens, how we deal with this and the role that culture can play in that.
Also, as Mrs Pack has already said, there is the whole question of cultural diversity. I think one of the great strengths of the EU, and of the European Parliament, is that we all come together - now with 27 Member States - and are actually very different, in many ways: different backgrounds and cultures, and obviously different languages. That is just a start. Although the world is getting smaller and although people come together more, there are still these significant differences. We should be celebrating them, because those differences are at the very core of the things that we talk about. We all want to preserve our identities and how we feel about ourselves, and we need to do that.
In this context, I think we also need to take on board that we are getting people coming into our continent. We are getting people from other parts of the world - many of whom are now in second and third generations in some of our Member States - who come from different backgrounds again. I think we also need to take on board that they come with their own culture, tradition and languages. Although we integrate them and they learn our languages, they are still there with their own separate identities. That is an issue which has not been mentioned in this debate, which I think is an important one and one that we, I hope, can integrate, particularly when we talk about issues such as multilingualism, which we have had good debates on. It is an extremely important issue, and I think one we should perhaps give more prominence to than we have done, but in the context of a Europe which is changing. We therefore need to preserve our existing cultures and our existing diversity and actually absorb the new diversity which has come, and which is continuing to come, into our continent. For all of these reasons, I welcome the support that we are giving to culture and to cultural industries, support to small and medium-enterprises, which I think - in the current economic climate - are possibly going to be the backbone of what we will be looking at. If large corporations and large enterprises are losing people, making people redundant and laying people off, it may well be up to the smaller outfits - the SMEs - to pick up this slack and to actually go out there and create employment for those who can work in this sector.
So I hope we will all recognise just how important the role of culture is in our continent and our society and that those of us who have actually turned up for this debate will take the message back to our Member States, to the regions and to the people we represent. I know we have got a good message to say, so let us go out there and spread the word.
Madam President, regions are an extremely important place for the development of culture. It is there that most long-lasting exchange programmes and joint projects between areas of different traditions, customs and achievements arise. Regions stimulate the development of culture, and culture - important, attractive projects and events - becomes a magnet which attracts economic investment. This is the classic knock-on effect, which is best illustrated by the effects of the splendid European Capital of Culture programme. Economic revival always follows the year of cultural events. This is understood by the numerous European cities trying to take part in the project.
Culture is a great opportunity, especially for areas which are underdeveloped but rich in natural resources or tourist and recreation attractions due to their geographical location. Therefore it is particularly important to be aware of the significant role of regional authorities and to stimulate their activity by special European Union programmes. I expect the Commission to submit a green paper shortly, presenting a broad concept of measures in the area of culture, including the key matter of the level of regions.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me finally to draw attention to the initiative to establish the year 2013 as European Year of Learning the Languages of our Neighbours. Dynamic development of regional cooperation in Europe is often hampered by problems related to a lack of knowledge of the language and culture of neighbouring countries and regions, and a lack of ability to communicate fully. Learning the language of an immediate neighbour can be a great leap forward for mutual understanding and communication, and therefore for strengthening cultural and economic cooperation and consolidating the entire European Community.
Madam President, I think that in this debate it is worth recalling the characteristic words of Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission. When asked, after he had finished his term of office as President of the Commission, if there was anything he regretted or if there had not been enough of something, he admitted that the European Union and the Commission had devoted too little time to matters of culture. And I think that his characteristic self-criticism could be a signpost for us.
I agree with the speaker who spoke about the strange priorities of our Parliament. We say that culture is important, and that it is not only priorities like institutions, administration and regulations which are important. Then we speak about these things on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday morning. Only the debate on Thursday afternoon is about matters which could be called fundamental - about culture, because culture is in fact the foundation of European unity. Not only the culture of regions, but also national culture, because the heritage of Europe is in fact the heritage of European nations, and this is perhaps especially true of our cultural heritage.
I am glad that this subject has been raised. I am glad because I suppose it will become increasingly important in the work of Parliament and also of the EU executive, especially the Commission and the Council.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the wording of the questions as formulated by my colleague Doris Pack. In my view multilateral support for the European regions is very important. There used to be borders in Europe separating states and nations from each other for centuries, creating a kind of psychological no-man's land. Fortunately we have now succeeded in eliminating borders through the Schengen agreement, but regions remain divided, cities are cut in half and psychological problems in particular persist, as one piece of territory belongs here or there and another somewhere else. In an increasingly integrated Europe these ancient scars on the map and in people's minds are healing safely but slowly. The fastest way to make them whole, much more effectively and practically than all of the top-down measures, is to support civic initiatives and the activities of cultural organisations and regional institutions. The regional institutions and ordinary people living in this or that territory know best what needs to be done to revive their region.
There are many projects whose implementation would represent both a step forwards and an impulse for further action. I come from the region of Northern Moravia, from Silesia, an area where Czech, Polish and Slovak territory all meet. And it is precisely there, in the historic Těšín region which today comprises the Czech town of Český Těšín and Polish Cieszyn, that a project has been created called "A Garden on Both Banks of the River” since there is a river flowing between the two towns which once formed a single urban unit. The project is putting in place links between the two river banks that are not only of an urban nature, but are also architectural and above all cultural. Both divided sections of the formerly homogenous whole must be linked through the cultural activities of the inhabitants. The river between the two towns and their surroundings must become a place of cultural exchange and cultural overlap. However, an important aspect of such projects is the new employment opportunities created not only during the implementation of the work but also afterwards. The service sector will certainly expand, increasing the attractiveness of the area and supporting the potential for tourism and other sorts of related enterprise. The authors of the "Garden on Both Banks of the River” project were inspired by the example of Strasbourg in France and Kehl in Germany, which were also such close neighbours that they formed a natural urban structure. Also here the Rhine flows between both cities. What is happening in France and Germany can also happen in the Czech Republic and Poland or anywhere else in Europe. There are many more examples of this in Central Europe. When we talk of the share of culture in developing Europe's regions it is precisely these projects that come to mind.
The EU, the Commission and the European Parliament should support cultural projects of this type even more than they have done to date. The authors of civil initiatives often complain that these activities are unduly held up by complicated bureaucracy or overly-complicated structures in the relevant ministries and offices.
Madam President, I come with two questions for the Commissioner. One: what is culture? And two: what on earth has it got to do with the European Union?
In my region lies the historic county of Northamptonshire. Part of its cultural identity, its history, its fabric, comes from its historic ties with the shoemaking industry. Shoemaking in the county was first recognised in the year 1202, when Peter the Cordwainer was almost famous within the county. In 1452 the court regulated prices and weights for various traders, including the cordwainers, and Northampton itself has served as a home to the shoe industry for all that time.
In 1841, according to the census list, there were 1 821 shoemakers within the county. The county's football team, Northampton Football Club, is still referred to as 'the Cobblers', and in Northamptonshire now we have 34 shoe factories still open, all over 100 years old. I am wearing a pair of Barker shoes today from a village called Earls Barton in the wonderful Westminster constituency of Daventry. We have a museum, we have cultural events around the shoemaking industry - and it all came before the European Union.
