Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)


12. Expenditure in the veterinary field (vote)


Development of the second-generation Schengen Information System (regulation) - Development of the second-generation Schengen Information System (decision) (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2424/2001 on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)
C6-0296/2006, and
the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2001/886/JHA on the development of the second generation Schengen information System (SIS II)
C6-0297/2006.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I consider it my duty to thank the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, for the excellent work he has done on these proposals and also for the speed with which we have received the reports and have come to have this plenary debate this evening.
Many Members will know that the Council of Home Affairs Ministers adopted some important conclusions last week. These conclusions once again confirmed that the Schengen II Information System is the European Union's main priority, and therefore it is clear that extending the Commission's mandate on SIS II is essential in order to ensure that it can continue to develop the system in close cooperation with the Member States.
You will also be aware that the Council has accepted a proposal from the Portuguese Government - which I myself endorse on behalf of the Commission - for a temporary solution, which we have called SIS One For All. That is to say, it is a mechanism designed to ensure that the internal borders of the new Member States can be removed during the phase of transition to SIS II, while keeping the original deadline set for the end of 2007.
That does not make us lose sight of the main objective, which is SIS II, which will guarantee greater security in border controls. It will confirm the outcome that we want to achieve by the end of 2007, which is to remove controls on the internal borders of the new Member States that have asked to join the enlarged Schengen agreement.
Therefore, if these countries meet the necessary security criteria at their land and sea borders and at their airports, as I hope they will, they will be able to crown the political completion of their accession by forming a European domestic area without border controls, extending from Portugal across to Lithuania. That will be an enormous political success for Europe.
SIS II will in any case continue to be our main objective: it will guarantee a higher level of security, be of greater help to the police authorities in charge of control and security, and provide better protection of personal data, which will be included in the system on the basis of greater transparency and accountability.
For all these reasons, SIS II remains the objective for our European area of security and freedom of movement, and that is why, in line with the rapporteur's position, we are asking for an extension to the Commission's mandate so that we can continue to develop SIS II.
The Council of Ministers' acceptance of the Portuguese proposal will entail a delay in implementing SIS II. It will not be an enormous delay, and I can tell the rapporteur and Parliament already that in February 2007 the Commission will submit a definite proposal for the final date for developing SIS II. The delay will be no more than six to eight months following the date originally set. All in all, that is acceptable, if you consider that in the meantime the new Member States will have achieved the political success of joining a European area without internal borders.
(PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the importance of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and Mr Frattini has just reminded us of this. The advent of free movement within the Community area and the absence of internal borders means we must strengthen the security of the Union's external borders and this can only be done if information is shared between all members of the Schengen area.
Mr Frattini also said - and this is a view I share - that SIS II is not only a new generation of the Schengen Information System; it can also be said that this is a new Schengen Information System, with new functions, new uses and new imported data. Apart from the technical issues involved in building a new system, there is also a political issue, relating to the legitimate ambition of the new Member States to join the Schengen area at the earliest opportunity. This is a crucial issue for the new Member States; it is about whether or not they can offer their citizens the chance of free movement in the Community area.
In order for them to be in the Schengen area they have to join SIS. As we know, SIS is not in itself sufficient, in other words, merely joining SIS is not enough in order to be in the Schengen area. There is a series of other prerequisites that must be fulfilled. It is a necessary requirement, however; one cannot be in the Schengen area without being in the Schengen Information System. Consequently, the creation of SIS II has to be a priority for us, and this is why we worked so hard to achieve the adoption of the legal basis of SIS II at first reading - and, having worked closely with Parliament on this objective throughout the process, Mr Frattini is an eyewitness to this. The adoption of the legal basis will prevent us suffering worse delays in implementing the SIS II, and I should like to thank him once again for his decisive help in achieving this objective.
The mandate granted by the Council to the Commission to develop SIS II finishes in a few days, on 31 December. The Commission is proposing that this date be extended to 2007, and admits that the system will not be operational before 2008. The proposal to extend the deadline to December 2007 is the optimistic version. I was very pleased to hear Mr Frattini say that in February 2007 he will set out a definitive timetable and that he is only expecting a delay of six to eight months. I must say that this prediction is considerably more positive than the worrying information that had been circulating. It is still a delay but it is much less serious than we feared. I hope he is right, as there are those who believe that we may face bigger delays. In any event, Mr Frattini will know that Parliament always fulfils its monitoring obligations. We want to monitor the implementation of this process, and if there are delays, we want to know why they have taken place.
I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from other political groups, in particular Mrs Mastenbroek and Mr Lax, and I should like to thank publicly those MEPs on my side of the Chamber who have kept a close eye on this issue, who have always encouraged me and who have constantly showed their great concern over the pace at which SIS II was being implemented, in particular Mrs Bauer from Slovakia, Mr Brejc from Slovenia, Mrs Gál from Hungary, Mr Demetriou from Cyprus and of course Mrs Kudrycka from Poland, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in this debate.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would very much like to thank Mr Coelho for such an excellent report and I would like to say that the extension of the Commission's mandate has raised no reservations. SIS II is, and should remain, a priority. The European Parliament has done everything within its ability to ensure this is the case. We still wish to support the Commission so that SIS II can be implemented as fast as possible. The original aims of the new system were to upgrade SIS I and to expand it to incorporate the new Schengen states.
