Formal sitting - Latvia
Mr President of the Republic of Latvia, the right honourable Valdis Zatlers, it is a very great pleasure for us all to be able to welcome you today on your first visit to the European Parliament. I should like to start by thanking you, as the President of a country which is still a relatively new Member State of the European Union, for accepting the European Parliament's invitation to address us today, the day on which we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of our common currency, the euro. Today is a premiere in every sense of the word, as this was the first time that the European hymn has been played to welcome a guest to plenary here in the European Parliament.
(Applause)
May I take this opportunity to mention once again today the historic significance of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004. It took over 60 years to bring your country back into a free and democratic Europe and unify our continent.
We live today in peace, freedom and democracy. Our citizens enjoy prospects that our forefathers could only have dreamed of. We must and should rejoice in that.
It is true that today the European Union faces new and serious challenges. Even the people of Latvia have come to feel this quite clearly, for example as a result of the financial crisis, which has also hit your country hard, Mr President. The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine is also giving the citizens of Latvia justified cause for concern.
It is precisely in times of crisis that we understand the value of membership of a European Union based on the principle of solidarity between its peoples. It is precisely in this time of crisis that we all feel the need for community and cooperation between our countries and the European institutions.
Together we are stronger, together we can defend our interests and values better throughout the world. That is also why the European Parliament hopes the Lisbon Treaty, which gives the European Union a stronger capacity to act to overcome these serious challenges, will shortly enter into force.
In this respect, the European Parliament elections due to take place in June this year are immensely important, because we want to push ahead with the success story of the European peace and unification project together, in a democratic European Union with a European Parliament with codecision powers in nearly every area.
I truly hope that the citizens of Latvia - and of all the other Member States of the European Union - will understand that their vote is important because it gives them European powers of codecision and in this sense will turn out in force during the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament.
Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to invite you now to address the European Parliament. May I warmly welcome you once again to the European Parliament.
(Applause)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the President for his kind words of introduction and his invitation to address the elected representatives of the nations of Europe. I am honoured to have this opportunity. I take great pleasure in addressing the European Parliament in my mother tongue, especially because for five years now, Latvian has been one of the official languages of the European Union. I am speaking to you today at a time when the term of office of the first Members of the European Parliament to be elected from Latvia is drawing to a close. I thank you for having carried out your duties with distinction.
Dear friends, this year, 2009, is a very significant year for Latvia. It is five years since Latvia acceded to the European Union and to NATO. Membership of these international organisations became a strategic aim for Latvia following the restoration of independence in 1991. Latvia clearly expressed its wish to participate in European and transatlantic economic and security structures. The enlargement of the family of European democratic nations in the first decade of the 21st century represented the most dynamic changes in Europe since the foundation of the European Union. These were significant changes. European structures were joined by nations that had long been isolated by force from them, even though the values that lie at the heart of the European Union had historically been rooted in these nations.
On 18 November last year, Latvia celebrated the 90th anniversary of its proclamation. That anniversary was highly significant for our people. It once again affirmed our steadfast will to live in an independent, free and democratic nation. In the act declaring the Republic of Latvia in 1918 it is written that: 'All citizens regardless of their ethnic origin are called on to give their assistance, for all human rights shall be guaranteed in Latvia. It shall be a democratic and just nation, where there shall be no room for oppression and injustice ...'. I am very proud of these words. Thirty years before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Republic of Latvia declared its loyalty to its fundamental values and principles.
Latvia has always felt itself to belong to Europe and its values, even when Latvia and other Central and Eastern European nations were long bound to a state where many values were looked at through a special ideological prism. Peace reigned among the nations of the Eastern bloc, but it was the peace of the prison courtyard. It was brought about by the presence of tanks, repression and threats. Last year, ladies and gentlemen, both you and the whole of Europe were reminded of the inhumanity of totalitarian ideology by Edvīns Šnore's film 'A Soviet Story'. We have a common history, but our fates have been diverse. You have to look back into the past in order to understand one another and look to the future together. That is why I should like to thank the European Parliament for the declaration adopted on 22 September last year to proclaim 23 August as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. This declaration reminds the people of Europe of these tragic events in the history of Latvia and the whole of Europe.
Today, I should like to look at much more recent history. This year marks five years since Latvia became a member of the European Union and of NATO. What sort of time has this been for Latvia? What has our nation gained? What have our nation's achievements been and what are the challenges still ahead of us? Firstly, the aspiration to become part of Europe encouraged the consolidation of democracy in our society and contributed to the development of democratic institutions. With our accession to the European Union, Latvia signalled its determination for its own future, its determination to found its future on a European identity and on our common values: freedom and democracy, accountability, the rule of law and human rights, equality, tolerance and prosperity. Secondly, membership of the European Union has improved the investment climate in Latvia. 'European money', as we commonly call European Union structural funds, has contributed significantly to the development of Latvia's economy. Thirdly, we can enjoy the privileges afforded by the free movement of persons. Free travel in the Schengen area has become so customary and self-evident; it has become so natural to learn, work and gain experience in other European Union Member States. Fourthly, the free movement of goods and services has opened up new opportunities for business. Every entrepreneur and consumer can operate in a free environment without borders and without customs duties. For us in a country with a small internal market, this is particularly important. Fifthly, and most important of all, Latvian voices are heard in Europe and European voices are heard in the world. We can be proud that we have at our disposal such a unique mechanism of collaboration. It allows all of us to search together for active solutions to global challenges, climate and demographic change, the reinforcement of energy security, the problems of migration, and in the case of financial crisis, on a worldwide scale. Latvia now has at its disposal new political and economic instruments, but it must be noted that our nation's responsibility for the common future of Europe, a responsibility before all the people of Europe, has also significantly increased.
Looking back at our achievements, we must also be critical and own up to mistakes that have been committed. After accession to the European Union, the Latvian government lapsed into a sense of a 'job well done'; it had achieved its goal. We did not recognise that we were only at the beginning and not at the end of the process. The European Union offers great opportunities, but each nation and each society must grasp them by itself. We in Latvia have not grasped all the opportunities; we have not always wisely implemented cohesion policy or made use of the financial opportunities we have been offered. Our state institutions had to learn how to live in the European Union. We have not been sufficiently determined to adopt the euro; that is one of the greatest mistakes we have made in the euro integration process, something that is acutely evident today in the circumstances of the financial crisis.
Yet even the most hardened Eurosceptic must admit that Latvia's membership of the European Union has on the whole been positive. Is there anyone in Latvia who wants to return to a Europe where there are customs barriers between nations? No! Is there anyone who wants to wait in a queue at the border in order to enter a neighbouring country? No! Is there anyone who wants to return to a world where there are restrictions on the free movement of workers, on their education and on their gaining experience? Of course not! Even Eurosceptics soon get used to good things, and become simply sceptics.