So, whilst I completely understand the role of culture in countries' regions, I wonder if or how the European Union can help us in these things. And what are Europe's regions? I think we should leave it to culture in Europe's regions to develop as it always has done - locally, organically, and not centrally government-led.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for accommodating me. I would like to expand our vision slightly and look to the future, not just the past. We are in a situation where we are seeing that growth cannot always be continual, rather it is restricted by the limited nature of natural resources and the limited capacity of the earth to absorb and metabolise our waste. We can no longer base our view solely on material growth - our concept of development - instead we must see development with stronger reference to quality of life: we must, in essence, dematerialise our society.
From this perspective, regions are equally important for their cultural wealth - meaning the richness of their quality of life - which is extremely important at a time like the present when our lifestyle must change completely. In this context of dematerialisation, a region's wealth in terms of its quality of life is thus extremely important, I would even say absolutely indispensable.
I would therefore like to direct both the Commission and Parliament towards an understanding of the change in lifestyle that we must effect, a dematerialisation of our societies and therefore a cultural work, which will become irreplaceable as we have to substitute immaterial wealth for material assets. This regional experience is thus something that we must try to understand and preserve before it is swept away by a whole series of oversights.
For this reason I would ask that we proceed with this debate, because it is so essential and because we must simply change our way of life.
(PL) Madam President, the beauty of culture comes from its regional and local diversity, which changes with the development of society. Regional cultures, which are deeply founded on tradition, form a strong basis for national cultures and their many variations. With their colourfulness of form and expression they have great appeal, and they provide artistic stimulation, carry experience and emotion, and strengthen the bonds of local society.
Regional cultures are being pushed aside by the professional artists who draw inspiration from them. It is often thought that regional culture has to be an amateur movement, whereas a professional movement should be given strong financial support. This is probably the source of the tendency, also seen in the EU, to finance big and expensive projects, including international projects which involve professional artists from different countries. Regional and local cultures are gradually dying, and numerous forms of their expression, and their disciplines and creative skills are disappearing.
Today we can talk of the traditional and folk culture in historically undeveloped regions, but we cannot say very much about their existence in developing regions. There is, therefore, an urgent need to develop a programme of research to document the protection and development of regional culture in all its spiritual and artistic expressions. These expressions are stated in more detail in my amendment to the resolution under discussion. I hope that it will receive the support of Members.
(HU) Culture creates value in both an intellectual and a material sense. Cultural and creative industries employ millions all over Europe, with films, book publishing, musical compositions and publications - what is often called the music industry - being among the most dynamically growing sectors.
It is no accident that the most successful and popular initiatives of the EU are closely linked to culture. Within the exchange programme for European art collections, the public in Budapest can currently view an unparalleled Gustave Moreau and an Alfons Mucha exhibition in an important museum.
Another such initiative is the cultural capitals of Europe programme which highlights and promotes not only cities but entire regions. Less than a year from now, in 2010, this proud title will be held by a little-known small city in the southern part of Hungary, Pécs, where the hundreds of thousands visitors drawn to the area will give a boost to the growth of the entire region.
I am convinced that it is through culture that the EU can grow closer to its citizens and bring citizens closer to one another. When we speak of regional identity in the European Union, it goes without saying that we invoke culture. I hope that in the period following the Lisbon strategy there will be even more initiatives and resources available for culture and education than now. For the modern, knowledge-based society's economic engine is the inventive and original spirit, that is to say: innovation and creativity.
(DE) Madam President, thirty years ago I was here in Strasbourg when the directly elected European Parliament met for the first time. The Oldest Member was Louise Weiss, after whom this wonderful building, itself a splendid piece of European culture, was named. Her speech was the intellectual foundation document of the European Parliament. She talked at that time of the type of Europeans we need, united on the basis of a common European culture.
This European culture is not something new, as many people think, but it is the rediscovery of something that is much older than the nation states, Mr Heaton-Harris. Borders, at least on the continent, are mostly rather artificial. Culture is deeply rooted in regions that are often divided by artificial borders, and regional culture is of enormous importance as a link between nations. One of the greatest cultural figures was the Bohemian Forest poet Adalbert Stifter, who worked in Bavaria, Upper Austria and Bohemia and united Czech and German people. This tradition must be kept alive - the culture that is destroyed by nationalism and displacement, the culture of minorities, the regional culture, the culture of European regions that span borders and, in particular, the diversity that we will only be able to preserve together.
Franz Josef Strauß, the great Bavarian European, once said that we will only be able to remain Bavarians, Basques, Germans or Britons if we become Europeans in time - Europe not being a centralising factor, but a common roof against the rain of globalisation and standardisation.
(RO) The European Union project, conceived rather as a mechanism for economic integration, owes a huge debt to the 'cement' represented by European culture. At the same time, encouraging diversity is among the objectives of the European cultural agenda launched during this legislature, along with promoting culture as a means of economic growth and incorporating it in relations with third countries.
Culture must be viewed from a slightly different perspective if we think about the fact that this sector generates more wealth than the European chemical industry, for instance, providing a living for millions of employees.
This sector can contribute to the development of disadvantaged regions through grants for cultural cooperation projects in the fields of art and culture. For example, Romania has demonstrated that it can implement large-scale projects in partnership with European regions through the programme 'Sibiu, the 2007 European Capital of Culture', which had a major economic impact on the area.
At the same time, we must encourage programmes promoting cross-border mobility among those working in the cultural sector and the staging of cultural and artistic events on a transnational basis.
I mention these matters as a member of the Committee on Culture and Education and of the Committee on Regional Development, as well as being a former chairman of a European border region.
(PL) Madam President, people must eat, move about and take shelter from the cold or rain. These are elements of production and commerce which serve to meet fundamental needs. However, the kind of fork we eat with, or what our bicycle or the roof of our house looks like, has nothing to do with the economy, but is an expression of culture. People have a spiritual need to create, quite simply for the sake of creating. They take pride in their work when those who see or touch it express their appreciation and feel better because of it. An important point is the fact that cultural diversity is often associated with regions. We should never unify those regions and their culture - indeed, we should support that diversity. Culture is an expression of the soul of the regions. The EU would be a most uninteresting place without the cultural riches which it possesses today. Maintaining culture is expensive, and our role is to support culture. Without it there will not be an economy or happy people in the European Union.
(PL) Madam President, the cultural wealth of Europe comes from the great diversity of its regions. That diversity needs to be protected. Koniaków lace is completely different from Bruges lace. The mixture created by a superficial reproduction of ideas taken from culture leads to impoverishment. We must preserve that diversity of all forms and expressions of culture, including multilingualism and material culture, because our diversity is our identity, it is a source of creative development and of enriching cross-fertilisation. It also gives a purpose to cultural tourism. The culture of the regions needs support and protection. I would like to ask the European Commission to develop a programme for this.
(PL) Madam President, the motto of the European Union is 'United in Diversity'. That diversity makes the entire EU exceptionally attractive, and also means that we are very different from countries such as the United States. Cultural diversity is in fact based, among other things, on the huge diversity of our regional cultures, a diversity which makes those regions and entire countries extremely attractive to tourists. They are attractive to us, Europeans, and they are also extremely attractive to others, who can come to Europe to see, experience and appreciate that unusual diversity.