The first of these aims has yet to be fulfilled. The second required a political decision and the creation of an alternative 'SIS I for all' system. It is unfortunate that it had to come to that, but the European Union must keep its credibility and fulfil its political obligations towards the new Member States.
However, I am hoping for a clear definition of how, in terms of organisation, time and funding are concerned, the 'SIS I for all' project will influence the implementation of the second generation SIS system. We still need close cooperation and Parliament needs to be kept up to date regarding both projects. We also expect the Commission to adopt a more assertive and demanding attitude towards the Member States, to avoid recriminations later on.
SIS II is a Community project funded from the European Union's budget. This means that the Commission and the Member States bear the responsibility to a greater extent than was previously the case with the international SIS 1+ system. The Commission can count on the European Parliament's political support. However, lessons need to be learned from the mistakes and failures that have occurred so far. I also hope that, in the end, the work of the Commission will result in all Member States feeling that they all own the SIS II project together, with no divisions between the new and old Schengen Member States.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Schengen Information System, or SIS, as it is known, is a database which allows the appropriate authorities in the Member States to cooperate and to exchange information for the purpose of creating an area without internal border controls. This system makes it significantly easier for the citizens of the European Union to travel and gives the forces of law and order better conditions under which to fight crime.
However, SIS has been up and running since 1995. This is a very long time in an age of extremely rapid progress in the field of information technology. That is why, as early as in December of 2001, exactly five years ago, the Council assigned the Commission with setting up a second generation SIS II system. It is vital for the expansion of the Schengen area to include the new Member States. It is hardly surprising that public opinion in these countries is concerned whenever it hears about delays in implementing this system.
Although European Union home affairs ministers have recently decided that eight out of the ten new Member States will join the Schengen area in late 2007 and early 2008, which means being in the SIS I system for a while, this is a stopgap solution, which will be costly and far from perfect.
I hope that the Commission will learn some lessons from the delay in implementing the SIS II system and that, in the future, it will work more efficiently on projects that are important to the European Union as a whole.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, a properly functioning information system is the basis for a successful exchange of data between the Member States. This applies as much to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as it does to border controls and the issuing of visas and residence permits. Moreover, a system of this kind should lead to greater security by providing a tool which is sound and at the same time flexible, and can be used to meet changing requirements.
In view of the fact that the efficiency of the current system allows it to serve a maximum of eighteen Member States, it is very important to implement the new generation Schengen Information System as soon as possible. So far the implementation of this ambitious project has run into numerous problems resulting in serious delays to its implementation. That is why, in the future we must do eveything in our power to prevent similar situations.
The delays in the implementation of the SIS II system are very dangerous in the view of the new Member States. They mean a delay to their full integration into the European Union and restrict their ability to take full advantage of the achievements of the Schengen system and the removal of border controls on their own internal borders with other Schengen countries.
I would also like to draw your attention to the Eastern Dimension of the European Union's foreign policy and the changes which have to be taken into account as consequences of the expansion of the Schengen area. Today Poland, which does not belong to this area, collects either no visa fees from its Eastern neighbours or fees which are very low. From the moment that the Schengen area is extended, Poland's eastern border will become the only eastern border of the European Union. This will mean higher visa fees running into tens of US dollars, which would also hit the citizens of Belarus or Ukraine.
This situation might be difficult for our eastern neighbours to accept, considering the fact that both Poland and the European Union have certain political plans with respect to deepening cooperation with these countries, and which may result in the creation of something similar to a new Berlin Wall. This is something the European Union cannot afford to do.
(PL) Mr President, the implementation of the SIS II system reflects the organisational powerlessness of the organisational department to which this task was given. Every day tens of thousands of drivers queue up like refugees at the borders of the European Union, in abysmal conditions. Companies are losing thousands of euros. People wonder about the nature of a European Union which scores own goals like that. In Strasbourg, beautiful administrative buildings stand unused for 80% of the time. The cost of maintaining them is more than 200 million euros per year. At the same time we are told that there will be delays because no buildings are available to house the system. The citizens simply cannot comprehend the ineffectiveness of those in charge.
I think that the European Union would benefit if the people responsible for this situation were made to spend the night in an HGV. Soon the nights will be brilliant with snow, while a bit of fresh air does no one any harm and actually increases alertness. I propose that we finally move to clarify this matter which is so important to our citizens.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 11.00 a.m.


Urgent aid to Haiti (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on urgent aid to Haiti.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is deeply concerned by the deterioration of the cholera situation in Haiti.
The number of casualties among the hospitalised cases is increasing sharply day by day. The number of people admitted to hospitals comes to more than 20 000. At the end of last week, more than 1 100 people had already lost their lives. But it is feared that these figures are severely underestimated. The fatality rate is very high and shows that people arrive too late at health centres.
