Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Kauppi for her report on the electronic company register, which I fully support. It is a brilliant idea and an excellent report, and Parliament stands united in support of its implementation.
I hope we will have electronic company registers in the Member States as soon as possible, as well as a Europe-wide electronic platform that contains all information companies are required to disclose. The proposals, if implemented, would mean less bureaucracy, more transparency, a diminished administrative burden, lower costs for companies and, as a result, enhanced competitiveness of European companies.
(LT) I voted for the report on the Regulation of European Statistics prepared by Andreas Schwab. The reason I voted for it is the fact that the content of the new regulation is really important, significantly improving the existing regulation. I have in mind the definition of the European Statistical System, its place in Community law. The regulation also sets out the functions of national statistics institutions in the European Statistical System in solving matters of statistical confidentiality and statistical quality. This is undoubtedly a step forward compared to the current situation and the regulation now in force.
In fact, the European Commission's proposal to split the European Statistical System Committee into two parts seems controversial to me and the rapporteur's position of not separating functions seems more acceptable and worth supporting. However, I trust that, in future, if the European Parliament, Council and Commission work together, we will overcome these disagreements.
(DE) Mr President, I have an explanation of vote to make on the report in respect of modulation. In the most recent agricultural reform, it was decided that farmers would have planning certainty until 2013. For that reason, I was opposed to implementing modulation on a scale that would result in farmers losing larger amounts. I am pleased with the result and would like to thank all my fellow Members who voted in favour of raising the allowance from EUR 5 000 to EUR 10 000, meaning that less modulation funding is taken away from small businesses.
If we, in politics, talk of planning certainty, this is something we should also grant to the farmers. I am therefore pleased about the result of today's report on modulation and hope that the Council accepts our results.
(PL) Mr President, today's vote ended almost twelve months of work on the preparation of our opinion on the operation of the common agricultural policy. It is important for the changes we have made to contribute to simplifying this policy. At the same time, we should retain its Community nature and ensure equal conditions of competition. I hope that EU agriculture ministers will read the opinion and accept our proposals.
What I have in mind in particular are proposals dealing with the simplification of cross-compliance requirements, including postponement until 2013 of the implementation of requirements relating to the area of animal welfare, area C, by new Member States. Regrettably, many solutions have been designed in a way which does not take into account the situation or the model of agriculture existing in new Member States. We are now starting to discuss the future of the common agricultural policy after 2013 and to review the financial perspective. Much work remains ahead of us.
(GA) Mr President, I would like to express my appreciation of the very positive vote that took place here today in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy, and I would also like to welcome the policies that were presented, such as providing fruit and vegetables to schools.
However, in relation to the policy itself, I would like to draw attention once more to the obligatory modulation recommended by the Commission and to state that I am totally against it. The policy must be flexible and the Member States must be permitted to raise or lower that modulation as they wish.
In my opinion, the EUR 5 000 threshold is too low. It should be raised to EUR 10 000 to protect and support farmers on low incomes that are suffering already - I do not think money should be taken from them for obligatory modulation.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to speak to state publicly the reasons for my final vote against the Santos report 0401 and 02. The report is merely dependent on the health check on the common agricultural policy, which takes no account of the changed world conditions. We are discussing the details without seeing the main problem.
The CAP that we are using the health check to verify was created to reduce agricultural production in order to promote environmental protection, because those were the conditions under which it was established. Today, we all know that the economic conditions have changed drastically, but the CAP remains more or less the same and all we are discussing is whether the first or the second option is better, whether we need less or more, this or that measure, when they have now become inadequate to meet the challenges of the future.
I cannot accept this endless dealing with small, specific interests, ignoring the general good. I am convinced that the prime victim of this lack of courage is agriculture itself. In order to provoke dialogue and a debate, I voted against this report; I am leaving on my website the technical details that cannot be included in a one-minute speech, and my specific reasons will be published there.
(FR) Mr President, the Hungarian Members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament voted in favour of the reports by Mr Capoulas Santos because these reports are much more positive for new Member States, and for Hungary as well. Compulsory modulation and gradual modulation are less brutal than in the Commission's proposal. I regret there was not a vote in favour of the ALDE amendment regarding compulsory modulation. It is regrettable but, in spite of that, it is a good report.
With regard to the second report, Amendment 67 was proposed by the Socialist Group. With reference to the intervention system, it is very important not to intervene on the basis of tendering procedures. Maintaining the current system is very positive. This is why we voted in favour.
Mr President, I compliment Mr Capoulas Santos on his very complex work. The Fine Gael delegation supported these reports with caveats. On the issue of milk quotas, we voted for greater flexibility and a higher percentage increase in quotas, giving farmers the opportunity to produce milk should they wish. We regret that this was not the view of the plenary and that we are now back with the Commission's proposal.
Secondly, on modulation, we are concerned about the transferring of funds from pillar 1 to pillar 2 because it takes income from farmers to be used in schemes which require cofinancing by Member States, and this is something that may not be guaranteed into the future. The raising of the franchise to EUR 10 000, on which Parliament has voted in favour, is welcome. I would like to clarify that our vote on Recital 6 - Amendments 190 and 226 - should read '+' (in favour). I hope that the Council will assist the ailing sheep sector in its deliberations of tomorrow and today.
(BG) I would like to draw your attention to proposed amendment 54 tabled by Mr Deß and a group of other MEPs. If this amendment was adopted, it would result in an appalling double standard between the old and the new Member States, because by increasing the quota, the new Member States would need to increase it only if the financial year allowed it. I see that Mr Deß is still in the auditorium - so perhaps he would be able to explain to me whether the financial year allows the quota for the new Member States to be increased. Thankfully, this amendment was not adopted but rejected by this House, which has allowed me to vote for the entire report, and I am very happy that Parliament has not allowed two categories of Member State to be created in respect of increased milk quotas.
(DE) Mr President, the report on the milk quota argues for milk quotas to be raised. Along with all my CSU colleagues, I voted against all the amendments in which quota increases are called for. The milk quota due to apply until 31 March 2015 is designed to stabilise European milk markets. There is currently a surplus on European milk markets.
This has put serious pressure on milk prices. Any further increase in the quota will intensify the fall in prices faced by milk producers. Many farmers' livelihoods would then be in jeopardy. We do not need an increase in the quota but rather a system that reacts flexibly to the situation in the market. If, however, a majority here in Parliament and in the Council decides to phase out milk quotas by 2015, a milk fund will be necessary in order to ensure the continued survival of milk production in the disadvantaged areas and grassland areas in future.
Mr President, if I were to set out to design the most expensive, wasteful, corrupt, immoral, bureaucratic system of farm support that I could, I am not sure that I would have come up with anything as ingenious as the common agricultural policy, a system that penalises us, as taxpayers, to subsidise the production of food for which there is no market and then penalises us again, as consumers, to sustain prices for it. It often penalises us a third time, as taxpayers, to destroy the food which could not be sold.
In the meantime, it causes environmental destruction because output-based subsidies encourage the felling of hedgerows and the use of pesticides and unfriendly fertilisers and, of course, causes terrible starvation in Africa. This is particularly harmful, I have to say, for a country such as yours and mine, which is a food importer with a relatively efficient agrarian sector, and which is therefore penalised both positively and negatively, paying more into the system and getting less out of it than other EU Member States.
Almost anything we did would be better than the common agricultural policy, be it direct support or any other system. And in case you thought I had forgotten to say it, it is high time we put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!
(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the Capoulas Santos report and of Amendment 186, which recommends a franchise of EUR 10 000 for the modulation.
This concerns small-scale agriculture in Europe. The modulation process must be applied in moderation. Small farms in Europe need the support of the EU, so that they can continue to exist within the EU's wage structure. We want healthy food to be produced in Europe and to be available at reasonable prices. We also want the countryside to be managed. If we really do want all of this, then we must give our farmers support, so that we can continue to produce healthy food in future in Europe, which is an area with one of the most favourable climates in the world. This is why I have voted in favour of the Capoulas Santos report.
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the report prepared by Capoulas Santos on the European rural development fund. We created this programme just two years ago and it actually came into operation just last year. The applicants have begun to draw up their projects and to learn the rules of the fund. Now, after just one year, we are changing these rules. I cannot support such a step, because it will bring only losses and delays in financing projects needed by rural areas. Such a frequent change of rules cannot bring any benefit and therefore I have voted against it.