Regional culture should therefore be supported if only for this reason. But we should also remember that regional culture is a bridge which enables people who live in the regions to participate in what is known as high culture. Without this it is difficult to talk of the harmonisation and popularisation of certain models of culture and their perception.
(PL) Madam President, achieving the unity of Europe while preserving its diversity, identity and cultural heritage is the great value of our Community. Individual nations, regions and different local communities cultivate and develop their culture and tradition, and bring that heritage into a united Europe. They share their culture with other regions, and in exchange learn about the accomplishments and achievements of others. And so they give something to others, and they take something from others.
In order to maintain the cultural heritage in regions and smaller areas it is also important that funds are available from the EU budget. Those who were afraid that after integration they would lose their culture and identity are realising that the opposite is true - that the EU supports regional, folk and local culture.
Madam President, I rise to support my colleague, Zbigniew Zaleski.
Somebody once said: 'When I hear the word "culture”, I reach for my revolver'. I think that the European Parliament today underestimates, as indeed do our national parliaments and national governments, the importance of education and culture. We are always bottom of the pile.
They say that 'the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world'. I think - and this is just my personal point of view - Greece was the cradle of European civilisation. One or two Englishmen - Lord Byron and others - did a certain amount of things. Perhaps Commissioner Borg from Malta, the country of the George Cross, could answer this question: why can we not spend a little more money on supporting the future of our culture of our civilisation? We spend I do not know how many million billion euro on this, that and the other; please - music, poetry, history, harmony. Give us a chance.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for the number of points that they have raised. I will certainly forward your points and the concerns that you have expressed to Commissioner Figeľ. I would, however, like to express some general points and reactions.
Mrs Pack spoke about the harmonising of rules at European level and how this impacts on regional diversity. I would like to point out that having harmonisation at European level is necessary in order to ensure a level playing field across the European Union so that its citizens can fully benefit from the single internal market. This would not, however, mean that such harmonisation leads to less cultural diversity. In fact this was also the outcome of the European Year on Intercultural Dialogue.
Furthermore, the Commission, through its regional policy, promotes cultural diversity and invests in culture, both directly and indirectly, indeed by involving regional authorities and stakeholders. In a number of policy areas the Commission seeks to promote diversity and take account of regional specificities across the European Union.
Concerning the point raised on the issue of culture and the economic crisis and the overall contribution to growth and jobs, let me just recall that the Commission is undertaking a study this year to analyse how the cultural dimension has been integrated into the regional development strategies for 2007-2013. The results of the study will highlight the value of investing in the cultural sector, including cultural and creative industries, and will underline the links between such investment, the specific regional development objectives and the Lisbon Agenda.
On the Green Paper I would like to inform you, as I said at the outset, that this policy document is due in the first quarter of 2010 and its aim is to launch an open consultation process. It has three main policy objectives. Firstly, to advance a more strategic approach. Secondly, to unlock the potential of European cultural and creative industries, and, thirdly, to contribute to the development of strategies aimed at encouraging better linkages between cultural and creative industries and other sectors of the economy, and thus to connect culture and creativity with innovation and the wider economy. The regional dimension will of course be fully taken into account in this context.
I would like to conclude by referring to the statement made by Mr Posselt that culture is often destroyed by nationalisms. Certainly not by the European Union: it firmly believes in and upholds unity and diversity.
I have received three motions for a resolution in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the next part-session.


Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Csibi, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy related products (recast) - C6-0277/2008 -.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in reaching the compromise agreement with the Council on the recast of the Eco-design Directive.
It has been a challenging process, mainly due to the very restrictive nature of the recast. A legislative proposal where Parliament can hardly change anything is not the appropriate framework for codecision. We are no longer an institution limited to giving assent and this is not the way Parliament wants to work with the recast in the future.
However, I am pleased that despite these challenges we managed to reach a compromise that confirms the basic principles of the Commission's proposal, such as the extension of the scope to energy-related products, but also brings more clarifications and more emphasis on all relevant environmental parameters.
Thus, the compromise improves the definition of 'energy-related products' by clarifying which products could be covered by implementing measures, such as window-insulation materials or some water-using products like showerheads or taps. And I insist on the fact that giving these examples does not mean that these products will be covered automatically.
First, they will be subject to specific impact assessment, and implementing measures will be developed only for those products that have significant environmental impact, have significant potential for improvement and are not covered by other legislation that can achieve the same objectives more quickly and with less expense.
Then, the compromise provides for the assessment of the methodology used for preparing the implementing measures to better cover resource efficiency and the life-cycle approach. In times of narrowing natural resources, we must not only aim at energy efficiency but at optimising the use of resources as a whole. Furthermore, we must try to reduce the environmental impact of our products not only during their use phase, but also through their entire life cycle, from raw-material selection to manufacturing, packaging, use and end of life.
Even if for now the Directive is extended only to energy-related products, we should be prepared for a further extension to all products in the future. Both the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Industry have demanded a clear commitment to extend the scope of the Directive beyond energy-related products after its review in 2012.
In response, the Commission committed itself to adopting the current methodology, if needed, with a view to a further extension of the scope to all products. But we could not have any firm commitment for an extension of the scope to all products after the review of the Directive in 2012. I would have liked the Commission to have had a firmer and more visionary approach, especially since we have all the instruments on the table today and this was the best option identified by the impact assessment. In this sense, I believe we missed the opportunity to do more for the environment with less bureaucracy.
There is also the review in 2012. We will certainly not contest the fact that we need to change our consumption and production patterns by switching to cleaner products. Change is needed, but change is also possible without overburdening companies and households.
By building a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy we can give a new impetus to competitiveness. The Eco-design Directive represents a big opportunity for industry to build more competitive businesses based on green technologies. It creates a level playing field across Europe, reducing red tape and production costs. It also provides flexibility for the industry, as self-regulation measures can be recognised as alternatives to regulatory implementing measures.
Last but not least, relevant stakeholders are consulted and associated in defining and reviewing the implementing measures and assessing self-regulatory measures. From my consultations with stakeholders, I realise that forward-thinking businesses do not wait for regulations in order to become compliant, but take proactive measures. Some do it out of altruism but most do it because eco-consciousness is simply good for business.
However, we need to give the industry the right signals. Even though my vision of extending eco-design requirements to all products is not shared by all my colleagues, I strongly believe that only by shifting to cleaner goods can we stop environmental degradation.
More than 80% of all environmental impacts of a product are determined during product design. An improved product design would avoid waste and provide consumers with more efficient, more reliable and longer-lasting products.
Extending the eco-design requirements to energy-related products such as windows or water taps is the first step towards a more ambitious approach and a sustainable product policy at EU level.
Sometimes even small steps can lead to big achievements. I hope you will endorse this compromise agreement as a way forward and you will continue keeping up the pressure to optimise the full potential for environmental improvement and stimulate the design of eco-friendlier products.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Csibi, for his outstanding work on this proposal and by saying how very pleased I am that his work has made agreement possible at first reading.