Cholera treatment is simple, but early access to treatment is key to limiting fatalities. Treating cholera patients also requires considerable human resources. The Haitian public health system is now seriously overstretched, despite substantial support from the international community.
Médecins sans Frontières, as one of the front-line medical actors, is calling on all groups and agencies present in Haiti to step up the size and speed of their efforts.
The whole country is now affected. The epidemic is spreading at an alarming rate in the capital, Port-au-Prince. Slums such as Cité Soleil are especially prone to contagion due to very bad hygiene conditions and poor access to clean water.
We are focusing on saving lives through prompt treatment of those affected, increasing access to clean water, promoting better hygiene behaviour and supporting epidemiological surveillance in order to know where and how the epidemic is evolving.
The Commission has reinforced its humanitarian presence with relevant medical expertise and mobilised funds - EUR 12 million - to support partners in Haiti.
The European mechanism for civil protection has also been activated through the Monitoring and Information centre of the European Commission and has already cofinanced the transport of in-kind assistance provided by France.
Another offer from Austria has just entered the pipeline. An EU civil protection and technical support team with Member States' experts is to be deployed early this week. Experts from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have been deployed by DG SANCO to assess the best way to reinforce epidemiological surveillance in Haiti, and further cooperation is under consideration.
After the recent incidents related to civil unrest in Cap Haitien and Port-au-Prince, we are following closely the security situation with our partners and the relevant UN agencies, particularly ahead of the presidential elections of 28 November.
The Commission was in touch with the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordination, Baroness Amos. We fully support her in stressing the importance of allowing national and international aid workers to continue lifesaving activities without disruption.
Considering the serious and rapid deterioration of the cholera situation, further contributions are urgently required to fill gaps in health, water, sanitation, hygiene and logistics. Priorities include medical personnel and other personnel specialised in water, sanitation and hygiene, as well as medical supplies, beds, water purification units and tablets. The Commission is therefore in contact with the Belgian Presidency and the Member States to encourage further EU support to help Haiti at this very critical and difficult time. EU support can be channelled through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.
The endless efforts of Haitian and international aid workers to meet the current challenges on the ground are commendable, but it is clear that the sheer scale of the crisis requires even more assets and resources. We are therefore now working hard on stepping up our emergency response together with our partners, but difficult times are certainly ahead, due to the rapidly evolving situation.
The continued solidarity of the international community with the Haitian people remains absolutely essential. This is why I call upon you all to do your utmost to scale up the support of the Member States in order to avoid a major humanitarian disaster.
Mr President, Mrs Damanaki, ladies and gentlemen, the cholera epidemic has already claimed more than 1 200 lives, and more than 52 000 people are infected. Thus, in spite of the strong presence of international organisations in Haiti, the situation is deteriorating daily, and the epidemic could infect some 400 000 people in the next few months.
I am, of course, delighted at the EUR 12 million released by the European Commission, and I support Mrs Georgieva's appeal to the Member States to provide aid in kind so that water can be purified, and to supply equipment. Providing drinking water and toilet facilities is the only way to reduce the number of people infected.
One of the priority actions is to reassure the population frightened by this disease, which is unknown in the country. Communicating with the populations is essential in order to provide information about the disease and to avert it, but also to prevent internal violence from spreading, especially since the country is in the middle of elections.
This new crisis has once again highlighted the inability of the Haitian authorities and of the health system to cope with this crisis. The country has suffered numerous disasters for years. The earthquake in Haiti demonstrated the almost total incompetence of the local authorities. Following the earthquake, there was genuine political will to reconstruct Haiti differently, and there were many promises of donations. Almost a year later, reconstruction has hardly begun, and those involved in development are pessimistic. The European Commission must act as a driver in the reconstruction process so that Haiti finally emerges from this chaos.
Mr President, I welcome once again the swiftness of the European Union's humanitarian intervention. However, at the same time, I believe that our efforts in this country must focus on building a minimum operational state structure at a time when the state of Haiti is just a sham. It is failing to fulfil its basic duties such as organising refugee camps, maintaining order and providing hygienic conditions and drinking water. This vulnerability has facilitated the rapid spread of disease and the death of more than 1 200 people.
Haiti needs a state which can do something for its poor. Three out of four Haitians are surviving on less than USD 2 a day. More than 1.5 million citizens are living in refugee camps, posing a serious source of risk to public health and safety.
I believe that the Haitian state's weakness is now the main risk factor. Its lack of authority means that the population's discontent is being targeted at UN forces. Indeed, NGOs risk no longer being able to accomplish their mission. This is why the elections on 28 November are vital and must not be postponed, despite calls from some quarters.
Mr President, of course there are co-factors that have undoubtedly encouraged the spread of cholera in Haiti. This is certainly not an answer, but it is an explanation. The answer to this scourge must be twofold.
For the moment, the aid workers on the ground have confirmed to us that soap, substances to make the water fit to drink, and proper hygiene education are needed. Preparations are being made in the present situation for the long term as well. In a country in which everything is still to be done or redone, reconstruction is necessary after the earthquake, and priority must be given to building infrastructure that is designed to improve both individual and collective hygiene.
