Guidelines for the 2012 budget - other sections (debate)
The sitting will now continue. The first item is the report by Mr José Manuel Fernandes, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for the 2012 budget procedure, Section I - European Parliament, Section II - Council, Section IV - Court of Justice, Section V - Court of Auditors, Section VI - European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII - Committee of the Regions, Section VIII - European Ombudsman, Section IX - European Data Protection Supervisor, Section X - European External Action Service (Α7-0049/2011).
Madam President, first of all, let me offer my greetings to you, Madam President, to the Commissioner and to all my fellow Members who are here. Allow me to start by thanking all those who took part in this report and, in particular, the shadow rapporteurs from the various political groups.
The work has resulted in a broad consensus, as shown by the vote last week in the Committee on Budgets, where this report was passed by 34 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. This report aims to be in harmony and in line with the current moment: with the economic, financial and social situation through which we are struggling, with the crisis that we are experiencing, and, at the same time, with what the European public wants from the European Union and its institutions.
We will have a budget of restrictions, a budget of austerity and, at the same time, a budget which will have to provide the institutions and Parliament with the means to keep up with the European project and to keep up with the European public's expectations.
Our objective is excellence in lawmaking and it would be very bad if we lacked sufficient means to achieve this: it would be a terrible sign for our times and it would have a cost, which the European public would still have to bear.
In order to achieve this, we will need the necessary resources. We have new powers resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon. However, given the current situation, we advocate a neutral increase, which means that we advocate an increase equal to inflation.
We are in line with the Commissioner's letter, with the recommendation that he sent to Parliament and the other institutions. Therefore, when it becomes necessary, if it becomes necessary, we will draw up a letter or an amending budget for the purpose of commitments such as that which the European Union has to Croatia, or that resulting from the eight new members of the Treaty of Lisbon.
In order for us to achieve a savings budget, it is clear that we have, more than ever, to follow the principles of good management and economy, the principles of efficiency and effectiveness. These principles will have to translate to budgetary rigour, simplicity and transparency. With these principles, we will already be able to successfully identify cuts, not only in the estimates that we will now prepare, but we also want savings in the implementation of the 2012 budget.
In this way, we will manage to keep up with our responsibilities. We would also like - and introduced this concept - a budget that is a zero-based budget, in which each expense is justified and in which variable expenses are well known; wherever justified, there can be a cost-benefit analysis for these expenses.
Clearly, we will not endanger projects under way because that would not simply be a backward step, but would rather be a loss. I am referring to projects such as the extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, projects such as the House of European History; these projects will go ahead under this budget of restrictions. We also argue, on this basis, that forthcoming budgets should be multiannual budgets, so that there can be overall planning right from the outset; overall planning that is in accordance and in line with the multiannual financial framework.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, my best wishes on the occasion of International Women's Day. I welcome the principles set by the rapporteur, Mr Fernandes, on budgetary vigour, especially as regards the administrative budgets of the European Union. For me, this is sure that this is the line to be taken under the present economic conditions in the European Union.
Therefore, with this in mind, I asked my colleagues in the Commission to be particularly sensitive to increases in administration and we can promise that our increase should be less than 1%. This means, given that there are some contractual obligations, that there are cuts for 2012 in the areas of information technology, meetings, conferences and mission costs, as well as in the area of studies and publication.
I have written a letter to the heads of the other institutions and here is their response. I think this is really the line to be taken for 2011 as regards administrative expenditure. We have indications from the Council that they are also to be very restrictive.
The same principle should be applied as regards future enlargement. I think the estimates should be included in the budget when the formal decision on the date of accession is taken, in the form of an amending letter or amending budget. However, I have to remind you on this very occasion that administration only accounts for less than 6% of the European Union budget, so this is quite a decent proportion.
As for the operational expenditure, the European budget has its own internal logic. The programmes are gaining maturity with time, so we now have maturity of major programmes that started in 2007. The European budget is mainly about investment and not consumption and social transfers. On the one hand, we should be very restrictive as regards administrative expenditure, but on the other hand, we should understand the logic of the internal dynamics of European budgets, otherwise we will produce a lot of so-called 'RAL' (reste à liquider), which constitute a mountain of unspent money, unspent commitments, and this is not in line with a decent budgetary procedure
I therefore welcome once more the principles we can see in the report by Mr Fernandes. We are to hold discussions on the basis of guidelines on 30 March and I am looking forward to our meeting towards trialogue on 30 March.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to express my regret and dismay that neither the Secretary-General nor the two vice-presidents with responsibility for the European Parliament are present. We normally expect from the Commission that its responsible members should be present; we should also expect the same from our most senior representative.
Secondly, I would like to address the subject of the management of the House's buildings. I welcome the fact that the KAD project in Luxembourg is making progress, that it would seem that the costs are under control, and that things are going according to plan. When the KAD extension project is complete, bringing staff together under one roof should lead to greater efficiency and synergy, as well as reducing annual costs, because eight offices will be closed. It is essential that this target should be met as we need some of these funds for other purposes, as Mr Fernandes has pointed out.
I believe that the House of European History is an important project because it will attract many visitors, who will be offered an insight into the significance, aims and purpose of the European Union in the context of European history in a very effective way.
Thirdly, I would ask that the staff appointed in Luxembourg should be relocated to Brussels. Because they frequently need to work in Brussels, they are constantly travelling back and forth, also causing problems for the Members. This only applies to a small number of sub-areas and relocation really should be considered on efficiency grounds.
Fourthly, I think it a very good thing that the European Parliament is only making provision for moderate expansion. The fact that other areas are only expanding on a modest scale should not be taken by the EEAS as a reason for massive expansion. I would call on all institutions to cut their cloth to their measure in these times of economic and financial difficulty.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his report, but also for his approach to putting together the other sections' budget. He is right to balance the need to ensure that the European Parliament and other sections are able to function properly against ensuring that budget increases are kept to an absolute minimum.
I particularly welcome his proposal to keep increases within the rate of inflation. I believe the initial proposal of 5.2% is far too high. Of course, to achieve the moderate savings pursued by the rapporteur and others within the Parliament, we need to ensure we also identify savings within the budget. I have therefore offered to work with the rapporteur to ensure those savings are found. I believe there are potential savings to be found in things like the buildings policy and in terms of enlargement - which the Commissioner has mentioned himself - but also in things like the proposed cost of a non-European office, which I believe at this time is an unaffordable luxury.
Finally, can I say we also need to work very closely with other institutions, particularly the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, which I know were very concerned about their budget for 2012 as well. We need to ensure that they, like us, are able to function properly but also, at the same time, limit their spending increases for the future. So I can say that the Socialists and Democrats Group is very keen to work with the rapporteur; we do support the proposals for these guidelines, and we look forward next week to discussing the estimates.