The content of the proposal - from a purely legalistic point of view - is limited. It essentially consists of extending the scope of the existing Eco-design Directive beyond the energy-using products that it currently covers to include all energy-relevant products. From a political point of view, though, this change is of the utmost significance. It represents an important step on the road towards the third industrial revolution in Europe, to the transformation of our European national economies into national economies with low-CO2 production.
I have a vision of how the European product of the future will look. The European product of the future, bearing a 'Made in Europe' label, will be the most innovative, safest and also the most energy and resource-efficient product around. I am convinced that a leading role for Europe in energy efficiency and in the thrifty use of resources will not only benefit the environment, but also our employment figures. Environmentally-friendly products and environmentally-friendly processes are currently booming economically, even in this crisis, and this is set to continue.
To my mind, this directive is a good example of integrated product politics. It has already proved its worth and we are seeing good results when it comes to energy-using products. The directive provides a framework for the laying down of eco-design requirements that take account of the actual environmental impact of a product throughout its entire life cycle. As Mr Csibi has already said, the directive paves the way for a voluntary initiative by industry. It limits officially specified requirements to those products in which a significant saving potential could be realised in an economically viable way.
The directive currently in force is already making an important contribution to achieving the European reduction targets, through the abolition of light bulbs, boilers and numerous other energy-inefficient consumer products. Expanding the scope of the directive to cover all energy-related products brings with it an enormous potential for further reducing energy consumption and thereby CO2 emissions.
To recap, every product that is relevant to the consumption of energy now falls within the scope of the directive. This therefore also includes those products that do not consume energy directly when used, but which influence energy consumption indirectly. So, for example, requirements can now be laid down for products that use water and for windows. To give just one example: simply increasing the proportion of windows with double-glazing could give rise to an additional 30% of energy savings by 2020. That is the equivalent of a saving of 55 000 gigawatt hours, which represents a saving of 27 megatonnes of CO2, or the output of two to three nuclear power stations. That shows the enormous impact that the apparent innocuousness of such changes can conceal.
The Commission intends to continue its on-going work on the approximately 25 implementation measures for the eco-design directive that were set out in its working plan for the 2009-2011 period. In addition, after consulting the Eco-design Consultation Forum pursuant to Article 16 of the directive, it will lay down what products are to be included in the second working plan by 21 October 2011.
By 2012 the Commission will also review, pursuant to Article 21, whether it would be appropriate to extend the scope of the directive to products that are not relevant to energy consumption but that do have a bearing on resource conservation.
As agreed in the negotiations that led to agreement at first reading, the Commission is issuing a statement. Parliament is aware of the statement. I will pass it on to the Bureau after this sitting.
Due to the quick adoption of the proposal at first reading, the Commission can now implement its sustainable industrial policy and get straight to work on coming up with other specific steps to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions.
Let me conclude by observing that the close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission sped up the negotiations. I am very pleased to be able to tell you that the Commission feels able to support all of the amendments put forward by the rapporteur, Mr Csibi. Thank you.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Csibi.
The result of our joint efforts reviewing the Eco-design Directive is, in my opinion, to a large extent, a missed opportunity. To widen the scope from energy-consuming to energy-related products is, of course, good. But why stop there? The problems we face in terms of resource use go beyond energy. The Commissioner should know that.
The problem is the overall pressure on ecosystems and the natural resource base. Many scientific reports bear witness to this, not least our own thematic strategy on natural resources. An estimated two thirds of major ecosystems in the world are over-utilised, and we are depleting natural capital. This problem is getting worse because of growing economies and populations. The fact is that the current growth model and concept is not sustainable. Who but the European Union could help transform the concept to a more sustainable one?
The Eco-design Directive, in my opinion, does offer a way forward. As with energy efficiency, we could establish standards and norms for how to source materials, how to design products to facilitate recycling and reuse and enhance resource efficiency. Sooner rather than later we will have to address resource efficiency. Having seen earlier drafts of the Commission proposals which included resource efficiency, it is a mystery to me why such proposals were not followed through.
Tell me, where else in EU legislation do we have measures that encourage resource efficiency? We need policy frameworks that encourage resource efficiency across the board, that encourage companies to try new business models - like functional thinking - offering services rather than products, and where revenues obtained through quality of service, and not only via increased volumes from sales, are taking place.
As I said, all this could have been covered by the Directive. I predict that, a few years from now, we will all regret that we were not more proactive today. As I said, a missed opportunity.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur. I admire and value his dedication and commitment, and I also very much appreciate his rapidity. As far as I am concerned, it could all have gone a bit faster, and it is unfortunate that he was so seriously held back.
Europe is now wrestling with an economic crisis, but we have all, in fact, been wrestling for many years with a lack of innovation. Other continents are often more innovative than the European Union. The United States is so because it invests much more money - from the public but also from the private sector - in research and development. Japan is highly innovative, partly through its 'top runner' approach. Our directive on ecodesign aims at innovation. This is good for the environment as well as for the economy. Made in Europe should indeed stand for the most environmentally friendly products.
Innovation must take place in several directions: lower energy consumption, less pollution from production and consumption, much better handling of natural resources and attention to reusing or recycling products at the end of their useful lives. It is not simply about energy-using products, but also about energy-related products, and I am fully in agreement with the rapporteur that it should in fact be about all products.
Resources, in other words, are important. If, within twenty years, there will be nearly nine billion inhabitants on this earth, and if they all want a reasonable level of prosperity, then it is essential to handle natural resources well and sparingly. There are inspiring concepts, such as the cradle-to-cradle concept put forward by Michael Braungart, radical ideas to make possible a complete reuse of materials.
Today, the important question is: does the directive on ecodesign actually work? The best-known example from the directive on ecodesign is the ban on incandescent light bulbs, an unpopular but very positive decision. Unfortunately, there is still some confusion about the energy-efficiency of LED bulbs, as they turn out to be somewhat less advantageous than manufacturers made it seem.
Another regrettable example of the directive on ecodesign is energy labelling. You now have AA, A+, A20, A40, and soon all products will have some type of A rating. Meanwhile, it is completely unclear what that means, which is hardly a good example of ecodesign.
Fellow Members, this revision cannot, unfortunately, solve everything. We are stuck with our own procedures and agreements and this is a missed opportunity indeed. Hopefully, the evaluation will provide an opportunity for improvement. It is important that the directive on ecodesign be thoroughly evaluated soon. Does it really bring about the innovation we are seeking? Does it place the European Union and European manufacturers at the top of the market? Does it save energy? Does it reduce waste and the use of natural resources? And most importantly: can the effect be extended to non-energy-related products and to all products?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, I have a few words of warning to say about this compromise, which was achieved very quickly - astonishingly quickly, in fact.
We have leapt forward so quickly that we could have adopted this directive tonight practically without debate. That must be one of the reasons why so few Members are planning to speak. I would like to warn that we are extending the scope of this directive at a point in time where we have hardly any experience of how transposal of the current directive has gone. I would also like to remind everyone that we have debated the scope in Parliament, and this House wanted to extend it to cover all products. I think that would be the wrong way to go. It is neither acceptable nor sensible to subject every product produced in the EU to an environmental compliance assessment, and it is regrettable - at least as far as I can see - that this is being included in the text as an option for 2012.
