Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


21. Request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Marek Siwiec (


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


3. Agreement between the EC and Bosnia and Herzegovina on short-stay visas (vote)
- Report: Fava


Decision on urgent procedure
Proposal for a Council regulation instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the European Union fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis - C6-0270 /2008 -
Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries - (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, we have indeed received this request for the urgent procedure and it was considered by the Committee on Fisheries at the special meeting held here at 10 o'clock. The Committee on Fisheries was unanimously in favour of adopting this urgent procedure and I am grateful to it for its promptness in dealing with the matter.
(Parliament agreed to urgent procedure.)


Agreement between the EC and Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver - Agreement between the EC and Seychelles on the short-stay visa waiver - Agreement between the EC and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver - Agreement between the EC and Saint Kitts and Nevis on the short-stay visa waiver - Agreement between the EC and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver - Agreement between the EC and The Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0015/2009 -,
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0012/2009 -,
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0017/2009 -,
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0013/2009 -,
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0016/2009 -,
the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Commonwealth of The Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver - C7-0014/2009 -.
Despite the cold being felt inside this chamber, this topic will deal with countries boasting far warmer temperatures, which is rather more ideal. These reports, in fact, consist of an agreement which provides for a short stay visa waiver between the European Union and its citizens and the citizens of six different countries - The Republic of Mauritius, The Republic of Seychelles, Barbados, The Federation of St Kitts and Nevis, the Bahamas as well as Antigua and Barbuda.
This waiver applies to European Union citizens who travel to these countries and vice-versa, that is, when citizens from these countries travel to the European Union. It is valid for a maximum stay of three months within a six month period. This waiver covers all categories of persons, meaning ordinary citizens as well as diplomats travelling for various reasons. This applies particularly to the numerous tourists who are European Union citizens and who go on holiday to these six countries, and thus we will be greatly facilitating things for them.
This agreement however, specifically excludes those who travel for work and remuneration purposes. In these reports, we have included a provision that says that each of these third countries can suspend or terminate this agreement with regard to all countries of the European Union rather than excluding individual countries. This was done in order to safeguard a level playing field for of all European Union citizens and, beyond that, as an expression of solidarity. On the other hand, the European Union will do the same, meaning that the European Community can also suspend or terminate an agreement on behalf of all its Member States. The European Union or any of these countries can either suspend the whole agreement or parts of it, on grounds of public interest, protection of national security, public health protection, illegal immigration or in the case of a country's re-introduction of a visa obligation. Above all, I would like to clarify, Madam President, that before taking a vote on these reports at committee level, we asked for and were given a guarantee on the part of the European Commission that full reciprocity would be ensured. This was an essential principle for us; full reciprocity assured by these countries in the removal of their visa requirement whilst we would do the same in turn. Thus, we would be eliminating visa requirements on both sides. This agreement has been achieved in the requisite manner and once again clearly demonstrates how the European Union is capable of negotiating with one voice on an international level and by showing solidarity towards all countries. I will conclude by saying that once more, this illustrates the European Union's capacity to open its doors to citizens worldwide.
Madam President, I am also very grateful to Mr Busuttil for his excellent report.
The six non-EU countries - Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the Seychelles - were transferred from the negative list to the positive list of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 pursuant to a new regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1932/2006, adopted on 21 December 2006, which confirmed that these countries fulfilled the criteria laid down in the regulation.
This regulation governed the implementation of the visa waiver for nationals of these countries upon the conclusion and the entry into force of a bilateral visa waiver agreement between the European Community and each of these countries.
As Mr Busuttil said, it was important to ensure full reciprocity, since back then, some of these countries were still imposing the visa requirement on citizens of one or more Member States.
Due to the temporary visa regime applied by the CARICOM - the Caribbean common market - countries to nationals of several Member States during the Cricket World Cup, formal negotiations on the visa waiver only began in July 2008.
To ensure that citizens benefit from the visa waiver as soon as possible, the Commission proposed the temporary application of the agreements signed on 28 May 2009 and, since then, they have been applied temporarily pending completion of the procedures necessary for their formal conclusion.
Under the principle of reciprocity, the visa waiver covers all categories of persons - ordinary, diplomatic or service/official passport holders - travelling for all kinds of purposes, except for the purpose of carrying out a paid activity.