I should like to reply to Mrs Hohlmeier's comment. Mr Pittella, the Vice-President responsible for the budget, is here in the House listening to the debate.
Madam President, thank you Mr Fernandes for this excellent report. The key principles of good budgetary management are efficiency, thrift and the responsible deployment of the financial resources entrusted to us. However, something that arises again and again in all budget negotiations, and which we need to avoid here once again, is greed and the desire to hold on to our old ways. We need to distinguish between greed and need.
There is little doubt that the job increases outlined in the Treaty of Lisbon and required as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon are something necessary. Care should be taken to ensure a balance between the jobs in political groups and committees and administrative posts. As my fellow Member has already observed, it would have been good to have the Secretary-General attend this session to hear what we have to say. The new departments referred to by Mr Vaughan are not needed in this form if we make sensible use of the synergy effects within this House. We have plenty of competent people in the various Directorates General and I am sure that we will be able to bring them together in an effective way.
With regard to the House of History, I would agree with Mrs Hohlmeier that it is important that such a project should have a business plan from the start. We should not regard this as something of a request show in which everyone gets what they want; we need to manage our resources wisely on the basis of a reasonable budget.
Finally, I would add that we should not make the mistake of failing to invest in the future because of a misguided wish to save money. The investments we make today, for example in IT resources, can save us a lot of money in the coming years, which is why thrift should not be allowed to become an end in itself. It must make sense and must be reasonable in terms of the future.
Madam President, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, the issue currently under debate is the Parliament's budget for 2012 and I would like to emphasise that from the perspective of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the right balance must be struck between limited and justified increases, which are mainly the result of the new powers and responsibilities under the Treaty of Lisbon, and self-discipline and self-restraint in times when public funds are in short supply. To the outside world, the Parliamentary budget is still something like the European Parliament's calling card and continues to have a symbolic significance: How do we deal with the austerity policy - the necessity for this policy - as it impacts directly on us?
Mr Fernandes uses words like consolidation, containment and self-restraint. However, we have heard few real proposals so far about where he intends to make the cuts and where resources are to be pared back. Of course, it is right to call for greater efficiency in the administration of Parliament and, from my own point of view, I can see some scope for improvement.
I would now like to address the issue of the House of European History: I am all for this idea in principle. However, I believe that the project must have clear business plans. If there is a desire to prioritise such a project - I am directing these words specifically to Mr Fernandes once again - if terms like self-discipline and consolidation are really meant seriously, then we must also be prepared to propose cuts in other areas.
If priorities exist as a result of political will, then, by definition, other areas must be given secondary priority in order to produce a consolidated budget. To talk about consolidation without making the relevant recommendations is to fudge the issue. The matter will only work if people are prepared to say where the cuts are to fall - particularly in the case of new priorities. This is what I meant when I referred to the European Parliament's calling card: limited increases, as well as clear self-restraint.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on what I find is a very well-balanced report, particularly in its seeking of consolidated resources and an austerity budget.
The principles that he sets out - legislative excellence, good management principles, being able to have accuracy and simplicity, and submitting cost-cutting plans - should apply not just to all institutions other than the Commission, but also to the Commission budget itself.
However, looking at the technological points that the rapporteur makes, it is not just in the longer term that we should be looking for savings, but also in the short term, when we should be able to come up with cost-cutting measures.
One particular point of concern to my group is security. We seem to place too much emphasis on stopping people coming into the institutions. We do not allow them enough freedom of access or the possibility to circulate. Could I suggest that, when the Vice-Presidents come to this particular point, they should be looking at the US Congress, which does ensure the security of people going into the building, but then allows them to flow freely through it. Having a professional security service enables that to happen.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, it is a disgrace that in the present economic crisis, a proposal for a 5% increase for 2012 is already being put forward for this Parliament's budget. Members' assistance allowance was increased once again by EUR 1 500 per month only last week. No attempt is being made to tackle the outrageous waste caused by the three seats of this Parliament. Worse, the European Parliament has now engaged in a EUR 60 million refurbishment of a building to be used as the European History House - as if we did not have museums in Europe. Does the EU want to rewrite history? And what about the External Action Service that will employ, among others, 50 officials who will earn 20% more than the British Prime Minister, and will need a new building that will cost EUR 10.5 million per year.
Madam President, on behalf of the British taxpayer, I beg you to stop this rip-off.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the draft produced by Mr Fernandes for the 2012 financial year refers to cost-efficiency and consolidation. As representatives of the citizens of Europe, we in Parliament must comment on this. Cost-efficiency is essential.
However, the additional expenditure arising through the accession of Croatia, the establishment of the EEAS and the three new financial authorities have all impacted on the EU budget. The fact is that new expenditure should not necessarily - and indeed absolutely must not - lead to budgetary increases. Potential savings can be found in all of the Union's institutions, for example, in personnel and building policy, or in administration. I would once again suggest that the various agencies should be subjected to an audit and that synergies should be sought with the various Member States.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wanted to congratulate Mr Fernandes for his excellent work.
It is not easy to speak about institutions' budgets and resource management, especially if you try to discuss the improvement in their performance in parallel with the need for economic consolidation which Member States and the European Union must face up to in a context as sensitive as it is today. It is precisely for this reason that I fully support his appeal to the values of legislative excellence and sound financial management, which are guiding principles on which all the institutions' activities should be based.
Indeed, at a time of crisis in which our primary objective must be to relaunch the European economy, the prime example of virtue must come from the institutions themselves. Virtue does not just mean austerity, but rather increased administrative efficiency to ensure a fair and improved use of resources, which will enable all the institutions to work both effectively and efficiently, rendering them capable of reaching the main objectives that Europe has set itself in recent years.
Turning more specifically to Parliament's budget, I believe, as does Mr Fernandes, that the 2012 budget should be one of consolidation, taking into account that it could become a point of reference, rather than the current debate on the future multiannual financial framework.
I think, however, that part of the resources should be used to bring in some necessary improvements to enable Members to carry out their duties with the help of quality services.
I therefore think savings should be made in common services, but that further efforts should also be made on the property policy, by rationalising the space already available to us and by adopting a medium- and long-term plan that allows advance planning of expenditure on buildings as well as making our decisions in this area more transparent and rational.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, naturally, we should discuss the costs that are to be avoided or saved in this budget. However, I would call on you all to be a little more objective in your knee-jerk responses to the discussion in relation to the agencies. Why is this? Firstly, because the Committee on Budgetary Control is permanently engaged in this debate and also draws attention to ways in which cooperation between the agencies and the performance of their duties can be improved, and also because we are expecting a special report on the agencies this year from the European Court of Auditors and will then have a more objective basis for what is, at present, a somewhat ill-considered discussion, particularly with regard to the question of how the agencies are managed and how we may be able to achieve these savings.