(PL) Mr President, this is a very important subject. Assessment of the common agricultural policy shows that it will make sense in the future if it is based on fair principles. The common agricultural policy should, above all, ensure food security for Europe, self-sufficiency and production of food for export, economic security for farming families, profitability of agricultural production, equal subsidies for farmers from old and new Member States, safety of the environment, preservation of biodiversity, putting a stop to the cultivation and farming of genetically modified organisms throughout the whole of the European Union, developing rural areas, ensuring the advancement of the most deprived regions, protection of cultural heritage and preservation of traditional culture, and equal access for inhabitants of rural areas to education, culture and technical developments. These goals can be achieved only if we learn the right lessons from our existing experience and reach for courageous solutions.
Written explanations of vote
in writing. -? (LT) The European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 recognises the necessity to improve the quality, ability to compare and accessibility of data on health conditions and disorders linked to the environment by using the Community statistical programme. I believe that this is a very important regulation. We must know our society's perception of health, its susceptibility to different illnesses. This regulation establishes a joint system for organising Community statistics on society's health and workers' health and safety.
It is very important that the data is collected in the European Union on citizens' perception of health, physical and mental activities and disability, about cases of illnesses which are increasing or decreasing, about injuries, damage done by alcohol and drugs, lifestyle and the accessibility of health care institutions.
Statistics will have to include information essential for Community actions in the area of society's health, aimed at supporting national strategies which are developing high quality and stable health care accessible to all.
This regulation establishes a common framework for a systematic production of Community statistics in public health and health and safety at work. At the moment, statistical information on public health and health and safety at work is collected mainly on a voluntary basis. The adoption of this regulation will formalise the current 'gentlemen's agreement' and guarantee the continuity of data collection as well as the quality and comparability of data.
At first reading in 2007, the European Parliament adopted 12 amendments to the Commission proposal. Most of the amendments dealt with horizontal issues, like the inclusion of gender and age in the breakdown variables and the use of additional and complementary financing provided by certain Community programmes in the two areas covered by the regulation. Some amendments were adopted to the annexes dealing exclusively either with public health or health and safety at work, such as the collection of data on protection against pandemics and transmissible diseases.
In subsequent negotiations with the Slovenian Presidency, almost all amendments adopted by the European Parliament were agreed to be incorporated in the common position. The Council also made some other changes to the text but, in broad terms, these changes were acceptable.
This regulation establishes a common framework for a systematic production of Community statistics in public health and health and safety at work.
The statistics should take the form of a harmonised and common data set and should be produced by Eurostat together with the national statistical institutes and other national authorities responsible for the provision of official statistics.
At the moment, statistical information on public health and health and safety at work is collected mainly on a voluntary basis.
I agree with the proposed regulation because it aims to consolidate the progress made in regular data collection in the two areas in question, by formalising the current informal agreement between the Member States, guaranteeing the continuity of data collection and establishing a regulatory framework for improving the quality and comparability of data through common methodologies. It will certainly ensure greater clarity in terms of planning, sustainability and stability of European requirements for statistics on public health and health and safety at work.
in writing. - At present there are no harmonised standards with regard to Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work. The harmonisation of such statistics will hugely improve comparability and enhance policy development. The common position on the whole accepts the amendments forwarded by this House at first reading and accordingly I was able to support the Scheele report.
The stress of modern working life with its new types of employment contracts, job uncertainty and poor work-life balance is leaving its mark. Statistics show that mental health problems are currently one of the main causes of an early exit from working life. Job uncertainty is, of course, accompanied by an increase in cases of bullying. Health problems, such as back pain, are also constantly growing. In addition, in recent years, the number of cases in which employees have been dismissed while on sick leave or following an accident at work has risen. We have many problems that we need to confront and we need statistical data in order to keep up with the latest developments. For this reason, I have voted in favour of the Scheele report.
It is obvious that we need Community statistics for public health and for health and safety at work in order to provide support for the strategies which are aimed at developing high-quality medical care, which is viable and accessible to all.
Health and safety at work is an area which promotes the protection of workers' lives, integrity and health, and creates working conditions which will ensure their physical, psychological and social well-being. In order to do this, we need a coherent, sustained programme which will protect employees against the risks of accidents and work-related illnesses.
I support this draft resolution because, at the moment, we do not have a harmonised and common data set capable of proving the quality and comparability of information from the statistical systems in each country. Community statistics on health should be adapted to the progress made and results achieved from the Community measures implemented in the area of public health.
In today's vote, I voted to accept the recommendation on the Council's common position on the acceptance of the Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work.
It is my view that our health promotion strategy should place a special emphasis on disease prevention and early diagnosis. This strategy will be effective if we provide people with appropriate health care and treatment facilities, and if we reduce differences in access to health care between European Union Member States.
We will not be able to develop a joint health care strategy if the appropriate statistical institutions do not have the relevant data. Consequently, adopting the regulation will represent a step towards better coordination of Community action on health care statistics. Collecting information on pandemics and infectious diseases will undoubtedly contribute to their improved control.
It should also be noted that at present, public health and health care statistics are collected only on a voluntary basis. This being the case, the regulation aims to formalise existing solutions and to ensure continuity of data collection.
The unanimous vote of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety points to the importance and rightness of the report.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the Kauppi report. Companies throughout Europe should be able to operate in an environment free from excessive burdens. Nevertheless, Member States must be allowed to formulate their own requirements and the principle of subsidiarity should be respected. I am satisfied that the Kauppi report strikes the correct balance.
I voted in favour of accepting the report on the Parliament and Council Directive concerning information disclosure and translation requirements, intended to reduce excessive administrative burden imposed on certain types of companies.
The proposal has as its objective the elimination from national law of all additional information disclosure requirements which increase business costs.
Under existing regulations, information must be entered in the commercial registers of Member States and published in national official gazettes.
At present, at a time when commercial registers publish information on the Internet, publication in official gazettes does not, in most cases, create added value, simply exposing companies to high costs.
The proposed changes give Member States flexibility in setting additional information disclosure requirements and ensure that companies will be relieved of additional, frequently unnecessary, payments.
The task of statistics is to provide objective and quantitative data, which can be referred to in processes involving the formation of public opinion and decision making. EU and Member State statistics are a direct supporting measure when making political and administrative decisions. Hence, when harmonising EU statistical systems, we must take their importance into account.
The scientific independence of statistical research in Europe must be ensured. In addition, the regulations should not contradict the principle of subsidiarity.
I support the Commission's proposal on the Regulation on European Statistics, which is a legal basis for collecting statistical data at a European level and which reconsiders the legal system in force, according to which the organisation of statistics at a European level is regulated.
Voting against a report that initially appears to be technical, since it relates to the generating of Community statistics, may appear absurd. Indeed it is not without interest to have such data to help in making decisions.
However, in spite of the declared intentions, this new regulation leads to the generation of new convoluted statistics, an increase in the statistical burden on national institutes and businesses, whether in terms of red tape or financial costs, contrary to the commitments made on several occasions to simplify and reduce this load.
Moreover, the Europe of Brussels shows on a daily basis what it thinks of the figures that it is supposed to use. I shall only take two examples. Firstly, the limited proposals to support the real economy, which is entering into recession, support which, in any case, will be subjected to the dogmatic primacy of sacrosanct competition, global free trade and the 'stupid' Stability and Growth Pact. Secondly, the denial of the inflation suffered by households since the introduction of euro coins and notes. The price for certain basic commodities has in fact doubled, or even tripled, in 6 years, while the ECB focuses on global and misleading aggregates, and calls for wage moderation.
in writing. - The collection of data plays a vital role in policy development and decision making. The Commission's proposal in this area will give a firm legal status to data collection and I voted in favour of Mr Schwab's report.
On the basis of the report by the Portuguese Member, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, I voted in favour of the legislative resolution amending the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes in favour of farmers within the context of the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes in favour of farmers. To exclude any threat to supplies, in the context of balanced and sustainable land management, it is essential to affirm the concept of food safety. I welcome and support the requests to simplify the procedures. I support the Community's crisis management instruments. This vote confirms a favourable change in how agriculture is taken into account in Community policies. However, the problem of the future of farming has not been solved: this will be the electoral debate in 2009 and in the political negotiations that will open immediately following the elections.
I confirm that I voted for the Capoulas Santos report, but I would like to point to two aspects that may become untenable for farmers in my country. The first relates to milk quotas: the one per cent rise, the product of the compromise reached, is really too small a step and is not enough to satisfy the farmers' legitimate demands.