I hope that, eight months after the New York conference on the reconstruction of Haiti, it will no longer be possible to cite a lack of funds as an excuse for the little progress recorded to date, given that all the speakers agreed that the humanitarian phase must continue for many months yet. It will also be necessary to name those responsible for the slow progress without too much beating about the bush.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, we see in Haiti one of the hugest humanitarian aid operations ever. We have to make sure that we do not lose the battle against this catastrophe and that we manage to get results and help Haitians to build their future.
Apart from being an individual disaster for millions of people, a failure would also be a backlash for the international community's effort and capacity to conduct a joint effort in humanitarian aid. I believe that we have to put all our experience, all the lessons we have learnt in Haiti and elsewhere, and also enough money, into the pot. Therefore, I very much welcome the Commission's announcement that it will put an additional EUR 12 million into the fight against cholera.
We have to make sure that this support reaches Haiti immediately, that it arrives in full and not just in part, and that we support the right initiatives in order to make it effective. We also have to make sure that we do not neglect the efforts for the earthquake reconstruction because, without that, fighting disease will be impossible.
I have two questions to the Commission. Firstly, I would like to know whether the pledged money has arrived - the money that was promised - and whether it was disbursed and absorbed. Secondly, I would like to know what you think about postponing the elections, because that is again on the agenda.
The Haitian revolution has never managed to enter the history books. Let us hope that the difficult time in Haiti at the moment will enter the history books as the starting point for preparing a better future for all Haitians. I hope it can also be mentioned that the EU played a very positive role in this.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, two months ago, I co-chaired the delegation under the ACP to Haiti and this was probably one of the greatest and most moving experiences of my life. First, there are tremendously dedicated people there doing the work to try to help the Haitians, and second, the Haitian people are a very proud people and we should recognise that at the beginning of this debate.
But we were told by the President and the Prime Minister how lucky the Haitians were that they had good sanitation and that they had no disease - and the sad thing now is that disease has hit them. This is not a terribly hard disease to cure. But you have got to be there to see the conditions under which the aid workers are working and when you talk about a health service, I am sorry, Mr President, Haiti does not have a health service like the rest of us and you know it: they are dependent on Médecins Sans Frontières, the British Red Cross and many other organisations from all around the world.
As far as the election is concerned, it is true that Haiti does not need an election at this moment. But until they get a President and a Prime Minister who can lead them, they will have no chance of moving forward. I want to commend - because when I was there I saw it for myself - the brilliant men and women of the European Commission Office, under terrible circumstances, trying to keep a European presence in Port-au-Prince, and they have done a fantastic job.
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank all my fellow Members, and especially the Conference of Presidents, for having agreed to this debate on Haiti, proposed by my group. It was an emergency.
Last January, after the earthquake, the international community rallied round strongly in support of Haiti. However, it seems that there was a gap, not to say a gulf, between the promises made and the aid that in fact arrived on the ground. Last March, Baroness Ashton made a commitment, on behalf of the European Union, to provide aid worth EUR 1.235 billion to help the people of Haiti to build a better future.
Since last July, the NGOs and, in particular, MSF, Commissioner, have been sounding the alarm and reporting the pathogenic living conditions endured by hundreds of thousands of people. The situation has scarcely changed since then, yet people are amazed that the cholera epidemic is spreading very fast, and the international community is again beginning to feel pity. There have already been more than a thousand deaths, and the number of people affected is increasing all the time, even though specialists say that the measures to prevent the disease from proving fatal are relatively simple to take. However, health workers have little training in this disease, and there are problems in getting basic healthcare products to where they are needed.
Under such circumstances, how can one fail to understand why riots have taken place? The Haitian population feels quite helpless. It is difficult for it to go on having confidence in the international community. My questions will therefore be simple, Commissioner:
Where exactly is all the aid that the European Union promised to Haiti, and not just the humanitarian aid?
If it had arrived sooner, do you not think that this further tragedy could have been avoided?
How is it that, once again, international conferences seem to have resulted only in unkept promises?
Why are President Préval's efforts to turn MINUSTAH into support for reconstruction not meeting with any response?
Finally, the Haitian population wants the elections to take place, but under what conditions will they take place and what sort of support will the European Union provide?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, despite all the warnings which were made against neglecting the future of Haiti following the earthquake in January, the news in recent days seems to show that the island has been abandoned by the international community at the most critical moment, that of reconstruction.
Indeed, cholera, something which few people in Haiti know about and which is ultimately given a mystic, religious significance, is now spreading. The United Nations peacekeepers have been accused of spreading this contagion. It took just one Nepalese soldier on the island to become infected for hundreds of people, women and children, to besiege the general headquarters of the peace force. Humanitarian workers have also felt threatened and many are leaving the country.
The tension is extremely high, and much of the rubble caused by the very violent earthquake of 12 January remains on the streets and in the town squares. We have heard that there is not enough water and that it is therefore impossible for people to wash and to protect themselves against infection.