I would like to warn that we need to beware that the European Commission does not become a product planning authority. Politicians and administrators do not know better, including after the experiences of the financial and economic crisis, how products should be produced and what engineers can perhaps do better. In closing, I would also like to remind everyone that the growing complexity of this product legislation overwhelms small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of these requirements can hardly be met by these enterprises as it is, and what we are doing today will saddle them with further burdens, the practical consequences of which I have the feeling we have not sufficiently thought out.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my sincere thanks go to the rapporteur, Mr Csibi, for his excellent work.
The Ecodesign Directive is not one of those matters the media or the general public would get worked up about, but actually it is about something that is very important, although I also share Mr Wijkman's view that the perspective should be widened to cover resource efficiency in general.
All the surveys that have analysed the cost of climate protection show that it is by saving energy that we will cut emissions fastest and more cheaply. If we impose energy efficiency requirements on equipment and products we will save significantly on energy significantly, without the public needing to go to a lot of extra trouble.
Buildings are estimated to cause 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. According to reports we have all seen, improving the energy efficiency of buildings is one of the most economical ways of protecting the climate. Now we are to broaden the scope of the Ecodesign Directive, imposing energy requirements, for example, for windows and wall and insulation elements in buildings. That is only right, and I think it is excellent that we have not allowed the chemical industry lobbyists to block this very necessary decision. This directive will do much to help us reach the 20% energy saving target.
Another important means at our disposal is the energy labelling of equipment. It is pathologically stupid that the Commission should try to do away with the A to G scale, which has worked so well, which consumers have become familiar with, and which has provided a model elsewhere in the world. I am pleased that the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy this week adopted a firm position in favour of keeping the A to G scale and updating its criteria as technology develops. I hope that the Commission will at last pay heed to the very strong and clear view of this Parliament.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Honourable Members, the controversy in this debate does not relate to energy efficiency. I think everyone has agreed that the Commission's proposal will lead to a large step forwards in increasing energy efficiency, energy saving and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is what this proposal is about. It is a proposal relating to our climate and energy policy. I am somewhat amazed by the sweeping criticism that I have just heard. I think I have made it very clear in what I have said here today that the integrated product policy that the Commission is conducting sees energy efficiency and conserving resources as inextricably linked. In that regard, resource conservation does play an absolutely crucial role in the proposal that is on the table, of course it does. This fact appears to have been overlooked.
May I also point out that, in terms of implementation measures, Annex 1 to the directive already covers all environmentally relevant properties for the entire life cycle of a product - thus including resource efficiency rather than merely energy efficiency - and that the Commission takes such factors into account when it lays down, with the aid of a specifically developed methodology, which eco-design parameters are to be regulated in the implementing measures for the eco-design of energy-using products. In terms of specific implementation measures, the issue of resource efficiency is absolutely key.
Let me say something quite general about policy on this issue, however. I think that this new product policy, which will have an enormous impact on consumer behaviour, on industrial production across the scale and on our whole economic culture, cannot be completed in one fell swoop but needs to be achieved on an incremental basis. In addition, it is always sensible to only lay down statutory rules once there is at least a minimum of experience and that is not something that we have enough of at present when it comes to resource efficiency for standard consumer products. We have, however, set out very clearly the direction we are moving in and I am fairly sure that, next time we come to deal with this directive, the focus will no longer be on energy efficiency but rather on resource conservation.
I would be very grateful to you all if, in the current situation, we could do what is sensibly achievable at this time and together realise what is really an important and lasting contribution to minimising energy consumption and thus to achieving our goal of making Europe the world leader in energy efficiency and reducing CO2 output.
Commission statement
Csibi report
The Commission declares that adoption of the proposed extension of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-related products will not affect the implementation of the work programme currently established.
Moreover, the Commission will take due account of the experience gained under the Directive when establishing the work programme and proposing new implementing measures under the recast Directive. In line with Article 15(2)(c) of the Directive and the principles of better regulation, the Commission will in particular strive to ensure that overall consistency in the EU legislation on products is maintained.
In addition, the Commission will, when assessing the appropriateness of extending the scope of the Directive to non-energy-related products according to Article 21, consider the need for adapting the methodology for identifying and addressing significant environmental parameters for such products.
rapporteur. - Mr President, compromise is never easy, and today's debate showed us that we have different opinions, but it is also never easy to find a good middle way between the progressiveness of the European Parliament and the realism of the DGs and the Council.
But I would like to sincerely thank our colleagues from the DGs for their flexibility. I would also like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for his support and kind words, and the shadow rapporteurs who helped me in this legislative process.
From my point of view I think that we have succeeded in finding a good middle way in this proposal and in finding a way of dealing with this package which will not overburden European industry but also will help us attain a more energy-efficient and resource-efficient European industry.
But I would also like to echo to some extent what my colleague Mr Krahmer said, and to express my hope that the implementation of this proposal will be as quick as our legislative work.
So I would like to see quick implementation, I would like to see quick results and I would like to see results which first of all serve the interests of European citizens, and then also those of European industry.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
The current financial crisis is only helping to reinforce the EU's responsibility to honour its commitments in the areas of energy and the environment. Numerous measures must be taken (for example, ecodesign) so that the way we consume and manufacture items in Europe becomes more sustainable, without additional costs being imposed on businesses and citizens.
Ecodesign relates to the first stage in a product's life cycle. The aim of the new concept is to eliminate the impact made on the environment by products and the production process. Around 80% of a product's impact on the environment and the costs throughout its life cycle can be calculated during the design phase. The accumulation and dissemination of the body of knowledge generated by the ecodesign efforts of manufacturers is one of the crucial benefits in the reform of the ecodesign directive.
Informing consumers about energy efficiency and resources should become a key element in manufacturers' decisions. Improving energy efficiency is the quickest and cheapest way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In order to provide greater transparency for consumers, industry and the relevant authorities and facilitate the rapid collection of data for consumers and SMEs, there must be an accessible database.
I support the request submitted to the Commission for creating a public ecodesign database available online.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance pursuant to Rule 144 of the Rules of Procedure.
Mr President, we do appreciate your kind words about Nicholas Bethel. His death a fortnight ago has led to many tributes from across the political spectrum. As we debate the issue of human rights, something that presses upon us now as it always has, we should remember his enormous efforts. We remember, and we are proud of, his award of the Schuman Medal in 2003, when, despite the ravages of his ill health, he delivered a moving and eloquent speech to members of our group. For many people, his championing of the cause of both Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov is something we should not forget.
A letter was written by Elena Bonner, the widow of Andrei Sakharov, to Nicholas Bethel's family a few days ago, in which she recognised that, without his help, the cause of Sakharov and many other dissidents in the then Soviet Union - and the nature of the repressive regime - would not have been properly recognised outside.
On behalf of the British Conservative delegation, I am proud to deliver a tribute to a courageous man. Those of us who attended his funeral in London on Thursday saw and heard for themselves the immense pride and affection in which he was held by so many friends and colleagues outside as well as inside the political world. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.
It was a privilege for me and for many of my colleagues in this Parliament to have served with him, a man of such distinction and humanity.