The other unsatisfactory area is the funding for tobacco. Although I am going against my political group's position here, I am firmly convinced that the aid ought to be extended. A cut in subsidies would, in reality, do nothing to combat smoking, but would have a negative impact on the protection of jobs in a sector with over 500 000 workers in the 27 Member States. I hope for an improvement in the proposal during the course of the steps that will follow today's adoption
in writing. - (NL) The CAP 'health check' is an extensive and important area. Whether we like it or not, we indicate the course which agricultural policy should take after 2013. Allow me to mention two aspects in this respect.
Decoupled support allows for more market-oriented, and therefore more competitive and more innovative agriculture, but we should not veer the other way to a fully liberalised agricultural market. We should not throw away the umbrella the minute the sun appears. Intervention mechanisms, insurance cover and so on should be organised in such a way as not to distort the market, and should, at the same time, be a real safety net.
The proposals to channel considerable amounts to the second pillar via modulation do not receive my support. It appears that the funds in the first pillar are spent more wisely than the rural development funds. Moreover, I foresee all kinds of cofinancing problems in relation to a level playing field.
The June Movement has voted against Amendment 208 in the report, as the outbreak of infectious animal diseases is due to insufficient veterinary separation of the animals. The problems arise in connection with the commercial utilisation of animals. It is therefore farmers and their industry that bear the responsibility and the risk associated with the proper handling of the animals to avoid disease.
A draft law on a common economic allocation of costs is a bad idea since, at the end of the day, it will mean that citizens will pay for something they are not responsible for.
The aim of reforming CAP should be to improve policy so that rural life throughout Europe would be more sustainable on a social, economic and environmental level.
The 'health check' measure is a mixture that contains some improvements but which fails in other ways to deal with the challenges ahead of us. Rural life, and farming in particular, is facing many threats at the present time. Young farmers have to leave the land while, at the same time, large landowners are remunerated for leaving valuable agricultural land uncultivated. Biodiversity is under threat as well.
I agree that it should be possible to use the reserve funds for new farmers and for young farmers, and for categories in the areas under greatest disadvantage, such as sheep - which have an important role as regards the preservation of biodiversity. I also support the application for payments to farmers to be brought forward earlier in the year so that farmers would have increased stability. Our rural communities require stability to enable them to plan for the future.
in writing. - While I supported the Santos report on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, I am not in favour of the amendment that passed on increasing modulation. It will result in extra funds being transferred from pillar 1 to pillar 2 taking income directly from farmers (particularly small farmers) in countries such as Ireland. Funds will go to schemes which require cofinancing by Member States - a source of funding that is uncertain and cannot be relied on.
I chose to vote against the report as it was clearly a step in the wrong direction from the Commission's proposal in a number of areas. One example is the watering down of the changes to direct aid for rural development. The majority agreed to reduce direct aid by only 6% for 2009 and 2010. The Commission had proposed to reduce aid by 7% in 2009 and 9% in 2010. Personally, I would have liked to have seen greater cuts still.
In addition, it raised the threshold at which direct aid is to be switched to rural development aid. Under the original proposal, this switchover would have applied to subsidies from EUR 5 000 per annum and upwards. The majority has now voted to increase that threshold to EUR 10 000. This has the consequence of reducing the proportion of passive agricultural aid converted into active aid for rural development. The money would be better spent on starting up businesses in rural areas rather than producing crops that already reap a good profit.
Despite improvements made to this report, to which we contributed, not least with the adoption of our proposal to increase the modulation exemption from EUR 5 000 to EUR 10 000, in order to promote greater social justice in the payment of aid to farmers, we regret that other proposals were rejected, even though some received more than 200 votes in favour, such as support for sugar production in the Azores.
We also regret that the proposal of simplified aid for farmers receiving sums of up to EUR 1 000 was not adopted, despite having received 175 votes in favour. This would have been a way of combating the lack of social sensitivity of the Commission proposal, by simplifying the process and cutting red tape, which was actually used as a pretext by the European Commission to propose that aid of less than EUR 250 per year should be ended. This may harm around 90 000 small Portuguese farmers.
As a result, despite our final vote against the report, we continue to defend our proposals as we consider that these are the best way to support Portuguese farmers and our family-based agriculture.
in writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party had a number of serious concerns regarding this report that will perpetuate and increase distortions within the European Union and on a global level regarding agricultural production. In view of today's vote where a series of amendments were carried to reinforce and worsen this situation, I was unable, on balance, to vote in favour of either the amended proposal or the draft legislative resolution despite the fact that the report has other detailed elements I support.
Despite agreeing with the need to revise the support schemes for farmers, I consider that the Commission's proposals go well beyond what is needed, thereby seriously impacting on the income of farmers who are the guardians of the European rural landscape and of crucial importance to our food sovereignty.
In many ways, the Capoulas Santos report improves the Commission proposal, particularly by giving greater flexibility to Member States in terms of setting minimum thresholds for payments.
I therefore voted in favour of the threshold of EUR 10 000/year for the application of modulation, which will favour many small and medium-sized farmers, and the non-application of higher modulation rates to cooperatives and other legal entities made up of several farmers who, taken in isolation, do not receive more than EUR 100 000, in order to avoid unfairly penalising farmers.
Although the report is not ideal - for example it does not allow the redistributive effect of additional modulation - I am pleased with the final result of the vote in plenary which is why I voted in favour of the legislative resolution.
The European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as usual, has chosen a different route from that chosen by the Commission. Instead of reforming the common agricultural policy, the committee wants to increase the subsidies and ensure that taxpayers increase their economic stakes.
The June List absolutely wants to abolish the export refund on agricultural products and has voted in favour of those proposals that recommended this. We believe that the EU is doing great harm abroad by dumping agricultural products in poor countries without paying any attention to the social consequences.
The June List wants to abolish the common agricultural policy and we would observe that it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to all the various groups within the agricultural industry.
Before the great budgetary turning point of 2013, which may signal the end of the CAP through creeping re-nationalisation, Member States are trying to reach agreement on a new reform of the CAP, subsequent to the covert one in 2003.
The declared objective of the Commission is to adapt even further to the market by reducing direct subsidies for environmental and rural development policies.
The reform, unfortunately, is not equal to the challenges facing Europe in the agricultural sphere: feeding nine billion people in 2050, occupying limited agricultural areas, the dependence on prices linked to speculation on agricultural raw materials, and so on.
In this fluctuating and uncertain context, we must defend the exception made for agriculture at the WTO insofar as agriculture and the food processing industry are not businesses like any others, but non-transferable production resulting from the know-how and genius of generations of farmers.
And what if the health check on the CAP were only the first step towards the complete liberalisation of the CAP, with no regulation and no safety net?
We must be vigilant and denounce any liberal drift on this issue, which does not mean failing to act.
I am not happy with the result of the compromise of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but I am reasonably satisfied. We have been able to avert the most serious damage which would have been caused to our farmers as a result of the disastrous proposals put forward by the EU Commission, by ensuring that the direct payments are not reduced by 13% between 2009 and 2013. These direct payments, which are essential to our farmers, should only be reduced by 1% in 2009 and 2010 and 2% in 2011 and 2012 at the most.
If this money finds its way into the milk fund, as we have proposed, for example, in order to pay grass premiums to milk producers, the cut in direct income will be less painful. The milk price is falling again, but not the production costs. For example, the price of fertiliser has risen by 40%. Unfortunately, the Commissioner is once again up in arms against the milk fund.
Even if we do not cut these direct payments to farmers, which amount to up to EUR 5 000 or even up to EUR 10 000 per year, as is being demanded in the amendments which go beyond the compromise proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, this will not have a major impact on farmers in Luxembourg, because only farms managed on a part-time basis fall below the EUR 10 000 threshold. The priority must be to keep the cuts as small as possible, otherwise there will be no future for full-time farmers in Luxembourg, which is unacceptable.
in writing. - I support a 2% increase in milk quotas over four years as I believe the 2% will give the smoothest landing ahead of the abolition of the milk quota system in 2015.
I voted against the report by Capoulas Santos on the new support scheme for farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy, because I consider that the sustainability of agriculture cannot be safeguarded at European level. The agricultural sector does indeed need to be financed in order to safeguard the sustainability of the sector and food security in Europe. However, financing should be provided from the Community budget and should not penalise small and medium-scale producers by adopting, for example, minimum aid limits. On the contrary, the criterion of personal work should be of prime importance for the payment of support and an upper limit on support per holding should be set.