Ladies and gentlemen, the deterioration of the situation within the financial system and economy in recent months has irreversibly changed the role and significance of national governments within economic processes. Until now, the financial markets were able to develop very freely. We were persuaded that the laws of the market would by themselves be sufficiently efficient in promoting economic development. We believed that the market alone would put everything in its place. That is indeed what happens. The market regulates itself. What we can see from this global crisis, however, is that our financial systems and our economies are suffering from that market, and most important of all, real people are suffering from the crisis. The course of events at the end of last year has shown us that it is essential for national governments to play a more active part in the economic process. The previous approach, of nodding off at the wheel of economic management, was irresponsible. Unfortunately, we have awoken too late. Late enough to still espy the obstacle - the financial morass - on the road ahead of us, but no longer able to avoid it.
In this situation, a complex approach at national, European and global level is what is needed. At the global level, coordinated action to restart economic growth is essential. That will only be possible by designing a new architecture and mechanisms for the financial system. It will be vital to supervise the system strictly, without simultaneously limiting initiative or market processes. The most difficult challenge will be to strike precisely this balance. At the European level, we have a significant advantage, for we can implement coordinated measures, take united action and achieve a sustainable solution. We welcome the Commission's European Economic Recovery Plan. It is an important step out of the morass in which we find ourselves at this time.
I shall spend a little more time on national-level solutions. The global financial crisis has also hit Latvia. There is a school of thought which suggests that Latvia is currently undergoing one of the most dramatic rescue operations of any financial system in modern European history. Currently, Latvia is working on measures to stimulate the economy in order to stabilise the financial and economic situation swiftly and effectively. It is a difficult task, but we shall succeed in overcoming the crisis only by seeing a clear way out of it, and not by mistaking short-term solutions for a long-term vision of economic development.
At the end of last year, six political parties represented in the Latvian parliament, from both government and opposition, agreed on a common stance of support for the economic stabilisation plan drawn up by the Latvian government. This agreement provides for special attention to be paid to monitoring how the loan granted to Latvia is utilised. The plan defines the medium-term priorities for Latvia's economy: support for exports, the promotion of free and fair competition, a significant reduction in the current-account deficit in the balance of payments, and the introduction of the euro in 2012. Accession to the euro area has become one of our nation's most important strategic goals. It is important for Latvia not to be left alone in this situation. We are being helped to overcome this difficult time not only by international financial organisations but also by the institutions of the European Union and by the nations of Europe. Latvia is grateful for this expression of solidarity.
Ladies and gentlemen, each enlargement has not only brought the European Union new Member States, but it has also introduced new accents into its agenda, including its foreign policy. Latvia's accession to the European Union took place at a time when Europe's Neighbourhood Policy, its goals, principles and implementation mechanisms, were being drawn up. Since that time, there has been a particular increase in the European Union's foreign policy activity towards its eastern neighbours. This has happened thanks to the engagement and experience of the new Member States. Latvia has always seen neighbourhood relations in a wider dimension. Latvia will continue to play an active part in the determination and implementation of this policy in the future.
This policy is not just a matter of the European Union's relations with particular states, that is, with those states with which it shares a land or maritime border. In the context of this policy, we must address the European Union's place and role in the world. Together with other like-minded nations, Latvia has actively encouraged a closer involvement by the European Union in its eastern neighbourhood region. A new political initiative, the 'Eastern Partnership' has come about, whose mission is to reshape Europe's common neighbourhood policy and adapt it to the specific characteristics of this region, thereby making this process more active, more courageous and more ambitious. Latvia notes with pleasure the European Commission's proposals in this regard. In its practical work, the Eastern Partnership must strengthen the political and economic relations between the European Union and the states in this region, and also strengthen the mutual cooperation between those states. In developing the Eastern Partnership, attention must be paid to the differentiation principle, individual assessment and the attitude towards each of the partners. Each of these states is following its own path of development. There are those states who wish to see themselves in the European Union, and there are those states that have chosen other goals for themselves. Our policy will succeed only if we are able to work together with all the states of this region, helping with understanding where necessary. I also received positive signals for extending and deepening cooperation on my visit to the Central Asian nations last October, when I visited Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Latvia will continue to be an active supporter of Europe's Neighbourhood Policy and play an active part in implementing it. Every European nation has its own experience of history and its own opportunities to work on our common project for the benefit of the European Union. Latvia's particular contribution to the eastern dimension is the mutual trust demonstrated by our bilateral relations, which are rooted in a shared period in history, and the expertise born out of that trust. Latvia's duty is to make use of this special circumstance which could be lost within the next 10 years. After several decades, to eastern eyes, Latvia will be only one of the Member States of the European Union, not the gateway to Europe. Making use of these advantages, Latvia will maintain an active political dialogue in order to encourage a better understanding of the European Union and its values in the neighbouring states and so clarify the goals of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. That is of mutual benefit, and we have an opportunity to hear how neighbouring states perceive their future relations with the European Union. I am convinced that Europe's interests would be best served by an early inauguration of the Eastern Partnership during the Czech Republic's Presidency.
Ladies and gentlemen, the question of energy security has very recently become topical during the first days of the Czech Presidency. The financial and economic crisis is cyclical in its own way. Questions associated with energy security and sustainable energy sources are, however, always on Europe's political agenda and that of the world. They are becoming more and more urgent. Energy security has a pronounced external dimension. This means that this question cannot be viewed divorced from the world situation. The recent events in Ukraine and the conflict in Georgia are proof of this. Even quite recently, European Union Member States regarded energy as an issue to be resolved at the national and not at the European Union level. The events of the last year in the energy sector, the interruptions to energy supply, the shrinking of energy resources and price volatility have helped to create a common understanding in European Union Member States of the need for a common energy policy. At the intersection of energy and politics, our main task is to secure a regular, sufficient, economic, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy supply.
You have to admit that the European Union has had only mixed success in this sphere. On some issues, of which the development of an environmentally friendly energy economy is an example, we have adopted ambitious goals at the European level, which we must now begin to achieve. On other issues - diversification of energy sources at European level and creation of a single energy market - we are right at the beginning of our journey. The events of the last few days, involving a cut-off of gas supplies from Russia, has opened eyes to the need to find the quickest possible solution at pan-European level. All of us have the responsibility of applying this common understanding to create a truly integrated and diversified European energy market. We must not allow our resolve to vanish along with this spring's snow. The energy security question can only be successfully resolved by an active dialogue with the transit and supplier countries for energy resources. The European Union has the foreign policy instruments to resolve this issue. Our responsibility is to make use of them.