(Applause)
(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, Russia has started to show in a number of ways where, in its view, the borders of the European Union should lie.
Since August endless columns of cars have been standing at Narva border crossing in my homeland, Estonia. On the worst days it takes over 100 hours to cross the border, with over 400 lorries queuing. The situation on the border between Russia and Latvia is even worse.
The Kremlin has agreed to initial discussion of the issue in Moscow on 16 November, but that is still two months away.
I want to encourage the European Commission and the European Council to address the issue considerably sooner, at the next summit in a month's time on 26 October in Portugal.
It strikes me that the parties have an excellent opportunity here to improve relations by turning their attention to practical issues such as the trouble-free crossing of borders.
The free movement of goods is one of Europe's fundamental freedoms. Russia, which aspires to membership of the WTO, cannot afford to behave like this. After all, it also wants the support of our Union.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 30 October 1985, Altiero Spinelli, fearing that the Europe of nations, rather than the European nation, would very quickly undermine the 1984 reform of the European Parliament, entrusted us in this House with the task of continuing the European revolution. I should simply like to quote what he said on 31 December: 'The European Parliament may censure the Commission, may bring about its resignation, may reject the budget, may vote for a budget other than that proposed by the Council, but the European Parliament must in particular forward its opinions to the Council. Without these opinions, the Council cannot make decisions!'; Spinelli, who organised tens of meetings on this issue in the various European countries, concluded 'the European Parliament should have the courage to strike in support of its opinions.'
Mr President, we went for a military rather than a parliamentary operation to achieve a new structure, a new organisation of Europe. It seems to me that the polls tell us clearly what the people of Europe think of this and of the bureaucratic Europe of nations and not the European nation.
We are aware of your revolutionary enthusiasm, Mr Pannella. Yet we must keep to our Rules, and they provide for one-minute speeches. You have been speaking for nearly two minutes.
(PL) Mr President, one of the Catholic institutions of higher education in Poland is currently applying for a grant from the European Union. In our country's history, the Catholic religion has played an important role in the fight for freedom during the Communist era and, in general, has acted for the development of democracy. One could even compare it to the role played by socialism in Franco's Spain. Polish Catholicism has never done anything to harm the Jewish people. However, I have heard that the Jewish people are trying to block this grant and have approached the President of the European Commission. This is interference in Polish affairs and in Polish sensitivities as regards Europe, the Polish nation and religion. The European Union should put its trust in the Poles concerned and not bow to pressure from lobby groups.
(DE) Mr President, Angela Merkel received the Dalai Lama at the Chancellery yesterday. In the context of its strategy of isolating the Dalai Lama on the international stage, China requested Mrs Merkel not to meet him. On several other occasions in the past, Beijing has called on the Federal Government to refuse him entry. That shameless interference is all the more remarkable when we remember that next year China wants to play the gracious host of the Olympic Games. We have seen this kind of brazen attempt to exert pressure in relation not only to the Tibetan people but to human rights in general. That is why I support the Chinese candidate for this year's Sakharov Prize. I seriously wonder what else we can expect in the year to come and what more needs to happen before Europe stops all too casually selling its system of values in return for economic interests. That makes Mrs Merkel's action yesterday all the more encouraging!
(Applause)
(PT) - I should like to take this opportunity to express our solidarity with the soldiers and leaders of associations representing members of the armed forces who are the subject of disciplinary procedures in relation to their activity in such associations, for exercising and upholding the legitimate rights of members of the armed forces in Portugal, especially as regards the whole range of social and professional matters which these associations seek to promote as part of a necessary enhancement of the dignity of military life.
I would like to close by reminding you of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 11 April 2006 on the human rights of members of the armed forces, which states that members of the armed forces are citizens in uniform who must enjoy the same fundamental freedoms, including those set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, and the same protection of their rights and dignity as any other citizen.
In August, the President of this Parliament participated at the congress of the German Landsmannschaft. His decision to support this organisation serves as an example of how the President is not capable of acting neutral when the interests of his country to rewrite history are involved.
Owing to such organisations and their misguided supporters, the German people may possibly believe the lie that Poland committed evil by accepting the historically Polish western territories on the Odra and Nysa from the hands of the Great Powers. A Polish politician once wrote that the Anglo-Saxon parties to the Potsdam Treaty put forward a formula that we had been awarded the western territories by way of compensation for the loss of the eastern territories. The Polish nation has rejected this formula and does not consider these territories as compensation by Russia for the eastern half of our fatherland. The nation believes that the western territories are the compensation for guilt at crimes committed by Germans, compensation that has nothing to do with Lwów and Wilno.
The President of this Parliament, an institution representing 27 nations, is expected to show objectivity and represent the common interests. If Herr President has a problem with that, let him remain silent. Europe does not need any more mawkish, moralising Christers who speak of peace and cooperation.
Mr Wojciechowski, since you have addressed me personally, let me say to you that the principles of the European Union are based on discussing things together, conducting a dialogue. In my speech I spoke of reconciliation, and nobody in Poland could criticise a single sentence of my speech because it was a speech about reconciliation and your views are also represented. I must tell you that I do not understand how you can criticise the fact of talking with people and endeavouring to convince. I ask you to be fair and to do your part in bringing about reconciliation in Europe!
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, specifically on a point of order, I am sorry that you responded in person just now. I can understand that but I find it absolutely intolerable for the President of this Chamber to have to defend himself in person against such an unreasonable and inappropriate attack. That is why I say this - and I hope I am speaking on behalf of all sensible Members of this House: both in this speech and in other, earlier speeches you have upheld the dignity of this House in an outstanding manner and defended the basic values of the European Union with dignity in every respect. I thank you for that, and also for your speech in Poland!
(Applause)
Thank you very much, Mr Schulz. It is certainly moving to hear such words from the Chairman of a large Group. My warm thanks!
(RO) Mr. President, as known, on 25 November 2007, elections to the European Parliament will take place in Romania, the first ones of this type in our country's history.
An event of such a political, social and, as I said, historical importance, should mobilize the entire society so that the event could take place under the best conditions. Unfortunately, this is not happening since the political scene in Romania is agitated by endless disputes, a situation that, in my opinion, does not favour the climate of stability required for the normal development of elections.
Moreover, if the no-confidence motion submitted today, two months before the elections, is adopted, and it has every chances of being adopted, taking into account that it is initiated by the most numerous opposition party, the political situation may become even worse, the main effect being the decrease in the population's interest in the elections to the European Parliament.
In this situation, I consider it opportune, and maybe even necessary, for the political forces in the European Parliament to join the Romanian ones in order to normalize the conditions for carrying out the elections.
(FR) Mr President, I would simply like to add that I have just returned from a four-day visit to Poland.
I had a good look around and I talked to Polish people, and I am pleased to report that I did not meet any who took the same tone as our colleague here. I found the Poles to be thoroughly European. I also laid a wreath at Auschwitz-Birkenau: I believe that people from every country in Europe have been there and I believe that all of us - including yourself, most particularly, Mr President - are determined such things will never happen again!