As Mr Busuttil said, in order to maintain equal treatment for all EU citizens, the agreements include a provision stipulating that the six non-EU countries may suspend or terminate the agreement only in respect of all the Member States of the European Community and, reciprocally, that the Community may also suspend or terminate the agreement only in respect of all of its Member States.
There you have it; I am grateful to Parliament and to Mr Busuttil for his cooperation. It reinforces this initiative, which will thus make travelling easier for our fellow citizens. I would also add that, in this slightly chilly Parliament, we can dream of sooner or later visiting all of these marvellous countries, such as the Seychelles and the Bahamas...
Madam President, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left is in favour of the European Union agreements with these six countries, which are indeed dream destinations, Mr Barrot.
As you informed us, with these agreements, citizens of these six countries and, reciprocally, EU citizens, will, in future, be exempted from the short-stay visa requirement - at least some of them will be, since excluded from this exemption are those who wish to work or to perform a paid activity, as an employee or as a service provider, in short. This means that those exempted from the visa requirement are businessmen and women, sportspeople and artists - at least when it comes to performing a one-off activity - journalists and trainees, among others.
Let us not be fussy and let us welcome this progress, since we know all the administrative formalities that are carried out in our embassies in order to issue visas to citizens of countries of the South.
I am sure, ladies and gentlemen - at least those who are left - that you have all heard about these cases of artists who are prevented from attending a festival or of sportspeople who cannot take part in competitions. We in the GUE/NGL Group are in favour of abolishing all short-stay visas. They go against the free movement of persons and plunge the citizens of those countries into a vicious circle that encourages them to apply for short-stay visas and, once they have obtained them, not to return to their countries for fear of not being able to obtain another visa. In return, we, in our countries, keep cracking down on short-stay visa holders, and a vicious circle emerges. This even leads to actual family breakdowns between migrants, who are living in our countries, and their families, who remain in their countries of origin. We therefore believe that these agreements are a positive step in the direction of another migration policy, which would see men and women move as freely as capital and goods.
We do have one small point - one small technical point to make - however, Commissioner. We noticed that the English term 'valid passport' was translated into French as 'passeport ordinaire', but we do not believe that this is the same thing. We would therefore be delighted to have clarification on this point, since we believe that the correct translation would be 'passeport en cours de validité'.
We are also surprised - the word 'surprised' is perhaps a polite way of putting it - we are therefore surprised that these agreements do not apply to the outermost regions of France when they do apply to the outermost regions of Portugal.
(PT) I would just like to support Simon Busuttil's report, which endorses the European Commission's initiative, by making three brief points. Firstly, with this decision, which facilitates movement, we are disproving the idea of a Fortress Europe. Secondly, we are not throwing open the doors at random. As Vice-President Barrot reminded us, we are opening them in accordance with the rules. As he said, the countries have complied with the rules and can come off the negative list.
I believe that it is important to take a European approach, and avoid 'picking and choosing' countries, accepting some and barring others. Either the whole European area is accepted or it is not. Finally, as Simon Busuttil and Vice-President Barrot emphasised, guarantees of reciprocity are essential in these agreements. We cannot very well ask Europe to open its doors to other countries if these countries do not open their doors to Europe, and this is amply ensured in these agreements.
Madam President, I should like firstly to thank Mrs Vergiat and to tell her that she is perfectly right - it is indeed 'passeports en cours de validité' - and, secondly, to say that this opportunity is one that we wish to pursue as far as possible.
I think that Mr Coelho also made it clear, after Mr Busuttil, that we have to be very strict as regards reciprocity and that we also need real European solidarity: we cannot leave a Member State to the mercy of the reintroduction of visas. We need real solidarity on the part of all the Member States and of the Union.
I am grateful once again to Mr Busuttil for clearly identifying the problem and for offering us Parliament's support in this way.
I would simply like to thank all those who have intervened. This goes for my colleagues as well as for the Vice President of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot. If I had to summarise this institution's political message in a single phrase, it would clearly be that of the principle of reciprocity. This is important to us. It is of considerable significance in the agreement we have before us, in the same way that agreements with other third countries are essential. The Vice President of the Commission knows that there are several other third countries that are still not honouring the principle of reciprocity with regard to all the Member States of the European Union. The United States are amongst these, having recently included a number of countries into its visa waiver programme but left others out. Brazil, with whom negotiations have recently taken place, is another case in point. I augur that whenever an agreement is concluded, insistence be made upon the principle of reciprocity, and I believe that it is these type of agreements that can serve as the foundation for this to happen elsewhere.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