A further direction where we must make serious efforts is the integration of the Baltic energy market with the Scandinavian and Central European energy markets. Integration in the Baltic region is patchy. Trade and transport in the region are developing apace. The energy market, however, is stagnating. Here, the European Commission has done noteworthy work. Its initiative to improve energy security and solidarity also includes the development of the interconnection plan for the Baltic energy market. This will allow for a progressive integration of the Baltic States into the single European energy market. I hold Sweden's involvement in the strategic discussions on the Baltic Sea region in high regard. Sweden will shortly have the opportunity to put it into practice during its presidency in the second half of this year. I am convinced that strong regions from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea make for a strong European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, the initial aim of the European Union - the security and wellbeing of the people of Europe - has not altered. What has altered is the environment in which we must achieve this aim. The global economy is much more closely linked than it was half a century ago. At the same time, powerful new economic players have appeared on the world scene. It is only with coherent, far-sighted and, most important of all, common action by the European Union that we can hope not to be the losers in this global competitive struggle. Only together can we fulfil the promises of security and wellbeing for our citizens. Only thus can we attain the goal for which the people of our nations have cast their votes, in support of our participation in the European Union.
The European Parliament has already shown that it has a broad vision of the future of the European Union. This is especially true of its uniform and balanced approach to the Union's enlargement policy. Europe's dynamic growth has given Europe the opportunity to compete globally. This growth is Europe's potential, which it must exploit, so that the Union can, even several decades from now, be an equal economic partner for the rapidly growing Asian and Latin American economies. It is you yourselves in particular, as the democratically elected representatives of Europe's nations, who feel the responsibility for this process most acutely. It is also impossible to overestimate the significance of the European Parliament in bringing the European project nearer to our people and extending its democratic legitimacy. In the future, the role of the European Parliament will become even more important.
It is important to unite in our multiformity and diversity. It is important to continue working on improving the European Union. That is a task that all Europeans must take on together. That is our common responsibility towards Europe. It is essential to prevent fragmentation of the European Union. Member States must seek solutions and avoid the development of a multi-speed approach to the European project. The agreement reached in the Council last month for the furtherance of the Lisbon Treaty is welcome. The Lisbon Treaty is the legal precondition for the future fully effective functioning of the European Union. Only by putting the principles of the Lisbon Treaty into practice shall we be able fully to realise the positive potential that the new, united Europe offers. How effectively the Lisbon Treaty will work in practice depends on the political will of the Member States and institutions and their ability to unite in achieving Europe's goals.
Ladies and gentlemen, until 2004, Latvia's goal was membership of the European Union. Since that time, we have shaped Latvia's goals in the context of Europe's goals. We can no longer consider and perceive ourselves separately from Europe. We can define and achieve Latvia's goals only if they match Europe's common vision of the future. For their part, Europe's goals are attainable if they correspond to the vision of every Member State. The European Union was built and must be strengthened on a base of common values. Only public discussion can tease out those values that are common to all of us. Only in unison can we agree on those values that we are going to place alongside those on which the European Union was founded. It is the task of all politicians, but especially of Europe's leaders, to define European values and initiate discussion on them.
Let us look into the future. How do I see the European Union and Latvia in the longer term? In 2015, say? The post-crisis economic world will have coalesced into several economic power centres. One of them will be the European Union. Europe will have the will and the ability to be united, for only union will afford us the chance to fulfil our tasks. Moreover, the European Union will still be open to all those Europeans who accept its values. This unity in diversity will be the key to the growing importance of Europe's role in the world. The European Union will have expanded, but it will not lose the capability of effective action. The European Union will be able to look after its own security and provide for stability in its neighbours. Education and culture will be the bridge joining the different experiences of the European Union's Member States and that will help to regain Europe's leading role in the world in the realms of science and culture. There will no longer be old and new, small and large European nations. In Europe, nations will be judged according to their achievements, not by geographical and geopolitical criteria. Europe will be united, and this unity will be secured by powerful regions, which while defending their own interests will work closely together with others, thereby creating a network of wellbeing and development throughout Europe. Every nation will contribute to this development according to its own abilities and particular knowledge.
What will be Latvia's role in the European Union of 2015? That will be a time when Latvia will have emerged from the crisis. Latvia's capital city, Riga, will be one of the flourishing centres of the Baltic economic region. Latvia's economy will be more balanced, more competitive and structurally transformed. In 2015, for the first time in the history of the independent state, Latvia will be entrusted with solving questions on the European and global scale as the presiding Member State of the European Union. Our contribution to Europe will be our special relationships with the Eastern Partnership nations. Latvia and our region will be the bridge to the East, just as the Mediterranean states will join both shores of that sea. Our vision of an open Europe and our experience of integration will be the spur to Europe's openness.
Ladies and gentlemen, 2015 is not far away; only six years stand between us. A century ago, the Latvian poet Rainis wrote: 'What changes, endures'. Those are still wise words today. I am convinced that Europe will change materially. It will grow more powerful in its economy, welfare and mutual cooperation. It will consolidate its value system. Europeans will be proud that they live in Europe and yet belong to their own nation. Unity in diversity, development, preservation of values and every citizen's responsibility towards his or her nation and for the European family as a whole, that is Europe's future.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe's development and prosperity is the yardstick of our success. It is how our work will be judged. It is our responsibility. I call on you, as Members of the European Parliament, to encourage Europeans' understanding of our common goals and of how they will affect the life of every European in his or her own home. The support of European citizens for the idea of Europe is the strongest guarantee of Europe's future. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your work in this session. I wish you success in your further work and in the next European Parliament elections.
Mr President, may I thank you on behalf of the European Parliament for your address, for your European courageousness and for your European determination. We were of course glad to hear that you value the European Parliament, and rightly so.
I still remember very clearly that, during accession negotiations in the second half of the 1990s, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia were initially excluded. It was the European Parliament that called on the governments to include Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia in the negotiations. As a result, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia were able to become members of the European Union on 1 May 2004.
You addressed the energy question and I shall reply to you very briefly. We have a very responsible Commissioner, a compatriot of yours, Andris Piebalgs, who acquitted himself admirably last week and during the gas dispute with Russia and Ukraine, but especially with Russia. I should like to thank Andris Piebalgs for his work in the presence of his President.
(Applause)
Mr President, my closing remark is this: you spoke about how you are learning and Latvia is learning. That is certainly true. Yet even those who belonged to the European Community, to the European Union, from the beginning are learning from you and your historical experiences. If we are prepared to listen to each other and to learn from each other, then we shall all be the better for it. On the basis of our common values, we are strong, democratic and free. Thank you, President Zatlers, it was a joy to welcome you here today. Thank you.