Speaking of savings, I would like to come to my next topic, our building policy. The fact is that when it comes to the buildings of the European Union, we can certainly save resources. Speaking personally, I would question whether it is really a good idea to build new buildings for the European Parliament in Brussels because this strategy really only makes sense if real estate prices in Brussels continuously rise. At present, the market would not seem to support this. If real estate prices on the market do not rise, then the option of renting rather than buying really does make sense, particularly when you walk around the European quarter with your eyes open and see how much office space is actually available to rent in the area.
Which brings me to the issue of the House of European History. I believe that greater legitimacy is required here because it is not enough that to date, all the initiatives for the establishment of the House of European History are simply based on resolutions by the Bureau of this House and have no democratic legitimacy. This needs to change. Above all, we need to know how the operating costs and follow-up costs of this institution are to be covered.
(DA) Madam President, I would also like to thank Mr Fernandes for an excellent report, and I would like to thank Commissioner Lewandowski in particular for his letter to the institutions regarding reining in our administrative expenditure this year. I think that this letter was very apt, and it will help to establish the approach that we believe will make it easier for us to insist on savings being made, and I think that has to apply to all institutions. It has to apply to the Committee of the Regions, to the Economic and Social Committee, and to the Court of Justice, whose expenditure has, of course, been rising sharply. It must also apply to the Court of Auditors. It is a little more difficult for small institutions like the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and that, of course, is something that we need to take into account.
However, I think that we in Parliament have a particular responsibility to demonstrate that we can show restraint. We have had new tasks conferred on us by the Treaty of Lisbon which involve additional expenditure, but the forthcoming year, 2012, must be a year of consolidation. We have talked about enlargement. We will include Croatia's accession in an amending budget. Many people have also mentioned the question of the House of European History. I think it is an excellent idea to have this House of European History as part of our visitor services. Many young people do not know the history leading up to the establishment of the EU very well, and it is said that if we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it. I think it is very, very important for Europe's recent history to be told, and therefore we will support this House of European History.
Last but not least, I would like to say that our expenditure is, of course, very much linked to the fact that we have several seats, and that costs money. We need to look closely at this. Unfortunately, our biggest cost is something that we cannot do anything about. That has to do with the fact that we have to move between Strasbourg and Brussels. If the European Council really believes that savings have to be made, Europe's Heads of State ought to address this matter. Thank you, Madam President.
(CS) Madam President, it is clear that the entire European Union and its Member States will still be feeling the lingering effects of the economic and financial crisis in 2012. The European Parliament must therefore adapt its budget strategy to this fact. We must strive for maximum budgetary discipline and austerity. I am pleased to find this fact in the report, and to see that the report emphasises this fact. Austerity, however, cannot mean that expenditure rises in line with inflation. Our aim must be to keep Parliament's expenditure at the same level as this year. All possible effort must be directed towards savings and the better use of existing parliamentary resources. This must apply to all areas of European Parliament activity, starting with a rationalisation of the administration of buildings through to the better use of information technology and the human resources policy. There are potential savings here and we must have the courage to implement them.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in a period of general economic hardship, the fundamental task of European institutions is to lead by example.
This report is rightly focused on fulfilling the criteria of efficiency and on the management of costs and services. I therefore wonder whether a real and immediate check on the effectiveness of certain outsourced activities might not be necessary. I am referring, in particular, to Parliament's information technology and internal security, partly in the light of recent events of which we are all well aware: the theft at the post office last month.
A further criticism needs to be levelled at the European External Action Service. Created at theoretically zero cost to reduce waste and improve the effectiveness of the European Union's external relations, it is proving to be a failure on both fronts, politically and economically. I would not want the European Parliament to be anything less than rigorous in this area.
(NL) Madam President, last week, I was asked by several voters in Flanders how it could possibly be that we, as members of the European Parliament, are still receiving EUR 1 500 a month to recruit additional staff at a time of economic problems and uncertainty, and at the very time when ordinary people are having to tighten their belts. What we are doing at present is actually spending even more.
The voters' questions and comments are absolutely spot-on. We, as the European Union, should be setting an example. We should be cutting our coat according to our cloth and, at precisely this point, we have no choice but to come to the unfortunate conclusion that this report by Mr Fernandes is something of a missed opportunity. Calls are being made - and rightly so, I think - for us to exercise responsibility and restraint with regard to the budget. Recital A even mentions, quote, 'employing strict management procedures so that savings may be achieved,' unquote.
Well, it is unfortunate that this report fails to specify where exactly we could make those cuts. There are, of course, quite a few areas where they could be made - I am thinking of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and the trips between Brussels and Strasbourg which cost EUR 200 million per year. I challenge the Commission and the Council, but Parliament too, to carry out an exercise and put all these things in order, to look at where we can make savings and then translate this into an actual plan, so that we can put a number of things to debate and bring about savings.
(FI) Madam President, I, too, wish to thank the rapporteur for a very wellbalanced, excellent report. Everyone here is talking now about thrift, and that is an excellent thing. We need budgetary discipline and efficiency, and we should adhere strictly to what our main task is and not expand beyond that task, which is legislative work.
Most are saying that we must be frugal, but nonetheless talk about what we should not save. We should be talking about concrete measures that would enable us to make savings. We can make savings if we stop travelling between three places of work. We, of course, know how politically difficult it would be to carry this through.
I would like to raise one matter, and that is the notion of security, which Mr Elles mentioned here. In a year, we have had a bank robbery, the canteen has been held up, and so has the post office. No one has even been caught. The security is little more than a joke.
We fail in one obvious area: Members of Parliament enter the building where there is no proper controlled entrance. We should acquire an electronic signature. At present, we have lists and an office where a lot of people work and which takes down names and enters them in a computer. This is a waste of money: we should be making savings and introduce a better, credible system of security. We only have to do it, but Members say no all the time and that they do not agree with electronic signatures, even though that way, we would make obvious savings and have a better system of security.
I do not understand how this works in the US Congress; there, everyone agrees with this system, but here, somehow, these things do not get done. I hope that we will now focus on areas where savings can truly be made.
(SK) Madam President, I regard it as very important from a political perspective that the guidelines for the 2012 budget reflect the economic and political circumstances under which it was drawn up.
