Approval of Minutes of previous sitting
Yesterday's Minutes have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Mr President, Item 13 of the Minutes refers to a Member changing political group to join the ITS Group. It makes no reference to Mr Wise leaving the IND/DEM Group and I wondered whether this was a mistake. I understand his party, the UK Independence Party, has suspended him pending the investigations into alleged fraud in his case. Does this not mean that his group has also suspended him, or was the press campaign deliberately misleading?
I think your point is made, Mr Corbett. We will look into it.
(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


6. Legal protection of computer programs (codified version) (


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


19. Small Business Act (
Before the vote on paragraph 8:
Mr President, I just want to point out - since hungry Mr Beazley made a point about the roll-call votes - that, on the following report, every roll-call vote was requested by the PPE-DE Group. So much for that one!
And Mr Beazley is a very devout member of the PPE-DE Group!
(Laughter)
That concludes the vote.


Documents received: see Minutes


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


1. ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009 (


12. Banana sector (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment 22:
(PT) Mr President, I should like to table an oral amendment to Amendment 22. In the original French, the phrase 'est subordiné' should read 'devrait être subordiné'.
(The oral amendment was adopted)


Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 11.55)


8. Term of protection of copyright and related rights (
- Before the vote:
Mr President, I am sorry to trouble colleagues in a long voting session, but it has been newly marked on the voting list that Amendment 80 to a recital falls if Amendment 37 is passed. The first half of the amendment is exactly the same but the new bit - the second part - is consistent. Amendment 81, which is the corresponding amendment to the article, is not marked as falling when the corresponding article amendment, 55, is passed. Therefore, I would request that we vote on Amendment 80 as an addition to 37, if Members like it - which is a different matter - as it looks like we are also doing with Amendment 81.
Thank you, Mrs Bowles. It is appropriate that we should hear the opinion of the rapporteur, Mr Crowley.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I do not think this can be added as an addition. It should be taken separately.