(Applause)


13. European system of integrated social protection statistics (ESSPROS) (vote)


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: mid-term review in preparation of the UN high-level meeting in September 2010 (debate)
The next item is the debate on the report by Mr Cashman on progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: mid-term review in preparation of the UN high-level meeting in September 2010.
rapporteur. - Madam President, can I say, as I begin, I think we should really call these not 'Millennium Development Goals', but 'millennium development challenges'. So often the word runs off our tongue - 'the MDGs' - but do we ever actually revisit what they are?
Back in the year 2000 when we were going through economic boom times, we made promises and we made commitments. Sadly, colleagues, those commitments have not yet been achieved. We are five years away from the date that we set, 2015, when we would tackle these major challenges.
Let me restate them: the major challenges are extreme poverty and hunger, access to universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, AIDS, malaria and TB, environmental sustainability and global partnership for development: eight millennium development challenges which still remain challenges. And now, during this week, the EU will come together to hopefully forge a united position ahead of the September plenary at the United Nations in New York.
But I have to say the signs are worrying. There is a lack of commitment to that 0.7% of our gross national income that we said we would commit to taking on these challenges. In some of the least developed countries we are slipping way, way away from the targets that we need to be reaching mid-way through.
There has been some progress and, yes, the investment that we have made - and I use that term wisely - the investment that we have made so far has paid off. The maternal health improvements are there. Child mortality rates are low, low, low and, yes, the numbers of children dying are gradually decreasing.
But our problem is that, not only do we need more money to tackle these commitments, we now need additional finances to tackle the problems associated with climate change which are bedevilling the positions that we are taking in the developing countries and the least developed countries.
And that is why in my report I have looked at not only what we have done so far, but how much more we need to do. And that means looking at the big problem we have in the European institutions of policies, on the one hand, that want to deliver positive change and policies, on the other, which contradict and undermine that.
Think of trade, think of the common agricultural policy, think of the common fisheries policy. Without policy coherence our investment in these countries will never pay off. And it is investment. It is in our long-term economic interest to get rid of these MDGs, to achieve them and get rid of these problems that curse individual lives across the world.
So what I want to see is leadership from the EU. Not the minimum set that they can agree on, but a commitment to that 0.7% of gross national income, a commitment to additional financing; and we do not want a redefinition of overseas development assistance. There must be no tinkering at the edges.
So we have an interesting debate tonight. I want to thank the NGOs across Europe for supporting my report. I wish us tonight and especially in the vote tomorrow to put aside our political differences. It will not be a perfect report; nothing produced by this House ever is, but let me say this: let us not now use party political differences to take away from ourselves the opportunity to go for a united position at the United Nations and achieve the MDGs by 2015.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the power and the importance of the MDGs come from being a collective commitment to shared development goals. They stand as a common framework to coordinate and check international development activities. They help galvanise development efforts and help deliver opportunity to millions of people around the world.
Despite impressive gains, however, overall progress has been uneven among the different goals, across regions and within developing countries. 2010 really is a milestone. It is necessary to consider what we got right and what went wrong, and what have been the key successes and failures since the signing of the Millennium Declaration.
It is important to reflect on how best to approach the next phase and how to accelerate progress in areas that are lagging behind. It is also critical that progress towards meeting the MDGs is robust and sustained. Strengthening country-owned institutions, policies and service-delivery systems will be essential, as will avoidance or mitigation of shocks and the promotion of broad-based economic growth.
Mr Cashman's excellent report responds to the issues mentioned and gives powerful guidance for the European Union in preparation for the United Nations high-level meeting in September and beyond.
I am pleased to see a strong convergence between Mr Cashman's report and the Commission's communication, a 12-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals. We need to respect our aid commitments of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 at the latest. We need to turn aid effectiveness from a good concept into tangible reality. We need to ensure that policy coherence for development becomes a strong tool to guide EU decision-making. We need to pay special attention to countries most off-track, including those in situations of conflict and fragility. We need to pay particular attention to the MDGs that are most off-track, at the same time maintaining an integrated comprehensive approach to the MDGs.
I very much agree that governance is central to the successful achievement and sustainability of the MDGs. The commitment to govern effectively is a basic condition of any pursuit of public development strategies and policy. With the delivery on other commitments we need improved predictability and effectiveness to support country-led developments that foster inclusive economic growth and increase public investments in education, health and infrastructure, enhance success to clean energy and promote low-carbon development. Our aid should act as a catalyst to accelerate domestic resource mobilisation to finance MDGs.
I shall also say a brief word on the discussions we had in the Foreign Affairs Council today. I am broadly satisfied with the conclusions we have reached. There is a clear commitment to meet the 0.7% ODA commitment by 2015. Council adopted gender equality and women's empowerment in the development plan of EU action for the years 2010 to 2015. Also, the 12-point EU action plan on MDGs proposed by the Commission is reflected rightly.
The Council has agreed to make a real step forward in terms of aid effectiveness, inviting concrete proposals from the Commission. I believe that, whilst we should not be complacent, it represents a package that will enable us to lead by example in New York. It is by no means perfect, but provides a basis for progress. Once again my congratulations on Parliament's MDGs report.
Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cashman for the pleasant company as he discussed these extremely pressing and important issues. I would also like to say that it was interesting for me as an old Swedish parliamentarian to be here in the European Parliament and witness the attempts to reach consensus. We did not expect our groups to manage to reach complete agreement.
Now Mr Cashman is saying - and I entirely agree with him - that we need more resources. However, I do not believe that it should always be a question of more taxes. I would say this: give the entrepreneurs free rein and give them a chance in the poor countries so that jobs are created. I do not believe that the moratorium proposed by Mr Cashman is a wise move either. However, I would very much like to underline what is stated in paragraph 47, which strongly urges us to get to grips with the discrimination against certain groups that is found in the many poor countries. This is something that I, and surely many other people, think is an issue that we need to spend a lot of time on in our discussion of the Millennium Development Goals.
There is talk about 0.7%. I would very much like us to talk about 1% of GNI, because I believe that the rich countries actually have a responsibility to ensure that they at least achieve this amount. Then there is another matter. I do not believe that it is particularly wise to take the decision that the countries must attain 0.7% even if we want to, because I believe that in many respects this would be a waste of time.
However, these issues are urgent and, from a moral point of view, are the most pressing issues that this Chamber could be concerned with. The fact that people are dying of hunger and thirst should be something that all Members of the European Parliament find intolerable.