5. (


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes


Announcement by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, the Conference of Presidents has taken a unanimous decision, which I am relaying to you, addressing myself in particular to the Council.
In the context of its deliberations on the Commission's proposal for the amendment of the Regulation on the funding of European political parties, the Committee of Permanent Representatives decided yesterday to split the Commission's proposal in two and to adopt the necessary amendments to the Financial Regulation in a separate legislative instrument, to be created on the legal basis that applies to amendments to the Financial Regulation.
This would mean that key elements of this legislative process would be taken out of the sphere of parliamentary codecision and that the Commission, contrary to its own convictions, would have to present a new proposal, while it would also be essential, or at least advisable, to consult the Court of Auditors.
The European Parliament calls on the Council to reconsider its decision. The amendments to the Political Parties Regulation proposed by the Commission are necessary to overcome practical difficulties that have arisen in its application. They would also make it possible to continue supporting the development at the European level of political foundations, which play an important part in opening political processes to public scrutiny. For these reasons, it is imperative that the proposed regulation should enter into force very soon.
On 22 October, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted a report expressing willingness to compromise with the Council to pave the way for the rapid adoption of the proposed regulation.
The splitting of this instrument by the Permanent Representatives has thwarted these efforts. It is legally unnecessary, undermines the Commission's right of initiative, curtails the rights of Parliament, and is likely to cause significant delays.
On behalf of the Conference of Presidents I call on the Council to overturn at ministerial level the decision of the Permanent Representatives.
I have been asked for leave to speak, but there will be no debate thereafter.
Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. - (DE) I am extremely grateful to you for this statement, Mr President, and also to the Conference of Presidents. It is a serious matter when the European Parliament - the chamber of the people at the European level - is excluded from the legislative process relating to a regulation on European political parties. That is truly a subject that concerns all of us here, whatever our party affiliation. It is unthinkable that the bureaucracies in some finance ministries and then their governments should decide on this issue rather than the people's representative assembly of the EU. We should not stand for that! With regard to the budget for 2008, let me say that the national governments have wishes which they can only fulfil together with us. When dealing with the 2008 budget, this Parliament should remember what the Council decided yesterday with regard to this Regulation on the European political parties. Thank you for your statement. We have not seen the end of this issue.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, as this House will have understood from what you said, Coreper decided to split the Commission's proposal into two legal instruments: one regulation under Article 199, to which codecision applies, to cover political foundations and campaigning, and another regulation under Article 279, which means simple consultation of Parliament and the Court of Auditors to cover the financial derogations.
The Commission opposed that splitting of its proposal for sound legal reasons, but also for political reasons. The decision introduces uncertainty as regards timing, when we want the proposal to enter into force before the end of this year so that the foundations can be fully functional before 2009. That was the whole idea behind the proposal. We also think that the whole proposal should be approved by codecision, under Article 199 of the Treaty. We regret, therefore, that Coreper decided, against the Commission's will, to reduce Parliament's role in an issue intimately related to Parliament's business, namely the financing of the political parties.
Just 36 hours after the Committee on Constitutional Affairs approved by a very large majority the Commission's proposal, Coreper decided to follow a route which departed from that of the Commission and of Parliament.
However, our destination, I hope, remains the same: approval of the substance of our proposal before the end of this year.
(Applause)