However, the crisis management system proposed by the Commission falls short. It would make more sense to create a public safety fund which is based on Community financing and which is designed to prevent crises and plant diseases and guarantee a minimum income for farmers. Finally, the report contains no proposal for setting up mechanisms to address climate change, which is directly affecting European farmers.
in writing. - Conservative MEPs voted against this report as it is a step in the wrong direction. We consider it to be essential that the decoupling process initiated in the 2003 Reform be extended to all sectors so as to allow farmers to produce what the market demands and achieve a genuine level playing field. This report resists decoupling and even tries to reverse decisions already taken, notably the inclusion of the tobacco regime in the Single Farm Payment. The report would see production-linked tobacco subsidies extended until 2012 and clearly we cannot accept this.
The report also allows too much flexibility in the use of Article 68 which we fear will distort the market, will allow coupled payments in through the back door and may be challenged at the WTO. Finally, the exemption of the first EUR 10 000 from modulation, combined with a very low level of compulsory EU modulation, will simply not generate sufficient revenue for a strong rural development policy and will hit UK farmers disproportionately.
The debate on the common agricultural policy (CAP) health check offered an excellent opportunity to launch an in-depth discussion of its reform, which must take place in 2013. To successfully achieve this, we need to proceed with caution, placing the emphasis on both competitiveness and also on the environmental and social dimensions, rural development and food security.
The agreement reached between the main political groups, which was really down to the determination of the rapporteur, Mr Capoulas Santos, already provides some solutions and approaches which it is hoped that the Council will take on board. Although this is not currently an area of codecision, Parliament has worked in this spirit and this fact should be utilised by the governments.
I voted in favour of the package because of the importance of the result achieved in terms of the Community contribution to insurance premiums and the retention of lower subsidies which are extremely important in countries such as Portugal. This is also the case with the balanced solution for modulation in rural development support. In the case of milk quotas, regrettably we have not achieved a balance avoiding potential harm to producers in regions such as the north and centre of Portugal and the Azores.
I am voting in favour of the rejection of this report and in favour of the report being referred back to the committee since it has further weakened the reforms put forward by the Commission, which were already too small in scale and too slow.
The enormous amount of aid the EU gives to its domestic agriculture is immoral and directly harmful. This aid is to the detriment of global competition, which we know is a precondition for prosperity, it justifies the reforms that are required in the agricultural sector and it reduces the choice available to us, the consumers.
The proposal that the Commission has produced is important for further measures of liberalisation in line with the reforms of 2003. I cannot, therefore, vote in favour of those of Mr Santos's reports that would, to a large extent, mean the watering down of the Commission's proposal.
in writing. - Today, an important vote was held. It was important for all farmers in the European Union. However, there are farmers who are not as strong as others because they have not had time to adapt to the agricultural structures of the European Union yet. They used all the capacities they had to build up sustainable agricultural enterprises after they got the chance to do so after 1989.
These farmers are not the big producers that we know from France and Germany; they are still small. But they are extraordinarily important for my country, Poland. We need them if we are to have a rural area where people want to live and work in future. And therefore they need our special support. So I voted today to help small producers, i.e. in Poland, to show that they can count on our and on my support today and in the future.
I voted in favour of the report on support schemes for farmers as part of the CAP. I support the common agricultural policy.
The European Union needs to support farmers by granting direct payments and developing the rural infrastructure. The EU has to invest in agriculture, especially with a global food crisis looming. I supported Amendment 23 which recognises the need to support the sheep sector at Community level, which is in serious decline.
I also feel that Member States should be authorised to use, as a supplement, 5% of their ceilings to support farmers or groups of producers in the form of financial contributions to expenses related to insurance premiums. Particular attention must be given to small farmers, which is why I supported Amendment 211, which introduces a derogation from the additional reduction in direct payments in the case of cooperatives or groups of farmers paid directly and which centralises grants for distribution to their members. I voted in favour of Amendments 114 and 118 which allow Member States to use up to 15% of their national ceilings to grant support to farmers to compensate for the specific disadvantages affecting those in the dairy sector, as well as producers of beef and veal, sheep meat and goat meat.
The regulations for the application of the CAP 'health check' are a decisive step in the control of agricultural production by monopoly business groups, in the aim of increasing their profits. At the same time, they are paving the way for an all-out attack in 2013 on small- and medium-sized enterprises, which have already been weakened.
Big business is exerting pressure for greater and faster reform of the CAP and for it to be adapted to the rules of the WTO, so that the multinationals can garner even more land, consolidate their sovereignty in the production and marketing of food and strengthen their position in international competition.
The consequences of the CAP are already visible to small- and medium-scale farmers, especially following the decoupling of aid from production in the 2003 reform: the abandonment of farms, the decline in the rural population, grubbing up, the abandonment of the countryside and adverse environmental effects.
They are also visible to workers, who face the unbearable cost of higher prices for foodstuffs and increased risks to public health arising from dangerous substances and dubious raw materials and production methods.
We are radically opposed to the proposed regulations, which reveal the anti-rural character of the CAP. We call on small- and medium-scale farmers to join with the workers in the common fight against the anti-rural policy of the EU and capital.
(Written explanation cut short in application of Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)
I voted today against the report on the Council Regulation amending the common agricultural policy. It is my view that the Regulation fails to meet the expectations of many producer groups and to reduce the gulf between farmers in the old and the new European Union states. I greatly deplore the fact that most MEPs do not perceive the problems facing European and Polish agriculture, which does require changes. However, I find the trend of the changes proposed by the European Commission impossible to accept.
in writing. - With regard to the Santos report on the CAP Health Check, I need to clarify that, while I voted for the report, there is one aspect of the CAP, namely subsidies to grow tobacco, that I cannot support, nor have I ever supported. Tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop per hectare in the EU.
Since the early 1990s, the EU has spent about EUR 1 000 million annually on subsidies to tobacco growers. Despite the effort to reduce these subsidies, tobacco subsidies are still given out to tobacco farmers by the hundreds of millions (EUR 963 million in 2002). This is by far the highest support, compared to other agricultural sectors, creating distorted incentives and high levels of inefficiency. It has been costly, the policy has not worked from a trade point of view, and it has been bad for the EU's reputation, exposing an awkward ambivalence in the EU's health goals. Subsidies should be removed completely from tobacco (but not from tobacco farmers) and switched to support healthy agriculture much quicker than is currently planned.
The Commission's proposal to phase out milk quotas has been watered down by means of a requirement for a review as soon as 2010. What is more, the majority pushed through the establishment of a special milk fund. I believe that this report could have been better if we had managed to get a number of amendments aimed at greater market adaptation, such as a greater increase in the milk quotas, adopted. Unfortunately, none of these amendments were adopted, and I therefore voted against the report.
We regret that our proposals were rejected. These argued for a different common agricultural policy based on providing support to producing farmers, in order to combat instability in productive sectors due to price variations, and on market regulation mechanisms guaranteeing a dignified income for small and medium-sized farmers, in order to prevent the decline in the rural world and the desertification of many regions.
We also regret that our proposal which aimed to guarantee financing by the European Union of public insurance in the Member States was rejected. The aim was to guarantee farmers a minimum income in certain circumstances such as public disasters like droughts, storms, hail, forest fires or epizootic diseases.
We reject the announcement of the end of the milk quota system, the renationalisation of the common agricultural policy and the continued injustices in the allocation of aid.
The insistence on defending the European Commission's proposals, even with certain amendments, does not provide a firm enough basis to demand a different position from the Council.
In its proposal, the European Commission is taking several important steps in the right direction in terms of creating a more competitive agricultural sector through further decoupling of aid and the abolition of compulsory set-aside, export subsidies, milk quotas, production aid and market support. The proposal also means a transfer of money from direct aid for agricultural production to rural development, with the focus on the four prioritised areas of climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity. Since the European Parliament wanted to see fewer reforms and a slower pace of change, we chose to support the Commission's original proposal and to vote against Parliament's changes.
Despite agreeing that the modifications recommended by the Commission to the common agricultural policy are necessary, I feel that, with regard to milk quotas, the Commission proposal is very harmful to less competitive European regions which are heavily dependent on the milk sector.
I therefore feel that the dismantling of milk quotas through Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 should not have been started and that this dismantling should not continue as proposed by the Commission and accepted by the rapporteur.
The Capoulas Santos report contains one positive element in that it calls for the preparation of a report in 2010 to analyse the state of the milk market.
As a result, I did not vote against this report because I support the changes to sugar refining in the Azores which will allow this activity to continue in a region without any major economic alternatives.
In today's vote on the health check for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I voted against the report on the milk sector. I am of the opinion that there should be no further increases in the quota without a market analysis. I believe that Parliament's demand to raise the quota by 1% in five stages, as proposed by the Commission, will send out completely the wrong signal.