11. Regional policy best practice and obstacles to use of Structural Funds (


Sustainable European transport policy, taking into account European energy and environment policies (debate)
The next item is the report by Gabriele Albertini, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on sustainable European transport policy, taking into account European energy and environment policies.
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on sustainable European transport policy has now reached the stage of debate in plenary. The text has already been favourably received, without giving rise to major controversy, by the Transport Committee in January. Only forty or so amendments were tabled.
My main objective was to make this own initiative report as succinct as possible, no longer than twenty or so paragraphs, so that the European Parliament can put its recommendations to the Commission and the Council as effectively as possible. As the issues addressed are so vast - European policies on transport, energy and the environment - going into too much detail and producing an undue number of paragraphs would have weakened the report, and Parliament's final resolution would have been less clear and incisive.
For the same reason, some issues have been left out. An own initiative report cannot tackle all the questions raised by transport, energy and the environment in an exhaustive way. However, this document may be of use to the Commission for future legislative proposals and to show what European citizens are expecting from the Community institutions.
Eight amendments have been tabled for this final examination in plenary. They do not, in substance, add anything new with respect to the debate in the Transport Committee. I should nevertheless like to comment briefly on them.
The Green Group has tabled six amendments and has called for a split vote on paragraph 16. That request removes the reference to the use of electricity of nuclear origin by rail transport, something with which I cannot agree. Rail transport is the mode of transport with the smallest carbon footprint, thanks partly to the use of nuclear as a source of electricity.
Amendment 6 asks the Commission to intervene to set a single speed limit for European motorways in all countries. Our German friends have already shown on a number of occasions that German motorways are safer and the number of accidents is lower than in many Member States of the European Union which have such a limit. The principle of subsidiarity should undoubtedly continue to be applied in this case.
Personally, I find Amendment 2 more coherent, especially the first part relating to transparent air transport costs and ticket pricing.
Mr Blokland has tabled Amendment 8, on behalf of the Independence/Democracy Group. This text refers to paragraph 2 and analyses the measures that citizens need to take to improve urban and suburban mobility. Here, I have to call for a vote against, as the amendment takes an entirely opposite line to that of the text adopted by the Transport Committee.
Lastly, my political group has again tabled an amendment - Amendment 1 relating to paragraph 11 - tabled in the Transport Committee, concerning the revision of the Eurovignette directive. Personally, I was and am not against the possibility of looking at this issue at the appropriate time in June. The European Commission has already announced that it will issue the proposal for revision at that time. I consider, however, in line with what has already been proposed in the Transport Committee, that there should be a free vote on the amendments in question.
I should like to thank Members for the interest that they have shown in this report and in my work and, as I am aware that many others have asked to speak, I shall give them a chance to do so.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I thank Mr Albertini for his excellent report. Obviously there must be a broad consensus between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the need to reduce the environmental and energy impacts of transport. At the same time, though, we need to maintain the mobility that is essential to our competitiveness and our quality of life.
How can we achieve this sustainable mobility? It is an enormous challenge. By 2020, we have to have cut greenhouse emissions by 20%, reduced energy consumption by 20% and increased the renewable energy in our energy consumption by 20%. Obviously transport will need to play a large part in the attainment of those targets.
I shall start by trying to outline our various initiatives in this area. The development of the Trans-European Networks, in which, as Mr Albertini has just pointed out, we are banking on the development of railways, brings about a modal shift which obviously leads in that direction. We have the TEN-T project and the Marco Polo programme in support of highways of the sea. We are supporting inland waterway transport with the NAIADES programme. Obviously research will also enable us to develop greener and more effective technologies. I would also draw your attention to the recent proposal for a clean vehicles directive, on which the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety will be starting work.
To provide a clear picture of all these measures, the Commission will be presenting an inventory of all European initiatives. This will take stock of all the action taken and draw lessons from it for the future. I have a very particular personal interest in this inventory.
Secondly, we are moving towards a strategy for internalising external costs for all modes of transport. The package I shall be presenting in June will contain an external costs internalisation strategy for all modes of transport, something for which the European Parliament has been pressing. This initiative meets a need. The external costs for our economy and our environment - air pollution, noise, congestion - are heavy, which also has an adverse effect on transport mobility. If we want sustainable mobility, we have to make sure that the external transport costs are integrated into what users pay. Our 2006 proposal that aviation should be included in the European emission duties exchange system was a step towards the internalisation of external costs in the aviation sector.
I intend to couple this internalisation strategy with a proposal for amendment of the directive on charges for heavy goods vehicles. That will allow Member States - allow, not oblige - to include external environment costs in tolls if they wish, and not just infrastructure costs, as is the case currently. At present they cannot do so, except in a very few cases. This amendment will allow internalisation of external costs in another sector, railways. The Community legislation provides that external costs for the railways can only be internalised if the other modes of transport also internalise their external costs.
In short, we are moving towards intelligent tolls, educational tolls, which will make it possible to penalise more heavily the lorries that have the lowest environmental standards or use major routes at times when congestion and traffic jams are at their worst.
In addition to that, we shall be taking a series of initiatives in the second half of the year. I shall be making an announcement on measures to reduce railway noise. There will be improvements on the roads, too; it will be possible to reduce congestion with an intelligent transport system. We shall be aiming at one-box interoperability. That will be helpful in organising the logistical rules at European level.
The Albertini report also stresses the need to establish a real Single European Sky. Mr Albertini is right, that is the proper way. Also, as has been said earlier, we really have to make progress on the CESAR project. It must play an essential part in developing the technology required for the attainment of that goal.
Initiatives are planned to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in the aviation sector and noise around airports. We are also working on shipping measures. Obviously urban transport will also need to be involved: 40% of CO2 emissions and 70% of other polluting emissions come from vehicles in towns.
Within the European Parliament, I am very grateful to Mr Rack, who is working on this, and I hope that this autumn we shall be able to produce a set of instruments that towns can use.
These are a few examples of wide-ranging action which is, it must be said, one of the main priorities in my term of office: greening transport, whilst at the same time ensuring that all the citizens of Europe have access to transport.
It is true that, as Mr Albertini has said, his report comes at just the right moment. Parliament and the Commission are more or less in agreement on sustainable mobility and I should like to thank Parliament and Mr Albertini for this excellent work, which also does a great deal to clarify our own work in the Commission.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (PT) I too would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, and informing him that the Environment Committee believes that various measures must be combined to ensure a sustainable transport system for future generations. These measures include traffic management, better logistics, fiscal incentives for transport and environmentally friendly fuels, safe, environmentally friendly, efficient and affordable public transport, rail modernisation, non-motorised mobility, etc. Information and education campaigns for young people are also required.
We agree with the inclusion of aviation in the European emissions trading scheme and support similar legislation for the maritime transport sector, as well as the adoption of ambitious and binding CO2 emission limits for cars, making them more fuel-efficient. The European Union should therefore support research to develop the technologies required to create sustainable and environmentally friendly transport, for example the development of alternative and renewable fuels such as hydrogen and fuel cells.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (HU) Madam President, Mr Vice-President, transport policy is about to undergo a paradigm change: the fuels, the technology, the regulations, and the expectations of society will all be different. The transport sector is entering a new era.
Is there anything that is not going to change? Yes, mobility, because it would be wrong to restrict mobility. If we do not want to restrict mobility, however, then we ourselves must change. The question is, in what way? Technological development is unstoppable, yet we need to spend more and target spending to a greater extent on vehicle development in order to get environmentally friendly vehicles on the road as soon as possible. Alternative fuels have already been making great and sometimes controversial strides, but we must select the second-generation biofuels and hydrogen-related options carefully so that they can come onto the market as an outcome of research and development.
As regards financing in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme, European Union funds, national contributions and private capital must all be set in the same direction. Intelligent solutions such as the CESAR or Galileo programmes are progressing too slowly, and we must accelerate these. In the interests of achieving our objectives we must transform the economic environment on the basis of the 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' principles. Last, let us not tax vehicle ownership, but ensure payment is made for vehicle use. Then we will be in a position to change our habits as regards driving, vehicle use and travel.
Madam President, we thank our fellow Member Mr Albertini for his work and for his thorough and circumspect report. With these additional points, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy supports the report and at the same time commends it to the attention of the Commission for its forthcoming green transport proposals. Thank you.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, as we have heard from Mr Albertini and the Commissioner, this is a very timely and important report and we welcome it. In his introductory remarks, Mr Albertini said that this gives us a chance to outline our transport policy, bearing in mind the environment and fuel efficiency, something about which this Parliament has consistently felt very strongly and expressed its views.
Mr Barrot, in his contribution, called the whole issue a huge challenge and one, I know, that all our governments are looking at. As Mr Barrot said, we have to recognise transport's clear contribution and the need for the 'greening' of transport. In this respect, I am very proud of the fact that London has led the way with a number of initiatives, be it the congestion charge, the new low-emission zone or higher charges for less environmentally friendly vehicles, something which had been opposed by London's Conservatives.