At a time when Member States are forced to make savings, and our citizens are bearing the consequences of the financial and political crisis, we cannot expect a big increase in the budget compared to the previous year. On the contrary, we must look for areas of our operations where we can save the tax resources of our citizens, without reducing the quality of our work.
I believe we have some direct spare capacity in the way we organise our work. The three headquarters of the European Parliament and the regular shuttling of thousands of workers and MEPs from Brussels to Strasbourg 12 times a year are well known to the public. Ladies and gentlemen, such a squandering of public resources shows nothing more than contempt for the realities of the situation.
Any talk about cost-cutting will appear false until this performance of shuttling to and fro for European Parliament debates is brought to an end.
(PL) Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Fernandes for drafting guidelines for the European Parliament and the other institutions. In my opinion, the guidelines he has drafted combine the need to make savings, or rather the necessity of making savings, of which we are all aware given the European Union's current economic situation, with a guarantee of the appropriate conditions for good law making.
I would like to emphasise at this point that we should not forget that the Treaty of Lisbon and the forthcoming enlargement mean that the European Parliament will be faced with new tasks. It is therefore absolutely vital, for the good of the citizens, to introduce solutions which will facilitate the proper and due functioning of the European Parliament.
I would like to emphasise that I will continue to hope for cooperation with the rapporteur which ensures that the 2012 budget being drafted by the European Parliament is a budget which is characterised by financial discipline, but also one which does not only think about the following year or the two or three years which come after it, but which is able to introduce modernising instruments which facilitate the European Parliament's work, and investments which I hope will make savings in the future.
(PL) Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mr Fernandes on his excellent report. I, too, believe that the 2012 budget should be realistic and adapted to the current economic situation. As a result of my many years of experience of managing a regional budget and my membership of the Committee on Budgets, I attach particular important to discipline when it comes to planning expenditure. I believe, however, that we should avoid false economies, which may result in an economic slowdown and a reduction in economic competitiveness. Increased employment levels and the creation of high quality, sustainable jobs are a prerequisite for economic growth and overcoming the effects of the crisis. The European Union budget must promote increased employment. The key to growth lies not in reducing expenditure, but in increasing efficiency and linking European funds to the achievement of strategic and measurable results. Thank you.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Mr Fernandes for his work and for focusing on the possible savings that may be made in our administrative expenditure. Staff and buildings policies are the two main areas in which our administrative expenditure is concentrated, as is clearly demonstrated by the report.
Taking into account the future accession of Croatia to the European Union and future personnel requirements, it will be necessary and appropriate to manage staff procedures, particularly through mobility. If, on the one hand, this choice of human resources policy offers greater flexibility, on the other, it will require increased training for European Union staff.
Concerning the buildings policy, the text explicitly mentions the principle of centralisation. The tough policy we are applying to budgets - starting with those of Member States - should, in the medium-term, also make us consider the desirability of retaining three seats of Parliament, an admittedly complex issue, but one which we cannot fail to address.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to the debate and I can assure you that the Bureau's proposal is a model of rigour, transparency and sound administration, and I wish to emphasise three points in particular.
The first point is that the increase suggested in our proposal does not exceed the average rate of inflation in the European Union. Secondly, I share the concerns and we are working towards a prudent and far-sighted buildings policy for security and for staff. The third point is that the EUR 1 500 increase was agreed and put into reserve by the Committee on Budgets.
The Committee on Budgets has released the reserve; this is not money going into the pockets of Members of Parliament - it is worth clearing up this misunderstanding and falsehood - but to assistants who will help Members to better perform the duties they are assigned by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Madam President, I would like to point to one minor area in which we could save money, which is software. We pay Bill Gates a huge sum of money annually for using his Windows software. He may be a nice chap who donates a lot of that money to good causes, but if we were to use open software more bravely in this House, it would be a step towards cleaner, cheaper and modern management.
(DE) Madam President, I would like to ask Commissioner Lewandowski what the specific procedure is for accessing the euro safety net, in other words, the money put up by the European institutions, in 2012. Will the Commission make a proposal if a particular state expresses the desire to make use of the safety net? Does the European Parliament have a full role in making this codecision and is this also to be an issue this week in the context of the widening of the safety net?
Secondly, I have a comment to make on the EUR 1 500 increase in the secretarial allowance. I would ask all the Members who do not make full use of the secretarial allowance to state publicly how much money they save themselves - after all, this is an area open to abuse. It may be that there are some Members who do not need to use the secretarial allowance at all because they very rarely attend Parliament. In such cases, these funds should not be used up in full. Only those who work particularly hard could use up the entire allowance. Everyone else should return this money to the taxpayer.
(SL) Madam President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to start by congratulating Mr Fernandes on an excellent report. However, I would agree with those members who have said that savings are necessary, especially making budget savings.
It is a fact that the European budget has been shrinking for decades. Looking at the GDP we have generated in the EU, its volume has constantly decreased. Recently, the Commissioner has said that, at the very beginning of the financial perspective, EU gross domestic product was approximately 1.3%. That figure today is barely 1.12%. At the same time, though, national European budgets have increased significantly.
For example, over the past ten years, the proverbially modest UK budget has increased by 100%, hence two and half times more than the EU budget. I would like to hear the Commissioner comment, in particular, on whether he is likely to encounter any difficulties in implementing the next budget in 2012 because of this actual decrease in the European budget as compared to the national budgets of the Member States.
Madam President, I would thank all my fellow Members for their contributions. I should like to mention that our objective at this time was the guidelines. However, we have already gone further than guidelines and set a specific objective: we want a neutral increase, which means that the 2012 budget will not increase above inflation.
I am well aware that we have new powers. I am well aware that we need resources for these powers, but we have to take on board the principles of good management, and achieve savings with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
These principles will not be used to seek blind savings: savings that will become costs in the future. We will make savings that do not put at risk the objective that we have set out: the objective of excellence in law making.
I am certain that I would also call this budget one of reconciliation: reconciliation of current needs, of the current time of crisis, and the requirements that these times impose on the institutions to respond efficiently, in terms of keeping up with what the people want, with what the European public wants.
Just one paragraph about a confusion that remains: there was no increase in the budget for Members and there will be no increase for next year. The sum to which everyone is referring - which is not for Members and which refers to the possibility of taking on another assistant - was already set out in 2010 and there has been no change in budgetary terms, no budgetary increase in 2011.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11:30 on Wednesday, 9 March 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - As elected representatives, everyone in this Chamber will be aware of the many sacrifices which our constituents and national governments have had to make over the past three years. Education, health, transport and other frontline services have all seen their funding slashed across the EU. It is important that the European Parliament has the necessary budget to properly fulfil the mandate which has been given to it from the European people. However, it is also necessary that the parliamentarians represent the same European people by ensuring that there is no frivolous spending, no unnecessary price increases, and that value is found in a market where suppliers and businesspeople are fighting for every last euro. I trust that both my colleagues in this Chamber and those working throughout the European institutions will consider these principles in the years ahead.