However, I very much welcome the fact that Parliament has spoken out once again in favour of the milk fund. The funds which will be saved from the agricultural budget and, in particular, in the milk sector, will be an efficient way of relieving the burden on this sector and of restructuring it. In addition, I support the call to the Commission, Parliament and the Council to produce a report on the milk market by 31 December 2010 which will form the basis for the discussion on further measures for controlling milk quotas. I also welcome the fact that the franchise for the modulation has been raised from EUR 5 000 to EUR 10 000 per year. This means that Parliament is in favour of giving further support to small farms, the majority of which can be found in our areas of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria.
in writing. - Conservative MEPs supported amendments allowing for milk quota increases of at least 2% per year before the abolition of the quota regime in 2015 as a means of preparing the ground for a liberalised, market-orientated dairy sector. We did not support those amendments which aimed to constrain quota increases. Ultimately, no significant amendments were adopted in either sense, which means the Commission proposal stood effectively un-amended.
While the 1% annual increases proposed by the Commission are preferable to no increase, we still consider this to be too timid a step. We also reject the report's reluctance to do away with certain coupled payments and market support measures. As a result, we voted against the report overall.
I voted in favour of the report on amending the 'Regulation on modifications to the common agricultural policy'. I supported Amendment 4 which allows dairy quotas to be increased by 2% for 2008-2009 and by 1% for the marketing years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. This will provide the elements required for a suitable evaluation of the market situation in the milk sector. I also supported the fact that in cases where the situation in the milk market for the relevant marketing year will allow this, increases in milk quotas will be possible for the 12 new Member States. Against this background, we need to guarantee that the decision to amend the milk quota is taken in good time, before the start of the marketing year in question (1 April of the relevant year).
The payments from the European Agricultural Fund are intended to provide support for farmers, in order to ensure that the countryside remains in a good agricultural and environmental condition. While strict regulations apply to foods produced in the EU, goods are being imported at give-away prices which are not subject to these regulations. In addition, the milk quotas have been increased and will come to an end altogether in 2015, which will lead to falling milk prices and will leave small farmers in dire straits. Finally, the supermarket chains, such as Hofer, receive EU subsidies and further increase the pressure on domestic farmers, for example, by using milk as a loss leader.
The ones who suffer the most are small farmers in rural areas who are dependent on milk production, but who do not have the opportunity to produce milk on a large scale. Consumers have to pay the increased prices for milk and food, but none of this extra money feeds back to the small producers. However, when prices fall, it is the farmers who feel the effects. This must change, otherwise we will be dependent on food imports because of the huge number of farmers leaving the land. Our farmers rely on subsidies and this is why I have voted in favour of the Capoulas Santos report.
I voted in favour of the report on support for rural development given from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). I voted in favour of Amendment 24 which specifies the start-up aid for young farmers amounting to EUR 75 000. This may be granted in the form of a single premium, the amount of which will not exceed EUR 50 000, or of an interest subsidy, the capitalised value of which will not exceed EUR 50 000. Where the two forms of aid are combined, the total amount will not be able to exceed EUR 75 000.
I also voted in favour of Amendment 12 which, in order to ensure adequate funding for rural development programmes, maintains that greater flexibility should be introduced to enable the use, within the same Member State, of unspent resources from the Structural Funds for this purpose.
Of course, it is important that different areas of policy are coordinated with one another, but this should not only be restricted to funding. In the EU, you have the feeling that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. We promote the transport of goods all over Europe and then we promote environmental protection measures in order to combat the negative effects of the transport. Another example is the support for tobacco production being put in place at the same time as measures to reduce tobacco consumption.
The same principle applies to rural areas. On the one hand, there are additional subsidy funds and, on the other hand, as a result of the requirements of the Maastricht Treaty and the boundless enthusiasm for privatisation, the infrastructure outside the main centres of population is being dismantled and rural areas are becoming increasingly cut off. If the post office in Austria is privatised as expected, within a decade, the post offices outside the cities will be at least 20 kilometres apart. Rural areas are increasingly becoming the place where the elderly live. The removal of this important point of contact for older people will lead to them becoming more and more isolated, not only elderly people, but also the socially disadvantaged and people with impaired mobility are particularly affected by the infrastructure cuts. I have voted in favour of this report in the hope that it will form the basis for better coordinated strategies in future and will counteract these negative developments.
I voted in favour of Mr Capoulas Santos's report. One of the reasons why I voted in favour is because, in a particular way, during periods of crisis, agriculture is one of the areas which need to be given special attention.
In periods like this, consumption generally decreases. This is why investment in agriculture needs to be aimed at reducing operating costs, but without affecting the quality of agricultural produce. I also feel that during the forthcoming period, we should reconsider and determine the real value of agricultural produce. This is because, otherwise, more and more farmers are going to give up farming land in conditions where they will no longer be able to sell their produce at a realistic price. There are frequently cases where the cost of agricultural production does not even cover the investment. On the other hand, let us not forget that in the agricultural sector, we need to identify and use alternative fuels, a strategic area for the whole world.
This report is relevant based on the issues which it raises. Agriculture needs to feature among the EU's priorities.


27. Quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (vote)
- Report: Wojciechowski, Janusz
- Before the vote on Amendment 8:
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, We recently voted on an amendment to extend the system of starch quotas to four years. This is good news for the old Member States who have 90% of these quotas, which is enough to meet their requirements.
Let us now do something nice for the new Member States, which are less happy with their quotas, and adopt amendment eight. This will allow quotas to be carried over from one year to the next - what the old Member States do not use in one year should be allocated in the following year to the new Member States, with the agreement of the Commission.
I would like to point out that in the long term this amendment would not lead to an increase in quotas, and I ask that it be approved for the sake of European solidarity. If this amendment is adopted, I have been authorised by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group to withdraw amendments five, six and seven, which will result in an increase in quotas.
We have received some information that would have been more appropriate during the course of the debate which has already taken place on the report.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(BG) Bulgaria's Abandoned Children, the documentary screened on BBC 4, describing the conditions in and attitudes to the inmates of the social care home for physically and mentally disabled children in the village of Mogilino, has evoked tempestuous response in the Bulgarian and international community. This makes me tell what steps have been undertaken.
First of all, we sent inquiries to the Minister of Labour and Social Policy and to the Chairperson of the State Agency for Child Protection. We demanded that the home be closed down and the de-institutionalisation process be accelerated. The Ministry sent an answer to our inquiry.
Secondly, we appealed to international non-governmental organisations providing social services to disabled people. Among them is Betel, the largest charity organisation in Europe with 150-year-long experience in providing care to mentally disabled people. Its experts responded to my request to visit the home in Mogilino together and seek specific solutions to the problems.
The government is primarily responsible for the provision of the necessary material and technical conditions at these homes amd for the support of the children. What we need, however, is a changed concept of social services to children with severe mental disabilities and changed attitude to them on part of society and institutions. The isolation of these children in hardly accessible villages and small towns is a practice long abandoned in Europe. Problems will not be resolved by hiding the truth but by the concerted efforts of all of us.
(ES) Mr President, this Parliament is internationally recognised as an institution of freedom and human rights which respects international law and the United Nations system.
In view of this, many of us would like to hear Parliament's own assessment, and that of its President, of the outcry produced by the public disclosure of conversations between Presidents Bush and Aznar in 2003 at Crawford Ranch shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
Aspects of that conversation are extremely serious because they demonstrate a total lack of respect for the United Nations, disdain for trans-Atlantic relations and disregard for international law.
We all had suspicions that something had occurred along these lines but never before has the evidence been so clear; so clear that it requires Parliament to take a stance if only to state that such a shameful thing must never occur again.
- (LT) The fact that reports by European politicians on global warming, energy saving and similar issues are received with indifference in most European countries is cause for concern. Similarly, regions, provinces and other administrative units do not give these problems the consideration they are due. Cases where energy is wasted and the consequences of global warming are neglected can easily be seen everywhere. For example, almost every day on my way from Brussels to Luxembourg I see street lights stretching over tens of kilometres, but no-one, neither Wallonia nor Belgium or the provinces, admits responsibility.
On the other hand, very often, even within the European Parliament, our words do not match our deeds. It is beyond my comprehension why, at every sitting at Strasbourg, each Member is handed around 200-300 pages of stenographs and protocols. In my opinion, we should have this material only on the Internet and put a stop to printing it out.