Mr Barrot also spoke about the need to recognise the external costs of transport and Mr Albertini spoke about some of the amendments. However, I think there is a contradiction in the PPE-DE Group's position - one I know the PPE-DE Group has debated internally - and there is a contradiction in this report. Recital B, for example, talks about energy consumption and highlights 'road transport, accounting as it does for 83% [...] of energy'. Against that, Amendment 1, by the PPE-DE Group, and co-signed by some Members from the ALDE Group, is quite clearly trying to change the position adopted in committee to one that favours road transport over rail transport. That does not fit in with a package that is arguing for sustainable transport over forms that are not friendly to the environment.
I ask Mr Albertini, when he winds up, and I ask the ALDE Group, which has also supported this, why they are trying to turn it round and why they are trying to favour road transport. I suggest that perhaps the person whose fingerprints are really on this is not here to answer that tonight.
I must say that my group will be considering whether we would support this whole report were that amendment to go through. I look forward to it. Other than that, the principles in the report are fine.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Madam President, around a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union are from transport. We therefore obviously need to reduce emissions from transport. The pollution load from transport has to be lowered.
Air transport is entirely excluded from international treaties on climate. It is nevertheless causing more and more emissions all the time, and should be included in all agreements. Someone said here that the 'user pays' principle is a good one. I agree. It is a good principle if one also takes circumstances into account. In Europe there are sparsely inhabited countries and areas where there is no public transport and therefore no means of getting about other than by private car. Then the 'user pays' principle is not very appropriate. It is one thing to go for a drive for pleasure and quite another to use your car because yon have to and in situations where it is not possible to use public transport.
In the future we need to try and get freight transport off the road. Generally speaking, we need to aim to move away from means of transport reliant on the use of fossil fuels to those based on renewable fuels. We have much to do at EU level if we really intend to reach the targets we have together committed ourselves to, i.e. to reduce emissions. It is a matter of will, and because we have decided the matter together, all nations must together make an effort to ensure that these decisions are carried out.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, the draft resolution on sustainable European transport policy, taking into account European energy and environment policies, attempts a complex approach to a highly sensitive issue. The rapporteur, Mr Albertini, must be complimented on his approach to the problem and his constructive proposals.
Among other things, Mr Albertini correctly points out that the role of rail transport, particularly in the transport of goods, is not properly appreciated and its development is neglected. We must remember that road building alone will not solve the problem and rail projects are essential. To those who have not noticed this, I would recommend a drive across Poland, which has been criss-crossed by international lorry traffic in recent years.
The second problem requiring urgent attention is traffic congestion in large conurbations and the concentration of exhaust fumes in cities and intercity transport corridors. Here too the role of rail transport, i.e. high speed trains, is not appreciated. The third important issue is the use, alongside rail transport, of inland waterway and sea transport, which are less polluting. Here there are many more problems, ranging from technical, energy and cost control issues to social awareness and behaviour. To cope with all these problems, we need a complete analysis of the transport situation in its environmental context, plus concrete integrated action.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the report contains many fine suggestions, but it proceeds from the assumption that constant growth in the volume of traffic is something like a law of nature and that technology can solve most of the problems.
There are two particular points I would like to underline. Firstly, calculation of the total cost of transport operations, including their social cost, must begin with the Eurovignette, because heavy goods vehicles impose the greatest burden not only on the road network but also on people and the environment. Even though Commissioner Barrot, who is responsible for transport, has promised that the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention will be ratified during the period of the French presidency of the Council, I believe that we, the European Parliament, should make explicit mention of this protocol here in the report.
Time and again we hear fine words on the subject of transport. The fact is, however, that the volume of CO2 emissions from transport increased by 32.1% between 1990 and 2005, and the volume emitted by air transport rocketed by 90% over the same period, while emissions of the climate-killer carbon dioxide from all other areas of activity were reduced by 9.5% in accordance with the aims of the Kyoto Protocol.
Too often in this report we content ourselves with lofty aims and pious hopes. What are needed, however, are hard and fast requirements and effective measures, including sanctions, otherwise everything will carry on in a way that proves the truth of the saying, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, the UK should make its own laws, so I reject this proposal. But I do not dispute the fact that more efficient cars are a good idea and that working from home cuts down pollution.
What concerns me about this report is words like 'pricing policy' and 'tax on fossil fuels', because no current serious alternatives exist and these taxes are very inflationary. The future must be about encouraging innovation and technology, not about tricking people who have no alternative into paying more tax. Most public transport systems are good for the commuter but do not fit the needs of the businessman who must drive into work in order to use his car to visit clients later.
But the city of Strasbourg provides a first-class tram system, with a tram stop outside this very building, so why are MEPs here in Strasbourg not leading by example? They do not visit clients, they just come here to misrule Europe. Yet almost all of them use chauffeur-driven limousines and ignore the trams. If MEPs complied with their own words, then perhaps the public would listen. In simple English, Madam President, this House is guilty of gross hypocrisy. What were MEPs saying about sustainable transport, please? Because, like the no-smoking rule in the Parliament dining rooms, MEPs ignore it!
(RO) The implementation of an integrated strategy on the development of sustainable transport must be an absolute priority, both for the Commission and for the Member States.
Investments in transport infrastructure must be accelerated, especially environmentally-friendly ones, such as: railways, inland waterway transport and Sea Motorways. A comprehensive assessment of internal costs and in particular the negative impact of transport on the environment is compulsory. Such negative impacts must be ascertained and assumed by their inclusion in the prices paid by users. Consequently, it is highly important that the internalisation of external costs be carried out for all transport means at the same time. Thus, the break-down by form of transport used would improve, favouring less polluting transport means, as well as the development of the trans-European network and intermodal freight transport.
I believe that better logistics and the improvement of management, especially via the intensification of research and application of new technologies in the field of intelligent systems, represent steps forward in better traffic planning, management of flows and elimination of traffic agglomeration and jams.
Romania is making concerted efforts coming into line with European standards, especially by attracting investments in disadvantaged areas to lay the foundation for a reduction in the development discrepancies in infrastructures. At the same time, Romania supports and promotes actions aimed at making energy consumption more effective in order to take part in the reduction of the negative environmental impact of transport and supports investments in alternative energy sources.
I hereby ask the European Commission to reassess the multiannual financial frameworks for financial resources in the field of transport, as well as for the field-related research with a view to obtaining cost effective and energy-enhanced products and services. At the same time, I recommend that the Member States support public - private partnerships and, by way of consequence, private investments in the said field and that they make full use the funds made available to create a sustainable transport sector, to improve traffic safety and the health of the environment in which we live.
(RO) The European policy concerning sustainable transport, taking account of the European policies on energy and environment, concerns and directly affects approximately 490 million of European citizens.
I asked the Commission and the Member States to examine the way in which transport infrastructures and the applicable tariffs influence urban development and future demands for transport services.
I asked the Commission and the Member States to intervene in the modernisation of port infrastructure, with respect to the European Union sea ports, as well as the ports located on the inland waterways, in order to enable the rapid transfer of freight and passengers from one transport system to another, thus facilitating the reduction of energy consumption in the field of transport.
In 2007, the European Union firmly and unilaterally committed itslef to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 base values. The implementation, especially in large urban concentrations, of intelligent transport systems in order to control traffic will prevent traffic jams which cost the European Union approximately 1% per year of its gross domestic product. At the same time, the development of the European railway system will contribute to compliance with European policies in the field of energy and tackling climate change.
In this context, I believe that one of the development priorities in the field of trans-European transport should be to design a high-speed railway network linking all the capitals of the Member States. High speed trains should also go through Bucharest and Sofia.
(PL) Madam President, Mr Albertini's report deals with all the decisive factors in a sustainable European transport policy, taking account of European energy and environment policies. Transport takes up over 30% of energy consumption, and that figure is set to rise by 30% in 20 years. The transport sector uses 70% oil, and in cities and built-up areas it accounts for 40% of CO2 emissions and 70% of emissions of other harmful compounds.
The rapporteur is in favour of technological innovations and other energy-saving methods. The European Union needs swift, effective measures. Given the huge rise in oil prices, the form of energy most beneficial for the environment and the economy is electric power. It should play a greater part in transport, including urban transport, for example, through the production of cheap electrically powered urban motor vehicles. The increasing demand for this form of energy should be covered by the latest generation of nuclear power stations that do not emit noxious gases.
(NL) We are all aware of the way in which the transport sector is contributing to climate change. To my mind Mr Albertini's report offers a fair and succinct assessment of the practical and technical measures which may perhaps be applied to reduce that contribution. And since one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, these measures will inevitably be painful to those concerned, both professional transport operators and the individual citizen.
In contrast to the belief expressed in paragraph 2, my view is that not only the professionals but ordinary citizens too understand and support the need for extreme measures, provided they offer demonstrable benefits for the future. The first major objective to be attained is that of the air quality standards, to be met by 2015. Transport will play a big part in meeting these targets, certainly in urban areas. So available methods and measures, both at-source and end-of-pipe measures, must be applied and implemented without delay.