So I am pleased to say that what we have just heard was not the voice of Poland, nor of the ordinary Polish citizen; it was the voice of dangerous people, whose dangerous thinking would be capable of taking us back to the days of concentration camps.
I will not mince my words here. Never again! And, above all, let us never again hear this sort of hatred expressed in the European Parliament!
(Applause)
(SK) There may be debate later about what I want to say. In 2002 former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán appeared before the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. He stated that the decrees of President Beneš were incompatible with EU law.
The European Commission subsequently carried out an analysis of this matter. The conclusion was that the European Commission considers the issue of the decrees of President Beneš to be resolved and closed. As a result of constant efforts to open up these decrees, last week the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted a resolution on the inviolability of post-war documents. The resolution, which condemns the principle of collective guilt, was supported by members of the coalition and opposition parties.
History cannot be reversed or changed. A situation that occurred in exceptional circumstances must be viewed in the context of the time in which it occurred. Challenging and revising the post-war order of Europe is not what the majority of progressive and positive thinking Europeans expect of us. Our common aim is peace, cooperation and resolution of the problems facing people who live in the here and now.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very keen to draw your attention to the resolution that was adopted last Thursday in the Slovak Parliament. That resolution does not reflect a European spirit, it does not reflect a spirit of reconciliation and understanding, but instead says that the decrees that came into force after the Second World War, the Beneš decrees, are still fully applicable today. The explanatory statement equates the Hungarian and German minority with traitors and enemies. I want to point out that we as a European Parliament - and I have already written to the President too - should send out a clear signal that this is not the spirit that should inspire us in Europe but that we should be working together on the construction of Europe and building up a common future.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, I am loathe to speak on this matter, but I have a request to all Members taking part, whether it be Mr Ferber, or Mr Maňka, who belongs to my Group. What has been happening in some EU Member States and their parliaments over the past weeks gives cause for concern.
Every one of us in this House knows that even if the Slovak Parliament adopts a resolution of this kind, the Beneš decrees can no longer have any legal effect. On their accession to the European Union, all Member States who join it have committed themselves to basic values, which makes any further discussion of the issue Mr Ferber has brought up unnecessary. That brings us up against the question: what are we as a European Parliament doing to calm the situation down?
In my view we should not start interpreting the text - and incidentally I did not find the phrases you used in the text - but take a different approach. The European Parliament, instead of fuelling the tensions with controversial debates, could decide to take a different approach and apply the procedures for resolving disputes that we use in our own everyday work in this case too. That would mean saying that the mission of this Parliament 60 years after the end of the war is not to conjure up the ghosts of 1945, but instead to convey the spirit of cooperation of 2007.
One way to do this would be through a dialogue, which does not have to take place here in plenary. I therefore call on all colleagues in my Group, as in your Group and all the other Groups, to try to calm the situation down instead of aggravating it by statements designed for media effect, which is what I think they are.
We are not holding a debate now. Mr Ferber, there is no provision for Members to answer one another.
(Heckling)
(DE) Mr President, I would ask Members to take note of what this item on the agenda is actually about. If Mr Schulz feels he has to comment on every second or third speech, that is his problem. But if he is interested in having a real debate here, then I would be pleased if he would support our Group's request to hold a debate on this subject in this House at the earliest opportunity.
(Exchange of views with microphones switched off)
I hope this matter will be resolved amicably.
(SL) Thank you very much, Mr President.
Last week several Slovenian provinces were badly affected by a natural disaster - the worst flooding in living memory. Six people lost their lives and initial assessments put the material damage at at least EUR 200 million.
People have started to rebuild in the affected areas. They are being assisted by the government and large numbers of volunteers, but the scale of the damage is such that we are justifiably also relying on solidarity from the European Union.
I am pleased that the European Union has already announced that it will give the matter due attention in terms of aid.
Thank you very much too for your attention.
(HU) Mr President, last week the National Council of the Slovak Republic passed a resolution affirming the inviolability of the Beneš Decrees. Based on the principle of collective guilt, these decrees deprived ethnic Hungarians and Germans of their assets, of the possibility of exercising their civil rights, and often even deprived them of their personal freedom.
This was a shameful thing even at the time, but it is especially shameful that in the 21st century, 60 years after the events took place, a Member State of the European Union should have tabled this motion and reaffirmed it. Of course it comes as no surprise that this is happening in a Slovakia which is currently in the process of ratifying a law naming Hlinka, leader of the semi-fascist Slovak state, as father of the Slovak nation. It is happening in a Slovakia where, moreover, Ján Slota says the trouble is that they have not been able to rid the country of Hungarians, and that this is the source of all their problems.
I think that every democrat has an obligation - and I say this with all due respect to Mr Schulz too - to condemn all such attempts to resurrect the terrible and shameful events of 60 years ago. Thank you.
(SK) In August this year an extreme right-wing group known as the 'Hungarian Guard' was formed in the Republic of Hungary. The Guard's aim is to protect Hungary from attacks from neighbouring countries but its officials are stating that they will never abandon their demand that all Hungarians should live in one state.
The Hungarian authorities have not challenged the activities of this nationalist group and have enabled it to register, thereby legalising its activities. The group's first public event was even attended by a FIDESZ party member of the Hungarian Parliament. The formation of this group is causing anxiety and fear in neighbouring countries, primarily Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. In the light of the increasingly radical views of certain Hungarian political circles, the Slovak Parliament has adopted a declaration on the inviolability of post-war documents governing the post-war order in Central Europe.
(HU) Mr President, this debate again demonstrates that we newcomer nations should follow the example of the old Member States of the European Union in terms of how German and French people achieved reconciliation, how the Italians and Austrians achieved agreement on South Tyrol, how Dutch and Germans, Germans and Danes, Germans and Belgians resolved centuries-old conflicts.
My message to everyone in this House is that the way to respond to nationalism is not with more nationalism, but by condemning nationalism, and first and foremost by condemning and combating our own nationalism.
The European Union's fifty-year history has been a history of reconciliation among its peoples and ethnic groups, of atonement and self-examination by its peoples following the Second World War. Willy Brandt's historic gesture of kneeling in Warsaw may have contributed to enabling the German nation to hold their heads high and become a great people and a respected nation in Europe once more. Asking other peoples or ethnic minorities for forgiveness, acknowledging our past errors and crimes cannot, will not ever diminish the stature of a people or nation; on the contrary, only by doing so can a people or nation become great.
We know full well that the notion of collective guilt has led to universal conflagration and to the extermination and prostration of peoples. My message is that there is no alternative to a historic Hungarian-Slovak reconciliation either for the Slovak majority, the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, or for relations between Hungary and Slovakia. Thank you for your attention.
(RO) Mr. President, on 14 September, I submitted a resolution proposal to the Private Office of the President of the European Parliament regarding compliance with the linguistic rights of Romanian communities in Europe and the conservation of the Romanian language in the context of promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity.
At the end of August, an unprecedented testimony was the exchange of opinions with the members of the Ilaşcu group, which took place in the Sub-Commission for Human Rights. They spoke about the closing down of Romanian language schools and about the fact that books written in the Romanian language are burnt in the Transnistrian region of Moldova. Also, I have received numerous complaints at my parliamentary office from the Romanian community of Valea Timocului in Serbia, in relation to the prohibition of the right to learn and pray in the Romanian language. The same things can be said about the Romanian communities in Bulgaria and Ukraine.