(PL) Mr President, on 10 October two activists from the Polish Association in Belarus, Angelika Borys and Igor Bancer, were arrested again in Grodno. They were charged under the pretext of hooliganism and Bancer was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment, whilst Borys was fined the equivalent of about fifteen times the average monthly salary in Belarus. It is well known, however, that the real reason for their arrest was the planned demonstration by the opposition against the authoritarian regime of Alexander Lukashenko. The Belarus authorities have again demonstrated that organisational independence and freedom will not be tolerated in that country. Fear, arrests under any pretext, and maligning western countries are the methods that Lukashenko has used for a long time to maintain his tyrannous rule.
Mr President, we cannot allow such widespread breaches of the human rights of personal dignity and freedom to take place right next to the European Union. Europe cannot be democratic if Belarus is not a free country. Let us increase our spending to help Belarus society to escape from the tyranny of dictatorship. Let us demand that the rights of ethnic minorities be respected, that arrests without just cause be stopped and that political prisoners be freed. This is the only way to change the one tyranny and dictatorship in Europe.
(SV) Thank you Mr President. I would like to speak about the Turkish Parliament's decision to authorise the Turkish military to go into the only relatively calm region in Iraq. It now looks as though we will be able to include these events in our discussion on the general report on Wednesday. I hope that everyone will have the opportunity to be involved in the process and to table amendments, as this is a big threat to peace in the region. It highlights the problem of the military exerting pressure and pushing through decisions. We must now ensure that the government resists, that there are no troops and that no one is provoked into going into Iraq with military forces. If there is anything they have too much of, it is the military. If there is anything they have too little of, it is normal discussion between people and that is what we must support. Thank you.
(ES) Mr President, it is almost as if the European Union were subject to a news and activity blackout with regard to the systematic violations of human rights perpetrated by the Kingdom of Morocco in relation to the occupied territories of the Western Sahara.
They have us well trained. None the less, Parliament deserves an explanation from the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the delegation, which was not able to visit those occupied territories.
Two further pieces of information should be added to those already given: first, Morocco refused to allow the Human Rights Association - the association is called 'CODESA' - to hold its Congress in the occupied territories and, secondly, the United Nations has still not published the report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights who was visiting the occupied territories to compile a full report on the situation there. That report has not been published to date.
I urge the European institutions - this Parliament, the European Commission and the Council, to bring this situation to an end.
Mr President, Gordon Brown said today that there will be no need for another EU Treaty for at least 10 years. He knows full well that there will never be a need for another Treaty. The proposed Reform Treaty is a self-amending Treaty. What little will be left of sovereign power can be transferred to the EU by decisions of the European Council without recourse to Parliament, let alone the people.
The Reform Treaty formally states the legitimacy and supremacy of EU law over national law. If the British Houses of Parliament accept and practise the provisions of the Reform Treaty as superior and at the expense of existing English and Scottish law, then it is an act of treason under the existing treason laws. Any member of the House of Commons or House of Lords that votes for ratification of the Reform Treaty is therefore, literally, a traitor to their country.
(Laughter)
Go and look at the treason laws if you do not believe me!
We should exercise caution in the use of such terms, Mr Batten.
(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year before the start of the Beijing Olympic Games, worrying messages are being daily given out to the public at large. This time it is not a case of human rights or environmental pollution, but the decision by the Organising Committee and the authorities of the People's Republic of China to ban any type or form of religious worship by participants in the Olympic Games. In contravention of the agreements adhered to since the beginning of the Olympic Games and signed by the Chinese authorities and the International Olympic Committee, and religious symbols such as the Bible, the New and the Old Testaments, places of prayer and even the crucifix on a chain round the neck of a male or female athlete will be banned.
As a Christian I am deeply saddened. I hope that the international community and the EU will duly prevent the Organising Authority of the 2008 Olympic Games from implementing these unprecedented measures.
(Applause)
(FR) Mr President, colleagues, on 3 October the Michelin group announced that it is to cease tyre production at its Toul plant. More than 800 jobs are likely go by 2009, although neither the company's industrial performance nor its financial results indicate any crisis behind these redundancies. Shareholders are selling off equity at a profit, on the back of the restructuring announcement, while ordinary men and women come to terms with the fact that they alone will bear the brunt of the situation. I should like to put on record before the House how much I respect the trade union representatives and workers who, despite the deeply gloomy prospect they face, have shown a tremendous sense of responsibility from the outset. The issue now is not about finding a humane way of closing a factory; it is about finding ways of retaining jobs in areas such as this, which can be extremely hard hit. The workforce in Toul expects the EU to create systems of protection and organisation that will be capable of securing workers' social rights, helping people to get back into employment, and putting compensation funds to good use in relaunching industrial projects. What they need is the flexisecurity that we, as European Socialists, have been urging; but it is also essential to encourage adaptation to industrial competitiveness and explore ways of promoting an integrated industrial policy for the benefit of all the areas in Europe currently affected by restructuring.
Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the deteriorating situation on the border between Iraq and Turkey. On Sunday morning, 12 Turkish soldiers and 32 Kurds were killed in a Kurdish ambush. As we already know, the Turkish Parliament has approved the invasion of Kurdish-populated areas in northern Iraq. At the same time, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, has said that his Government is ready to give orders to the army to attack the bases of the Kurdistan Workers Party in northern Iraq. Hence, there is a strong probability of an escalation into a serious military conflict in northern Iraq.
Since Turkey is officially an EU candidate country, is it not time for us to act to try to stop a military conflict between Kurdish fighters and the invading Turkish troops? Otherwise the situation might really destabilise in this fragile region and bring about frightening and unforeseeable consequences.
(PL) Mr President, last week the European Parliament welcomed to a group of people with multiple sclerosis. There was an exhibition, concert and conference dedicated to the issue of people who suffer this terrible condition. They were looking for assistance with their difficulties from Parliament, but, in Brussels, they were met with extreme discrimination.
The chairperson of the association, who has severe impairment of sight and hearing, and who is in a wheelchair, has a guide dog to help her. The airline Wizzair refused to allow the dog on board, even though their regulations state that it is possible to transport guide dogs belonging to blind or deaf persons, and the online purchase of the ticket also included the dog. It was only after an hour of discussions that it was finally decided to treat the situation as exceptional and the passenger and the dog were taken on board. This situation undoubtedly had a negative impact on her health.
(BG) My country Bulgaria is on the eve of the first local elections to be held after the accession to the European Union. Therefore they are different and charged with lots of expectations derived from the new European realities. Capable and active people should be elected to local authorities to work skilfully with EU funds. Bulgaria stands a good chance to absorb almost seven billion Euro over the period 2007 - 2013 as a full EU member. However, it is much more important for these resources to reach the people who need them most rather than to sink into the coffers of companies or political parties. Since Europe is Europe of the regions and decentralisation is an irreversible process, the role of the people involved in local government is growing.
Bulgaria has repeatedly and justifiably been criticized for its insufficient administrative capacity and for the shortcomings in the work of institutions. Having received the trust and confidence of our European partners and having become part and parcel of the big European family, we should make the next important step, too, i.e. to elect mayors and municipal councillors capable of working not only at the regional and national level but at the European level, as well. As a representative of Bulgaria in the European Parliament, I find it very important for highly qualified and competent people to be elected to local authorities. Entering the common European home, we have to make our personal efforts to gain our well deserved place rather than receive it as a gift.
(HU) Mr President, tomorrow Hungary celebrates the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and fight for freedom. The past few years, and the debates that have taken place on the nature of Hitlerism and Stalinism and the damage they caused, including debates in this House, have demonstrated that Europe's more fortunate western half experienced history very differently from the ten newly acceded central European Member States.
Likewise, 9 May has a different meaning for us. For us it was not just the date of liberation, but also the start of occupation. Three central European events, acts of opposition to the Soviet Union and Soviet-style Communist dictatorships - the Hungarian Revolution of '56, the Prague Spring of '68, and the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement - have nevertheless become part of our common European history. The uniqueness of 1956 lies in the fact that no other uprising involved a people taking up arms against the world's largest army, the Soviet army, and no other case involved a country declaring its neutrality.
All the goals for which the heroes of 1956 were fighting - democracy, the rule of law, and liberty - were realised with the regime change. If we Hungarians can be proud of anything in the 20th century, we should be proud of the 1956 Revolution and the role we played in Germany's reunification. Thank you for your attention.