The vibrio is spreading rapidly, and the number of dead is rising exponentially. The figures have already been given, but I want to repeat them: to date, there have been 1 130 victims, and the number of hospital admissions has risen to more than 18 000 in one month. However, there are thousands of others who report symptoms of infection every day.
The international community cannot delay any longer. A solution must be found immediately, otherwise any further infection will remain forever on our conscience.
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Commissioner Georgieva on the effective coordination work that she has undertaken and indeed the discussions that she is having with Baroness Amos at the UN.
The easiest and cheapest thing for this House to do now is to criticise. I would like us to be positive and place the pressure where it needs to be. I say this to all Members of this House. We need to put pressure on our own Member States to bring forward more aid, and more aid in kind. If you look at the list of countries, these are countries - such as Spain, Ireland, Italy, France, Austria, Hungary - currently facing grave economic situations, yet they have dug deep. Therefore, I urge each and every one of us to contact our own governments and ask them to commit. If there are questions as to whether aid is getting through or not, let us build the capacity to get the aid through.
Finally, I should like to thank the Commissioner and congratulate her on the commitment of the extra EUR 12 million. The great tragedy is the earthquake. The even greater tragedy now is this cholera epidemic.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first the epicentre of a terrible earthquake, in precisely the poorest and worst-governed area in the American hemisphere, and now cholera in the country which receives one of the highest amounts of per capita international aid. What a contradiction! It is not just a terrible combination of bad luck: in Haiti, in the streets crowded with children and tents crammed in amongst the rubbish, no one knows where to begin.
The local political class is often greedy and focused on power games rather than taking control of the reconstruction efforts, and the bureaucratic machine, decimated by the earthquake, has a weak administrative culture and, in some cases, has even obstructed the distribution of aid. There are many, often badly run, international organisations and, in fact, they have failed to protect the population.
Visiting the country with the European Parliament delegation in June, the concentration of abandoned fields, rubble which had not been removed and rubbish already gave a clear indication of how bad the situation could become. Now cholera is here.
The Commission and the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) have so far done what was required, but they must now redouble their efforts. My feeling is that now, as well as strong recovery action, Haiti needs greater protection at the international political level.
Mr President, this is a tragedy that does not bear talking about. When the disaster struck in January last year, the international community descended on Haiti with great fanfare. Military helicopters came to lift heavy pieces of masonry that had fallen down. They have all gone. They suddenly left. Those pieces of masonry are blocking roads and there is no access, and the road network has broken down. Commissioner Georgieva has been trying hard to coordinate the activities.
Why did this happen? Why did all those people - including Secretary of State Clinton, who suddenly turned up there in January - suddenly disappear? Why is the United Nations now being asked to disappear? When are they going to ask the EU to disappear? This is ridiculous. We need the international community back there at the level at which it was working, and should let ordinary Haitians be depoliticised from this nonsense going on in the capital.
(SK) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the report you have presented to us on the current situation in Haiti. The outbreak of another epidemic in Haiti was to be expected. Since the start of the year, and since the earthquake, we have been working hard, but the work has not advanced as quickly as we hoped. We have spoken often about the situation prevailing in Haiti before the earthquake.
It would certainly have helped us if Haiti had been a functioning state, but it is not, and nor will it be for a long time yet. There is much ground to be covered. There is now a need for urgent action, as we are risking further epidemics and further violence.
Commissioner, there is a real need to bring the best health experts together in Brussels, and to draw up a strategic aid plan for Haiti. The situation must be resolved in the areas of security, finance and especially health.
(EL) Commissioner, I, too, should like to start by congratulating you on your outstanding work in the case of Haiti and for everything you have done in Pakistan. We know that you will be present at every emergency.
This truly was a monumental disaster. We are talking about over 1 000 dead and 15 000 sick and the numbers keep rising. The needs are immense and we can see that the money at your disposal is not enough. It is becoming increasingly clear that we really do need new financing instruments; perhaps - and obviously first of all - a transaction tax. We need other financing mechanisms that can support our efforts to cope with increasing humanitarian needs.
We should also consider what we can do to prevent the transmission of diseases from people working for the UN from happening again.
(NL) Mr President, this afternoon, I received the latest information from a Dutch aid agency which has had a presence in Haiti for many years, and that information actually confirms the sombre, but realistic, picture that the Commission has described. At the same time, the Dutch aid agency have told me that they have put their trust in Europe, in particular, as a major donor. What is it then that they are relying on us to do? Well, although a huge amount was pledged at the international donor conference, only a fraction of it has been received. Now the United Nations has requested additional funding, but a large part of the money that has been pledged has not yet been received. I hope, therefore, that the European Union will take the lead in ensuring that the money really comes through because the situation in Haiti is distressing. Of course, prevention and clean drinking water are the priorities. I hope that the European Union will take the initiative to ensure good water supplies for Haiti. Experts, the digging of water wells, clean drinking water and also medical care are particularly important. All of these are in short supply. I appeal to the Netherlands, but also to the European institutions, to ensure that they actually come to Haiti's aid immediately in this acute emergency.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner Damanaki, first of all, I should like to congratulate the Commission for the efforts carried out in Haiti.