As has been emphasised earlier, the economic and financial crisis we are going through is leaving a significant mark on the targets assumed by Member States as part of the Millennium Development Goals. This is why I greatly appreciate the realistic, logical approach adopted by the report's author, Mr Cashman.
We are pleased to note, 10 years after setting the Millennium Development Goals, that a range of progress has been made in combating extreme poverty, hunger and HIV, even though this progress does not go far enough. While identifying critical points in the process of achieving the MDGs, the Cashman report also presents options for halting the waste of funds earmarked for development aid, using a complex, but balanced combination of legislative and financial measures, as well as market mechanisms.
I wish to stress, first and foremost, how pleased I was to read within the report the recommendation being made to the European Union to allocate at least half of the aid granted to the least developed countries and to identify the groups in the direst situation in these countries, with a particular focus on the situation of women, children and people with disabilities, as well as to incorporate more effectively the interests of these vulnerable groups into its development strategies. These groups are in a critical situation in many regions.
In September this year, as has already been mentioned, we will be given, I hope, at the UN high-level meeting a more detailed overview of the situation regarding development aid. In fact, the Cashman report expresses a very well-structured point of view, which is based on a philosophy inspired by sustainable development.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I hope my colleague, Michael Cashman, and our colleagues will regard my remarks as a supplement and as a token of appreciation, rather than a revision. The MDGs allow us a unique point of entry into the human condition at the beginning of the 21st century. Therefore, it is critically important to come up with a new and fresh perspective, instead of offering that of the 20th century. It is a fact of our time that no development is possible without security, and vice versa. This is why we have tried to offer a more balanced approach to the MDGs, paying more attention to such regions as Central Asia, where poverty goes hand in hand with a lack of safety, insecurity, instability, forced child labour and even slavery.
In addition to the autocratic regimes in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, ethnic violence recently broke out in Kyrgyzstan. Dire straits, combined with instability and violence, may lead to a humanitarian catastrophe in the region. If we need proof that no durable and sustainable development exists without security, we have it here.
In addition to that, we cannot forget about extreme forms of poverty in such European countries as Moldova and Albania. Let us take, for example, some grave problems relating to health care. In Ukraine and Moldova 300 out of 10 000 people suffer from tuberculosis. The aforementioned countries do not fall into the category of least developed countries but they certainly fall into that of developing countries.
If the MDGs do not embrace the least stable and least secure countries, we will never achieve a viable, social and moral order there. Therefore, the time has come to expand our horizons. Although sub-Saharan Africa is crucial to us, we cannot confine the MDGs to this sole, familiar context. We are facing new challenges and we have to react to them. Last but not least, the MDGs are inseparable from the necessity to empower the least developed, developing and least secure countries so that they can shape their future themselves.
Welcome, Mr Piebalgs, Commissioner for Development. I should have liked to see Mr De Gucht, the Commissioner for Trade, at your side, as we in this House are now endeavouring to catch up within the next five years. The Millennium Development Goals are by no means on schedule, and yet we all put our signatures to them; we made promises. We promised - and I still remember the slogan, as I was working for development organisations at the time - to 'make poverty history'. History has yet to be written.
Yet this can be done. We can talk about 0.7% of our gross national product in aid, and even more. We can talk about new kinds of financial assistance, though this becomes more and more complicated in these times of economic crisis. Yet what we should really be talking about is a different means of coexistence, through fair trade. We are now patting ourselves on the back for being the world's largest providers of development aid, but in actual fact we should be patting ourselves on the back for being the largest consumer market.
If we were to engage in fair trade, a great deal of the assistance would probably be rendered unnecessary. Somehow it still seems simpler to provide assistance than to undertake to stop undercutting African small farmers. If we limit the opportunities for multinationals to evade taxes, very many coffers in Africa will be healthier. Also, when I see our approach to the voting lists for this resolution, with all the additions and deletions, I ask myself what has happened to the grand gesture; what has happened to our signal that we shall really attain the Millennium Development Goals within five years?
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, our rapporteur has done an excellent job and has made an appeal for Parliament to give 100% support to the report and to our efforts at the UN. My group is quite happy to give 99.9% support, with a few differences of opinion.
We keep talking about MDGs. What are these MDGs? Well actually there are eight Millennium Development Goals, and I think we should have had more. Had we had more, we would have achieved some of the targets that we have been trying to achieve faster. One of the things that is most important in eradicating poverty is to have stakeholderships, to be able to own something, to have property or to own a small business.
Members have travelled abroad and have seen millions and millions of slums in developing countries and hundreds and thousands of small businesses - garages, shops, repair shops, various people doing various things - at the side of the road as they travel in air-conditioned cars. The trouble is that none of those slums and none of those businesses are registered. They do not have a capital value. Should we be able to recapitalise those properties and those businesses, we would put nine trillion dollars' worth of capital assets into the hands of the leaders of the developing countries. Yes, nine trillion. That is larger than the entire debt that we have been worrying about in Europe and more than value of the stock markets in New York, London and Tokyo.
However, we have not found a way to capitalise on those properties and those businesses. They are outside the legal system. Had we been able to do that, we would have been able to eliminate poverty faster. This is what has happened in other parts of the world.
Madam President, my thanks go, in particular, to Mr Cashman for tabling this report, which received a great deal of support when we adopted it in the Committee on Development, and I very much hope that, as a Parliament, we will together succeed in making it clear immediately prior to the Council meeting that we consider the Millennium Development Goals to be tremendously important.
We also expect the Member States to be aware of their obligation to implement the Millennium Development Goals, in particular the obligations to which they have committed themselves, namely to pay the relevant share of the development aid. Mr Cashman quite rightly said that, as the European Union, we have a deficit of EUR 20 billion. What needs to be brought to the forefront is a very clear statement that we are fighting for these Millennium Development Goals to be implemented by 2015 and we will not allow this to simply be postponed to a later date, always with the justification that, at the end of the day, as Member States we would not be able to do this on account of the effects of the crises and we would be fully justified in postponing it. However, the fact that more than a billion people are living in poverty and hunger - there are even 1.5 billion just living in poverty - proof that in recent years poverty has even increased in certain regions of the world, in the sub-Saharan region for example, leaves us no other option than to insist very clearly on what we want in this regard.
Therefore I would also ask my fellow Members, particularly those from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), not to water down the report any further with your amendments. This report represents a balanced mix of real demands, requirements and the necessary pressure that we need to exert, and we should not retract anything from any part of it.
I would even have gone further in a few places. I would also have made very specific demands for us not to sign or bring into effect any other treaty that does not serve to implement the Millennium Development Goals. In my view, we have come full circle. We not only need a coherent policy within development policy, but it has to be important for EU policy as a whole to engage in a tangible way in the fight against poverty and underdevelopment.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, no one could fail to agree with the Millennium Development Goals formulated in 2000, and no one could fail to be astounded by the complete lack of reality in believing that such goals could be achieved by the target date of 2015.