(RO) The use of cyanides is one of the current gold and silver mining methods. I would like to emphasize that the effects of such a mining process may lead to the irreversible destruction of ecosystems and seriously harm the human body, since cyanide is one of the substances that pass unchanged into underground waters, the main existent source of drinkable water. In the context of global warming, cyanide has the role of changing the temperature and precipitations pattern, generating floods and landslides. The accident that happened in Romania, in Baia Mare, in the year 2000, when, following the crack of a tailing pond, approximately 100,000 m3 of water contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals was spilled, caused the biggest catastrophe in Eastern Europe since Chernobyl. This triggered a mining law reform in Romania by introducing an amendment to the Parliament, which prohibited the use of cyanide in mining.
Mr. President, I express my wish to see Romania's example followed by the other European Union countries, as well, so that the prohibition of cyanide shall become an European rule eventually.
Mr President, on Thursday this week, this House will vote on the 2008 budget. Bearing in mind that the Court of Auditors is due to report back next month, I want to draw your attention to the Interinstitutional Agreement signed between the three Institutions in 2006. Under Article 44 of that agreement, all Member States are obliged to give certification for financial transactions involving EU monies. I am advised that under the current programme the Commission will not receive relevant information from the Member States until 15 February 2008. Only at that point can the common standards in accountancy and internal controls be identified. This means that it is unlikely the Court of Auditors will receive the required information for a further two years. That is not acceptable. Not only does it contravene the spirit of the Interinstitutional Agreement, but the ongoing failure to achieve a satisfactory audit report seriously undermines the credibility of this House. I urge you, Mr President, to take every opportunity to insist that Member States attach far greater urgency to this matter in the future.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations has set 10 December next as the deadline for determining the future status of Kosovo. However, with the Kosovan authorities threatening to declare independence unilaterally, Serbia arguing for a system of broad autonomy and Russia vetoing the UN special envoy's proposal for supervised independence, the situation is critical. My concern is to highlight the key role that the European Union will have to play in resolving the crisis.
It is our collective wish that the Union should have a High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. But what credibility can that appointment carry if we are incapable of playing our part in finding a specific solution to the Kosovo situation, which is still officially classed under foreign affairs although it is in fact a matter of internal concern to the Union? The EU therefore needs to demonstrate a sense of direction and a clear vision that reflects compromise between the Serbian and Kosovan demands, while taking care not to open the Pandora's Box of partition; and it needs to speak out on the future of Kosovo and make its voice heard in the concert of nations.
(HU) Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr President. The European Parliament delegation to Chile met not only with Chilean MPs, but also with environmental organisations earlier this month in Santiago. In their view, the behaviour of European Union companies locating in Chile is very far removed from the environmental principles they espouse in Europe. The legal and ethical positions on this are clear, but unfortunately the two are diametrically opposed. What these companies are doing may be legally above-board, but ethically it is damaging. A lack of environmental legislation often entices European capital abroad. Relocation of this kind is detrimental to our interests in many ways. We must therefore push for environmental rigour not only within the European Union, but also outside it. The European Union must be the initiator, because a failure to take responsibility towards the next generation on the global scale is now inflicting material and non-material damage on Europe's citizens.
(SK) Allow me to praise the fifth edition of the European Week of Regions and Cities that took place in Brussels from 8 to 11 October 2007. This event provided a unique platform for regions and cities of the entire European Union. They exchanged practical experience and gained knowledge about innovative initiatives in the field of regional development.
We, the Members of the European Parliament, also had the opportunity to meet regional politicians in the course of interesting events. I would like to thank the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy and the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Development for organising this event. I want to thank our President, Mr Hans-Gert Pöttering, for his speech that conferred dignity on this event. Only dynamic European regions with a strong human potential, with brave and enthusiastic regional politicians and well-prepared projects focusing on innovation and the creation of new jobs and cooperating in regional groupings, will be able to cope with the challenges of a globalised world.
(ET) Friday will see the opening of the second European Union-Russia summit this year. We do not meet any other country so frequently, yet problems persist.
Friday's summit is not Mr Putin's farewell visit: he will still be holding Russia's reins in the future. Instead of singing his praises we should be debating how to bring substance to the strategic partnership between Russia and the European Union.
For Europe's security it would be very important to launch the cooperation on crisis management agreed at the meeting of November 2003, especially in respect of frozen conflicts.
In Portugal Russia should be asked to treat Transnistrian separatists declared personae non gratae by the European Union as a genuine partner would, by prohibiting the Transnistrian elite from travelling across Russia's borders. Currently a gang which is sowing instability among Europe's neighbours can travel freely through Russian airports.
This step would not be difficult for Russia, and at the same time would be a sign that Russia will listen to Europe and that we are genuinely partners.
Mr President, following the unifying outcome of the Lisbon Summit last week, it is sad to be reminded that Nicosia is still a Berlin-like divided city in Europe. Since 1963, a so-called Green Line has divided the city and its people into a Greek Cypriot and a Turkish Cypriot sector. This line is closely guarded by Turkish troops on one side and Republic of Cyprus troops on the other. The division is most absurd at Ledra Street, a busy shopping road in the centre of Nicosia, which is cut in half by a glass wall running across it, separating Greek Cypriots from Turkish Cypriots.
Mr President, I beg of you to make an urgent personal plea to the governments of Turkey and Cyprus to take the historic step, without any complicated preconditions and seemingly cheap political excuses, of opening Ledra Street and allowing Greek and Turkish Cypriots to move freely across their capital city. Let the opening of Ledra Street in Nicosia become another symbol of peace and unity for the people of Europe and the catalyst for the solution of the Cyprus problem.
(EL) Mr President, the EU's internet site is today publishing the news that OLAF, in collaboration with the Austrian authorities, has broken up a cycle of illegal Chinese clothing and footwear imports. Damage to the Community budget amounts to EUR 200 million. In view of this breaking story, which is not an isolated event but happening all over Europe, I call on you, ladies and gentlemen, to petition the Commission. Customs checks need to be increased and import restrictions extended beyond the current year. Commercial protection measures for footwear imports need to be made more effective.
(DE) Mr President, I am very pleased that Commissioner Stavros Dimas is here. On this occasion I would like to offer a word of praise for the action taken by the Commission last week on the illegal spring hunting of wild birds in Malta. We have devoted a great deal of attention to this matter, not only in the Chamber but in our Committee on Petitions too. Serving a final warning to the Maltese authorities is, I believe, an important step. I hope that we shall see the fruits of this valuable and judicious political measure next spring and that European laws will be put into practice in the form of an enforced ban on illegal spring hunting.
(PL) Mr President, last year 25 countries in the European Union signed a joint stabilisation and association agreement between Albania and the European Union. Today, 16 months after that agreement was signed, only 10 countries have ratified the document. It is telling that, of this ten, six are new EU Member States: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania and Latvia, and there are four countries from the old EU: Spain, Ireland, Sweden and Luxembourg. I would therefore like to call on the 17 remaining EU countries to ratify this agreement as soon as possible, unless we want the concept of European solidarity to be seen as empty platitudes or slogans.
(SK) Italian authorities have informed the Member States of the European Union, through the European Early Warning and Response System, about an outbreak of tropical fever spread by the chikungunya virus in the Emilia-Romagna region. They have reported 197 cases of the tropical virus. Laboratory tests have confirmed that 14% of the total number of ill people have contracted the virus and it has claimed one victim.
Although there is no reason to panic yet, the European Commission must once more take steps to prepare for the possibility of a large epidemic. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, monitoring communicable diseases, notes that favourable climatic conditions allow the virus to spread, in particular in the Mediterranean region. The risk of the virus being transmitted to other European countries is also high. Infected people can initiate new transmission cycles in other regions of the Union.
(EL) Mr President, last week Arat Dink, son of Hrant Dink, the murdered Turkish journalist , was found guilty by a Turkish court because of a series of articles he had written on the Armenian genocide. Mr Dink, the editor of 'Agos' newspaper, was found guilty according to Article 301 of Turkish Penal Code. This was the article which had been used to condemn his father. Hrant Dink has been given a one-year suspended prison sentence. It is therefore justifiable to ask ourselves what the European Commission is doing to urge Turkey to remove this article from its penal code.
Further, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of Turkey's continuing intransigence, how much more time do we believe Turkey needs before it finally understands that it has European commitments and should therefore behave like a democratic state?
Mr President, there is disturbing news from Slovakia. The Director of the Danube Museum in Komárno, Csaba Fehér, has been threatened with dismissal. Among the charges is that he was co-organiser of an exhibition in the European Parliament last year. That exhibition documented the sufferings of the Hungarian minority under the Czechoslovak Government after 1945 on the basis of collective guilt. The concept of collective guilt is wholly irreconcilable with the civic norms and human rights that are at the heart of the European Union's democratic underpinnings.