Madam President, my thanks to Mr Albertini for his report and I hope that everyone concerned will play their part in the efforts required.
(HU) Thank you, Madam President. I would like to congratulate my colleague Mr Albertini and make a few comments.
1. With regard to taxation as an instrument, I can accept that it needs to be applied uniformly to all modes of transport. At the same time, we must take into account that tax cannot simply be increased ad infinitum, as this would cause serious inflation and could lead to increased costs and reduced competitiveness in the whole sector. We cannot therefore have uniform taxation for everything, for excise duty on petrol for example. I would like to point out that I think it is a good idea to link taxation to actual air pollution - for example in the vehicle registration tax system.
2. In the case of air transport, we must take into account that expansion of emissions trading represents an additional cost factor, and this will be reflected in prices. This also needs to be taken into account regarding the idea of introducing indirect taxation that is sometimes put forward.
3. A genuine effort needs to be made to reduce urban congestion and thus also air-polluting emissions. For the new Member States, however, the main challenge is not just promoting electric-powered urban public transport; constructing bypass roads perhaps presents even more of a challenge. In relative terms it is in this regard that they are lagging behind the most, and this should be given greater emphasis as a priority use of European Union resources.
4. As regards internalisation of external costs, I agree that we need to create sector neutrality. For hauliers in the new Member States, however, the provisions of the Eurovignette already present a major challenge due to the increasingly stringent standards for vehicle emissions, etc. In the new Member States internalisation must therefore be implemented more slowly and according to special principles. Our hauliers should not be punished for the fact that the infrastructure is less well developed and therefore traffic jams are bigger.
5. It would be good if support of a practical and not just verbal nature were also given to inland waterway transport in the new Member States, especially on the River Danube and the River Tisza, and if the Commission would assist in this regard. Transport intermodality is important, and may provide the biggest boost to modernisation of the rail network. Let us discuss this too, rather than closing down railway lines.
Last, I hope that when the high-speed rail network is constructed, the eastern regions will at last be included on the map, because in the long term this is the only mode of transport that can compete with private cars. Thank you very much.
(PL) Madam President, Mr Albertini has done a good job. My thanks to him. I also identify with Commissioner Barrot's comments. What I particularly like is this combination of policies on technological development, market instruments and accompanying measures that are acceptable to the public and designed to achieve a more rational use of transport facilities. I would add to this an efficient transport policy, both on the micro and the macro scale. I am pleased to see that this combination of measures also takes account of the Baltic coastal area - an undoubtedly positive approach.
I like the idea of the Trans-European Networks, but we were expecting EUR 20 billion in 2008 and what we get is 8 billion. I appeal to you all: let us pay more attention to efficient use of the part of the cohesion fund that is allocated to transport. That applies to the new Member States, where the situation varies considerably but is generally not too good. Let me also state clearly that the internalisation of external transport costs has its limits. That limit, Commissioner, must be set by the refusal to allow a negative impact on the competitiveness of the EU economy. Finally, the unified European rail network must become a reality.
(DE) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the report, and I know that in Commissioner Barrot we have a champion of sustainable transport policy. Transport can pose a particular risk to our economic growth in Europe if it does not function properly. In this domain we need more European responsibility, not less, for whenever Europe has fewer powers, there are national particularities and there are borders, and these are detrimental to transport operations. This is why we must try to seek European solutions, as we have just been doing in the realm of air transport or as we did with the railway package.
I can only ask the Commission to step up a gear in the search for more and better European solutions, but success will surely also depend on our finding prices for the individual modes of transport that reflect their full cost.
Here, too, the Commission has adopted the right approach by starting with road transport, for road transport is certainly the mode that generates the highest social costs at the present time, although these are not met in full by road users.
Commissioner, you were in the Tyrol, a sensitive Alpine region, and you know what damage is caused there by heavy haulage traffic. That impact also shows us that it is high time for action to introduce the European road-tax disc, to actually present the framework you have announced and to continue working hard to apply the principle that users should pay the true cost of road transport.
I must also direct some criticism at my own group here. The group has come down in favour of Amendment 1. I wish to express my opposition to that amendment and to pledge my full support and that of my fellow Austrian Members to the effort to ensure that the Commission presents this general framework in June, beginning with road transport, and does not postpone its presentation until the next blue moon on the grounds that the package must cover all modes of transport. There is an urgent need to act. Let us begin with road transport.
(ES) Madam President, Mr Albertini's report sets out the enormous challenge we face in sustaining the low-cost mobility for all through access to new means of transport and new routes, mobility which has been made possible by the free movement of persons, goods and services, the foundation of the success of European integration, enlargement and social, economic and territorial cohesion; at the same time, however, it must be achieved without the high environmental impact caused mainly by emissions, to say nothing of noise, congestion and safety.
The challenge lies in maintaining the positive and necessary aspects of that mobility but in the most intelligent way possible, in other words, achieving sustainable mobility and thereby minimising the impact on our environment and health. To achieve this, as Mr Albertini says in his report, we need innovative measures and instruments.
Although included in the report, I would have liked to see more space given over to the future role of logistics as an instrument for intelligent mobility, streamlined through innovation and planning.
I am nonetheless grateful to him for including urban logistics among the aspects of urban transport and also for the support he gives to priority projects associated with logistics. I also believe it is correct to include airports and require them to be integrated with railways and to place emphasis on developing the new concept of 'green corridors'.
As for road-pricing, which has been much referred to here, including the Eurovignette, I would of course like the Commission to bear the social impact very much in mind.
Looking forward, following on from what some of my colleagues have said on the need to diversify fuel sources, I would like to ask the Commissioner about the possibility of including hydrogenerating networks in trans-European energy networks in the future.
(GA) Mr President, I would first like to thank Mr Albertini for presenting us with a very important and comprehensive Report. I believe that this Report gives a realistic overview of the challenges facing us as we try to devise a suitable transport policy.
I would like to welcome the pledge on intermodal transport. I come from an island where the economy is dependent on sea and air routes and I believe that this infrastructure should be connected to rail transport. However, this is not the case in Ireland. Rail transport isn't used to carry freight. Since 1990 energy consumption has increased by 225% because of road transport. In terms of the Kyoto Agreement, we are falling short.
It is clear that there is a need for a great deal of investment in mixed transport in Ireland. However, that will not happen until the local authorities and governments change their outlook and policies. While these policies favour increased investment in roads, they neglect the development of rail transport in not only towns and cities, but in rural areas as well.
In conclusion, I advise the Commission to recognize the right of every Member State to set their own congestion charges and taxes.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this own-initiative report Mr Albertini has emphasised the need to establish a cross-cutting policy taking all aspects into account: transport, energy and the environment. Human movements are a source of wealth for society in various respects, economic, social and cultural, but they use energy and very often have a disastrous effect on the environment. Every society, in particular not excluding the European Union, has to seek a balance, which is a difficult task.
It is in this context that the European Union shows its true value by playing a decisive role in the harmonious development of transport: a single European railway market, a Single European Sky, Trans-European Transport Networks, a European port policy. By setting ambitious targets with the energy-climate package, talking about shared aims now has to be followed up by action. To quote Plato: 'It is for us to follow the upward path and avoid the downward path'.
Coordination and cooperation are the keywords of this cross-cutting policy. The coordination of infrastructures at European level to obtain an overall view of transport networks, cooperation with the local actors best able to take a practical and realistic view of the issues, because that is what Europe is. The will to harmonise by pooling all efforts, by exchanging best practice in the interests of citizens and the environment, with - not to be forgotten in this somewhat eclectic list - substantial extra financial support in order to implement the priority trans-European transport projects as quickly as possible.
Above all, though, if we focus on the local aspects, it seems to me that the integrated approach can only be efficient with an intermodal approach financially supported by Europe, especially in congested metropolitan and urban areas, to ensure safe, secure and affordable mobility, in short, ecological and sustainable mobility.
(HU) Madam President, never before have human beings travelled as much as they do now. The necessity of travelling, in addition to being a major waste of time, is a significant economic problem and a serious burden on the environment.
One third of the energy we use goes on transport. In Europe, our primary mode of transport is the car. In the past ten years, the number of cars per thousand people has increased from 400 to 460, while car use has risen by 18%. In the past fifteen years, carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector have increased dramatically, in some Member States by more than 100%. According to Commission forecasts, transport sector energy demand in the European Union will increase by at least 30% between now and 2030. This could well spell failure in terms of meeting our Kyoto commitments.
It is a pity that road transport projects continue to receive greater emphasis in Europe than rail projects, despite the declared principles. Bad examples are infectious: the balance has also shifted in central and eastern Europe, which used to be much more public transport-centred. In my country, Hungary, the share of public transport had fallen to a mere 40% in 2007. Reducing pollution caused by motor vehicles is a question of traffic management, of technology and of economics. Expansion of the use of environmentally friendly technologies is a function of internalising environmental costs and introducing a taxation system based on carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions-based differential take-off and landing charges are needed at airports. Offering free parking, reduced congestion and road charges, a lower rate of vehicle taxation, vehicle duty and circulation tax for 'green' cars could set in motion a spectacular shake-up.