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council : see Minutes


7. PNR agreement with the United States of America (vote)
- Joint motion for a resolution
- Before the vote on citation 4:
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the four oral amendments we moved are a last attempt to obtain a joint resolution. Let me make it clear, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, that we endorse the criticism. Criticism alone, however, will not stop the terrorists. That is why we want to add a constructive dimension to this resolution. Accordingly, we move firstly that the following specific wording be added:
'Having regard to the joint ruling of the European Court of Justice of 30 May 2006 on cases C-317/04 and C-318/04,'
(DE) In this way we want to include a serious reference to the ruling that we ourselves in Parliament applied pressure to obtain. That is the first oral amendment I ask the House to support.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on citation 6:
(DE) The addition at this point would be as follows:
'... and the responses he received from Minister Dr Wolfgang Schäuble and Commission Director-General JLS Jonathan Faull of 29 June and 3 July 2007,'
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- After recital A:
- (DE) Then we are moving that another recital be added, as follows:
'whereas the PNR agreement is meant to help prevent and combat terrorism and international crime,'
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- After recital B:
Mr President, I should like to move the following oral amendment: 'whereas the PNR agreement provides the legal framework for the transfer of EU PNR data to the US and, by doing so, provides a basis for the air carriers to operate their business with the US,'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


Abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions (debate)
The next item is the report (A6-0513) by Mr Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs - Transport aspects - C6-0086/2007 -.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mr Costa for having drawn up this report. Reducing the administrative burden resulting from EU regulations is one of the most effective ways in which we can improve the regulatory environment for Europe's 24 million businesses. This initiative therefore makes an important contribution towards achieving our ambitious targets as part of the partnership for 'Growth and Jobs'.
The Commission therefore welcomes Parliament's support for a rapid adoption of this urgent procedure. This will help eliminate those unnecessary elements of the documentation required when transporting goods across national borders within the EU. The measure in question will remove those regulations which have now become obsolete and which in fact date back to the year 1960.
According to the regulations still in force carriers are required to provide a wide range of information on tariffs, price agreements and transport arrangements as soon as the goods they are transporting cross national borders within the Community. The simplified system being proposed by the Commission will significantly ease the administrative burden on some 300 000 European haulage companies and it has been estimated that it will save these operators a total of at least EUR 160 million a year: not a bad result at all.
As far as the procedure is concerned, the Commission acknowledges that the European Parliament has divided into two separate parts the so-called 'omnibus proposal' for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending both Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs.
I should like to state that the Commission will in future prefer the so-called 'omnibus approach', in other words using a single proposal to cover several measures designed to reduce any unnecessary administrative burden. There are two reasons for this: firstly, it is clear that the aim is not to alter the substance of the legislative text in question but merely - and I repeat the word 'merely' - to remove the unnecessary bureaucratic workload, and secondly, such an approach will speed up the rate at which measures of this kind can be discharged.
The Commission therefore hopes that both legislative bodies can now make rapid progress with the second part of the proposal, namely that which deals with the hygiene of foodstuffs.
Thank you all for your attention.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I could in fact repeat much of what has already been said by Commissioner Verheugen but shall avoid doing so. This is a commendable initiative: small-scale measures often conceal major results, and this is one such case.
We are obviously dealing here with rules that were enacted in a different Europe. The basic Regulation dates back to 1960, when our countries were separate, and when rules on hygiene and food could mask discrimination and obstacles to competition. That is why it was necessary to indicate which road to take and where to cross borders. Many things needed to be said, and many details spelled out, but since much of this no longer serves any purpose it is a good idea for us to divest ourselves of these rules and adapt them.
We are aware that all food hygiene legislation is a sensitive matter and therefore very time-consuming. That is the reason behind this solution, which I think makes a good deal of sense, namely to separate out the transport rules, which are easier to accept and, I hope, to implement.
The committee, which I have the honour of chairing, accepted my report unanimously. I take this as an encouraging sign that the House will do likewise tomorrow, enabling appropriate steps to be taken in the very near future.
This is a case of virtuous simplification. It is simplification which, at the same time as simplifying, adapts to current circumstances and new ways of conveying information, rendering many bureaucratic procedures unnecessary and perhaps enabling us to devote more of our attention to making sure that food is transported hygienically from one part of the Union to another.
on behalf of the PSE. - (RO) The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions requires land, rail or waterborne freight carriers operating within the Community to provide information on their rates, applicable agreements, terms of carriage, as well as the necessary documentation.
Thus, operators are forbidden to discriminate by applying differential rates (with reference to the same product being carried in the same transportation system on the same route), but discriminations are created according to the country of destination or of origin.
This is a very important Regulation, but as it had been in force since 1960, it needed updating. The draft amendment simplifies existing legislation and ensures more stability in the conditions applicable to the transportation of goods.
According to the statistics provided by the Commission, it is true, as the Commissioner said, that the Regulation will affect or will have some bearing on the activity of some 300 thousand transport operators, and this amendment will reduce Europe-wide administrative expenditure by some €160 million/year.
The European Parliament intends to reduce by 25% the administrative burden on enterprises by the year 2012. The proposal for the amendment of the two Regulations, as put forward to the Commission, is among the measures designed to achieve that objective.
It is true, however, that the Committee on Transport was notified in the codecision procedure, which is contrary to Article 73(3) of the Treaty. Hence the proposal put forward by Mr Costa as rapporteur was adopted unanimously.
(DE) Mr President, it would be negligent of me if I were not to reiterate, on behalf of our Group, what the Commissioner said in his opening words, namely that our Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism has truly fulfilled his remit as committee chairman in dealing with this fairly unspectacular but nevertheless important regulatory issue of air transport services, especially because he succeeded in obtaining unanimous support within the committee.
We hope that the unanimity of our vote has made his life and his work much more agreeable and I just wanted to emphasis this a second time.
Mr President, I congratulate the Commission - and you do not hear that very often from up here, do you? But this is a rare example of a report that is on the right road - to Damascus?
We insist on debating this proposition, for it seeks to cut regulation. It admits that small businesses are being weighed down by unnecessary legislation, some of it going back to 1960. The explanatory statement says that these unnecessary administrative burdens hamper economic activity and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of enterprises. I could not agree more; why stop here? Why only limit unnecessary paperwork from 10 employees or less? Let us go the whole hog and apply it to the whole of the foodstuffs industry! Go on, make a bonfire of another 100 000 pieces of legislation! While you are at it, scrap the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I am serious. By cutting regulatory burdens, you enable the nations of Europe to throw off the shackles that will otherwise inevitably turn us into the economic also-rans of the 21st century.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to say that we are using more words than necessary here.