Written statements and oral questions (tabling): see Minutes


3. European Union's disaster response capacity (vote)
- After the vote on Amendment 37:
(ES) Madam President, amendment 37 has been withdrawn, so will not be put to the vote.
Unfortunately we had not been informed that it had been withdrawn, so it was put to the vote anyway.
- Before the vote on Amendment 15:
Madam President, on behalf of our group and in the interests of trying to seek compromise and agreement on this, we would be willing to withdraw the subsequent amendment if the rapporteur would accept a small oral amendment, as written in the list, simply to make this less specific in terms of calling for the legally binding 'directive' and leaving it as bringing forward 'measures'. If the rapporteur will agree to that, then we can withdraw the subsequent amendment.
(EL) Madam President, as author of the motion for a resolution, which was adopted almost unanimously in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am sorry, but I cannot accept Mr Bowis's proposal, because his suggested oral amendment drastically undermines the thrust of the text. May I call on those Members who agree with this view to stand.
Mr Bowis, it would seem that there are more than 40 Members on their feet, so we cannot deal with the oral amendment.
(The oral amendment was not accepted.)
- Before the vote on Amendment 35:
Madam President, if nothing else it is a little bit of exercise. The oral amendment suggested to the Socialist amendment is on the order paper and I hereby propose it on behalf of our group. We will see if there is a little bout of aerobics coming from across the room.
It's exercise from one side of the Chamber to the other!
(The oral amendment was not accepted.)


Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 4.20 p.m.)


11. Safety of Toys (
- After the vote on Amendment 142:
(DE) Mr President, on a point of order, we are of course in the process of adopting a decision, a directive, on the basis of a trialogue agreement. We had a similar state of affairs yesterday with regard to emissions trading. Today we are rightly putting all the other amendments to the vote separately after adopting the overall decision; which I feel is right and proper. We did not do so yesterday, and, indeed, I cannot understand why not. The facts of the matter were the same, but separate votes were not held; which I do not consider acceptable. After all, I and 40 fellow Members tabled amendments yesterday, and I think I am entitled to see votes on those, too.
I am only doing my job, and I have only an executive function. I may have influence, but I do not have any real power.
(DE) Mr President, it would make sense for you to get together with the Conference of Presidents to consider the introduction of a general procedure. I would certainly welcome the one followed yesterday, but we should always use the same voting system in such cases.
We shall convey that to the Conference of Presidents, and shall come to a decision one way or another.
(DE) Mr President, one component of the agreement between Parliament and the Council was a statement by the Commission, which Commissioner Verheugen had promised us. He failed to make this statement on Monday. I had assumed that Commissioner Verheugen - who is not present here today, of course, but is represented by Commissioner Barrot - would make this statement, which concerns three points important to Parliament, in this House prior to the vote, but I have yet to hear any such statement. I wish to know the actual course of the procedure without delay.
The President was not informed about this, but I have taken note of it now. Mrs Gebhardt, when do you consider an appropriate time for the Commission to make a statement should it wish to do so - now or later?
(DE) Mr President, we usually hear this statement before the vote, since it forms part of the text but the text is yet to be officially presented to Parliament in writing. We do need this text officially first, therefore - that should go without saying.
Mrs Gebhardt, you say we usually hear this at the beginning, but that time has already passed.
Vice-President Barrot, if you would like to make the statement now.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, in response to Mrs Gebhardt, I am going to submit the three declarations to you, and they can be added to the file.
Mr Vice-President, how long is the statement? If it is not too long, may I ask you to read it out, as Mrs Gebhardt has requested.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, there are three declarations: declaration of the European Commission on monitoring of safety aspects; declaration of the European Commission on the requirement concerning toys which are designed to emit a sound; declaration of the European Commission on the classification of books.
(FR) I can read them out to you.
That was a technical explanation.
(DE) Mr President, under these circumstances, may I ask that we proceed to the vote, but not hold the final vote? This will allow us to have a look at the text and then hold the final vote in January if we are satisfied.
(Members knock on tables in approval)
I gather from your reaction that you support Mr Swoboda's proposal. In that case, we shall now proceed to the vote but refrain from holding the final vote.
- After the vote on the amended proposal:
We shall hold over the final vote until we have heard the Commission's position in full.
- (FR) Mr President, I have followed all these debates from start to finish, particularly the ones on Monday evening. We must adopt a responsible attitude regarding the safety of our fellow citizens. They are urgently awaiting this legislation, which should make children and families safer. We cannot wait.
On Monday evening Mr Verheugen gave a very precise account of the content of the three declarations that Mr Barrot has provided. This was merely a formal deposition of these declarations. As Commissioner Verheugen said on Monday evening, we can and must vote; this is our responsibility towards European consumers.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, you were of the opposite opinion a moment ago. Let us then vote now on whether to take a vote.
(DE) Mr President, with the greatest respect, I should like to ask why the Commissioner cannot read out what he has brought with him. Is there a fundamental problem in this regard?
The Commissioner cannot or does not wish to answer, Mr Posselt. For my part, I do not wish to comment, as that is not my job.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 14.00 and resumed at 15.00)