However, the situation requires an urgent and much stronger response. We need more resources and a greater international commitment, despite the difficulties involved in mobilising funds in the current economic context. It cannot be that funds are available for some problems but not for this humanitarian situation.
We have a number of health and humanitarian priorities: to inform the population about a specific disease, obtain tents, improve sanitation in all areas and provide access to clean water. All these tasks are urgent and we need a great effort on the part of the Commission and all the Member States.
(FI) Mr President, I wish to thank Commissioner Georgieva for the work that the Commission has done. It is very important that the European Union has a very strong and visible role to play in Haiti. However, this is about our fellow human beings, our fellow creatures. We also have a responsibility for them, as they have been the victims of an unparalleled catastrophe: first an earthquake and now a cholera epidemic.
It is important that when we send money and aid there, it gets to its destination quickly. Many Christian aid organisations have been doing a good job there, and it appears that they also have effective channels for delivering aid promptly to those in need of it. In this respect, I hope that the Commission can also make use of the recognised humanitarian and Christian organisations that are doing such good work there. This way, it will be possible to get the aid to its destination and achieve the best possible result.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you all for your engagement and discussion on a topic that is, unfortunately, going to be with us for quite some time to come. This is not an easy crisis to resolve.
We have had some estimates about the scale of the problem over the coming months - including from our own experts - and I agree very much with those who said we need to deploy expertise from the European Centre for Disaster Control in Haiti. The estimates are that somewhere between half a million and 720 000 people will be infected before this wave of epidemics is over.
The Pan American Health Organisation estimate of 400 000 is a little lower but of the same order of magnitude. So we will have to mobilise. I agree with each and every one of you who spoke about immediate mobilisation and the need to help right now.
Let me make four points. The first is how we can best help. This is a time when we have to deploy true partner organisations and immediately give them the resources to act. We also have to call on the Member States to provide in-kind assistance. Since Thursday, when I addressed the Member States, we have been seeing support coming through, but more is needed in terms of healthcare professionals, water purification tablets and support for an awareness campaign, because - as many here have said - there is widespread misunderstanding of what this disease is and how it can best be treated. As a result, people die unnecessarily because they are scared to go to treatment centres: they are afraid of catching the disease there rather than being treated for it.
Secondly, a number of speakers have talked about the pledged money and what is happening with reconstruction in Haiti. The pledge made by the Commission has been honoured. The Commission committed EUR 460 million and is delivering according to the timetable which it announced, and the High Representative and Vice-President, Cathy Ashton, and Commissioner Piebalgs are about to take stock with Member States on where we stand with the money we have promised to provide. I can assure you that this is going to be taken very seriously, because the reputation of the international community is at stake at a very difficult time.
However - and this is my third point, which is a very important one - there is a limit to the absorptive capacity in Haiti, which I believe I talked about with some of you. When I first arrived in Haiti, I thought that, terrible as this disaster was, it was not Haiti's worst problem. Haiti's biggest problem was the many decades of lack of development and the absence of a functional state which, among other things, also means the absence of a functional health service.
I saw people in camps queuing in front of a doctor, not because they were sick, but because they had never seen a doctor in their lives and were taking advantage of a health service being offered in the camps.
This total lack of the skills and capabilities of a functional state creates problems that are making this epidemic worse. We are still struggling to get the government to authorise space for the disposal of dead bodies - without which the epidemics can, of course, spread further - and to dislodge latrines so that sanitation can improve. So I cannot stress strongly enough how critical it is for us to understand that Haiti's problems are not easy to resolve, because at the heart of this problem is these decades of lack of development and the absence of a functional state.
A question was asked about the elections and whether they should still be held. The Haitian authorities prefer to stick to the timetable. It is difficult for me to give an answer. I have not yet been to Haiti, but my feeling is that cancelling or postponing the elections might actually destabilise a very difficult situation. There may be something to be gained by holding the elections but, as I have said, this is based on what I have heard, not on what I have seen.
My fourth point concerns engagement. You called for the Commission to be very directly engaged: we are, and will continue to be so. Baroness Ashton will very probably be in Haiti tomorrow, and I am planning to go myself because at this point, mobilisation, good coordination and, frankly, also giving hope to people there, and to our own staff, are important. Our own people are struggling with a very difficult situation: they are in places where the Haitian health officials become scared by the epidemic and just leave, and they then have to handle a massive increase in cases.
What we need to do now is to make sure that we retain a calm presence and try to steer the course for people which gives them the most hope. One Member spoke about the Haitian people being very resilient. They are, and they deserve all our help at this very difficult time.
The debate is closed.


4. Public procurement (


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


5. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Czech Republic - UNILEVER (


Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Riera Madurell, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) - C6-0306/2008 -.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to point out that unanimity was achieved in the ITRE Committee regarding this report. Unanimity was possible thanks to the good work and cooperation of the shadow rapporteurs, whose contributions also largely helped to achieve a useful report on a subject as important as the European research infrastructure.