It seems to me that we are fully in agreement: the amendments needed to be made and go in the right direction; it is right to separate the two sets of legislation in order to abolish discriminatory transport conditions. My only recommendation would be that I repeat tomorrow what I said in committee, in the hope of achieving the same outcome: a unanimous, or almost unanimous, vote on this proposal.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday.


5. Adaptation of a number of instruments to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, "omnibus" Regulation, Part One (
- Before the vote:
President-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) Permit me this opportunity to convey my satisfaction on behalf of the Council at the good results of the long-term and extensive work on this technical dossier. It was possible to conclude this dossier primarily thanks to the creative cooperation of all three institutions, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank especially the rapporteur, József Szájer, for his cooperation and the work done.
Now that this part of the adjustment has been concluded, both legislative branches, and especially the European Parliament, will be able to exercise control over the executive powers of the Commission in connection with numerous legislative acts in important fields. In conclusion I would also like to see this kind of creative cooperation continue during the coming French Presidency.
rapporteur. - Mr President, as a result of the vote just cast, for the first time Parliament acquires the real right of control and veto over the normative executive acts of the European Commission on an equal footing with the Council.
By adopting the two omnibus packages we take a very big step in eliminating the democratic deficit of the Union. I also want to remind colleagues that our new power of control over the EU executive requires from us more work than before. Parliament has to prepare itself for the new task of the comitology procedure.
I thank the Council, and especially the Slovenian presidency, and the Commission, particularly because they both are giving up important and so far exclusive rights and conceding them to Parliament, and they are both losing exclusive powers. I would also like to thank our colleagues in the respective committees who understand the importance of the new empowerment of the European Parliament. They acted very quickly and flexibly on this dossier. Our vote today will contribute greatly to a better, more democratic and a much more transparent European Union. Thank you for your support.
(Applause)


Flu epidemic (debate)
The next item is a statement by the Commission on the flu epidemic.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to address Parliament, in its final week, on the global spread of the influenza A(H1N1) virus. Let me first brief you on the current situation, and then on what the EU has been doing to manage this crisis.
The latest European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) report states that there are currently 94 confirmed cases of A(H1N1) influenza within the EU and EFTA countries, and 20 probable cases. Most of these people have been to affected areas outside Europe, but not all. Eight human-to-human transmissions have been reported, in one instance even to a health-care worker.
However, we may be glad that none of the patients infected with this virus in the EU has yet died. For over a week we have observed the spread of infections in Mexico, in the USA, in Canada, in EU Member States and in other countries.
In Mexico the impact on public and economic life has grown to a serious scale. We appreciate and acknowledge the enormous efforts the Mexican authorities have made to contain the spread of the virus and to help those suffering from infection.
EU legislation on communicable disease obliges Member States to report on such outbreaks and on the measures they propose to take to mitigate them. The ECDC operates the surveillance networks which follow the number of cases reported. We therefore have a fairly accurate picture across Europe of the developing situation, and this provides the basis for responsibly taking appropriate and effective decisions on how to best make use of our limited resources.
The worldwide picture of infection was severe enough to trigger the WHO to decide on 29 April to upgrade its pandemic alert to phase 5, recognising that human-to-human transmission had taken place in at least two regions. The Commission has worked throughout in close contact and cooperation with the WHO.
My services are working hard to implement the actions to take, as defined by the Community pandemic influenza preparedness plan, in order to address the challenges posed by the current outbreak. The Commission launched its public health operations facility on 24 April and since then my services have been at permanent operational level.
The Commission has called daily meetings of the Communicable Disease Network of Member States and of the EU Health Security Committee since Saturday 25 April. These meetings review the epidemiological situation, discuss and decide on measures and on appropriate legislative acts.
Information for the public on how to prevent infection and to make informed choices about travel has been discussed to ensure a coherent message from all Member States, based on scientific advice by the ECDC, in coordination with the WHO. We decided to extend the surveillance for seasonal flu, which should normally have ended at week 20, in order to identify infections with this new flu virus.
The Commission adopted on 30 April a legally binding case definition on the basis of the EU communicable disease legislation, and this decision was published in the Official Journal on 1 May.
Since medical countermeasures such as antivirals and vaccines are at the heart of our public health response to this threat, I met with the European manufacturers on Wednesday 29 April to learn the latest information on which products are in development, on timelines for new vaccines, and to see if EU intervention can speed up delivery. With the Member States, we are examining how to best optimise the use of existing stocks of antivirals, using the coordination mechanism of the EU Health Security Committee.
I can also inform Parliament that, following my request to the Czech Presidency, the Health Council met on 30 April and adopted a set of strong conclusions reiterating the need for a coordinated response to the new influenza threat.
The Council recalled the legal obligation on Member States to coordinate their surveillance and response to health threats, and agreed that restricting travel to affected areas was not a justified public health response. However, the Council also agreed that good public information was essential and that travellers should be able to make informed judgements.
The Commission is now examining a road map for the urgent implementation of the points included in the Council conclusions of 30 April. These will include development of vaccines, vaccine strategy, guidance on best use of stockpiles of vaccines and antivirals, protective and preventative measures and public communication and information.
It is clear that we all benefit from our integrated European economy and society. However, that benefit also brings a responsibility. It means that we must work together to take only those measures that are justified by the evidence. This is essential if we are to avoid a health crisis becoming an economic crisis as well. But we should not focus unduly on the negative aspects of these events. Thanks to the preparation led by the Commission after avian influenza a few years ago, the EU has the systems in place to respond collectively and effectively to this threat.
I know that in recent times, as the European elections approach, this House has debated what Europe really means for citizens. In these difficult days, I think we can see some things more clearly. Europe means solidarity in standing together to face this threat. It means cooperation, sharing information, expertise and capacity so that we can act together on the basis of the best available knowledge. It means innovation, with European-funded research helping to bring a vaccine to production as quickly as possible. It means capability, through the European institutions enabling all Member States to respond immediately and effectively to a shared crisis. That is what Europe brings to citizens.
So, yes, the situation is serious but we are better prepared than ever to meet this threat. And having seen the determination of the health ministers of Europe last week - and all 27 were there - I am confident of our ability to respond in the coming weeks.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all thank you for the information you have given us, which was comprehensive, and I welcome the measures which you have taken. I should like to draw your attention to three basic issues, which you also mentioned and which I consider to be necessary in order for us to address a possible pandemic.