Quite apart from the totally unrealistic timescales to achieve these gargantuan tasks, there is the amount of money that the report now says should be spent.
Where is the money to come from? Most countries in Europe, including Britain, are on the verge of bankruptcy, and only stringent public spending cuts will reverse the situation. In these circumstances the way to help poorer countries become more prosperous and alleviate their multitude of social ills is to stimulate the world economy.
We should not be thinking of more ways to tax those businesses that still make profits and drive them abroad beyond the EU's control. What we should do is the following: relax EU trade barriers and protectionist measures that restrict trade with poorer nations; dismantle the ever-increasing burden of regulation and red tape that is strangling businesses across Europe; abolish the European single currency and allow countries like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain to return to the world of economic reality.
And, of course, Britain should leave the European Union as soon as possible.
(ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against poverty and the other Millennium Development Goals should unite us all. I therefore regret the fact that some political groups have introduced certain issues that might make it difficult to achieve that unanimity.
They are moral issues, such as proposing abortion as a method of birth control, or economic issues, such as introducing a tax on currency transactions. I think that this tax would be very difficult to implement, control and collect, and if it were not adopted across the board, especially in the main financial blocks, transactions would be moved to the countries where it was not in force.
I regret that the report, which contains many positive points, will not receive unanimous support from all the political groups because of these particular issues.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for the work he has carried out, and for reminding us of the importance of the New York summit.
Europe has a great opportunity: that of presenting itself as a world partner for development. The information we have is still alarming: in 2009, a billion people suffered chronic hunger, and this figure has risen today with the economic crisis. We must add to this the damage caused by climate change, a factor that continues to magnify the problems that we have been trying to keep under control.
We must recognise that the targets we set ourselves in 2000 were certainly ambitious and could only have been met by donor countries. In the light of these commitments toward developing countries, it is sad to see that some European countries are falling so far short of their agreed commitments. It is disappointing, for example, that my country - Italy - is now contributing a distressingly low 0.16% of GDP.
We must introduce a binding commitment for all countries to reach 0.7 % of GDP by 2015, as established by the European Commission. All countries must feel it is their moral duty and political obligation to uphold this commitment. The outstanding work by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, enables the European Parliament to play a key role in defending people's dignity.
Madam President, the Millennium Development Goals are sure not perfect, but what makes them great and different is that they demand measurable progress, and because they are measurable we can see that we are not on track currently and we need to reinforce our efforts.
The EU institutions - and that includes us - can do a lot to reach the targets. For example, we can use the reform of the fisheries policy to support fisherwomen and fishermen in developing countries rather than industrialised fishing companies. We can use the CAP reform to focus on sustainable agriculture and eliminate all direct and indirect export subsidies - and we can stop ACTA, for which the Commission still has not delivered the proof that it will not hinder access to medicine and technology transfer. And we can finally recognise that you cannot achieve maternal health without women's rights.
All these example show that development policy is more than a small field. Aspects of development policies can be found in all our committees, and we should be aware of that. Without policy coherence - and that is not just any coherence, but it is policy coherence for development as it is stated in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty - we will not get anywhere. And this we should also take into account when designing the External Action Service.
Finally, I would like to know from the Commission what its plans are for the post-MDG commitments that we will also have to talk about at some point.
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must admit it is deplorable that two-thirds of the way along we should be so far from achieving the original objectives set by the Millennium Development Goals. Even though we are in a period of crisis, the least we can do is demand that all developed countries - including the European Union - keep their promises, especially to poor countries, by granting 0.7% of their GNI to development aid.
Moreover, under the Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, which I follow closely as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, too large a share of funds is earmarked for trade at the expense of programmes enabling the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved. In my view, it is necessary to redress this situation for the benefit of the Millennium Development Goals within the framework of these agreements.
(RO) I would like to begin by emphasising how important I feel it is for the EU to promote an ambitious action plan during the review conference in New York. It must also adopt, as a matter of urgency, specific new measures enabling us to honour all our promises of solidarity with the most disadvantaged groups on the planet.
The conclusions adopted by the Council just today mark, from this perspective, a step in the right direction because I would say that Europe needs to remain in the forefront of combating poverty and a credible partner in the global pact for development, entered into by accepting the Millennium Development Goals. In order to achieve these objectives we need, as you are all aware, not only to find new development aid resources, but also the political will to turn these objectives into reality.
On the other hand, I think it is the right time for us to consider integrating automatically an approach based on human rights into all the measures adopted with the aim of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Respect for human rights and the promotion of mechanisms fostering accountability are extremely important in terms of improving the conditions of those living in poverty and, ultimately, of achieving the MDGs.
I would also like to highlight some problem areas in the Cashman report. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) cannot accept the unilateral introduction of a Tobin-type tax, as specified in paragraph 8, because it is hard to reconcile this with the idea of funding global public goods. In addition, it is difficult to support the notion of writing off the developing countries' debts, which features in paragraph 13, while there are debates going on about the need for these countries to assume their own responsibility for the development process and achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
Finally, paragraph 42 deals with matters relating to our individual freedom of conscience. I do not believe that it is right for us to impose on Member States the position they should adopt on abortion.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 is crucially dependent on how much money the rich industrialised nations make available for combating hunger and poverty, reducing child and maternal mortality and combating malaria and AIDS.
Our conclusion is sobering. Our promises will not be met. Prior to the financial crisis, we in Europe, as rich industrialised nations, had promised the poorest countries USD 50 billion for this year, 2010. It will be significantly less than that: around USD 36 billion. Even the agreed twelve-point action plan, according to which the wealthy countries want to give 0.7% of their gross national income in development aid, will not be fulfilled. Some countries are setting a good example, but my country, Germany, does not look good. We ought to follow the example of other countries like Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Ireland, the United Kingdom and even Spain.
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Cashman, in 2000 we defined and identified the goals that we should achieve in order to fight poverty, exclusion and inequality, but we also did something even more important: we made specific commitments and we created a global impetus that has been supported by governments, non-governmental organisations and developing countries themselves.
Since then we have made progress, but not enough, and the crisis is causing us to move backwards. A few minutes ago we were given the Eurosceptic and selfish perspective that we needed to return to realism. I would like to say that realism today means fighting to change the global reality; it means supporting this report tomorrow in plenary and supporting the Council, which in the second conclusion of its meeting today said that it is possible to achieve by 2015 what we set out to do in 2000.