I must say that Parliament agrees with the Commission that, in view of the globalisation of research and the emergence of new scientific and technological powers such as China and India, we urgently need to speed up, and, to that end, incentivise, the construction of a new European research area.
It is very important that we ensure as soon as possible that the European Union is an area in which researchers, technologies and knowledge can move freely, where there is effective coordination of research activities and where the best possible use is made of resources. This requires, amongst other things, that we have large research infrastructures at the European level.
These infrastructures can also provide an excellent opportunity for cooperation between the different Member States, with significant effects on the scientific education of our young people and a strong economic impact on European industry. They are therefore essential to the progress of science in Europe and consequently, we must facilitate their development. Parliament therefore applauds the Commission's initiative in proposing a legal framework and the conditions for it.
In fact, from the beginning, we considered the development of European research infrastructures to be one of the pillars of the European Research Area. However, we were always aware of the difficulties that needed to be overcome, not only because they required significant financial resources - it should be remembered that the ESFRI roadmap identifies 44 projects that should be implemented in the next ten years - but also due to the technical and organisational complexity of the issue.
On this point I would like to say once again that in an initiative of this calibre, Parliament should have played a much more decisive role. However, the urgency of these measures and the absence of a better legal basis in the current Treaty sufficiently justify the use of Article 171, which does not take away from the fact that this is one more reason to proclaim the need to have a new Treaty as soon as possible.
I will briefly point out some of the contributions that the report makes. Firstly, it clarifies the definition of 'European research infrastructure' in order to avoid confusions between the legal entity and the actual research infrastructure. It also clarifies and completes the requirements for a piece of research infrastructure to be considered European, adding important issues such as an impact assessment for the proposal at the European level, justifying its financing capacity and ensuring that there is a good policy of access to the whole European scientific community.
We also propose extending this initiative to existing infrastructure, and we give our full support to the Commission's proposal for exemption from VAT, which we think is the key element of this initiative.
We therefore want to send a clear message to the Council to resolve its problems on this issue as soon as possible and to say once again that if we want to promote research in Europe, we must release it from tax burdens. This is something that we have recommended on several occasions in order to encourage SMEs to participate in R&D tasks, and which we now need to support in relation with the creation of large research infrastructures at European level, because they are essential for the progress of science.
To conclude, I would once again like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission for their excellent contribution, and also the services of the ITRE Committee for the help that they have given me in drawing up this report.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first and foremost, I wish to express my gratitude to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and particularly to the rapporteur, Ms Riera Madurell, for supporting our proposal for the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure. Listening to you was music to my ears!
Let me also thank the ITRE shadow rapporteurs for their constructive support.
Together, we are coming an important step closer to a legal framework which will allow Member States to collaborate on the construction of new large research infrastructures, which are becoming increasingly complex and expensive, and which can only be built if several European countries work together.
You have discussed the new legal instrument in depth, and you have made many amendments which will help to clarify the text and give it a better structure, notably regarding definition, scope and status, and by introducing references to the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).
The Commission will make all possible efforts to support the implementation of these amendments by the Council.
We are especially glad to see that we agree on the most vital aspect of the discussions taking place right now in Council, and which risks blocking adoption - I mean the VAT issue.
As you know, all Member States agree that it is necessary to exempt research infrastructures set up by several countries from taxes in the host country.
Many times, for working purposes, it is addressed as a tax exemption issue, which creates some confusion. In reality, it concerns only the implementation of the existing VAT Directive, which has already been agreed and adopted by the Council. The real question is whether European research infrastructure should be given the status of international organisations, as defined in the VAT Directive and, as such, be exempt from the VAT payment. Therefore, we are not talking about fiscal harmonisation but about setting up the legal entities related to research infrastructures.
Both the legal services of the Commission and of the Council have clearly stated that this is the right place. This is consequently purely a political decision on how important Member States consider the setting up of new world-class research facilities in Europe to be.
Your unwavering support in this issue could be of great importance!
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr van Nistelrooij once said that this was about defining the 'fifth freedom'. The fifth freedom is simply the freedom of researchers, who cannot be tied to regional, national or international level.
We simply need to create the grouping and legal framework for researchers to do the job society expects of them. We are talking here not only about research carried out at universities - academic research - or in industry but also, in particular, about research carried out in small and medium-sized enterprises. After all, it is also important that these research results continue to be presented and made available.
Last year, we introduced the Energy Club in this House - which Vice-President Onesta attended - where the scientific community and those responsible radiated enthusiasm for inventions with the potential to bring us all very great benefits. Creating such research instruments is the right answer, particularly in the present economic and energy crisis, so as to enable the development of new products and services that can then be marketed worldwide. The Commission's initiative on this is particularly to be welcomed, therefore, as the organisation of such initiatives of course reinforces the international possibilities. International cooperation, in particular, is increasingly important for us in Europe, as it is for our partners. After all, we in Europe have made ourselves the part of the world with the greatest purchasing power, and our 500 million citizens have the right to have the research results drawn up as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thank you.