The first is the plans which we have and which have already been processed by the Council, the European Commission and Parliament in connection with avian influenza. We therefore have plans which are, in fact, quite good, despite the fact that certain omissions were criticised by specialist scientists. I should therefore like to ask if these plans have been completed, if the Member States have adopted them and if they are ready to be applied, as the weakest link is very important here, and finally, there is the coordination which you have mentioned; I am delighted to hear that you are ready to undertake it jointly with the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for this entire influenza story.
The second issue that I want to mention is that of antiviral drugs. An obligation was introduced for the Member States to have an adequate quota. Antiviral drugs are also used for treatment, but of course they are for prevention and there needs to be guidelines here, because they cannot be used randomly; they must be used properly.
The third issue that I should like to raise is that it would be useful if we could find a vaccine for the new influenza. This vaccine will be very important and I believe that today, with the techniques at our disposal, companies could have it ready in three to four months. So I would like you to exert pressure in this direction to ensure that an effort really is made to ensure that we have a new vaccine which, together with the vaccine for seasonal influenza, which you have rightly extended in order to combat this influenza for all the known scientific reasons, would constitute the best barrier to a possible influenza pandemic.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, it would seem that the flu pandemic is not as bad as expected. We have been lucky again, just as we were with SARS - yet this is not down to the decision-makers, Mr President. When the flu threat became known during the weekend, they agreed to meet for urgent talks on the Thursday - which strikes me as a redefinition of the word 'urgent'. Subsequently, nothing much was decided. What happens if there is a real crisis?
What happens in the event of the 'big one' - which the World Health Organization is convinced is coming, and may well claim eight to 10 million lives? The ministers met to exchange information, and plans were made. Yet what was the quality of the plans, and of the exchange of information? What measures have been taken, and are these actually coordinated? Is the Commission receiving all the necessary information? I have my doubts. Taking the example of the antiviral drugs: who has, and who does not have, these? Also, are the ministers now prepared, at long last, to create a European emergency stockpile?
Although I am not convinced that France's proposal to ground all flights to Mexico was a good one, the Council's decision that everyone should make up their own minds whether to do this is, of course, crazy. With our open borders, what is the point of one country doing it if another does not? The countries should have taken that decision together. The only solution to this is to empower the Commission to take this kind of emergency measures. You, Commissioner, by order of the Council, should be able to take contingency measures within 24 hours on such issues as quarantine, disinfection measures at airports and travel restrictions.
I am not blaming the Commission, then. Commissioner, you and your officials acted correctly. Where was the Council, though? We look around the proverbial dusty Mexican square and there, in the sun, by the little station, sits the Council. We run towards it crying 'flu, flu', and the sombrero lifts slowly and the Council replies 'mañana mañana' and goes back to its siesta. It is hard to do anything with this Council.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join those who have thanked you, Commissioner, for the comprehensive information you have given us. Yet I agree with Mr Trakatellis and Mr Maaten. We did hold an extensive debate in this House in June 2006. We adopted a resolution, on which we worked hard at the time in Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I have looked again at that resolution and I must say that, like Mr Trakatellis, I fear that there are a great many gaps, many weaknesses in the current approach.
Back then, we strongly recommended ensuring an exchange of information and also constructive cooperation between Member States, with a coordinating role for the Commission and in constructive cooperation with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Anyone who now takes a good look round - and Mr Maaten raised this point very emphatically - will see that there are a great many gaps, that things are going incredibly slowly.
As for the stockpiles of antiviral drugs; you yourself told us a few days ago that stocks were sufficient to cover 16% of the population, when we had said that the figure needed to be 30%. Therefore, things are well below par, not to mention as regards the exchange of information on the nature of the virus. This exchange of information is essential, as vaccines cannot be developed unless the nature of the virus is known.
Scientists I have contacted in recent days say that they have no information, that they cannot get hold of any. Information on the nature of the virus is protected, is kept secret. We have all these research institutes, but we cannot do what we need to do. Something must be done about this. We cannot tolerate this; the threat is really too great.
Mr President, speaking on the subject of the threat posed by the influenza virus I would like to quote some of the opinions of Internet users which have appeared as a response to the panic in the media, which has been given an additional stimulus by comments made by the World Health Organization. It is being said that the cause of the media hysteria is a desire to get rid of stocks of vaccines and the ineffective drug Tamiflu which are taking up shelf space in pharmaceutical warehouses, and an attempt to divert attention from the world crisis.
These reactions of society are not only testimony to a mistrust of authority, but they may also cause people to disregard a real threat of a pandemic in the future. I think it would be wiser to release information about the danger of a possible pandemic of influenza or other disease after somewhat longer observations of cases of the illness and careful investigation of the virus and its virulence. This would prevent the release of incomplete information, panic and, for example, the slaughter of pigs which is taking place.
- (SK) Commissioner, I too would like to thank you for your active and immediate response to the case in question. Because of globalisation and large movements of tourists, travellers and ordinary people today there is no place on earth where this disease could not appear. We can already see this from the cases that have appeared in locations as far away from Mexico as New Zealand, Australia, Europe and Africa.
Despite the subsidiarity of healthcare, infectious diseases know no boundaries and oblige us to take joint action. There can be no solution within the framework of a single country. It is time for solidarity. Slovakia is sufficiently prepared even for an expansion of the influenza infection into a larger epidemic, perhaps because of the earlier avian influenza. We have 700 000 Tamiflu doses in national reserves for 5 million inhabitants and I must say that it is also perhaps on account of the earlier threat of avian influenza that the populace is definitely well-prepared.
In case of an epidemic it is very important to keep the public informed, because where there is no information there will be plenty of disinformation. We can see this from a number of African countries, for example Egypt where the current threat of an influenza epidemic coupled with the idea that the disease was spread by pigs has led to 300 000 - 400 000 pigs being slaughtered. However, we should perhaps show solidarity in this case in other ways, since travel agencies were selling holidays in these destinations but now people are travelling there only in case of need. As we have Eurolat, we should also think about supporting Mexico, where it is believed that this infection will cause GDP to decline by up to 4 - 5% from current levels.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to say that we need to send realistic messages to our citizens, as the Commissioner has tried to do.
Science is much better prepared to face this pandemic than it was four years ago, and this can be seen from the low number of deaths occurring. A great deal more is known about avian and human cases and about the transmission history of this swine influenza. A good deal more is known about the solutions and I believe, therefore, we should trust in research, promote research and demand far more research into vaccines, as Mr Trakatellis also said.