The social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Kósáné Kovács, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. After several months of work, I submit to Parliament the report on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market, a report which expresses our deeply felt responsibility for the European future of the Roma, an ethnic minority whose population equals that of a member state.
In recent months, the necessity to take action has not waned but has instead become even more urgent. The global financial crisis has swept through Europe, and the accompanying economic shakeup once again severely affects the most vulnerable social groups, and in particular the Roma. The increasing and justified existential anxiety of the majority in society constitutes a fertile soil for hatred of minorities, for a discriminatory, exclusionary stance and for scapegoating. It is fortunate and of symbolic significance that the adoption of the Roma report could take place in the very week when Parliament is preparing the next Council meeting, seeking not only the tools to help us emerge from the crisis but also the opportunity to reduce human traumas and the risks to livelihood on the basis of the principle of solidarity that unites Europe.
In recent decades, we have learned that there is no dynamic economic development that could automatically offer mobility, using the existing systems of redistribution, to those at the lowest social stratum. On the contrary, we have seen that, if there is no policy to support the principle of equal opportunity, then the differences at the edges of society can grow even greater during periods of development. Our task is now to mobilise the resources for dealing with the crisis and growing the economy in such a way that the 10 million Roma do not fall victim to the crisis, but become participants in the recovery. The position of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, adopted by a large majority, finds it unacceptable that a significant portion of the Roma population lives in conditions like those in the developing world. Tens of thousands of Roma children still grow up in segregated schools, where they cannot gain competitive knowledge, and they carry with them throughout their lives the wounds of exclusion and discrimination. Millions live in ghettos, without running water, sewers and often without electricity, and their life expectancy is 10 to 20 years lower than that of the majority. They lack vocational training, they live by casual labour, and their lifestyle is daily the object of visible discrimination. And what is most dramatic: this situation reinforces their verbal exclusion, hate speech and conflict resolution determined on an ethnic basis. For who has not heard it said that 'if he's a gypsy, he does not want to change his situation but prefers to steal rather than work'?
The root cause is the fact that their quality of life remains at that of a developing country; this in turn intensifies the tendency to exclusion, and the tree of hatred bears the fruit of murderous acts. Force can only be eliminated by striking at its roots. This concerns not only Central and Eastern European countries, who long for peace, but every European citizen. We should also not forget that it is in the fundamental interest of aging Europe to make sure it is populated not by unfortunate people who depend on social assistance, but by well educated, working citizens, capable of paying tax, social contributions and insurance. This is the subject of the report before you today.
In order to do what is necessary, it is indispensable for the various institutions of the European Union to work on the elaboration and planned implementation of a comprehensive Roma policy. A common European resolve is needed in order for the well intentioned, often costly efforts of Member States, which often remain ineffective due to lack of collective will, to shift to a new track. I wish sincerely to thank all my fellow Members whose significant initiatives helped make this a more comprehensive report. Willingness to cooperate may help advance the understanding that it is not a matter of choice, but of necessity, for the European Union to integrate immediately this sizeable potential workforce, one that has centuries of experience adapting to their milieu. Thank you for your patience.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first to thank Mrs Kósáné Kovács for her report that contributes to the joint efforts to promote the social inclusion of the Roma.
The Commission shares your analysis, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, as to the main underlying reasons for this exclusion: the social segregation they suffer, the obstacles they face trying to access education, the discrimination that prevents them from fully participating in the world of work, that prevents access to goods and services, and above all - and you have highlighted it very well - the prejudices and stereotypes with which they are saddled.
The Commission also supports the European Parliament's proposals for sustainable solutions, in particular your emphasis on child development from the preschool phase, the development of microcredit to strengthen entrepreneurship, self-employment and the targeted implementation of structural funds. For the Commission, the implementation of effective, sustainable solutions requires the action of all the key players, including, essentially, the Roma themselves, to develop, implement and monitor the policies that affect them.
In addition, the Commission considers that it would be better to use Community instruments and policies to achieve the inclusion of the Roma, that there must be an exchange of best practice, such as the ACCEDER programme in Spain or the desegregation efforts in Hungary. To be effective, the policies must be targeted and respect the specific situations of the Roma communities to achieve the goal of social integration.