(RO) I wish to refer to paragraph 22 of the motion, which calls on the European Union to put an end to agricultural export subsidies and 'other harmful aspects of our farm policy'. I believe that this type of approach is risky as European agriculture cannot survive without these subsidies, especially at this time of serious economic crisis and wild price fluctuations.
European farmers are, at any rate, heavily burdened by the conditions stipulated for product quality and animal welfare which they must comply with, putting them at a disadvantage to external competitors. I believe that any removal of export subsidies would be a mistake entailing serious consequences and I call on my fellow Members to vote against this paragraph.
Madam President, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for this report and the passionate presentation of it.
I am particularly grateful about his paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 on food security. I actually think his explanatory note is much stronger than the paragraphs in the report, because we have a real problem in the European Union. We are spending less and less of our development aid budget where it is needed most - that is, in subsistence agriculture and among peasant farmers. The figures - and they were in our resolution on food security in January 2009 - are as follows: we have reduced the amount of development aid devoted to agriculture and rural development from 17% in 1980 down to just 3% in 2006.
Perhaps the Commission will tell us what actions they are taking to address that - and I see a nodding head, so I am hopeful - and also to get governments in African countries to recognise that hunger exists in the rural areas where people could actually farm if they had the tools.
I disagree fundamentally with paragraph 22. You know the reasons. We should not go alone on this, and export refunds are not the problem.
(EL) Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Cashman for the exceptional work which he has done. We really must all warmly support this report and send a message to the Member States that they must be faithful to their obligations to implement the Millennium Goals to combat poverty.
In the midst of this economic crisis which - let us not forget - may harm us, but it is also harming developing countries, it is often the products of developing countries which we do not consume and, in these countries, poverty is increasing, all these indicators that we want to address with the Millennium Goals are increasing.
At the same time, climate change, which we caused, is aggravating access to food, water and health services and is aggravating health itself. We therefore need additional resources to combat climate change and to help these countries adapt to climate change.
At the same time, however, we must also be faithful to the Millennium Goals. That is why these resources must be independent. I welcome the declaration made by Commissioner Hedegaard that the Commission supports this call.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to respond to the appeal by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. He has called upon all groups to put their party differences aside and back this report despite the fact that the report contains some elements of a clearly ideological nature.
For instance, paragraph 42 of the report, concerning the commitment to safe abortion and family planning, insinuates principles that we cannot share by the back door. As Europe, we are not calling on States to finance life, or to finance responsible motherhood and parenthood, or to support the continuation of pregnancies, but we are calling on States to finance the instrument of pregnancy termination as a contraceptive or as a birth and population planning tool.
On this point we are always bound to disagree. We categorically disagree with a form of State eugenics that backs death and does not back life, that supports the termination of pregnancy yet does not support those who choose to end a pregnancy because of socioeconomic disadvantage.
(EL) Madam President, I thank the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done. In fact, failure to achieve the intermediate goals should be an acute cause of concern to us, both due to the unwillingness demonstrated by certain Member States and due to the objective economic weaknesses caused by the crisis.
Allow me to comment on one specific point: intermediate goal 8, which refers to aid from developed to developing countries, a point to which several fellow Members have already referred. Even though the intermediate goal was to increase aid to developing countries to 0.56% of global GDP, today we have only reached 0.3% at global level, in other words half the planned goal, and we have only reached 0.4% at European level. To this is added the ethical dilemma as to whether the resources at our disposal are being channelled where they are needed, to those who really need them, and are not being squandered through corrupt practices and governments.
I will close by stressing that we need a development philosophy, an economic approach to this situation and not simply to sometimes assuage the guilt felt by developed countries towards developing countries.
(DE) Madam President, the Millennium Development Goals are without doubt important if we are to ensure the poorest of the poor are able to live a dignified life in their own country. Anyone with a reasonable basis for survival in his home country will not need to place himself in the hands of people-smugglers. I would also like to give special emphasis to the fight against serious diseases, particularly those affecting mothers and children. However, in this regard we should also remind the pharmaceuticals industry of its obligation and ensure that an increasing supply of generic medicines can be provided.
On the other hand, if we provide development aid we should also expect cooperation. In this connection, I expect cooperation from the recipients in respect of the repatriation of illegal migrants to their relevant countries of origin. Finally, we also need to take particular care to ensure that the funds are used in a sustainable and comprehensible way. Taxpayers' hard-earned money must not disappear into mysterious channels.
One thing is perfectly clear: the output capacity of our Member States is severely strained, and the quicker we recover - that is, the quicker the EU recovers - the sooner we will have the ability to provide long-term sustainable aid.
(DE) Madam President, I would particularly like to thank Mr Cashman. Development aid and the fight against poverty must not be a form of charity policy - by applying the carrot and stick principle, for example. On the contrary, we need reliable, predictable, sustainable framework conditions which enable people to live and work in decent conditions and to make a living. We should not merely look at faceless numbers; we need to consider the people affected and their fate. We should not waste our energy coming up with excuses as to why we cannot, or do not want to, fulfil our obligations. We should instead use our energy to hold a serious debate on the proposals for financing development aid that have been put forward here - for example the financial transaction tax.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it was a fascinating debate. I would just take a couple of points that I think require some clarification.
The Millennium Development Goals should and can be achieved, and I say this with full responsibility. It is not only my view; it is also the United Nations' view. It is the view of the developed and the developing world and we need to make an effort.
It is also important that this House calls very strongly for commitment of 0.7% of GNI. I know that it is part of sovereignty that every country decides on its budget, but, if Parliament will not call for it, who else will do it with such a strong voice? It is true that we need to be accountable, but Parliament has a lot of power in this issue. You should not underestimate your strength on this issue, and I believe that it is very important that it should be done.
I believe that it is important also to strengthen our relations with sub-Saharan Africa. I know that there have been a lot of disappointments, but being new in this job and really looking for all the complex of issues with the colonial past, Cold War years, and development, I believe sub-Saharan Africa deserves particular care and particular attention.
The trade issue is important to address and it should be fair trade, but we know that until now these unilateral trade preferences have not helped the countries evolve. They have not been substantial in regional trade either, and our approach now is really to create fair trade conditions, investment for trade and in particular looking for regional trade. I believe that is the right approach and we need to strengthen it. I will work together with my Trade Commissioner. He was, for a short while, also Development Commissioner and he takes these things very close to his heart.
Tax evasion and illicit flows are an important issue but I believe that part of the responsibility lies with the G20 and us to make a very strong global system so that tax evasion and illicit flows are impossible. We also pay particular attention in our projects to support a property register, because, definitely, growth is not possible without a strong property register and legal systems that support it.