Expenditure on transport-related health problems is enormous. It is unfair to make the whole of society pay for these. I believe the costs of air and noise pollution and transport accidents in this regard, too, must be borne by the transport sector. Thank you.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President, I would like to focus on three points in Mr Albertini's excellent report. First of all, as your rapporteur on the subject of urban mobility, I am pleased that he has already given us some highly significant keynote messages to consider on that very important subject. I assume that we shall pursue the discussion in that direction in our committee and subsequently in the chamber too. Vice-President Barrot, you referred to the initiatives that the Commission will be taking on this very subject in the course of the present electoral term, and I hope we shall enjoy dealing with them.
My second point relates to another matter that has already been raised, namely the internalisation of the social and environmental cost of transport operations. Every mode of transport must cover the costs it actually generates. In the light of this principle, great importance attaches to the issue we spoke about at the time of the Eurovignette discussion, namely the fact that those who operate heavy goods vehicles on our roads should actually pay a reasonable price, in other words all the costs they generate must be chargeable to them. Some of my fellow Members who expressed criticism of this principle have already slipped off into the night. I think I can say that the PPE-DE Group comprises not only supporters of Amendment 1 but also a number of opponents. We, for our part, shall certainly vote against that amendment.
The third point to which I attach importance is referred to in paragraph 22, namely research. The aim here is to give vehicle manufacturers clear targets, clear indications of the direction in which the European transport sector is meant to go. Only then will they be able to deliver what we need at affordable prices when we need it.
I would like to reiterate my special thanks to Commissioner Barrot for having planned such a busy programme for the rest of this legislative term. We need this programme, and both the environment and our transport system will be the better for it.
Let me finally say to the Parliament-basher in the back row that I have a half-hour walk every day to and from the hotel here in Strasbourg, and so I have no need of either limousines or trams.
(FI) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate Mr Albertini on his excellent work and excellent proposals. The matter under discussion is extremely important, and the public expects clear answers to the problem.
It is not a very simple issue, when we consider that the European Union's basic pillars incorporate the notion of the free movement of people and goods. Both are bound to grow in the future. Obviously, too, we need to think about where we are going, how we are getting there and what sort of means we are using to do so. The decisions we take will be enormously important.
As Mrs Jäätteenmäki has mentioned, it is very hard to imagine, in my country, for example, a situation in which movement in itself is dramatically restricted. The distances are long, and people have to use their cars to get to work as there is no public transport.
When we come to consider how Parliament should behave, I agree that Parliament could set an example. We have to think about whether we are travelling needlessly. Can we cut back on unnecessary travel? How are we travelling? Parliament has an official car service which most of us use and which works very well. We need to think, however, about what sort of cars we travel in. What sort of fleet do Parliament, the Commission and the Council have at their disposal? Hybrid cars could be acquired for use by Members of Parliament.
The example we set is immensely important. We cannot expect the public or European companies to do something which we do not do ourselves. We therefore have to set a good example.
Madam President, while the details of some individual proposals in this report require careful study in relation to the principle of subsidiarity - especially any tax-related matters - the overall aims of the report deserve, nonetheless, to be supported.
From July 2008, Ireland will see major changes to our existing annual motor tax regime and to the vehicle registration tax (VRT) system. The new VRT system will see the introduction of a seven-band system based on carbon dioxide emissions and not on engine size. Despite ongoing gridlock in our capital city, the Irish Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, said in the last week that congestion charges will not be considered for Dublin because the shambolic state of public transport offers little alternative to the private car. Inadequate bus frequency, two light-rail lines that do not interconnect either with each other or with the main-line rail system, no link to the airport, no metro and still no integrated ticketing system - so much for efforts to reduce hydrocarbon use and greenhouse gas emissions! This picture of Dublin flies in the face of the European Parliament's efforts and proposed measures to optimise the use of public transport, especially in urban areas.
(BG) Mme Chairperson, Mr. Commissioner, The sustainable transport policy, taking into account the energy and environmental aspects, includes transport infrastructure, employment through transport, mobility of people and free movement of goods.
The pan-European transport networks call for equal quality and environmental security. This implies accurate stock-taking, especially of the railways, assessment of the current condition, and targeting of measures to countries that have not reached high European standards yet. Reliable financial instruments need to be involved. It is particularly important to put an end to the practice of turning some new Member Statses into old vehicle depots for Europe. This is definitely environmentally undsound.
I am always concerned when EU reports mention the names of some geographic regions and omit others. The Black Sea Region, too, is of great importance. Sustainable intermodal schemes are needed there, as well. Besides, it is within the framework of this report that we could possibly discuss the charges and the traffic on the Danube Bridge between Russe and Giurgiu, between Bulgaria and Romania.
(CS) Madam President, allow me to make a comment on the debate that just took place: although most of us want to make the transport policy greener and agree that it is necessary to do so, at the same time no one wants to limit mobility.
We differ a good deal in our views of how to go about this. We have not sorted out our priorities and that is the problem. On the one hand we want to be sector-neutral as regards the different types of transport, and on the other hand we feel guilty for not favouring rail transport over road transport.
Can you imagine this happening without the introduction of a significant environmental tax on road freight traffic or without giving significant priority to railways? Objections against the internalisation of external costs are raised on the grounds that it will affect competitiveness. There are no studies available on the social impact of the introduction of a Eurovignette in road transport. Should we not be clear, first of all, as to what our main priority is? What about calling a Europe-wide referendum on these priorities?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be fairly brief. I have listened with interest to the speeches on the report by Mr Albertini. It can be said that the concerns so well expressed by Mr Albertini in his very clear and concise report are entirely in line with what the Commission and your Transport Commissioner want.
In short, it is true that mobility has to be changed rather than reduced. That is the whole problem. I shall not reply to each remark and observation. We have taken note of all of them.
I should, however, like to mention in passing that we need infrastructures if we are to bring about the modal shifts that are required. I would say to Mr Albertini that that point needs to be stressed, because Europe is not sufficiently aware that it will need infrastructures and investments in order to be able to introduce the modal shifts.
Furthermore, it is true that we also need extremely advanced research into new engines and new energies if we are to meet the challenge of sustainable mobility. I cannot let it be said, as I heard just now - although everyone was positive - that these would be pious hopes, good intentions, because I should, all the same, like to draw attention to what has already been accomplished. For instance, the classification of lorries in Euro categories based on rising standards, up to Euro 5. It can be said that that lorry classification has enabled CO2 emissions to be reduced by 30 to 40%. To take another example, in future the European Union wants emissions to be cut to 120g CO2/km. That is a target that the whole of the motor industry is working on at the moment. That also leads me to repeat the very sensible remark by Mr Rack that we need to be careful, because the industry must be made fully aware of the targets and the future framework in order to adapt. That is a point that concerns me greatly: we have to set clear objectives so that all the research and the industry as a whole comply with those objectives.
There it is, I am not going to dwell on that too much. I shall say, of course, that the action to be taken must maintain the necessary mobility and must be effective in reducing adverse effects, whilst at the same time remaining acceptable to the public and to industry. In June we are going to use that method to calculate the external costs and we shall see how each mode of transport - gradually, because it cannot all be done at once - can be integrated into the charges. We can then have tolls that really educate and that enlighten not just transport operators but also passengers on which modes of transport cause the most pollution and which are the most environmentally friendly.
I really hope that the Albertini report will be, if I may use that term, another Bible for everyone, because now it is absolutely essential for us to find ways to achieve this sustainable mobility.
I am grateful to Parliament for its contribution on this subject, which has been extremely valuable for the Commission.
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take a few seconds to thank Members for their constructive comments, not just those who have supported the report and highlighted some of its aspects, but in particular those who have commented on it and the few who have criticised it on reasoned grounds.
Particular thanks to Commissioner Barrot, not just for what he has been so kind as to say, but in particular for the very vigorous action that he is undertaking in respect of the subject matter of the report and for his willingness to enter into cooperation between Parliament and the Commission so that we can play the effective part that we are all keen to play in changing mobility - as he has rightly said in his brief statement -rather than reducing it.
Mobility reflects the progress of our civilisation, and represents what is modern about us; it represents development and progress and we should certainly not stifle it. We simply have to improve it and use it when there is no other choice.
A final comment, one that perhaps strays somewhat from the issue that we are discussing, but one I feel I should make because it opens up prospects far greater than those we are discussing in relation to transport.
We are concerned by the pollution and all the critical problems that transport and its use entail. We should perhaps take a more general view, especially as regards CO2 emissions and the CO2 generated by other sectors of our industrial civilisation. I should like to quote you some figures and conclude with this simple comment: while it is true that transport accounts for 23% of total CO2 emissions throughout Europe, electricity generation accounts for 43%, industry for 19%, and residential housing and commerce for 15%. If we want to achieve a 20% cut in emissions of these unwanted effects of our civilisation by 2020, we shall perhaps have to take more intensive action and pay more attention to other sectors as well which, as you are aware, lead the field in CO2 emissions, rather than just focusing on transport. In that respect, nuclear is a term that cannot be avoided.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 11 March 2008.


Natural disaster in China (debate)
The next item is the statements of the Council and the Commission on the natural disaster in China.
President-in-Office. - (SL) We are following with great concern developments in China following the disastrous earthquake, which destroyed a large area of the country, and the Province of Sichuan in particular.
There are estimates that the earthquake affected around 10 million people. The death toll is growing by the hour, whilst the hope of rescuing the survivors from under the rubble is ebbing away. The current estimate of fatalities has grown to almost 50 000 people. This truly is a disaster. Perhaps it would be possible to save more lives if the rescuers could reach the affected area, but they are prevented by objective difficulties, as well as due to a shortage of adequate equipment.
An additional difficulty is the damage that the earthquake has caused to a number of dams. Because of that, survivors in the Sichuan Province are under a great threat of being flooded. The Chinese government has asked for the basic equipment they need during the rescue operations.
The Chinese Health Ministry also expects a greater need for medication and up-to-date medical equipment, because the survivors need to be provided with the necessary treatment for injuries.
The scope of aid activities currently under way is exceptionally large. Twelve tonnes of goods have already been dropped from the air to alleviate the difficulties in the affected area. Numerous helicopters are flying in rescuers and help. Representatives of the local authorities stated that at this point they mostly need blankets, tents, food and satellite telephones.
As you know, and as has already been mentioned earlier today, last Tuesday the Council convened an extraordinary Council meeting. We have extended our deepest condolences to the Chinese people for the terrible numbers of fatalities and destruction in this area. In our message we also expressed our deepest sympathy with those who have lost their closest relatives in this disaster, to those who have been injured themselves, or those who suffered serious damage to property.
The international community has responded quickly, and has offered to provide China with assistance. China has officially welcomed this in letters dispatched by the Foreign Trade Ministry. Numerous foreign teams including those from Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Australia are already there, or are about to set out for China.
The European Union wishes to provide the affected population with help. The European Commission, as well as most of the Member States, has massively responded to the needs of the affected population, and are prepared to provide help also in the future.
Thank you.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I also wish to thank you for placing a debate on the agenda on the humanitarian situation in the Chinese province of Sichuan following the earthquake on 12 May. President Barroso, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and I have expressed our condolences and stressed the desire of the European people to help the Chinese people.
Mobilisation by the Chinese authorities and the army in particular was swift and large-scale. It must be said that the crisis management was efficient, and the authorities deserve our congratulations. In view of the extent of the damage and its needs, the Chinese Government appealed for international assistance on 13 May and the EU was quick to respond to the call. The Commission sent an ECHO humanitarian aid expert on a one-week mission to the area affected. Following a report by the expert on 16 May, the Commission adopted an emergency relief decision to disburse two million euros. This will allow the Red Cross to supply tents, blankets, drinking water and basic essentials.
The coordination and assessment team of the Commission's civil protection mechanism is also at Chengdu. It is in contact with the local authorities to bring in European aid more rapidly for those in need. The Member States also responded swiftly to the emergency call from the Red Cross Federation by sending emergency equipment and providing search and rescue teams. The total EU contribution is already over ten million euros. The European Commission, the Monitoring Information Centre and the Crisis Platform are working together and are keeping the Member States and China up to date with EU assistance. It should be noted that the Chinese authorities exercise strict control over local access permits for international teams.
On the basis of our evaluations, the main needs are water and sanitation, temporary shelters, essential products, medicines and medical equipment. Many major after-shocks are hampering rescue operations, unfortunately. The main concern is that vital infrastructure such as dams, dykes or electrical power stations will break down or collapse, thereby creating a second humanitarian disaster.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group endorses the expressions of sorrow and sympathy made to the Chinese people by the Council and the Commission following the horrific earthquake of 12 May. We offer our sincere condolences to all those who have been left bereaved or injured as a result of the earthquake.
We also welcome the fact that the Chinese authorities have initiated rapid rescue measures, and we welcome the Chinese Government's willingness to accept foreign aid. Let me also voice our hope that it will continue to do so in future, enabling aid to be dispensed effectively at the point of need.
In addition, we are pleased that in this case the Chinese Government has also allowed the foreign media to report in detail on the earthquake, and we hope that it will permit foreign reporting on the reconstruction effort in the affected areas too.
We particularly regret that so many pupils died when buildings in state schools collapsed, and we support the declared intention of the Chinese authorities to investigate the reasons why schools might not have been built to withstand earthquakes and to hold those responsible to account.
Above all, we are willing to give the Chinese people the assistance they need. They do not need large sums of money, for they possess the world's largest currency reserves. What they need is practical help, and we Europeans and our Member States can provide that help, and we thank the Commissioner for the aid measures he has already initiated.
We shall support every action designed to help the people in the disaster areas and to assist them in the reconstruction of their villages. Some may have to be resettled in other areas. We shall provide the aid that is required for that purpose. It is truly a great human tragedy, and we empathise with the population of the stricken areas and with the entire Chinese nation.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Lenarčič, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I want to join with all those who have expressed their deepest sympathies with the bereaved families of the tens of thousands of victims of the terrible earthquake that hit Sichuan province. I also want to express my full solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of people who lost the roof over their head or were forced to leave their homes as a result of this disaster.
A short while ago we debated the situation in Burma and criticised the completely unacceptable behaviour of the Burmese junta. China, in complete contrast with Burma, must be praised. China immediately asked the international community for help and opened its borders to foreign aid. I also approve, just like my fellow Member, the openness of the Chinese authorities, both at national level and in Sichuan province. I welcome the way they dealt with organising the rescue work and informing the public, both at home and abroad, on the events of the disaster. For example, this up-front information provided also included the confession that, apart from tens of thousands of victims, thirty-two sources of radioactive emissions were also buried in the rubble.
Both the Commissioner and Mr Lenarčič informed us of the extent of the humanitarian aid that the European Union has offered and provided to China. I am thanking them both for the speed with which the Commission and the Council have acted, and I am also calling on them to ensure that the European Union is prepared to respond quickly to potential requests for further help by our Chinese partners, not only in regard to humanitarian aid but also with rebuilding affected areas, if help is asked for.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) First of all, I should like to express my sympathy with all the victims on behalf of our Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I also endorse the period of mourning that the Chinese Government has announced. On Monday, before coming to Strasbourg, I went to sign the book of condolence at the Representation to the EU in Brussels, on behalf of the Delegation for Relations with China and I assume also on behalf of Parliament as a whole. Last week the bureau of the Delegation met the Chinese ambassador and he told me how much he appreciated the European Parliament support.
We are facing an enormous and serious disaster. Tens of thousands of people are dead or still missing, millions homeless, property damage on a scale that is barely calculable at the moment. We have not seen in China what we saw in Burma, as discussed in the previous debate. Here we see a country where everyone, from the highest to the lowest level, is doing everything possible to help and to see that anything that can still be saved is saved. I also see a country that has very openly communicated, and continues to communicate, the pain and despair of the people in Sichuan and the problems the rescue teams are facing, rescue teams that have even lost a couple of lives. I see a country that is even open to the criticism the victims of the disaster had of the aid effort, a picture that we are also very familiar with whenever something similar happens here.
Madam President, we have to look to the future. I think China has asked us for very specific types of aid. I see that we are showing solidarity and I am grateful to the Commission and the Council for what they have done. I urge them to provide further help when the Chinese ask for it.
When the rescue effort is over, rebuilding will have to begin, and there again we have to be able to help as much as possible. In the longer term, I would ask that we look into how we can provide technical assistance, with building regulations and techniques that make buildings more resistant to this kind of occurrence. It might also be a task for the international community to look at what we can do to set up a sort of early warning system, a system that warns people before these disasters. We have to at least try to develop that. I think there are quite a number of regions in the world that might benefit from that. At any rate, I think it is important that we in the European Parliament have shown our solidarity with the Chinese in this debate.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, following this terrible earthquake that has plunged China and the entire world into mourning, the authorities have played the game of transparency for the first time and responded to the drama with large-scale emergency deployment, which the EU and the entire international community are doing their best to sustain.
However, we have all heard sharp criticism in China of the poor quality of buildings, especially the most recent structures and public locations such as schools, which have led to the disappearance of thousands of schoolchildren, with very few rescued. This disaster is showing up the poor quality of building work in the country, a sensitive issue in China where millions of people have been expropriated in the larger cities in the run-up to decisive events such as the Olympic Games.
Other worrying matters, already mentioned, loom over this drama: the strength of hydroelectric facilities such as the concrete dam at Zipingpu makes us fear the worst for the 600 000 people living downstream. The earthquake also caused damage to 391 reservoirs. As yet there is little information available on the plutonium-enrichment facilities in the north-east of Sichuan province, despite their close proximity to the epicentre, and this is likewise extremely disturbing.
Would it not be a good idea to carry out an independent international assessment on such vital issues, since the Chinese are still showing a certain amount of opacity and any official statements are all reassurance?
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Europe should offer China as much support as possible, for both humanitarian and political reasons. I am one of the very many Members of this House who are strongly opposed to China's barbaric policy towards Tibet and towards Christians. I believe we should react very forcefully indeed to any instance of aggression towards Taiwan.
On the other hand, however, we must take advantage of every opportunity to show the Chinese people that the demands we are making of their leaders are not motivated by any feeling of enmity towards their country and its traditions. We must prove that friendly partnership is possible, and an excellent opportunity to do so has now arisen. We should offer extensive assistance to the victims and commit ourselves wholeheartedly to reconstruction work following the recent disaster. It would be a great mistake to miss this opportunity of building trust between Europe and China.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, natural disasters sadden us all the more because they create so many victims, as recently in China or Burma. They remind us of the value of any human life, and also the fact that we cannot control nature. We wish to send a message of compassion to those suffering natural and political disasters.
One of the aims of politicians is to prevent public misfortune from befalling their people. Thus, if they cannot prevent natural disasters, they can attempt to anticipate them and alert the people, and above all they must minimise risk through responsible prevention policies. By way of example, China's Promethean infrastructure, such as its huge power dams and nuclear power plants, has held out. Yet how long can it hold out? Is it not better to use a larger number of smaller structures to spread the risk, and increase public information on the risks involved?
The most tragic situation for the Chinese people, however, is in relation to political disasters. Although we acknowledge the admirable character of this hard-working skilful people and its sensitive culture, we can judge political acts without delving too far into domestic policies. Its calamitous single-child policy is a major disaster. It affects children, the large numbers of peasant families obliged to dispose of daughters, a poor source of revenue that does nothing to ensure the continuity of farms and retirement, or the second child who has no right to exist on the orders of Creon. Such is the disdain for human rights when a political order does not allow parents to have as many children as they want. Here again, life is not considered at its true value, but as a mere utilitarian function. Natural disaster and political disaster merge, however, when a school's roof falls in, crushing the only child and leaving the parents distraught.
When the 30 000 journalists expected in Beijing for the Olympic Games arrive there, they should take time out to investigate, beyond mere appearances, the reality of this country which, through overriding power and efficiency, risks losing all respect for human beings, the real basis of the political order.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during the public minutes of silence ordered by the Chinese authorities, people stood still - people in the streets, on buses and in shops - and their facial expressions left no doubt of the sincerity of their feelings. It was quite different from the normal compulsory collective demonstrations of solidarity. Why was that? Because state television was able to report round the clock, evoking a profound sense of shock at the unimaginable suffering of the people in the stricken areas. That inspired a new sense of solidarity in China. Respect for the individual has become apparent again, even among political leaders.
The only great national focal points had hitherto been China's economic growth and, more recently, the Olympic Games, but in the light of the present disaster, these things almost fail to register any more with many people. What should the international community do? This question has already been answered to some extent: besides sending aid materials, disaster plans and, of course, technical equipment, there is a need to pool the experience gathered in the aftermath of the major earthquakes in Armenia, where more than 100 000 lives were lost and a nuclear power plant was damaged, in Turkey, where tens of thousands lost their lives, and in China in 1976, where several hundred thousand people died, and to use that collective experience to develop principles of good practice for the international community and apply them for the benefit of China.
I know it has been mentioned that what could happen to dams in particular should make us examine the earthquake resistance of public buildings, hospitals and schools. There is much that can be done in this respect, and appropriate indications can be given as to which rules should apply to the building of earthquake-proof structures.
As a member of the Delegation for Relations with China, I naturally subscribe to the messages of condolence conveyed by the previous speakers.
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, we all regret the disaster that has devastated southern China. Over 50 000 people have died and 4.8 million have been left homeless. We all stand as one with the affected families.
The European Union has acted as it should: it has activated the civil protection mechanism and it has supported the Chinese authorities. The international community as a whole has also lent its support. Never before has China received so many expressions of solidarity and offers of tangible support because, this time, the Chinese authorities have not tried to hide the scale of the tragedy. On the contrary, they have provided the necessary information, allowed access to the international media and, overall, acted transparently and efficiently, unlike what has happened in Burma.
Climate change is at the root of the rise in natural disasters. Preventing the planet from overheating is all our responsibility. China must therefore also contribute to reducing CO2 emissions by supporting the European Union's efforts to reach an international agreement by the time of the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009.
(NL) With unprecedented openness, the Chinese mass media have reported on the terrible consequences of the serious earthquake that struck Sichuan province over a week ago. Within the country, this openness on the part of the authorities led to an unprecedented solidarity with the victims. The harmonious society came to the fore. Tens of thousands of volunteers presented themselves. Rescue teams flocked to the disaster areas from every province. Practical help has reached a record high in China. In short, openness by the authorities pays off.
The European institutions therefore need to hold the Chinese authorities to this unprecedented openness in the future. This is certainly the case with the critical question already raised in China as to why so many school buildings collapsed. China has been equally open with the rest of the world. For instance, the Chinese Government accepted the Japanese offer to send a rescue team. In the meantime, Taiwan has pledged EUR 42 million of relief for the earthquake victims. I sincerely hope that this sympathy will lead to the normalisation that is needed in relations between China and Taiwan.
I can wholeheartedly join those Members who have expressed their deep sympathy for the inexpressible suffering of the Chinese people and I particularly appreciate Mr Sterckx signing the book of condolence at the Chinese Representation in Brussels on behalf of us all. I can fully endorse that.
(NL) First of all, I should like to express my sympathy for the relatives of the many victims of the natural disaster in Sichuan province on 12 May. The Chinese authorities fortunately acted promptly after the disaster. I also welcome the European Union response. I therefore wish to support the European institutions, the Commission and the Council, in the approach they have opted for so far. After initially refusing foreign help, China has opened its borders. The Chinese authorities themselves have said that they can use every possible assistance to deal with this widespread disaster. Japanese, South Korean and Russian rescue teams are already in the stricken area. I find that and the fact that the neighbouring countries of Singapore and Taiwan are providing aid very encouraging. Political relations with neighbouring countries are not always good and this might improve them.
A great deal of attention has been devoted to the disaster in the national and international media. I am pleased that the press is being allowed access to the affected area and being given the opportunity to write what it wants and inform the rest of the country and the world. Transparency is important in obtaining a clear picture of the disaster and also in ensuring that the right aid is provided on the ground. That allows greater involvement by the rest of the population. A free press and good governance usually go hand in hand. A free press can report policy failings in good time and policies can be adjusted.
Building and government supervision in that area also need to be discussed. Conclusions can be drawn for future building projects and recommendations can be made for better management and better official organisation.
Natural disaster prevention and preparation are primary government responsibilities. It is only in recent years that these have been properly organised in many European countries too. Finally, I should like to ask the European Commission and the Council to offer China help if necessary to train the authorities and the civil service in drawing up plans for dealing with crises and disasters.
(HU) Thank you very much, Madam President. Every decent person was shocked by last week's natural disaster in the Far East. It is natural that the attention of the world should be centred on these countries.
China is very much in the focus of public attention at present: the Olympic Games this summer, the Chinese Premier's visit to Taiwan, events in Tibet, the Dalai Lama's tour of Europe and how it was received, the visit to China by the European Commission; all these things have contributed to focusing attention on China. Now is not the time, however, to speak about boycotts or about Tibet.
The earthquake, which had a magnitude of 8.0 and left the Sichuan plateau in ruins, caused the deaths of 50 000 people and rendered millions of survivors homeless, not to mention the economic damage caused. This is why I am asking every European Union institution to make sure that we give all the human assistance we can and make humanitarian aid available to those affected by the disaster for as long as it is needed.
Let us thank the rescue teams and aid organisations for their help; they worked around the clock to improve the situation of the people living in the region, and let us assure the Chinese people of our unconditional solidarity and sympathy. Thank you very much.
Madam President, an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.8 and an epicentre near Chengdu in Sichuan killed over 100 000 people on 12 May. We can only offer our condolences to all those who have lost family members, and in particular parents who have lost children. However, unlike the parallel tragedy in Burma, where some have suggested responsibility to protect should lead to direct international intervention, the Chinese have employed exceptional emergency resources, along with soldiers and medical staff. China has welcomed foreign assistance, including Japanese rescue workers who are currently working in the area, as well as allowing the Chinese and foreign media to follow the disaster in its aftermath.
The European Union has already contributed EUR 10 million in aid, as Commissioner Michel has said. We urge the Council and Commission to provide further emergency aid, technical assistance and reconstruction aid to the region concerned in the coming months and years.
Madam President, this is the time when we show solidarity and sympathy to China. In these tragic days we have seen victims; we have seen a great tragedy of society in China.
I have been impressed by the way in which the Chinese authorities have behaved - state leaders, administrative, provincial and party leaders - the behaviour of the Chinese state has been rational, something good at this time.
But at the same time, as a human rights politician, I have to report to Parliament that, according to the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, 55 nuns were arrested on 14 May. That is a reality too in these days in China. The earthquake cannot become a pretext for human rights abuses.
(HU) Madam President, the terrible tragedies of the Chinese earthquake and the cyclone that preceded it in Burma shocked the public around the world. The response by countries around the globe was exemplary, with countries from Japan to the United States, from Russia to Jordan providing aid to the tune of more than two billion dollars.
The European Union and its Member States reacted at once, and the Commission too took decisive action, sending EUR 2 million in emergency aid to China and assisting relief efforts by dispatching mobile hospital units, drugs, rescue equipment, and rubble-clearing gear. It was particularly laudable on the part of the Tibetan government-in-exile in India to ask its followers to halt their demonstrations against China temporarily and make donations to help the earthquake victims.
Aid funds from Hungary originally intended for Burma were redirected to China due to the isolationist attitude of the Burmese military dictatorship. The Chinese leadership, unlike the Myanmar regime, was wise to accept foreign aid. The responsible manner in which China handled the publicity was also very positive, and it shows that there has been significant progress in terms of developing democracy. Thank you for your attention.
(PL) Nature has once again proved how defenceless humankind is against major natural disasters and calamities. China is the most populated country on earth, its economy is booming, and it is enthusiastically preparing for the forthcoming Olympic Games. It was, however, devastated by the recent tragic earthquake.
The people of China liken this disaster to earlier cataclysms accompanying major historical changes in that country. I am not sure if that is the way to interpret this dreadful event. Nonetheless, I am certain that at such a time we must express our solidarity with the tens of thousands of ordinary men, women and children who are heroically enduring this personal and national tragedy. That is why the European Parliament is right to send a clear signal to the Chinese people today, indicating that the Members of this House stand shoulder to shoulder with them, that we understand their suffering and want to help. After all, the principle of solidarity is one of the Union's most important fundamental values.
Madam President, China must be congratulated for the way in which it has reacted to this disaster. I would also like to thank the European Commission and Council for the way they have acted in dealing with this tragedy. It is a welcome development in China that they have opened up the area to all of those who can give assistance; hopefully it is something they will do in the future in relation to other areas. Allowing the necessary information out to the world media is the correct step forward. I should also like to congratulate the media for highlighting the scale of the disaster and the assistance that is required.
May it also be a lesson to China in seeing how they can use their power to put pressure on other regimes, in particular in Burma, to try to get them to see that they also need assistance from the world community. Saving lives is the priority in China; let others like the junta in Burma learn from this experience.
(PL) Madam President, I should like to express my very sincere condolences to all those who have suffered and lost loved ones in China. I wish to express my heartfelt sympathy to all those who have lost their children, wives or husbands. I was myself in China last week when this dreadful disaster occurred. I was in Beijing and Shanghai, and I represented Parliament at the opening of the Shanghai Food Fair. The disaster happened on the Monday, just as I was arriving. I sent letters of condolence to the Chinese ambassadors in Poland and Brussels straight away. I was able to see reports on the tragedy for myself on television, and realised the extent of human suffering caused. I also saw the immediate large-scale help provided to the victims by ordinary people, the government and the army. The scale of the effort was unprecedented.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the Union and all the Member States for the aid provided. I should also like to thank the House for its gesture of solidarity in holding this debate today. I am sure aid will continue to be needed.
(PL) I believe there are two different approaches to China. One is to provide assistance following the misfortune that has recently befallen it. We cannot react otherwise. It is our moral duty to help. The fact that we enjoy a better financial and economic situation is a further reason to offer aid. We simply have to do so.
The second approach involves remaining constantly aware that in normal times we should help the Chinese. By this I mean that, when the country is not afflicted by disaster, we ought to help the people of China by reminding their leaders about their citizens' rights. We should do so most emphatically. We need to respond appropriately to both situations. This will make things very clear. I believe the people of China will recognise our effort and thank us for it.
President-in-Office. - (SL) I think that it is very important that the European Parliament has decided to dedicate today's debate to the natural disaster in China. Primarily in order to be able to give China a message, on the one hand expressing the European Union's condolences, and, as Mrs Grabowska expressed it, to convey to China and its people the European Union's solidarity with them.
The difference is also obvious in the tone of the debate held on this, and that on the immediately preceding item. And of course, part of the reason for this is also the way the Chinese leaders have acted, and we can truly say that its response to this terrible disaster was quick and efficient, that it has used considerable national resources, that it has named or appointed the Prime Minister personally as the aid coordinator. To successfully overcome such difficulties there must be good coordination, and this was obviously achieved.
The media also regularly kept the public informed, both nationally and internationally, as to the developments. Foreign journalists were allowed access to the affected areas, and also some foreign experts, according to our information, amongst others from Japan.
Therefore I believe that we can be satisfied that in facing this huge disaster and in providing help to its population, the Chinese authorities have been well organised, and above all, that that they are willing to accept foreign aid, including ours. And I can assure you that the Council will continue to be prepared to provide help.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Very briefly, Madam President, you may be sure that I take due note of your remarks, and I wish to reply by saying that we will naturally still be willing to add to the aid we have already committed, aid based on analysis of needs.
Moreover, I feel that everyone welcomes China's reaction, and the way in which the authorities have been open in terms of access and transparency. I mean this with particular reference to access to the press.
I should like to take up an idea mooted by Mrs Flautre - the suggestion of providing a team of international experts to assess collateral risk and damage, particularly in relation to nuclear facilities. I feel it would be a good idea to pass on this message. There is no obligation to do so, of course, but I still think it would be good to initiate discussions with the Chinese authorities to this end.
I have received six motions for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.


14. 2008 discharge: European Chemicals Agency


Council positions at first reading: see Minutes


Welcome
I welcome to our official gallery a delegation from the European Affairs Committee of the Polish Parliament, headed by Mr Andrzej Grzyb, Chairman of the Committee. The delegation is on a three-day fact-finding visit to the European Parliament, and I had the pleasure of meeting its members yesterday. I bid you all a warm welcome.
(Applause)


Verification of credentials: see Minutes


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.35 p.m.)


8. Parliament's calendar of part-sessions - 2011 (vote)
- On Amendment 4:
Mr President, on a point of order, can you confirm that voting for Amendment 4 will succeed in reducing the number of times that we visit Strasbourg but, at the same time, will comply with our treaty obligation to hold 12 sessions?
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I see from the voting list that you, Mr President, intend to declare Amendment 2 inadmissible. I would like to ask you to reconsider this. It is correct that Article 229 of the treaty requires a session of the European Parliament to take place on the second Tuesday in March. However, this does not conflict with the amendment tabled by my group.
My group's amendment aims to move the Strasbourg week from week 10 to week 11. That does not prevent you from holding a plenary session on the second Tuesday in March. We want the Strasbourg week to be week 11, but this does not mean that our amendment is inadmissible. I would like to ask you to reconsider this.
You have read my mind, Mr Lehne, because I was going to proceed exactly as you had anticipated.
- On Amendment 4:
(FR) I shall be very brief, Mr President. I think that, despite its ambiguous wording, Amendment 4 should have been declared inadmissible because it contradicts the treaties and, even more so, the interpretation of these treaties that has been given very clearly in a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, which provides that the current number of part-sessions in Strasbourg must be maintained. I understand that some Members may disagree with this but, nevertheless, the treaties make this absolutely clear, and the judgment by the Luxembourg Court is equally clear as the law stands at the moment.
I must inform you before voting that the Presidency believes that Amendment 2 is in breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, declares Amendment 2 to be inadmissible.
Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Parliament, and I quote: 'shall meet without requiring to be convened, on the second Tuesday in March'. The Conference of Presidents has approved a calendar proposal for 2011 that includes a part-session period from 7 to 10 March, thus complying with Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 2 proposes that this part-session period be postponed to the following week. If Parliament were to approve this amendment, we would be in breach of Article 229. Accordingly, it is declared to be inadmissible.
- Before the vote on Amendment 3:
(DE) Mr President, I am sorry, but it is not as simple as that. You have quoted Article 229 completely correctly, but it is not in conflict with our amendment. Article 229 refers to a specific day, which is the second Tuesday in March. Our amendment refers to the Strasbourg week as a whole, which consists of four days. Therefore, it must be admissible to move this plenary week in Strasbourg from week 10 to week 11. That does not prevent anyone from holding a plenary session in Brussels on the second Tuesday in March. As you say yourself, those are the terms of the treaty.
Mr Lehne, this amendment raises a question that could very well be open to different interpretations. The Rules of Procedure stipulate that in these cases, the Presidency has the last word as regards the applicable interpretation. For the reasons I have explained, the Presidency has decided to declare Amendment 2 to be inadmissible as a result of being in breach of Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It goes without saying that any other interpretation merits respect. However, as the Presidency has to decide, it has so decided.
Before the vote:
(IT) Mr President, please excuse me for taking this opportunity to state that intervention is needed to provide direct flight connections without complications between Strasbourg and the European capitals for those who are currently forced to take three or four flights to reach Strasbourg. I request that you take appropriate action.
(Applause)