In the spirit of your report, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, the Commission will continue to support the social inclusion of the Roma by reinforcing the protection of the individual rights of all the Roma, in particular women and children, taking into account the problems of the Roma in the framework of policy coordination at European level, in particular as relates to employment and social inclusion, via a more active implementation of the structural funds and the European Social Fund, and, finally, by reinforcing the institutional capacities of Roma civil society.
I wish to thank you for your report, Mrs Kósáné Kovács. I can tell you that my colleague, Commissioner Špidla, and I are very aware of these problems. I would add that our Fundamental Rights Agency is to give us two reports on the situation of the Roma that I hope will allow us to propose and promote what you have just explained to us so well.
Thank you, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, and thanks to Parliament for its support.
That concludes this item. The vote will take place on Wednesday.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Coming up with a European solution to the problems which the Roma are facing requires us to take into account that they are citizens just like we are, even if they are subject to exclusion. Representative organisations and Roma communities must play an active role in drawing up inclusion policies.
Increased efforts are required to improve their living conditions and access to education and health services. These are the minimum conditions required for them to be able to get and hold down a job in the countries where they live. The opportunities for mobility have had the totally opposite effect for them, making discrimination worse. Women are in an even more vulnerable position because they are subject to numerous forms of discrimination from a gender, ethnic and social perspective.
There are national programmes for inclusion and combating poverty, which have produced modest results. The economic crisis must not be used in any way at all as an excuse for not implementing the social inclusion programmes. If anything, it is a reason for concerted action.
Roma, like any other disadvantaged group, may pay dearly as a result of the crisis's impact. The unusual reactions which we have seen in Italy are a warning. We can think about solutions to problems or find the culprits. The right has always preferred to put the blame on others, mainly the vulnerable. As a representative of the left, I would rather we find solutions.
I would like to congratulate Mrs Kósáné Kovács on her report, which presents a comprehensive analysis of the socio-economic status of Roma communities. Her report formulates numerous forward-looking recommendations, calling for example upon the Commission to take into consideration in its technical policies the impact of the policies toward the Roma, and to recommend introducing a unified system of requirements into development programmes. Member States' unfounded plans and the scattered projects, most of which are funded by the European Union, do not yield true results. We need a common action plan that rests on solid legal bases and that is able, by means of sanctions, to ensure the implementation of Member States' undertakings. The Roma communities must be involved in the process of planning, implementation and monitoring, from the lowest level to the international consultative bodies; uniform benchmarks and deadlines must be set, in order to verify that the financial resources invested are used effectively.
Poverty and social exclusion are geographically concentrated, and research has clearly drawn up the map of European poverty. The majority of the Roma live in small regions 'condemned to death', and even maintaining their current quality of life costs an enormous amount. Over the long term, it could paralyse budgets and threatens to break down wider social cohesion. Therefore Community strategy must make possible an immediate emergency intervention in these areas, by means of distinct programmes funded from development funds set aside at EU level, which should be able to deal with the problems in all their complexity, as well as by ensuring the permeability between funds and, if necessary, by introducing region-specific forms of support.
As a representative of the right, I believe in the contribution of every citizen to the general well-being and prosperity of society. I think that the integration of all social groups into society and social cohesion must be a goal approached without any display of populism and loud fanfare. The sustainable, effective integration of the Roma must be based on their economic contribution and the involvement of every one of them in the labour market.
In my country, which is no exception, the Roma are socially marginalised and live in poverty. In practical terms, their education stops at a very early stage. In fact, research carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 2007 indicates that the proportion of graduates is almost zero: barely 0.2%. This lack of education puts the Roma on the very bottom rung in the labour market and is the cause of their high level of unemployment. For them to become integrated effectively, apart from the issue of education, their living conditions also need to be improved and they must be actively included in the labour market. However, none of this can come about without the involvement of the Roma themselves, without their active, conscious desire for things to change. I see this as the major challenge facing all of us.