In the context of the beginning of 2008, a year of intercultural dialogue and attention given by the European Union to promoting cultural diversity, as well as by creating the position of Commissioner responsible for multilingualism in 2007, I believe we cannot ignore the situation of continuous infringement of the linguistic rights of Romanian communities. We must promote their protection, both within the foreign policy and the internal policy of the European Union, to find solutions for improving the current situation.
(RO) Mr. President, the European press has presented a series of abuses committed by employers from the European Union Member States against seasonal or permanent workers coming from the newly acceded countries, abuses associated with serious infringements of the labour legislation. Such regrettable cases are possible due to the fact that the newcomers are not aware of their rights on the labour market, the relevant legislation and, especially, the institutions competent to protect them.
This is the reason why I firmly request the European Union to urgently establish offices, in all Member States, for free legal consulting on labour law for workers coming from other Member States. I also consider that, for regulating such situations, the Commission also has to take into account measures for encouraging and facilitating the migration of labour forces between Member States.
(PL) Mr President, for us Poles the Gdansk shipyard is not just the birthplace of 'Solidarity', it is also a symbol of the changes that have taken place both on a national and international level. It is also a symbol of freedom and partnership.
At present there is a conflict between the Board of the shipyard and the European Commission, which is demanding a drastic reduction in the shipyard's capacity and the closure of two slipways, or else the refund of state aid. I would like to make public here that the Gdansk shipyard was the beneficiary that received the lowest subsidies and despite that was the only one of them to make a profit in the first six months of this year.
If the shipyard were to give in and accept these conditions, then, practically speaking, this would be the end of this symbolic shipyard that has done so much to deserve assistance. The supervisory board of the shipyard has decided to increase the initial capital by PLN 300 million, which would be allocated for additional investment. It is still possible to save this shipyard. I believe that saving this workplace would be an honourable action not just for Poles, but also for the European Union. Today the workforce and I ask that the Members sign declaration no. 81 concerning the future of the Gdansk shipyard.
In addition, on a formal issue, Mr President, could I say a couple of words since I have the floor? I would like to ask who gave Mr Schulz the job of censor? He does this job without politeness, without manners, he interferes in debates and speaks out of turn. I would also add that he certainly does not have the majority behind him.
(EL) Mr President, we returned last week from Palestine where we in the Committee on Development were fortunate enough to see the current situation both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.
The Gaza Strip has reached crisis point. What was once an open jail is now the scene of a catastrophe because the Israeli authorities have decided to ban imports. Hospitals, for instance, have medicines but no spare parts for their equipment.
Roads are piled with rubbish and there is a danger of tanks overflowing with effluent. In short, the humanitarian situation is desperate. People in Gaza are living on the breadline; the difference between the two Palestinian territories is beginning to become obvious.
We as a Parliament must therefore take action to free Gaza from its isolation and to bring about a sustainable solution based on the needs of a whole nation rather than those of the inhabitants of one side.
(DE) Mr President, like my colleague and friend Milan Horáček I wanted to address an event that occurred yesterday. Chancellor Angela Merkel was the first German Head of Government to receive the Dalai Lama, in Berlin. She has stood firm against all the verbal attacks and disparaging personal remarks made by the Chinese. She has repeated that she is prepared to support the Tibetan people in their aspiration towards cultural and religious identity and desire to achieve genuine autonomy. Our European Parliament, which is the voice of human rights throughout the world, also endorses the non-violent approach the Dalai Lama has consistently followed. Let yesterday's event set an example throughout the European Union. It should encourage our Member State governments never to give in to China, not even under economic and political pressure.
(Applause)
Mr President, my point is simple: as energy becomes the focal point in international politics and as efforts to create a single EU energy market are increasingly resisted by the existing national monopolies, the efforts of the same Union to further integrate the foreign policies of its Member States into a common foreign and security policy would be consequently undermined, because, on the import side, Member States seek to continue to secure preferential deals with the major suppliers and, on the export side, they would attempt to extract maximum gain from unilateral policies. The effects are already visible: in spite of the hard talk at Union level, the truth is that, instead of reducing its current energy dependency, the EU is becoming more and more dependent on Russian and/or Russian-controlled energy supplies. Not that a substantive relationship with Russia is a bad thing in itself, but, the more substantive it gets, the more unbalanced it tends to get too. As a citizen of a country with enough experience in the matter, I know how difficult it is to keep politics away from trying to exploit such an economic dependency.
(SL) Mr President, I have drawn attention on a number of occasions to the Slovenian minorities in Italy and Austria but on this occasion I welcome the Italian Government's actions last year aimed at implementing a law to protect the Slovenian minority, namely the establishment of a list of 32 municipalities in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and support for the building of a Slovenian school in San Pietro al Natisone and Slavia Veneta. These measures will ease the lives of the Slovenian minority in Italy and satisfy at least some of their rights and needs.
However, I also call upon the Austrian Government and our fellow Austrian MEPs to do their utmost to ensure that Austria also makes the earliest possible start on implementing in full Article 7 of the Austrian State Treaty. I refer in particular to paragraph 3 which in principle guarantees the Slovenian minority the right to bilingual signs. This will promote coexistence and even better relations between the countries concerned and also relations within the European Union.
Mr President, I rise to make a protest and a proposal. I want to protest against the actions of the Polish Government in blocking a decision in Council to have a Europe-wide declaration regarding the abolition of the death penalty on 10 October 2007. I believe that delivers a very bad signal to the many countries around the world which persist in retaining the death penalty, some of which execute children and people with mental disabilities. Something like 5 000 people are executed by states every year and 28 000 people languish on death row, so it is inexcusable that a full Member State of the European Union should in any way deliver an opinion which seeks to undermine the argument for ending the death penalty.
I wish to propose that you undertake an initiative for this Parliament to mark 10 October in a special way, and that you encourage the Member States of the European Union, and all the parliaments of the Member States, to do likewise.
Mr President, I rise on an issue of an animal disease, blue tongue, which has spread through Europe - through France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium; and now we have one case in the UK. It is a difficult disease to find and it is a difficult one to diagnose, and the long-term solution is a vaccine.
I recommend to this Parliament, the Commission and the Council that we do everything in our power to get a vaccination in place, because this disease has killed over 1.8 million cattle and sheep in the last 10 years in Europe. So we need to do something about it seriously. I would urge you to put all pressure on the Commission, the Council and this Parliament to get a vaccine available.
This item is closed.


11. Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (


Documents received: see Minutes


27. Crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (vote)
- Draft European Parliament Recommendation author: Wallis
- Before the vote
rapporteur. - Mr President, this is a real report this time. It is a report that represents 18 months of work of a committee of inquiry of this House. This morning whilst we were having the debate, colleagues from various different groups approached me and said that they would like a roll-call vote. We should have requested it yesterday, but in view of the number of colleagues who have come to me, I wonder if we could now do that.
(The request was accepted)