We also know that society is much better prepared than it was a while ago, thanks to the wealth of experience and the organisational efforts made in every country, particularly those in Europe, in an effort to prevent further spread, stockpile medicines and provide citizens with a comprehensive service.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that those citizens may not be receiving enough information. If we look at the press we can see that 90% - or even more - of the material being printed focuses on falling infection rates, but very little is said of cures or how citizens should act.
I believe a great deal more information is needed. I also feel that greater political effort is required with regard to our citizens. To give an example, I am struck by the fact that not a single Member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has come to the debate, that all their seats are empty and nobody has asked for the floor in order to justify this situation, when this matter goes beyond individual parties and is of concern to all governments.
I also wish to stress that we can give third countries a helping hand, as the speaker before me said. We need to give our support to all those countries that do not have the conditions, the basis or the capacity to provide assistance to all their citizens.
Therefore, the Europe of solidarity must take action, as must the Europe of communication.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to address the commissioner in order to voice my concern. The development of the virus seems to be stabilising in Mexico, in Europe and so on, and, only today, I have heard comments on the radio to the effect that we may have gone too far, that our fellow citizens may have been made to worry unnecessarily.
Well, what concerns me, Commissioner, is not what is happening now, but what is going to happen in October when winter approaches. It is well known that viruses do not like high temperatures. The danger is therefore not there at present, but it will resurface in the winter - in October or November.
Thus, what we should like to know, Commissioner, is what you are doing precisely to ensure that we are fully prepared to tackle this virus that is liable to develop, that may mutate between now and then. We are told that vaccines must be made, but is it certain that those vaccines that are going to be developed will be fit for use in all cases?
Those are all of the questions that I am wondering about. The concern is for next winter. Communication is therefore necessary; it must be explained to our fellow citizens that, whatever happens, it is not a question of letting their guard down, and that they must remain vigilant. Might it be possible, Commissioner, for you to distribute a kind of small guide to help our fellow citizens adopt good habits?
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know whether there are any statistics available on face masks. How many masks are available in Europe, and what quantities could be produced in the event of an outbreak of this kind of disease? The same goes for the medication available, of course. Is there an overview of how much medication is currently stored in Europe and how much could be produced in the event of an outbreak? Do you think that it would be possible to also provide information for doctors in the 23 languages of the European Union, so that information could be provided rapidly and efficiently?
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you first of all for your integrated and detailed presentation. I was the European Parliament rapporteur on preparations by the 27 Member States to deal with avian influenza. At that time, we established together with the Commissioner's office that certain countries were lagging behind others, mainly in terms of stocks of antiviral drugs. I should like to ask you if this still applies today, or not, which would mean that the Member States are better prepared.
I should also like to ask you to do something as regards the popular press and unofficial rumours that are circulating throughout the European Union and causing panic among the citizens. I believe that this is also the responsibility of the Member States and that perhaps your office should issue a recommendation on this.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for being here and for getting here so quickly. If we compare this situation with the case of avian influenza, then - even as an impatient MEP - I am very satisfied with the way in which the European Union, the WHO, and also the Member States themselves, have responded.
Certain Members have said that there is insufficient information. In Germany, I feel that I have been provided with sufficient information on how I should behave. I also do not wish to always make Europe responsible for everything. It is the Member States that are responsible for providing this information. We should also take this opportunity to remind them that they need to fulfil their duty to provide information. I have also heard, on a number of occasions, that there are still certain shortcomings, particularly relating to the stockpiling of vaccines. I would be interested to know whether this is really the case, whether the Member States really do not want to share vaccines and whether they are only storing them for use on their territory, or whether they have agreed to share the vaccines. Then we would be at the same stage as the Commission is now. I would like to express my thanks for this rapid and excellent work. Congratulations!
That concludes the 'catch-the-eye' period.
Before giving the floor to the Commissioner, I too should like to thank her for her initial speech. I should also like to thank her in advance for all the information that she will shortly give us on an extremely important and topical issue. This shows that both the European Union and the Member States are tackling this situation in a very positive manner and as close as possible to the people.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I thank Members for their contributions. It is very important for me to hear your views on this very important matter.
First of all, let me assure you that all the structures we have established in order to meet any health threat of this size have been working well and that we have utilised all the tools at our disposal.
As I said in my introductory statement, since 25 April 2009 we have been in close contact on a daily basis with all the Member States, and we have been assured that the directives we have given them have been put in place and are working. However, in view of the experience of the present crisis we are continuously updating our structures and tools, which makes sense because it is only in a real time of crisis that we can see the deficiencies of any structure.
Many speakers mentioned antivirals and the sufficiency of stocks. Unfortunately, as you know, my predecessor discussed this problem of stockpiling on an EU basis with the health ministers but unfortunately those ministers did not want Europe to take over this coordination. We discussed the same problem last year in Angers during the French Presidency and, again, the health ministers insisted that each Member State should be free to decide for itself how many stocks it wanted. We know that there are many differences between the stocks from one state to another, and we are concerned about that.
However, in view of the conclusions reached by the health ministers on 30 April 2009, we decided that the Commission would work closely with the Member States and that if a Member State needs assistance then, in the spirit of solidarity, we shall call for assistance and try to coordinate the needs of the Member States.
As far as the new vaccine is concerned, as I said, I had a meeting with industry and we discussed at length the need both for antivirals and for the new vaccine. We hope that on 11 May 2009 we shall have the seed stocks to give to the industry in order for it to begin production of the new vaccine. I cannot say when it will be ready, as it will depend on the efficacy of the stock, but we estimate that it will take between 8 and 12 weeks.
In response to Ms Grossetête's question, I agree completely with her that we have to remain vigilant in order to meet the needs that may arise, certainly after the summer, and with the creation of the new vaccine I hope that we shall be able to meet the needs of our people.
However, I want to reiterate the fact that the situation is serious but we should not panic. I agree with Mr Adamou that everybody should be as reasonable and realistic as possible in this situation - panicking does not help anybody.
The debate is closed.


Documents received: see Minutes


3. 2009 discharge: EU general budget - European Data Protection Supervisor (


Welcome
Allow me, before I hand over to the President of the Commission, to welcome the delegation from the Canary Islands Regional Parliament, led by its President, Mr Castro Cordobez.
(Applause)


6. Single application procedure for residence and work (
- After the vote on Amendment 10:
(FR) Madam President, I think you need to repeat the vote on Amendment 1, because there was the same majority that voted in favour of Amendment 1. You rushed the gun in saying that it had been rejected.
I think it is too late. It was clearer for me on the first vote than it was on the subsequent ones. I am sorry, but I have made my mind up on that one.