in writing. - (HU) The events of the past years have demonstrated that it is time to address seriously the economic, cultural and health situation of Roma living in the European Union. The degree of social disadvantage in certain regions is of nearly tragic proportions, and in the current economic crisis threatens us with a social explosion. Therefore I particularly welcome the report by Magda Kósáné Kovács, which seeks an answer to this serious social problem. I am also pleased with the objectives set in the report, but an assessment of the situation, information campaigns and reinforcement of civil society are not in themselves sufficient. We need concrete, decisive steps in the areas of education and job creation.
If sufficient financial resources are not available for these objectives, then the initiative will remain a dead letter. We need an EU Roma strategy as well, for these proposed objectives to impact the Member States' economic, educational and health policies; for only in this way will it be possible to guarantee a life of human dignity for the 10 million-strong Roma community and to hasten their integration.
The strategy for improving the situation of European Roma demands an action plan, and therefore I hope there will be people willing to continue the work begun in this report, which presumably will spread over several parliamentary terms.
While in Italy the government's approach to the Roma issue has been not entirely consistent and at times highly questionable with respect to humanitarian principles, in Europe an effort has always been made to maintain the difficult balance between integration and security. The European Parliament's resolution on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU is an example of this.
The repeated recourse to emergency legislative measures to address problems associated with the Roma clearly indicates an inability to tackle a phenomenon that is not new. What is needed instead is a systematic approach and coordinated, long-term solutions in the areas of education, healthcare and, most importantly, labour market policies, since employment and education facilitate social acceptance and integration.
Europe is calling for an end to the discriminatory practice of evicting occupants of Roma slums and instead for the development of specific housing projects that will redress the housing problem facing these communities.
In short, we require consistent policy choices that combine solidarity and responsibility, enabling us to offer a balanced response to an emergency that is otherwise in danger of getting out of hand. We are well aware that this is a difficult route to take, but there is no other way to reach our destination.
I would like to call on the Commission to adopt concrete measures to support the Roma's integration into the labour market through providing funding for training and retraining, as well as measures aimed at a strict application of the legislation on combating discrimination in employment.
I wish to reiterate the need to create within the EC a specialist department to support interaction between the Commission and national governments, aimed at implementing the projects targeted at the Roma minority concerning their social, economic and cultural integration.
We are all aware that the problem posed by the Roma's situation is not only a national problem for each Member State separately, but is a European problem and must be resolved at this level.
I would like to stress that the new Member States in particular need proper support from the EU in integrating Roma, both from a social perspective and in terms of the labour market.
It is well known that the number of Roma who do not have access to the European Union's labour market is worrying. We must therefore stop putting off the creation of effective European programmes to boost primarily the Roma's access to education so that unemployment stops being an aspect of life constantly passed on from one generation to the next.
The free movement which Roma from the new Member States currently enjoy has not meant that access to the EU labour market has been just as easy. All we can say is that the only thing which Roma migrants in other Member States have done is to export their own poverty.
Against the backdrop of the current economic crisis, it is even more difficult for Roma citizens to access the labour market, which means that a large number of them are living below the poverty line.
We are therefore facing a major challenge during a period of economic crisis in terms of encouraging employers to offer jobs to the largest minority in Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs Kósáné Kovács's report on the social situation of the Roma and improving their access to the labour market in the EU reflects the high level of political responsibility the European Parliament has towards the citizens of Europe at the height of the global economic crisis. The report highlights in detail all the major challenges facing the improvement of the economic situation and social inclusion of the largest ethnic minority in Europe. During these times of crisis, it is important for us to defend the values on which our union is based and to protect the weak members of our society.
Educational provision for the Roma, implementation of specific employment policies, guaranteed access to health services and, last but not least, promoting the battle for equality for Roma women must be the means used to resolve in the long term the issues affecting this section of European society.
The report clearly and distinctly puts forward the principle for non-governmental organisations and the Roma getting involved in drafting and implementing policies for social inclusion. I believe that, as we enter the fourth year in the Decade of Roma Inclusion, Member States must monitor more seriously the specific recommendations made by the Commission on implementing this wide-ranging European project.
Thank you for your attention.