On rural and food security issues, it is true that it is a focus of our policy, but part of the money for food security comes through our budget support and that way statistics do not always correctly reflect them. We need to think how to better reflect them, but a clear commitment is demonstrated by our food facility and the money put towards its construction.
I would finish with a call which Michael Cashman made: that this report really deserves cross-party support. I know that some issues are divisive but they should not divide Parliament in strong support for this report. We need this support because society needs it and if Parliament will give overwhelming support for the report, it will be easier for the Communities that care for development cooperation policy really to push forward this agenda and be more successful.
rapporteur. - Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your closing words. I absolutely agree with you.
It has been an interesting debate. I want to thank the shadow rapporteurs, who I have really enjoyed working with - Mr Svensson, Mr Donskis, Mrs Sargentini, Mrs Zimmer and all of the others. My memory sadly escapes me - it is something to do with age. Let me say about age - I do not want to live more years and witness more suffering, more hunger, more poverty, and increasing mortality rates amongst women giving birth and amongst children under five. I want us to see these MDGs achieved.
I would say to those who have spoken with some reservation about elements of this report: let us not turn around to our citizens and say that we failed to agree and we failed to vote in favour of that report because it had elements within it that I could not vote for. What kind of signal does it send to people living in poverty and deprivation - without water, without access to health care, without access to education, without access to an equal life - that somehow in a debate in Brussels there were elements within a report that prevented us from doing the right thing for the majority of this planet?
I urge all the colleagues here today to please vote in favour of this report tomorrow - not for me, because Michael Cashman will go back to a home with running water, with health care, will be loved and hopefully be nursed into amnesia and old age. But think of that child or that woman dying in childbirth, think of that child dying through malaria or diarrhoea or TB or AIDS or HIV, and of the young woman denied access to education so that she cannot empower herself for the rest of her life. Think not of us here but think of those outside.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 15 June 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Against the background of worldwide demographic change, rapid population growth and the increasing scarcity of resources, we need to take far-reaching measures on development cooperation. Eradicating poverty and hunger, providing access to education and improving health, among other things by combating disease, must be given the highest priority in the Millennium Development Goals. The European Union must make an urgent contribution to development cooperation as part of its trade policy and international cooperation. Its main objective must be to promote the autonomy, independence and initiative of the relevant countries. It is also important to ensure that the financial measures in this area have the desired impact and achieve their clearly defined objectives. In my opinion, one of the key models for a sustainable circular economy based on fair rules is the eco-social market economy, which is based around small-scale, multifunctional agriculture. The aim of the Millennium Development Goals should therefore be to promote a small-scale agricultural model which is independent and resistant to crises, has the farming family at its heart and encourages the development of expertise that has grown up out of the local culture and is designed to meet regional needs. This sustainable form of agriculture is a means of developing regional independence and guaranteeing the supply of food, while taking environmental and social factors into consideration.


8. External dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice (vote)
- Report: Klich
- Before the vote
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this report. Special thanks are due to Mr Sakalas, the rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who was involved in the difficult procedure of strengthened cooperation between two of our Parliamentary committees. I am also bound to call on the House to support this report, for three reasons.
Firstly, because the report advocates better coordination between our foreign policy and our internal policy, to ensure that our foreign policy achieves the priorities of the area of freedom, security and justice.
Secondly, because we advocate the specific European method which balances between action to ensure the security of our citizens and action to protect their civic freedoms.
Thirdly, because we are calling for what remains of the third pillar, notably police and court cooperation on criminal matters, to become a Community issue.
- Before the vote on Amendment 3, first part
Mr President, in order to avoid confusion, I should just like to clarify our request for a split vote and an oral amendment to Amendment 3.
The oral amendment concerns the part of the text that the amendment by the PPE-DE Group seeks to delete. Therefore, if you wish to retain the text, including the oral amendment, you should vote against the first part of Amendment 3.
Mr President, we propose to insert the words 'by the Council and the Commission', so that the text will read: 'to include a human rights compliance report by the Council and the Commission in all external policy initiatives or documents in the AFSJ...'.
I must point out to you that, if this House supports Amendment 3, the oral amendment will fall. However, if Amendment 3 by the PPE-DE Group is rejected, then the oral amendment will be included.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


Agenda
With the agreement of all the groups, a corrigendum to the order of business adopted for today and tomorrow at the sitting on Monday 23 April has been circulated, and I have received a number of motions for its amendment, which are as follows.
Wednesday:
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has moved that the report by Mr Brok on the 2005 annual report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy be deferred to the May part-session in Strasbourg.
Our colleague, Mr Brok, has undergone an operation. He thought that he would be here this week, but that will not be the case. Nevertheless, I can assure you that he is in good health - as we know, he takes care of his health - and he will be with us for the part-session in Strasbourg. That is why I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to postpone the debate on this report.
(Parliament adopted the motion.)
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has moved that the report by Mrs Lulling on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages be deferred to the May part-session in Strasbourg.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, first of all, let me, on behalf of our group, wish Mr Brok all the best and a good recovery.
Moving on to the Lulling report, I spoke with Mrs Lulling today. There are a number of problems - let me be frank about it, particularly in Bulgaria - in connection with the changes that the Lulling report would bring in its wake, and, since we would like to have more talks with Mrs Lulling and also with representatives of the other groups on whether we might not find some consensus on this thorny issue, we move that the debate be deferred to the next part-session in Strasbourg. This is not a matter of party politics, as all political groupings in Bulgaria are affected by this. We would be ill-advised to send out a negative signal now if there is a chance of us after all finding a solution through consensus one or two weeks down the line.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, there is no objective reason why we should not debate my report today in order to put it to the vote tomorrow. This report was adopted within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs after several months of discussion, since the Commission proposal was referred to us on 28 September 2006, as is written down. We debated the proposal at least five times within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Everyone was able to voice his or her opinion. The amendments were tabled within the timescales set. They have been translated.
Things being what they are, I obviously understand why the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is proposing this postponement: the Socialists are in favour of increasing the minimum rates of excise duty, while in Bulgaria, they are against doing so. The Socialists are therefore afraid of adopting a position before the European elections. That is why this request for postponement is a blatant lie: in reality, it is based on a political, not objective, reason. I therefore call on my fellow Members to vote against.
(SV) Mr President, we should not show the contempt for democracy entailed in postponing the debate on this report until after the Bulgarian election. It is a hugely important democratic principle that the people, in this case the Bulgarians, should have as much information as possible when they go to the polls. The whole purpose of the proposed postponement is the opposite of that, namely that we should debate this issue only after the Bulgarians have voted. I am resolutely opposed to this move, and all good democrats should oppose it for the same reason.
(Parliament adopted the motion.)
(The agenda was thus determined.)