Slovakia, as a Member State of the European Union, has accepted those principles in full. So, what the Slovak authorities are doing not only flies in the face of human rights normativity, but implicitly criticises the European Parliament. Slovakia must resolve these contradictions as rapidly as possible.
(RO) Statistics show that the European Union population is aging. Only 35% of the European Union citizens are over 50 years old and only 16% of the European Union population is under 14 years old.
The European Union's demographic policy is a policy that Europe's future depends on. The demographic policy should refer to accessible health services and decent pensions for pensioners, measures to increase the birth-rate in all Member States, as well as to decent, stable and well paid jobs. For this reason, I ask the European Commission to develop, together with the Member States, a Community policy and national strategies as regards the demographic policy. The result of such measures will be seen in the next 20-30 years. Social Europe needs all its citizens and, especially, it needs each citizen to be integrated into society and have a decent living. This is why we have to correlate the population protection and development policies with the demographic policies.
(SK) The Hungarian Guard was once again one of the main topics in Slovakia and Hungary this weekend. All people of good will strive for peace and conciliation between all nations. The present governments in Hungary and the Slovak Republic being what they are, there is the need for a strong Christian-Democratic opposition in the interest of democracy. However, we will not win if we succumb to sentiments and emotions.
I am asking the Hungarian Government to respect the Treaty of Peace signed with Hungary in Paris on 10 February 1947. In this Treaty Hungary pledged never to suffer in the future on its territory the existence and activities of fascist-like political, military and semi-military organisations, spinning revisionist propaganda. I can see nothing better that could be done in the name of peace and mutual understanding between our nations.
Mr President, I would like to comment on a letter that was printed in an Irish national newspaper last week and was signed by, among others, several Members of this Parliament. The context is that Ireland will probably be the only country to have a referendum on what will now surely be called the 'Treaty of Lisbon'. In this letter three demands were made. One of the demands is that the Treaty must be submitted to the citizens in a referendum in each Member State. The second demand goes so far as to demand that the EU national parliaments make appropriate legal and constitutional provisions to allow for referenda.
I have to say that I find these demands astonishing. What about the principle of subsidiarity, where decisions are taken at the most appropriate level, in this case, at the level of the Member States? I suspect that, in some convoluted way, those who want less interference from Europe are in fact themselves promoting the ultimate interference in the business of Member States by demanding that national parliaments change their constitutions and legal provisions to suit the wishes of the letter-writers. That would surely be a democratic deficit!
(EL) Mr President, every year 650 000 people die from smoking-related causes in the EU. It is like a small-scale war. Of these, 80 000 deaths are due to passive smoking. Smoke has been found to contain 4 000 substances, of which 50 are carcinogens. Decades ago the medical community documented the adverse and possibly fatal consequences of smoking. It is our duty to try and reduce smoking and especially to prevent young people from starting. If we are to succeed, strong legislation is needed. Smoking in public places must be banned. Industrial additives in tobacco have to be monitored, researched and restricted. We need monitoring and rigour at sales points. We owe this to the 70% of EU citizens who do not smoke and to the overwhelming majority of smokers who want to give up.
Mr President, along with many Members of this House - perhaps most Members, in fact, given our resolutions - I am dismayed that the European Union intends to allow the Zimbabwean tyrant, Mugabe, to be invited to the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon in December. Commissioner Michel tells me that the reasons for this - and I would suggest rather perversely - are that we should try not to isolate Mugabe, as this just reinforces his image, and that the EU wants to be seen as a global strategic player. To invite Mugabe to Lisbon is an affront to our principles and is a direct contradiction of the EU's own stated positions. It is a failure of our Africa diplomacy that any African government still has any regard for Mugabe.
Mr President, I know you share our concerns about the appalling situation in Zimbabwe. Can I ask you to do two things: first of all, to convey yet again the strong feelings of this House that Mugabe should not be invited to Lisbon in December, and secondly, to respect the wishes of this House and not attend any EU summit to which Mugabe or any other banned Zimbabwean politicians are invited?
(PL) Mr President, during today's discussions in the European Parliament we shall be considering the report by Richard Corbett on the amendment of Rule 173 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament concerning verbatim reports.
In my view, the committee is not going in the direction that it should. I feel I can say this because of Article 96, which states that 'Parliament shall ensure the utmost transparency of its activities', thus any attempts to restrict the provision of information to European Union States, as well as access to it, undermines this fundamental right and is contrary to the idea of the Union, to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, to existing agreements and breaches fundamental human rights in the European Union.
Surely we are not constructing a European Union in order to have discrimination against smaller nations with less resilient cultures, or, if we are, this should have been stated prior to accession. It is no argument, either, to talk about costs, about financial resources. We spend so much on unnecessary facilities and on administration that we should be able to afford at least to communicate with society.
(PT) Mr President, the largest demonstration in Lisbon in the last 20 years took place on 18 October last, when more than 200 000 people called out by the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers condemned the European Union's neoliberal policies, said 'no' to flexicurity, protested against unemployment, social exclusion and the poverty in which over 20% of the Portuguese people live, and demanded a social Europe.
European leaders cannot ignore this important demonstration. We therefore salute the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers and its members and express our commitment to the struggle to protect the dignity of working people.
Mr President, Howard Stern - sorry, the Stern weekly showed the 'private parts' of the German society by publishing in its latest issue that every fourth German still believes that National Socialism had good sides. Well, if this is true, it may mean that either every fourth German in this hemicycle finds good sides of National Socialism - which would be scandalous in itself - or this German delegation to the European Parliament is not the voice of its whole nation. Recently, Germany was allocated 96 seats. Having taken into consideration the statistics in Stern, it would be wiser, perhaps, to allocate only three seats to that country so that there would be no chance for the fourth one!
However, I agree with Mr Schulz with regard to one thing: in a united Europe, there is no place for the doctrine of nationalism in any dimensions. However, Mr Schulz should take a closer look at the backyard of German hooliganism. As for me, being from Poland, I wish all German Members would speak against nationalism as much as Mr Schulz.
(PL) Mr President, within the psychological framework, feelings such as responsible love for another person, family or one's country - which is given the name of patriotism - are evidence, together with other higher emotions, of a high level of personal development. In contrast with primitive emotions that we share with animals, higher emotions even have a separate area in the brain. Patriotism expresses itself as love for and a desire to nurture national traditions, culture and language, attitudes of respect and devotion to one's own country. These are completely opposed to nationalism and chauvinism, which are characterised by hatred of other people. Patriotism does not permit offence to nations or countries. It is characterised primarily by openness to other countries and respect for their right to sovereignty and independence.
I would like to remind you of the nature of patriotism, particularly after the speeches made by certain left-wing MEPs who have insulted national governments and patriotic attitudes, perhaps because they do not understand the difference between love for one's country and the hatred that characterises such attitudes as chauvinism. In a situation of European integration it is particularly important to differentiate between these completely different concepts that are confused by many people.
Mr President, addressing concerns about energy supply is one of the major and most important issues facing the European Union, linked as it is with concerns about climate change. Security of supply and rising cost, with prices up 100% in the last five years, are major worries.
Well, for Ireland the challenges are particularly great. We face growing demand for energy and yet a high dependency on imported fossil fuels. We are 90% dependent. We need to invest heavily in our infrastructure, work towards liberalising the market and reduce our carbon emissions.
Parliament is looking at an action plan on implementing energy policy for Europe. Within Ireland we are establishing an all-Ireland energy market with the merging of electricity markets north and south. That is positive, but it is not enough. The scale of the market is too small. To achieve a harmonised energy market, inter-connection with the rest of the European Union is vital for Ireland - but that will cost money, and I would urge the Irish Government to look at the use of cohesion funding to make that investment, because it is necessary for the continuation of Irish economic growth.
That concludes the item.


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)


Implementing measures (Rule 88)


1. Cuba (vote)
- Joint motion for a resolution
Before the vote:
Madam President, I have two oral amendments. One is to insert a recital Ia as follows: 'regretting the United Nations Human Rights Council decision to discontinue moratorium human rights abuses in Cuba'.
(The House agreed to the oral amendment)
Madam President, I should like to add the following new paragraph after paragraph 15: 'Condemns any policy of sexual discrimination and repression, such as the one until now effective in Cuba, and welcomes the educational campaigns on sexual discrimination that are currently implemented by the National Centre for Sex Education of Cuba'.
(The House agreed to the oral amendment)


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes