3. EC-Algeria Euro-Mediterranean Agreement (vote)
- Recommendation: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


48. 2008 discharge: EU general budget, Committee of the Regions


10. EC-Ukraine agreement for scientific and technological cooperation (


Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes


Cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in Member States (debate)
Thank you very much, Mrs Gomes, and the debate is hereby closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00. The next item is the final report of the day, more specifically, an oral question addressed to the Council and the Commission on the subject of the cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in the Member States. First of all, I give the floor to the author, Mrs Nadja Hirsch. You have two minutes.
the oral question to the Council, by Mrs Nadja Hirsch, Mrs Renate Weber, Mrs Cecilia Wikström, Mr Louis Michel, Mrs Sonia Alfano, Mr Stanimir Ilchev, Mrs Nathalie Griesbeck and Mr Jan Mulder, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on the transmission of information on the cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in the Member States - B7-0662/2010),
the oral question to the Commission, by Mrs Nadja Hirsch, Mrs Renate Weber, Mrs Cecilia Wikström, Mr Louis Michel, Mrs Sonia Alfano, Mr Stanimir Ilchev, Mrs Nathalie Griesbeck and Mr Jan Mulder, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on the transmission of information on the cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in the Member States - B7-0663/2010),
the oral question to the Council, by Mrs Monika Hohlmeier and Mr Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), on the transmission of information on the cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in the Member States - B7-0664/2010),
the oral question to the Commission, by Mrs Monika Hohlmeier and Mr Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), on the transmission of information on the cost of examining asylum seekers' applications in the Member States - B7-0665/2010),
the oral question to the Council, by Mrs Monika Flašíková Beňová, Mr Claude Moraes, Mrs Sylvie Guillaume, Mrs Carmen Romero López and Mr Antonio Masip Hidalgo, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the state of play regarding the Commission proposal for a recast of the Asylum Procedures Directive - B7-0003/2011),
the oral question to the Council, by Mrs Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on the state of play regarding the Asylum Procedures Directive - B7-0004/2011), and
the oral question to the Council, by Mr Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Mr Cornelis de Jong, Mrs Cornelia Ernst and Mrs Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, on the transmission of information to Parliament and the Commission on the outstanding issues in the Council on the Asylum Procedures Directive - B7-0002/2011).
Mr President, we have agreed in the European Parliament that we want a common European asylum system to be in place by 2012. This also involves having the same or similar conditions in all the Member States.
However, the implementation of the system has met with resistance and that is primarily due to the fact that during the discussions on the asylum package, we were given inadequate information, sometimes no information at all, or even conflicting information. We had very little data as the basis for the financial estimates relating to the Procedures Directive and the costs in the Member States. Our aim is to call on the Commission to provide Parliament with a study or with the necessary information. This concerns areas such as the interpreting service and also legal advice. It is not clear what effects this will actually have in the Member States.
On the other hand, during the process of revising the Procedures Directive, it has become clear that we can produce a high quality, fast procedure which is of benefit to both sides, because it helps decisions to be made quickly so that the situation is clear to people and there is a low error rate. Our objective as liberals is to give the Commission our complete support for its plans. However, we need arguments, including in the discussions with the Member States, which will demonstrate the effects of the revision of this asylum package and, in particular, the Procedures Directive. For this reason, we are calling on the Commission to give us genuine support to ensure that this asylum package becomes reality by 2012, so that we can establish a common European asylum system.
Mr President, it is important that the EU comes to grips with the problems of migration and the right of asylum. The Commission has submitted proposals in this area. However, there is currently no accurate analysis of the implementation of existing legal provisions. There are also hardly any detailed calculations and analyses concerning the new proposals. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) wholeheartedly supports the right of asylum and the right to protection for people who need it.
However, when we look at the actual situation, it is unfortunately clear that people are applying for asylum for very different reasons or even systematically abusing the system. The right of asylum and subsidiary protection is not a tool for general migration into the 27 Member States. We must ensure that the organised people traffickers do not have the opportunity to make billions of euro in profit out of people's fates as a result of our right of asylum.
Asylum procedures must be fit for purpose and they must be implemented with great care. Victims of persecution must be guaranteed a refuge in the EU. This is why the Commission's obligations in this respect are laid down in the new drafts. I think many of them are appropriate, including interpreters, proper healthcare and taking into consideration special protection needs.
However, I would also like to mention the points which I believe are problematic. The authorities in the Member States are being given far too few opportunities to prevent abuse. The option of the accelerated procedure and the border procedure should be restricted by applying charges. If an applicant commits a serious breach of his duty of cooperation, there are very few possibilities of imposing sanctions. On the contrary, if an asylum seeker disappears, the Member State cannot bring the procedure to a negative conclusion. If he reappears, he is offered an extended range of procedural options. Even if an application is obviously without any foundation, the use of the accelerated procedure will only be possible after the second subsequent application. This will lead to significant cost increases.
The current Commission draft states that free legal advice will be available from a lawyer, which will also result in the Member States' costs rising considerably. I would simply like the Commission to reconsider the practical consequences of its proposals, the financial impact and the problems for the authorities in the Member States. We want to see a system with high standards, but it must be workable and should not present already overburdened Member States with completely impossible tasks.
Mr President, first of all, I would like to point out that I think one of the issues for this debate is the establishment of a common European asylum system by 2012, which will finally allow us to stop adding to the worst national practices on asylum.
Let us not lose sight of this, as it means we need to move towards greater harmonisation, based on common rules. Indeed, I believe that practical cooperation alone will not resolve the current discrepancies between the national asylum systems.
I would also like, if I may, to express my concern about the state of play regarding the common European asylum system, in view of the many hold-ups within the Council. The future of this complex undertaking is by no means clear. We only need to look at the Commission's attempt to salvage the situation with its forthcoming proposal for recasting two directives.
Against this background, then, we need to talk about costs, since that is what our debate is focusing on today. What we are hearing is that firmer procedural guarantees will considerably increase the financial burden on Member States of examining asylum claims, which they will find even more difficult given the state of their budgets in the economic crisis.
However, I repeat, it is inefficient, shoddy procedures that are more costly for Member States. I believe that a front-loading approach, as advocated by the Commission in its recast proposal, in other words, improving the first-instance procedures, will allow us to make real economies of scale in the medium term.
Why? Because from the outset, these harmonised procedures will help the authorities to identify bogus applications more easily and will provide clearer guidelines for the grounds for decisions. This will allow the right decisions to be made and made more quickly, which will then reduce both the length of the procedure and the number of decisions appealed against and overturned by the courts, and will hence reduce the costs of detention and, ultimately, the overall costs.
Furthermore, if we want to talk about the issue of costs, why not also talk about the Dublin Eurodac system? Why have none of the Member States ventured to ask for a cost-effectiveness report on the application of this system? What we do know is that some appalling human consequences are not being matched by any evaluations backed by convincing evidence, both regarding actual transfers and regarding the prevention of secondary movements or multiple claims, even though these are the very reasons why the Dublin system was created. Let us talk about costs therefore since we must, but let us look at the system as a whole, including the costs of the Dublin system.
From my point of view as rapporteur on the Asylum Procedures Directive, I believe that the level of harmonisation as it stands is inadequate and is detrimental to the quality and efficiency of the process. These deficiencies take their toll both on Member States and on the victims of persecution. We are still aiming for 2012, but we must not feel we have to rush through a text based on lowest common denominators purely for the sake of sticking to deadlines. What we need are fair, accessible and effective procedures, and this will remain my goal and that of my political group in this debate in any event.
Mr President, I think the aim of this discussion is to get the Council to finally show its hand, because I have to say that given such an ambitious, not to mention necessary, reform package on asylum, it is unbelievable that all we are getting are snippets of information, some contradictory, as to what is holding the Council up on these proposals that have been on the table for a long time now.
We are getting a vague idea that the Council or the Member States may be stalling because of costs, but it is not even clear what is meant by this. Are they talking about human costs, political costs or financial costs? These different costs are sometimes linked in any case.
One thing is for certain: there are instances of unsatisfactory practices and inadequate protection in Europe at the moment. In the first place, it is not true that Europe shoulders all the world's problems. For example, in 2007, I think Europe took in only 14% of the world's refugees. In the second place, some of the existing practices are utterly unacceptable. I am thinking of instances such as phallometric testing in the Czech Republic, right here in Europe, or the documents of the Committee against Torture, which brought to light many cases such as forced repatriation without the right to appeal or based on hurried-through procedures.
I think we can certainly talk about costs: for example, we could talk about the cost of expelling migrants, which is very costly: the French Senate says that it costs EUR 20 000 per person expelled. Above all, we can talk about how we might improve the situation. There are certainly questions to be asked as to how we can improve the first-instance decision-making process, as Mrs Guillaume has done in her report, when roughly 50% of first-instance decisions are overturned on appeal. There are clearly very substantial economies to be made in terms of financial, human and political costs.
We might take another look at the aberrations of the Dublin Convention, and I think the Council should look very carefully at these, because they also represent very substantial costs both in human and in financial terms.
Lastly, and I will end here, one thing that is very expensive is detention, as the Parliamentary study confirms. The cost of detaining asylum seekers is prohibitive. This needs to be said, people need to be told and it needs to be discussed in the Council. This is absolutely urgent.
Mr President, sometimes we are the victim of our own working methods. If we had had just one asylum directive regulating the procedures, assessment criteria and reception, we would have had only two options: either to adopt the directive, with or without amendments, or face the failure of the negotiations. Such a scenario would have enabled us in the European Parliament to say 'no' to a common asylum policy and 'no' to a system modelled on the Dublin Regulation.
However, the reality is different. We have a whole range of directives. The Council has the option of giving priority to one directive, while considering another too controversial. Before long, we will end up in a situation where we will, indeed, be able to negotiate a new Dublin Regulation, but still have reached no agreement over asylum procedures or reception, for example. Let us think through what the implications of that might be. If that were to happen, we would be making Member States responsible for examining asylum applications, without having any guarantee that those applications would be properly examined or asylum seekers taken care of in a humane way. I find that totally unacceptable, especially given the current situation.
I therefore have this question for the Council and the Commission: how are you going to ensure that you rescue the Asylum Procedures Directive from the doldrums without sacrificing quality? You will soon receive a number of proposals from Parliament on how the directive might be improved. Will you try to convey to Member States the clear signal which the MEPs have sent out and will you dig your heels in, should Member States insist on an à la carte approach?
By way of conclusion, I would like to clarify one point. I made no reference in my question to the costs of the asylum procedure. I omitted them, not because I was unaware of that issue, but because humane treatment of asylum seekers is paramount for me. That requires a neat process and proper arrangements for reception. If we fail to regulate that properly, then I will no longer have any desire to work on the other sub-initiatives. I hope that I have the full support of the European Commission on this, in particular.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Thank you, Mr President, for your kind words. Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to thank Parliament for giving me the opportunity to talk about the very important issue of asylum application procedures this evening.
Parliament addressed five questions to the Council, and since they all deal with the Commission's proposal for a recast of the Asylum Procedures Directive, I suggest we debate these five questions as one.
In your questions, you referred to the September 2010 Commission report on the application of the Asylum Procedures Directive. This report confirms that considerable differences continue to exist between Member States in terms of asylum procedures and procedural guarantees. The Council and the European Parliament agree that this does not conform to our mutually accepted goal of creating a common European asylum system. In October 2008, the European Council adopted the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which stressed that the EU and its Member States are committed to addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by migration and asylum in a fair, effective and coherent way.
Among other things, the Pact contains a specific commitment to taking the necessary initiatives for completing the establishment of a common European asylum system. The European Council therefore invited the Commission to submit proposals for the creation of a single asylum procedure containing common norms.
The Stockholm Programme also set out clearly that, in the context of the creation of a common European asylum system, increased harmonisation must remain one of the fundamental policy objectives of the EU. After the European Council had thus given the process political impetus, the Commission submitted multiple proposals in the field of asylum policy, both in 2008 and 2009: Eurodac, as you mentioned earlier in the introductory debate, the proposal for the amendment of the Dublin Regulation or the proposal for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive; similarly, the proposal for the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office; and lastly, the proposal for the amendment of the Asylum Procedures Directive and the Qualification Directive.
After these had been received from the Commission, the Council immediately set to work. In this stage, the Council and its preparatory bodies subjected all proposals to intensive and meticulous examination. To this date, the only proposal that Parliament and the Council managed to adopt out of these was the Regulation establishing a European Asylum Support Office, and I am pleased that the Office will soon commence its operation. Last year, Parliament and the Council also agreed on the amendment of the Long-Term Residents Directive, which I believe will give significant momentum to further work on a common European asylum system.
Unfortunately, as you are absolutely right to complain, progress in other areas has proven more difficult. I am certain that you are fully aware of the political sensitivity and technical difficulties of the issue. In this we, the Council, and, I believe, Parliament as well, will all need more time. As you have very accurately pointed out in the questions submitted, the proposal for a recast of the Asylum Procedures Directive contains a particularly high number of problematic issues. Parliament, too, is in the progress of forming its position, which is a good indication of the complexity of the process. It is clear that there remain considerable concerns within the Council with regard to several issues related to the proposal. These especially concern the issue of the potential effects of the proposed measures on the costs of national asylum procedures and the effectiveness of such procedures. You have yourselves mentioned earlier this evening that we must indeed pay special attention to effectiveness and costs. The Member States firmly support the harmonisation objectives with a view to reaching an agreement on certain common fundamental norms and values and uniform protection criteria. As such, the Member States are committed to fully respecting asylum seekers' right to protection.
However, the Member States wish to make their systems sustainable, especially considering the current difficult economic situation. In order to achieve this, the guarantees provided to asylum seekers and the rules, which must be effective and enforceable and must not result in increased administrative or financial burdens, must be balanced. The Council in general is convinced that if we fail to strike an appropriate balance in this regard, those who do not need protection at all, as Mrs Hohlmeier has already mentioned, will be motivated to abuse the asylum system. Such abuse may harm those asylum seekers who are in real need of protection and, in the long term, could jeopardise the issue of asylum in the European Union. In this context, the Commission's announcement that it intends to submit an amended proposal has gained extensive support in the Council, as I think the Commissioner will elaborate shortly.
I am certain that this new proposal will give new momentum to the debate in the Council, ensuring that this new proposal will reflect the opinions of the Council and Parliament as well. We will thus be able to make progress in the matter of the proposal on asylum procedures, which is, as you have correctly pointed out in the questions submitted, an important element of the asylum package. To this I must add that, in response to the Commission's announcement, the Member States have firmly expressed their readiness to lend their assistance to the Commission in drawing up the new proposal.
In this context, please allow me to point out one more aspect. A more accurate estimation of the costs of examining the applications submitted would be facilitated if we had such an estimate, which would enable us to conduct an appropriate debate in the Council. I must unfortunately inform you that we in the Council possess no such information. In accordance with the Treaties, the examination of asylum applications falls under the competence of the Member States. The collection and ordering of information relating to the costs of examining asylum applications is not a task the Treaties confer upon the Council. Therefore, as a representative of the Council, I cannot make a commitment in this debate, either speaking for myself or on behalf of the Council, to make available the information in question. However, the Council, of course, remains committed to continuing its work on the proposal for the amendment of the Asylum Procedures Directive, and I would like to thank you for the work you have done so far, and I am confident that the Commission will incorporate the observations you have made so far in the new proposal.
We are counting on the commitment and expertise of the European Parliament. The Hungarian Presidency is confident that, through proper cooperation, we will be able to make progress in this area as well. Please note that it is the goal of the Hungarian Presidency to prepare the common European asylum system that is scheduled to be created in 2012. You, too, have mentioned here several laws in connection with which we definitely wish to make progress. We intend to reach a political agreement in the discussion on the Qualification Directive, as well as in the field of the Dublin Regulation, before the end of the Hungarian Presidency. We will do everything in our power to increase harmony between Parliament and the Council on issues related to the procedure as well.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Asylum Procedures Directive is an essential element of the common European asylum system. It is the aim of the Commission to establish a system that is balanced, fair, efficient and cost-effective. Financial impact is a critical aspect of every Commission proposal and is assessed thoroughly.
The Commission carried out extensive research at the time of the preparation of the Asylum Procedures Directive proposal, in line with the requirements on impact assessment. The evaluation of financial impact was mainly based on statistical information and data obtained from Member States through the comprehensive questionnaires sent out by the Commission.
Only a few Member States could identify the full cost of asylum procedures. Others provided certain elements, mainly on the costs of legal assistance and interpretation. The Commission assessed financial implications on the basis of the available information.
The Commission concluded that given, inter alia, the aim of reducing costs, an approach based on front-loading was to be preferred: i.e. investing resources in the early stages of the asylum procedure in order to make it faster, more efficient and fairer. Additional investments in the first-instance procedure improve the efficiency of the asylum process. Such investments are offset due to savings at the appeal stages and a reduction in overall reception costs.
The choice of this approach was fully supported by the findings of a recent project in the UK, the so-called 'Solihull Pilot', presented at the ministerial conference on asylum in 2010. This project confirmed the hypothesis that front-loading the asylum process - in particular, by providing access to competent legal advice for asylum applicants at the start of the procedure and allowing the legal representative to interact with the decision maker - leads to significant improvements in the quality of first-instance decisions.
It resulted in much quicker decisions and a higher percentage of positive decisions at first instance, fewer appeals and a higher percentage of removals to countries of origin. It was possible to reduce considerably expenditure on appeals and on accommodation and welfare. These savings considerably outweighed the additional legal aid costs.
I would also like to remind you of the recent study, prepared by the European Parliament, on burden sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers, which provides an analysis of costs of asylum procedures and reception, including legal aid.
To conclude, the Commission has paid considerable attention to the cost element as part of the impact assessment. The findings have been confirmed by empirical evidence and the information has been complemented by the European Parliament study. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to prepare another study on costs. However, during the next stages of the negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Commission will continue to be attentive to the cost aspects.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, there is no question but that the asylum package is currently blocked and this is a pity. It is an unfortunate situation and we should all do our best to unblock the situation.
I can think of many reasons why the situation is blocked. First of all, we seem to have concentrated on new proposals when we all know that there is existing legislation which Member States are struggling to implement - and this has created an ill-at-ease feeling amongst Member States, because they are clearly not prepared to move on to new laws when they have difficulties with existing ones.
Secondly, the new proposals feature and envisage new and much higher obligations and burdens which are, at times, unrealistic, especially in the current context, and which could also, as has been highlighted already, lead to abuse that should be avoided.
Thirdly, there is indeed a lack of a financial assessment, of a study to determine costs, and I am afraid I have to disagree with you, Commissioner: I do not think that the study carried out by the European Parliament on burden sharing is about the costs of these proposals. In any case, it is a job for the Commission to study the financial implications of its own proposals.
Furthermore, there is no proposal on a proper, legally binding burden-sharing mechanism and this, too, creates difficulties for a number of Member States, and indeed for this Parliament.
Finally, the Council is still stonewalling on proposals such as the review of the Dublin Regulation. I am very happy to hear the Council say that the Presidency will pay close attention to this and increase the efforts to find a solution on the Dublin dossier.
It is difficult. We are in a difficult situation and we need to get out of it. The EPP Group is still very much open to cooperating with the Council, and most importantly with other groups here in Parliament, to try and reach a compromise that is acceptable for all.
Mr President, all of the EU's institutions have a deadline of 2012 when the common European asylum system is to be ready. I have to admit that I have a feeling of both hope and despair about this. Will we manage to do this or not? It is based on a common system for the reception of asylum seekers, the examination of applications and decisions concerning these people's futures. Once we have this system in place, it will be the same in all countries, which is not the case today. There are currently huge differences with regard to how people are received in our various Member States.
From the report that Commissioner Füle just referred to, we know that it is a fact that there are large differences in how the Member States receive asylum seekers. We also know that the costs decrease when we increase the quality of the first instance decisions. We are currently working on amending the Procedures Directive, and it would therefore be very important for us in Parliament to be aware of the specific costs for different Member States when it comes to the asylum procedure.
I believe that, by carrying out thorough examinations, we will reduce the risk of mistakes being made and people getting into difficulties. It will be interesting to see whether the Commission can come up with a more thorough procedure and demonstrate how we can reduce the costs of the reception of asylum seekers.
At the end of the day, this will perhaps be the decisive argument that Mr Busuttil referred to, in other words, the key to unblocking the situation with regard to the fixed positions that we see the Council taking. I deeply regret the fact that the Council is so closed in this process.
We have been visited today by the Hungarian Prime Minister, who has taken over the Council Presidency, and I would now ask the Hungarian Presidency to continue the good work that was started while Belgium held the Presidency. It would be unfortunate if this process should cease. Together, we can indeed develop an operational asylum system that has humanity and consideration for our fellow man as key concepts, and we can do this by 2012. Let us continue to hope and work towards this being possible.
Mr President, I think that there is always an implication in these discussions that humanitarian action is expensive, so we do not take humanitarian action because it is expensive, but this implication also has an interesting correlation: we would take humanitarian action if it was not expensive. Well, it happens that there are cases where a humanitarian policy is a cheaper policy. A recent study from the British House of Commons proves this point exactly: a system that allows a rapid response to asylum seekers is very much cheaper, and delay and the forced removal of families is also more expensive.
We are only talking about administrative costs, without counting the costs for the asylum seekers themselves, both those who are entitled to asylum and those whose claims are ultimately denied for the right or wrong reasons.
The question, then, is: if we can take humanitarian action, fulfil our moral duties and do so more cheaply, why are we not doing it? The EU does not have a concerted plan of action, nor does it have a common plan of action, and I take the liberty here of disagreeing with Mr Busuttil: it is not because the implementation of current legislation is expensive for the Member States, but because this implementation is partial and incomplete. At the moment, we have a policy that is solely repressive and ends up being unfair to asylum seekers, the authorities and, ultimately, as we are now discovering, European taxpayers, too.
I would ask the Council to let us have up-to-date information and to answer these questions so that we can finally progress towards a consistent and concerted policy.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, this debate is a result of the implementation of the common immigration and asylum system enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Member States lose even more control of their own destinies while having to pay the - as yet unknown - cost for the privilege.
Britain's asylum system is already a mess, with thousands upon thousands of cases pending and applicants simply lost and gone to ground. The whole system is essentially a racket for those not eligible for legitimate immigration. I realise that I am wasting my breath in speaking about this here, since most of you could not care less about preserving the democratic powers of the nation state. Most of you are entranced in a grotesque fantasy world of endless EU integration, like characters in some kind of painting by Hieronymus Bosch, but the British people will one day hold to account the treasonous and treacherous politicians in Britain who made this possible by denying them a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
(DE) Mr President, the aim is to standardise the right to asylum within the EU by 2012. However, it is unclear whether we will still be able to make use of rapid deportation in transit zones, for example, which has proved its worth in Germany.
The Commission has rejected the plan to abandon this airport regulation with cryptic statements which indicate that it will still be possible in future to turn away asylum seekers at the border, if they come from a safe country.
We are all familiar with the debate about what is a safe country and opinions about this differ widely within Europe. The plan is also to give siblings the right to stay, which previously only applied to parents and married couples, and to extend the right to medical treatment. I do not even want to start discussing the proposals that asylum seekers should be brought into line with the relevant country's social security system.
Therefore, I very much doubt that these proposals will reduce the costs of the procedure. I also doubt that there will be less red tape. I believe that the burdens on the Member States will be greater and that asylum law will be relaxed, which will ultimately lead to an increased influx of migrants. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing for Europe.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that this directive on procedures is particularly important. Once refugee status has been rigorously ascertained, it means the recognition process should be quick and smooth and that, frankly, has not been the case.
While the asylum package, which should define a new, more up-to-date frame of reference, is stuck in the Council, a different view has emerged in the Member States regarding the effectiveness of the asylum procedures based on the rules already in force. I say to the Commissioner and the President-in-Office that you cannot invoke the crisis to reduce the funding needed for an important procedure, or other arguments that I do not find wholly convincing regarding a procedure that is currently stalled.
It is fair that people who cannot remain in their own country for documented political, religious or other reasons should have the right to be received in the Member States, just as it is equally necessary to deny the right to be received if someone claiming to be a refugee actually is not one. It is true; the Stockholm Programme has strongly stated this principle: 250 000 applications have been made in the last two years, which is a large number, although lower in the last reference year. What is needed is advice, probably interpreting, lower costs and a balanced sharing of the burdens.
What is needed is probably for the support offices to work better and harder - we rely on the one in Malta - and for the European Union to really want to take a decisive step forward, to guarantee refugees their rights but, at the same time, to allow only those entitled to be classed as refugees to enter the EU Member States.
Mr President, as my colleague, Mrs Guillaume, said, this is a crucial moment in the development of the European asylum system. We have had some real progress in some parts of the package - including, during the Belgian Presidency, my own report on beneficiaries of international protection - but clearly these are just the side elements of the asylum package. It must be stressed today that the procedures recast forms the backbone of the package.
It is therefore essential that we move forward on this recast in view of the rapidly approaching 2012 deadline for the creation of the common European asylum system. One of the recurring criticisms by Member States of the proposed recast of procedures is that it will lead to an unnecessary financial burden on them, but there is a significant body of evidence - and I pay tribute to what the Commission said on the Solihull project in the United Kingdom - that front-loading asylum procedures leads to better decisions at first instance; quality decision making is a key element which we must not miss. We therefore want more information from Member States backing up their claims.
However, I would like to stress that this debate should not just be about costs. As Mr de Jong said, the procedures recast is about harmonising practices and raising standards across the EU. It is clear that standards vary too much between Member States and the current legal framework needs revising. We know the Commission is going to come forward with a revised recast proposal in the coming months in view of the opposition of the Council. Parliament should put forward a strong position on this matter to ensure that the Commission does not water down its original proposal.
The right to legal assistance, a guarantee of personal interview, limitations on the use of accelerated procedures; all of these safeguards are essential to a fair and effective asylum system. This goal of achieving a common European asylum system is not a goal that Parliament set; we all remember in 1999, in Tampere, that it was the Council that set these goals; they reset these goals at The Hague and at Stockholm, so let us revise our history and understand that we depend on the Council to unblock the system and we will work cooperatively with the Hungarian Presidency to try and maintain the momentum of the Belgian Presidency.
This is what so many of the Members across the party divide want to see; we may want to see different outcomes but we will cooperate, and let us hope in the Hungarian Presidency we can see some genuine progress.
(ES) Mr President, in 2012, we urgently need a common asylum policy. The report presented by the Commission on 8 September highlights the numerous obstacles that the Member States encounter when seeking to achieve the objectives of Directive 2005/85/EC.
Asylum seekers' right to legal aid applies at different levels. Many Member States invoke the directive in providing legal assistance at the appeal stage, while others grant that right during both the application process and at second instance.
Some Member States require proof of merit in order to decide whether or not free legal assistance is granted at the appeal stage. In the majority of cases, there are major differences regarding the deadlines for appealing, while the applicability of the automatic suspension of the effects of refusals also presents difficulties, as it only applies in six Member States.
These differences demonstrate that the directive must be reviewed. In reviewing it, the Commission stresses the need to focus efforts on the initial phase of the procedure, in order to be more effective in differentiating which people have a right to protection. According to the Commission, this measure will help to save significant interpreting and legal assistance costs at second instance.
However, the proposal is not accompanied by a detailed study of what the interpreting and legal assistance costs would be at first instance, nor of the costs that the Member States actually incur currently when applying the European legislation.
For that reason, the Commission needs to provide information as to the actual costs relating to its proposal to focus efforts, and I do not think that the refusal that I have just heard from the Commission is acceptable. I sincerely believe that this is unacceptable and that it needs to be reconsidered or qualified.
(ES) Mr President, Mrs Győri, welcome to this House, which has been yours, and we think that, although this is not a subject that you have had knowledge of, you are taking an interest in this asylum package, which was something that the Belgian Presidency was driving forward, in order for the Hungarian Presidency to do the same. Although some of your competences are not those that have been mentioned here, the Presidency can act to ensure that the Commission has all the information it needs on this subject.
We are aware of how difficult it is for the Commission and the Council to collect this data, as there are Member States that are not prepared to provide it, perhaps because they have not conducted a study as to the consequences of improving the procedures for deciding on refugee or international protection status. Perhaps the Member States do not consider that standardising these procedures would improve the quality of the first period - as has been said here today - and would reduce the number of appeals currently being lodged that have to be managed by the Member States that receive asylum applications today.
Perhaps this has not been highlighted sufficiently. The effect of the diverse range of procedures is that some Member States cope better than others with asylum applications. By improving these procedures, the Commission's proposal would avoid the use of a significant amount of resources and secondary movements and therefore, the cost of the common asylum system would be less by standardising the procedures and avoiding hosting costs.
We are not only talking about the cost of these procedures but, more importantly and essentially, about the cost of not having a common asylum system. We currently have several thousand asylum applicants at Europe's borders from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and states that have collapsed or are out of control, such as Somalia or Sudan. When we talk about these costs, we do not take into account the human costs of keeping the applicants in detention centres for several months without the necessary guarantees, or even the guarantees that our criminals have, and with no assistance whatsoever, while the refugee commissions decide whether or not to grant them status and what type. Neither do we take into account the human costs of those who have subsidiary protection for years and remain in the camps when their only crime is having fled wars and arrived on boats, and being obliged to give their fingerprints. Their crime is not having had the money to catch a plane and present themselves at the airports.
Has the Council considered that making these procedures quicker would prevent not only these tragedies, but also the cost to some Member States of maintaining that situation?
(PT) Mr President, I wish to start by congratulating the authors of this question, and specifically, my colleague, Mrs Hohlmeier, and I am very much in agreement with what Mr Díaz de Mera has just said. We know that this is only one of the five instruments that deal with the bases of the European asylum system. It deals with the minimum standards applicable to asylum procedures.
The report that the Commission presented to us last year, however, recognises that the Member States have adopted divergent practices and that considerable variation exists between the procedural guarantees provided in each Member State. There are significant disparities between the Member States, ranging from the provisions relating to accelerated procedures to those relating to personal interviews, assistance and access to an effective appeals procedure.
Let us be clear: some Member States have transposed this directive incorrectly or incompletely and others simply apply it not very strictly. We have two options: either we abandon having a European asylum system or we have to eliminate these procedural differences. We have to introduce improvements, that is to say, the improvements that appear necessary, in particular, improving the quality of the examination of applications, known as front loading. Therefore, the assessment that we are asking of the Commission is necessary. It is necessary to identify where and what we can improve and to remedy these differences. We are aware that the Commission needs the cooperation of the Member States, in particular, to provide for the necessary training, including, but not exclusively, in terms of costs.
Let us be clear: the European institutions and the Member States have to cooperate on this objective. Our objective must continue to be the same: that the common asylum system can be a reality in 2012.
(EL) Mr President, just today, the German Government announced its decision to stop returning refugees to Greece for the next twelve months. Similar decisions have been taken by Sweden, Great Britain, Iceland and Norway. However, just a few months ago, in November last year, the Council of Ministers of Justice rejected the inclusion of a mechanism to suspend the transfer of asylum seekers to the revised Dublin II Regulation, as proposed by the Commission since 2008, considering that Dublin II is fine and that there is no problem.
At the same time, we hope - rightly so and we need to do this in the directive we are debating today - to provide free legal support for asylum seekers in the first stage of the examination of their application. However, we know full well - as Mrs Hohlmeier also said earlier - that these procedures are often abused by asylum seekers, in order to use legal tricks to extend their stay in Europe, even though they are not entitled to do so. All this is with no clear evaluation of the cost of such a measure and whether the cost will subsequently undermine its implementation.
Finally, I wonder, with such contradictory decisions, how we shall manage to complete a viable common asylum system by 2012, when we ourselves are passing different decisions, making different proposals and ultimately taking different action and achieving different results in practice. Is this happening due to weakness, due to a lack of solidarity or for some other reason which the Council and Commission can elucidate for us?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not wish to sing out of tune, but I strongly believe that the correlation, including from a semantic point of view, which I have heard from various groups, in other words, the relationship between savings and the right to asylum, is, in my view, a negative correlation.
Let me explain myself better, even though I only have a few seconds: I strongly believe that, even if administration costs are reduced, they will be fictitious costs. The real issue is harmonisation, but it is not an ideological issue but primarily a cultural one. Unfortunately, there are cultural approaches, I repeat, to this issue and not ideological ones. That is what we must address.
The most exposed countries are the Mediterranean states, which have a much stronger culture of receiving people than other countries because we have a much closer connection with this issue. While spending on this has risen in Italy, because it has now reached EUR 30 million, other countries want to reduce it. I do not believe that.
We also have to be careful to put a fifth of this spending - while we are talking about these things - down to disability issues, because political refugees very often have disabilities because they have been tortured; and we must also talk about protection and protected people, who are another matter, but a group to be received. I have not heard about the protection of these people that we have to receive.
I shall finish by saying that the Europe of freedoms, the Europe of the protection of rights ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(RO) Mr President, I, too, feel it is important to recast Directive 2005/85/EC as the process for establishing minimum standards on asylum procedures must be fairer and more efficient. The purpose of the amending proposal is to simplify and enhance the procedures at EU level. The standards envisaged must be based on the best practices identified throughout the EU.
Although all Member States officially grant the right to apply for asylum, problems occur with the national access systems. They vary significantly in their present form from one country to another. This results in a number of administrative problems which need to be resolved using a common approach. I also ask the Council to provide as much information as possible about the current situation in Member States. It is important for us to resume the negotiations on this dossier and to achieve a result by the specified deadline.
Mr President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak again briefly. I have a request for you, Mr Füle. I would like to start by saying that incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect cost estimates. At the moment, the number of asylum seekers is not falling, but rising significantly. This is a result of visa facilitation, for example, for Serbia and Macedonia. We are currently also seeing a massive increase in abuses of the asylum system as part of attempts to enter countries in the European Union.
If you start with incorrect assumptions, in other words, that disputing the first instance in detail will save costs in subsequent instances, it will automatically seem as if all Member States have poor first-instance procedures. However, that is not the case. If overall standards are raised, the consequence will be cost increases. Improving the standard of quality for everyone and making the procedures more complex will, in reality, result in increased costs. I am more than happy to discuss this point. Therefore, I would like to ask you specifically to take the concerns of the countries seriously, because some of the practical reports from the countries have already been completed and will be distributed.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have listened carefully to the views expressed by Members of this House.
The Asylum Procedures Directive is an essential element of the common European asylum system that will need to be established before the end of 2012.
The Commission welcomes the commitment of the European Parliament to proceed with the negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive. As regards the negotiations in the Council, the Commission appreciates the commitment of the Member States to discuss the proposal in an open and constructive manner.
Several elements of the proposal proved, nevertheless, to be difficult indeed. Thus, to facilitate the adoption of the directive, the Commission intends to adopt a modified proposal before the start of the Polish Presidency.
The Commission's overall objective regarding this directive is to progress towards a common procedure and to facilitate more consistent and efficient application of procedural standards. The modified proposal will continue to promote respect for fundamental rights and high quality decision making at first instance, which will result in solid decisions and faster conclusions of procedures, hence, leading to a reduction of costs.
In the modified proposal, the Commission will aim to simplify certain provisions with a view to facilitating their application. The Commission will continue to endeavour to ensure proper balance between fairness and efficiency of procedures.
Concerning specifically the financial impacts, the Commission fully understands the importance attached to the cost-related elements of this proposal, and will continue to be attentive to the cost aspects during the next stages of the negotiations.
Let me close by stressing that the opinion of the European Parliament is, of course, a key benchmark which will allow the Commission to take into account Parliament's position when preparing the modified proposal. We will continue to work with Parliament and the Council towards progress on this proposal within the context of the wider asylum package.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for this valuable debate. I also thank you for enabling us to discuss concrete facts, and I am confident that this will contribute to the new Commission proposal taking these considerations into account. We talked about establishing common minimum criteria, about the elimination of bad practices through a single system, about being efficient and cost-effective, and about preventing opportunities for abuse. I believe that these are all very important ideas, concerning which we will need to work together.
Please allow me one final thought. We are all proud to be part of a community, here in the European Union, which counts human dignity among its most important values. And asylum policy is a matter where the supremacy of human dignity is our primary guiding principle. The Hungarian Presidency considers the human factor to be the most important consideration in all EU policies. Prime Minister Orbán said this morning that, even though the current situation of the European Union calls for a clear mind and a cool head, we must also demonstrate that we have a heart. He stated this in connection with the Roma policy. I believe that we must also assert this in connection with asylum policy: yes, the EU must be able to demonstrate that it also has a heart.
The Hungarian Presidency will carry on the work of its Belgian predecessor. In our programme, in this green booklet which all Members received in the mail yesterday, you will find on page 25 that our priorities in relation to the Justice and Home Affairs Council include the common European asylum system. In my first speech this evening, I also explained, more specifically than it is described in the booklet, that we intend to reach an agreement within the Council on both the Dublin Regulation and the Qualification Directive. I therefore trust that, on the basis of what has been said, you will recognise that the Hungarian Presidency is indeed treating this as a priority issue, and we will be counting on your cooperation.
The debate is closed.


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


1. Draft amending budget No 3/2010: Section III - Commission - BAM (Banana Accompanying Measures) (


27. EU-Turkey relations (vote)
- Motions for a resolution,
- Before the vote on paragraph 19:
Mr President, I have an oral amendment but it is in the text. My oral amendment is: 'and to promote the application of EU environmental standards to large-scale mining and water barrage projects'.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law


4. Mainstreaming sustainability in development cooperation policies (vote)


Deposit-guarantee schemes as regards the coverage level and the payout delay (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Ehler, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit Guarantee Schemes as regards the coverage level and the payout delay - C6-0361/2008 -.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are closing a very fast process to reform the Deposit Guarantee Directive. The whole procedure demonstrates the capability but also the limitations of the European institutions. It was only in mid-October that the Commission tabled a proposal to amend the directive, which has both a political and an economic objective, namely to restore depositors' confidence in the financial market, the cross-border activities of banks and the regulation of the financial markets in general.
We have achieved an increase in the level of deposit guarantees, a clear reduction in payout deadlines in case of a crisis and the abolition of joint deposit guarantees. It was unacceptable that large banks were unable to foresee the demise of their own institution and for small depositors to go down with them. We have achieved an increase in the level of deposit guarantees from 2010 to EUR 100 000, which covers 90% of deposits in Europe.
We in the European Parliament played a quick and constructive role in the process. We waived numerous parliamentary rights, but we got things moving. We considered the three-day deadline to be unrealistic from the start. I think that 20 days is a promise that can be kept in practice and will not disappoint depositors.
It was important to re-incorporate small undertakings. In light of the systemic stabilisation of the financial markets, it would have been a fatal signal to only guarantee private deposits. We also saw - and this is particularly important - the need for emergency payouts, because there is a very direct connection between the deposit guarantee scheme and stabilisation measures in institutions, especially in the practical cases that we have witnessed in the past.
The limitations, of which we are obviously aware, lie in introducing as far-reaching an issue as harmonisation into a procedure at such short notice. A whole series of Member States wanted the directive to prevent possible distortions of competition and to set a ceiling for Europe in deposit guarantees. The concern addressed in the inquiry that we attached to this was right, but we should not anticipate the result.
The view that expectations and the political assurance associated with the fact that Member States such as Germany or Ireland are jumping the gun in the financial crisis and promising an unlimited guarantee are problematic and would lead to distortions of competition on the market is only right up to a point, because we have to say quite clearly that these are political promises which are neither enforceable nor indictable.
However, we must ensure that maximum harmonisation does not result in a lowering of the guarantee in individual Member States, which in turn would reinforce distortions of competition on the basis of differences in the financing of the systems. In this respect, it was an astute move to formulate harmonisation on the horizon, in other words that we have formulated a whole series of questions which have to be answered first, because - and I said these are the limitations of the procedure - discussing questions, which we have not been in a position to approach in Europe over the last five years, in a nine-week marathon process is not without its dangers.
I should like once again to express my gratitude for such strong teamwork between the groups in Parliament. Numerous compromises had to be made, but we succeeded in sending out a signal that was important in stabilising the financial markets. We in the European Parliament have also made a substantial contribution in making this very rudimentary draft clear and really useful.
I should like once again to thank everyone who was prepared to waive parliamentary rights in this procedure.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this file, which has turned out to be more complicated than expected. We take our commitment to maintaining depositor confidence in times of financial turmoil very seriously and I am grateful for Parliament's willingness to treat this issue rapidly.
However, I also have to admit that I am disappointed with certain proposed amendments to the Directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes, especially on pay-out delays.
Let me recall that on 8 December this House voted in favour of a pay-out period of a maximum of two weeks. However, the compromise currently on the table provides for a pay-out delay of four weeks, which can be further extended to six weeks. When you add to this another week of decision-making by competent authorities, this means seven weeks. Seven weeks is a very long time for depositors who are unable to buy food, pay bills or use their payment cards.
Let us not forget that the regime currently in force, which allows for a pay-out delay ranging from three to nine months, will remain in place for a further two years.
I am concerned about the message this sends to European citizens and how it will affect our confidence. I am concerned about the possibility of having to witness once again pictures of citizens queuing at their bank the next time they hear that the bank is in trouble. My concern is that several weeks of no access to one's funds is too long a time to keep depositors' nerves calm in a crisis situation.
I also regret that the compromise on the table is not more ambitious in increasing the level of coverage. Let us not forget that nearly all Member States had already increased their coverage to EUR 50 000 by October 2008. This is why the Commission proposed to send a clear signal to depositors that their protection will be increased almost immediately. What was meant to be an immediate signal will now have to be postponed to mid-2009.
Nonetheless, the Commission will support the agreement between Parliament and the Council if it is endorsed by your vote. It remains important that the coverage level be increased to EUR 50 000 by the end of June 2009 and eventually to EUR 100 000, and that co-insurance is abandoned from mid-June.
The Commission will come back to other outstanding issues in the report next year. I look forward to working with Parliament on the important task of restoring confidence in the financial system among our citizens.
Mr President, we cannot repeat it often enough: one European voice is the single most important thing in this time of financial crisis. I argue in favour of full European harmonisation of deposit guarantee schemes. This is also what the European Parliament and Mr Ehler want.
In times of crisis, full harmonisation is extremely urgent for two reasons. First of all, it is, after all, our duty to offer the consumer financial protection. Many European citizens associate the credit crisis with uncertainty and fear for the loss of their assets and possessions. We should counter this feeling.
At national level, various Member States have taken measures to offer the consumer financial protection. This was the case in Ireland, but also in the Netherlands, where the guaranteed amount has been increased temporarily from EUR 40 000 to EUR 100 000. Like Ireland, the Netherlands feels responsible for the protection of private and small companies.
It is, however, necessary to enshrine the measures implemented in relation to deposit guarantee schemes in one European directive. After all, we know only too well what a lack of cooperation and supervision can bring about. We should do this, though, in a uniform manner, and this is why I am in favour of one maximum amount. We will have this in 2010, provided we follow the rapporteur's proposal. The maximum amount is EUR 100 000.
The present situation, in which Member States, such as Germany and Ireland, offer unlimited cover represents a risk to Europe. Thanks to these unlimited guarantees, funds from the Netherlands and the UK, for example, will be moved to the neighbouring countries, which has an adverse effect on stability.
I am pleased that the Council agrees with me on this. Mr Ehler has made sound proposals, including with regard to small and medium-sized companies. These companies should continue to fall within the scope of the deposit guarantee scheme. To my mind, we, the European Parliament, have thus achieved a good result on behalf of consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, and I hope that the Commission will back this initiative up.
Mr President, in this matter, Commissioner, I believe that you can be very pleased that the European Parliament exists. This is firstly because, a few months ago, we adopted another report prepared by Mr Ehler. On that occasion, I said to you that the crisis into which the European Union had clearly entered was forcing us to reconsider this issue, even before the outcome of all the impact studies that you had planned. It needed the Council to give you the order to act, and I regret that, but that is how it was. I also regret that, after the country from which you originate introduced a system which very nearly destroyed your mandate, namely the internal market, you did not speak in public.
Let us not focus on the past, however, but rather look to the future and to the proposal that is now on the table. It is a reasonable proposal which is appropriate in the circumstances and I warmly thank the rapporteur for his drive and determination to allow us to reach agreement at first reading. This has ensured maximum harmonisation, which meets the expectations of our citizens who, faced with the reality of this crisis, are worried that this deposit guarantee scheme could prove tough on their savings, whether these are large or small and whether we are talking about local authorities or small and medium-sized enterprises.
I am delighted that we have reached agreement with the Council to extend the scope of the directive, which the Commission wanted to limit to individuals only, even though SMEs and local authorities are also clearly concerned about the guarantee of their deposits.
I am also delighted that we have achieved this maximum harmonisation of EUR 50 000 today and EUR 100 000 tomorrow, with a commitment from the Commission, no doubt for the successor of Mr McCreevy, to allow us to assess the conditions under which we could harmonise even further, and eventually set up a European guarantee fund. There is clearly a concern about the risks of distortion in terms of competition, but it is not just a question of concern, and on this I believe that the rapporteur will agree with me. There is also an opportunity for the European Union to manage the crisis, to avoid panic and to guarantee the rights of depositors. It seems to me that this was clearly the main concern for the European Parliament.
I have one regret in these negotiations, which is that, as regards the basics, we have learnt lessons from the bad example of Ireland, but we have not learnt lessons from the bad example of Iceland. In Iceland too much interest was promised on deposits, which forced the European Union to engage in negotiations with that country to cover the guarantees over and above the interest rates that could be applied under normal market conditions. However, based on the report that the Commission will forward to us, I hope that we can take these negotiations further, while also bearing in mind the conclusions that the group, for which the Commission has entrusted responsibility to Jacques de Larosière, may give us on the way to organise this mechanism in a harmonised manner in future.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, all the institutions have been ambitious in this project, though not all in the same direction. The Commission was ambitious in proposing a minimum guarantee of EUR 100 000 and a payout term of three days. The Council has been ambitious in opting for maximum harmonisation, and Parliament has been ambitious to make sure that it works for the citizen. I wish to thank the rapporteur and other colleagues for their cooperation.
The proposal to go in one jump from procedures that might in some countries not even cope with the current nine months allowed for paying out to just three days was maybe over-ambitious. We agree to a final timeframe of up to a possible maximum of 35 days, but a little reluctantly because we would have preferred a rather shorter timeframe. Thirty-five days without access to funds still leaves citizens in a difficult position. This makes possibilities for emergency payouts important or, better still, arrangements for continuity of banking services.
Taking the bold step of maximum harmonisation means there are consequences to address, making this the first stage of a work in progress, which is evidenced by the number of items that the Commission is asked to report on by the end of next year. One of the consequences is the need to have some higher balance exemptions, and I welcome the grandfathering of some socially relevant higher balanced provisions that were in place by the start of 2008.
However, we have learnt lessons since then. Indeed, that is what this entire directive is about: recent lessons. It is regrettable that we could not obtain an unreserved commitment to allow a higher protection for temporarily increased balances that occur, such as when houses are sold or pension lump sums paid out.
Following the collapse of the Icelandic banks, there have been unhappy losses in such circumstances and it has put in train plans for special protection in several Member States. People in long-term possession of large funds to put on deposit can do this and make the deposit safe by splitting it between institutions, but it is unrealistic to ask that lump-sum payments be channelled that way.
The consequences of losses of lifetime funds is a lesson we do not need to learn again, so I hope the Commissioner will indicate enthusiasm to allow additional protection for special temporarily increased balances, which we have asked him to report back on also by the end of next year.
(FR) Mr President, although it was necessary to restore confidence, we know that the political decision made by the Finance Ministers to increase the deposit guarantee level has resulted in a number of technical difficulties and consequences.
This increase in the guarantee to EUR 50 000, and at a later date to EUR 100 000, must lead to a re-examination of the operability and feasibility of the systems introduced in the Member States. That is why I must pay homage to the rapporteur, Mr Ehler, who approached his work with an open mind. For my part, I will support the compromise reached by the rapporteur during the trialogue with the Council. I should, however, like to make three points.
The first one concerns the payout delay. The period of 20 days before deposits are refunded may seem too long to some people, but I would ask them to think about everything that needs to be done before this refund can take place. Barring bad faith, they will understand that a period of just a few days to collect and verify the information and then make the payment is quite simply unrealistic. Twenty days is in fact already very tight.
Mr President, unfortunately I know what I am talking about because Luxembourg has the sad privilege of having to apply the deposit guarantee scheme in the case of Kaupthing Bank. We can draw some lessons from this, which must be heeded, particularly if we want to make progress in the interests of savers. It is vital to distinguish between bankruptcy and suspension of payments of a credit institution. With a suspension of payments, a takeover of the bank may be envisaged. However, refunding deposits very quickly would have the effect of making this scenario impossible. As a result, the directive must make this distinction.
The second lesson is that, in most Member States, the deposit guarantee schemes need to be reworked due to the new requirements. We must therefore allow them time to act. In my view, the proposed periods are reasonable. However, Commissioner, between our 20 days and the 7 weeks that you are talking about, there is quite a gap.
Lastly, Mr President, while it is vital to restore confidence among savers, it would be a fatal mistake to impose unviable solutions. That is why I have pleaded for moderation. Excessive requirements would simply aggravate the situation. I have finished, Mr President, but it was important to review the issues and not to talk at a speed that our interpreters could not follow.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial crisis has put the operation of deposit guarantee schemes to the test in the European Union. The resulting tensions have shown that the inadequacies in their coverage and operation have shaken depositors' confidence and that the unilateral measures adopted by some Member States to address the situation have a significant cross-border impact and destabilising effects. That has increased demand for joint action to correct the failings detected and to carry out a thorough review of the regulatory framework.
The text that has been negotiated reflects the excellent work done by Mr Ehler, who put together an ample consensus in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Its adoption will, at first reading, give the green light to a reform addressing two urgently needed issues: raising the level of coverage, and shortening payout delays. It also lays the foundations for a review to harmonise bank deposit guarantees across the European single market.
I welcome the proposal to raise the guaranteed coverage level for deposits initially to a minimum of EUR 50 000 and to consider harmonising it at EUR 100 000 by the end of 2010, depending on the impact assessment to be analysed by the Commission, taking into account consumer protection, financial stability and competition.
The power given to the Commission to adjust the amount in line with inflation, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, is also appropriate.
Reducing the payout delay from the current three months to 20 working days after the administrative decision or judicial ruling, and assessing a possible reduction to 10 working days, is an appreciable improvement, as is the introduction of the concept of emergency payouts and the obligation to provide depositors with the information they need on the applicable guarantee scheme.
I fully support the requirement for the Commission to produce a thorough report by the end of 2009, addressing important aspects such as harmonisation of the funding mechanisms of the guarantee schemes, justification of full coverage in specific cases, the costs and benefits of a Community guarantee scheme, and the links between deposit schemes and other alternative means.
(BG) The aim of the principal message conveyed by the key changes to the Deposit Guarantee Directive and the guaranteed coverage level and payout delay is to provide higher guarantee levels in order to protect the savings of small investors and maintain confidence in the financial system.
At the moment, it is difficult to assess the fiscal costs associated with the current financial turmoil and its adjustments. Potentially low growth in real GDP for a few years could, at some time in the future, prove to be an additional destabilising factor for fiscal sustainability.
In this climate, a prompt analysis is recommended of the financial mechanisms being used by Member States in order to evaluate the impact of the intervention made. It goes without saying that the deposit guarantee schemes are an effective preventive measure, but their impact is limited to the local environment where they operate. In order to remedy similar weaknesses when investors come to make their choice between the various levels of protection, we need coordination at Community level.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recent financial crisis in which the international banking system has been heavily involved has raised many concerns among savers about the future and about the insecurity of their deposits.
To try to rectify the volatility and fluctuation of the markets, and the risk of banks with obvious or hidden liquidity problems failing to pay out, the European Parliament has drawn up a proposal for a directive, together with the Council, aimed at amending deposit guarantee schemes as regards the coverage level and the payout delay. With the aim of restoring general confidence, ensuring the correct operation of the financial sector and better protecting the deposits of individual savers and their families, the European Council of 7 October invited the European Commission to present an urgent proposal to encourage the convergence of deposit guarantee schemes within the European Union.
The measure to be adopted by Parliament today establishes an increase in the minimum level of coverage for private savers to at least EUR 50 000, recognising that many Member States are now looking at raising the minimum coverage to at least EUR 100 000. This directive also provides for a reduction in the payout delay, currently set at three months and extendable to nine months, to a maximum of a few weeks.
In a globalised economy and particularly in Europe where we are witnessing a proliferation of banks and branches, it is crucial for EU Member States to have effective cross-border cooperation between the bank in the country of origin and the bank in the host country. Such cooperation must safeguard guarantees and ensure swift payouts in the event of the insolvency or failure of credit institutions.
Lastly, since the revision of the European Commission directive limits coverage to depositors who are natural persons, I think it would be appropriate to extend this slightly to cover small and medium-sized enterprises; they are actively involved in the production processes of the EU economy and represent irreplaceable human and social assets. SMEs should now, however, be granted legal protection that would not only keep them from the risk of the insecurity caused by bank failures, but would also enable them to operate from a position of greater competitiveness and improved economic, financial and employment stability.
(SK) The current financial crisis obliges us to produce relatively quickly such measures as will eliminate its impact both on citizens and on the economy of the European Union.
The report from my colleague Mr Ehler handles the issue of deposit guarantees in a very balanced way in terms of the amount of cover and payout delays. Despite the Commission's current efforts, I must in this context mention the Commission's lack of flexibility at a time of mounting crisis, aimed at preventing individual Member States from taking uncoordinated decisions over the protection of bank customer deposits.
This lack of coordination has culminated - fortunately only to a limited extent - in customers' chaotic withdrawal and transfer of their deposits to banks in Member States where savings enjoy higher levels of protection. In relation to the need to restore people's confidence in financial institutions we must prepare measures that are as flexible as possible but at the same time based on realistic assumptions.
I share the opinion of the rapporteur that in cases where deposits cannot be accessed a proposed payout period of three days is unrealistic, since the deposit guarantee scheme would probably fail through sheer weight of numbers. The arrangement for exceptional payouts of a limited amount of money within three days therefore seems sensible for cases where the continuity of banking services cannot be guaranteed.
I am delighted that the minimum level for deposit guarantees will be increased to EUR 100 000 by the end of 2009, which will clearly increase depositors' confidence in financial institutions. With regard to our initial experience of the financial crisis I think that small and medium-sized firms, which, by the way, are often unable to obtain necessary loans in times of crisis, should also be brought within the framework of this deposit guarantee directive in order to provide them with at least one way of confronting this crisis.
Mr President, the global economy has been turned upside down in the past few months. We are now left with an appalling vista of insolvency, bankruptcies, nationalisations, the massive destruction of wealth, and stock market write-down. The core institutions of our financial infrastructure have been shaken to their core. Our banks are on their knees, engaged in begging-bowl pleading to national governments.
National governments cannot turn a blind eye due to the strategic importance of banks in oiling the wheels of the real economy. It is shocking and frightening to see that one Irish bank, for example, has lost 97% of its value in the past few months alone.
Deposit-guarantee schemes have therefore been of crucial importance in protecting investors from the worst of the financial crisis currently assailing the world economy. The figure of EUR 100 000 is psychologically as well as economically important, as it reassures investors that their life savings are not under threat.
I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ehler, on his work, and I welcome in particular the increase in scope to include guarantees for SMEs. SMEs are our main hope and should be our priority as we look towards the light at the end of the tunnel, as we look to recover quickly from the current recession.
I also echo the call for a more coordinated response in future. The Irish Government acted unilaterally to guarantee Irish banks. In future, there should be an official instrument in place to ensure better coordination between Member States.
To conclude, on a broader note, we must not forget the immense importance of our close economic integration here in the EU and in particular in the euro zone, which has sheltered us from the gale-force winds of the financial crisis. This point is especially relevant for smaller Member States such as Ireland. We need only look north to our island neighbours, Iceland, to see the havoc that can be caused by standing alone in splendid isolation: its currency has collapsed and its economy is in ruins. There is no guarantee that this would not have happened if Ireland and other smaller Member States had not been in the euro zone.
(DE) Mr President, rapporteur, Commissioner, I should like to say to the rapporteur that I am grateful for his expertise, for his attention to detail so as to ensure that unwanted problems do not arise, and for his parliamentary approach to the debate.
This issue affects everyone. Every saver worries about their money when their bank gets into difficulty. Every saver wants to know how safe their money is. Every saver wants to know when and how much they are guaranteed to get back. For this reason, I welcome the increase in the amount of cover and await the assessment of the consequences, so that we can decide if the EUR 100 000 limit is a harmonised or a minimum amount. I welcome the reduction in payout delays and would like to thank all my honourable friends who want to transfer these regulations to SMEs. From the Commissioner I would like verification as to if and how such a way forward is possible.
Mr President, some people like to say that the European Union sometimes operates inefficiently, but this document is a good example of how, when needed, we can act very rapidly given the short time framework during which we reached an agreement.
I just want to say that this agreement sends a very important signal to the citizens of the European Union that we are able to react to their needs. Another very important point is that, though we are very different, we are still able to reach an agreement on major issues such as the amount of deposit guarantees, the pay out period and other subjects important to ordinary citizens. This compromise may not be perfect, but it is nevertheless a good proof that we can act together.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would just like to repeat that, although the results are not fully satisfactory from the Commission's perspective, we would not like to delay or put at risk the compromise that provides some improvements for savers. We will have to work further on the improvement of deposit guarantee schemes.
Of course I commit to meeting the reporting obligations imposed in the directive by the end of 2009. These reports will look at those issues that were outlined by Members here this evening. When we discuss the results of that further work and the proposals that might flow from it, it is my sincere hope that the outcome will be more ambitious. The main issue we have in mind is addressing the confidence of EU depositors for the long term.
Mr President, Commissioner, please do not ruin the compromise which we have put together in such a short space of time, which was no more than an announcement by the Commission which Parliament turned into reality by finding a compromise with the Council, by nitpicking at the interpretation with the outside world. Please communicate it to the outside world for what it is: a very fast reaction by the three institutions, a very far-reaching deliberation towards the harmonisation of the necessary steps, including the inquiries needed, which has a very positive and direct impact on the citizens, namely what we anticipate to be almost full cover of 90% of deposit guarantees and shorter deadlines. We too obviously thought about emergency payouts.
I should like to say once again: the compromise does not simply mean that the three institutions or one of the three, namely the Commission, is saying this is the compromise and now we want to start splitting hairs; it is a joint signal. That is why we engaged in this fast procedure. It would have been politically negligent to engage in intellectual hair-splitting in public. We must communicate this positive signal that we have arrived at together, with the Commission, to the outside world. Otherwise, in the current financial crisis, we would achieve precisely the opposite of where you were strong in your announcement, but which we made possible by turning it into reality.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written statements (Rule 142)
(RO) The current economic crisis requires extraordinary measures at a time when an ever-increasing number of Europeans are facing the spectre of unemployment and financial recession. Raising the bank deposit guarantee ceiling for the general population is a welcome measure, which will maintain confidence in the banking system. An initial ceiling of EUR 50 000 and a further one of EUR 100 000 are more than adequate for the states whose banking systems have no long-established tradition, as is the case with Romania and other former Communist states. At the moment, it is important that each state adopts this measure, as otherwise there is the risk of causing panic among the population. Romania is not one of the states with a large number of deposits in excess of EUR 50 000. However, in psychological terms, raising the amount guaranteed can only have a positive impact, given that the population's deposits have fallen, compared to September, by 6% in Bucharest alone. This means that around EUR 600 million have been withdrawn in the course of just a few weeks, which is unprecedented in recent years.
On the other hand, as an MEP, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this measure needs to be supplemented by a review of the policies for granting credit and of the level of risk being assumed.
Since 1994, EU regulations have ensured that there is a deposit guarantee scheme in all Member States in the event of any bank going bankrupt, and the minimum amount of guaranteed savings is also fixed, at EUR 20 000. Unfortunately, even today the average volume of savings per EU resident is EUR 30 000, which shows that there is a general need to increase the minimum guaranteed savings amount.
The European Council decision of 7 October 2008 in which Member States decided, as a result of the global financial crisis, to provide emergency assistance to guarantee private individuals' savings in the amount of at least EUR 50 000 for one year is a very welcome development. The present initiative by the European Commission will also help bring this into EU law, which will help sustain EU depositors' confidence in European financial markets.
In 2009, as a result of the Commission's recommendations, it is planned for the minimum amount of guaranteed savings to be raised to as much as EUR 100 000, which is a very welcome development for depositors!
Nevertheless, the Commission should definitely also take Member States' actual abilities into consideration in terms of raising the level of guaranteed deposits, in order to avoid situations in which raising the level of guaranteed deposits becomes a 'race', which may result in the poorer Member States finding themselves in a situation where they lack the funds to guarantee what has been guaranteed, and the same unsuspecting depositors may be the ones who suffer from this situation.
Since EU financial markets are very closely interconnected, I support the rapporteur and also call upon the Commission and the Council to improve the required cross-border cooperation and to plan more specific measures that would help ensure better cooperation between Member States in a potential crisis situation.


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.40 p.m.)


16. Supplementary supervision of financial entities in a financial conglomerate (


Declaration of financial interests: see Minutes


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