Mr President, the aim of the European Research Infrastructure (ERI) is to create unique research centres managed by the most distinguished specialists working in specific fields. They should, in my opinion, possess a great deal of expensive, cutting-edge equipment, and be staffed by a team of scientists. The ERI will be used for the experimental study, mainly using inductive methods, of phenomena in the world around us, with the aim of producing practical solutions. The ERI should also serve to train young scientists.
I think that the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures is not intended to copy present centres of excellence but, by using structural and national funds, to create different research units which will complement the centres of excellence and create an infrastructure of specialist research units, a uniform network spanning the entire EU. Young, ambitious European researchers will not be forced to travel across the ocean to implement their ideas. Thus, I think that the preconditions for the effective functioning of the ERI include a high degree of specialisation and mobility in terms of the research environment. Research will become more effective if time constraints are introduced and if it is spread across several locations, i.e. if basic research tasks are carried out simultaneously in various international specialist ERI units which, as they are not economic entities, would be exempt from tax.
In thanking you for your attention, I congratulate Mrs Madurell, and I wish the Commission a speedy realisation of this concept for a regulation which, while interesting, requires further specification.
I would like to congratulate Teresa Riera Madurell on this report, which brings us closer to successfully establishing a European Research Area. I am convinced that by setting up a network of scientific research partnerships among Member States, we will be able to achieve a competitive and profitable economy based on knowledge and innovation. It would not be possible to exchange knowledge without the relevant infrastructure, because it plays a key role in establishing an effective environment for carrying out up-to-date and extremely necessary research.
Currently, all activity is limited to cooperation between individual research establishments. We also have not had the relevant legal instruments which would make it possible to set up a suitable partnership with participants from various states which is, in fact, the key to success in this area. The lack of such legal instruments has greatly held back the processes of research integration of the new Member States, and these Member States have a huge research potential which needs to be incorporated into the European Union.
This report is not merely a step towards establishing the legal groundwork for setting up a research infrastructure. It would be instrumental in achieving the movement of knowledge in the European Union, increasing the prestige and authority of European research centres at a world level and increasing employment, and will contribute in the search for adequate solutions to new environmental challenges. I would once again like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Riera Madurell.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Do we need a European economic legal entity in the research sector or is this yet another example of the EU's persistent fight against European pluralism? The truth is, of course, that institutional competition is necessary for successful institutional reforms. Imagine if an international legal research framework had been established 50 years ago. Development in this area would have ceased. Changing international treaties is difficult and proceeds far too slowly. Progress is made if countries can easily reform their national institutions. Successful reforms then spread to other countries.
The Commission's proposal is certainly not a straightjacket. It offers an alternative to existing national proposals and, to that extent, represents an improvement. However, the proposal is ruined completely by the fact that the Commission also wishes to regulate the taxation of this legal entity at EU level. This proposal must therefore be rejected.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I feel that this is a very significant step forward in European research policy. It is a result of the evaluation report of the Sixth Framework Programme, but it is also a consideration that has been retained throughout the drafting of the seventh.
You said, Commissioner, that some Member States are now allowed to join forces. It is absurd, to say the least, to note that special permission is required from the European Union for that but still, it is progress. What concerns me is your statement that VAT will be applied at its minimum rate and that the situation regarding international status is not yet absolutely clear, at least that is how I understood it.
Article 171 was cited for the vote on the SESAR Joint Undertaking. We have voted twice on this draft since, in the initial version, the international status had not been confirmed and, therefore, it was not possible to establish the joint undertaking. Another joint undertaking, Galileo, has not been established at all.
My questions are as follows. What will be the share of Community funding? Will funding be provided for those who work together to prevent the squandering of resources intended for research infrastructures and to encourage them? Will it finally be possible to tap into the cohesion fund for research so as to combine excellence and cohesion?
(RO) 2009 is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.
Setting up a European research infrastructure to operate on a non-economic basis will help to streamline the Community's research programmes, as well as distribute and optimise the results in the field of research, technological development and demonstration activities at Community level.
I welcome the fact that these infrastructures can receive cofinancing through Cohesion Policy financial instruments, in accordance with the regulations on the European Regional Development Fund, the Social Fund and Cohesion Fund.
I want to emphasise that it is vitally important that these infrastructures establish the link between research institutes and structures, universities, academia and the private sector, with industrial sectors benefiting from the use of research results.
However, I would like to mention that, above all during the current crisis, we need to make sure that at least 1% of a Member State's GDP is allocated to research.
(RO) The notion of a common European Research Area and of a Community legal framework that is applicable to European research infrastructures has been the basic principle for achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy relating to economic growth, the creation of jobs and establishing a dynamic, knowledge-based economy.
Research infrastructures are playing an ever greater role in the advancement of knowledge and technology, thanks to their ability to mobilise human resources and investments so that a critical mass is achieved, thereby successfully making a crucial contribution to European economic development. We have proposed to provide research with competitive financing, adequate infrastructures and intellectual property regulations, as well as efficient mobility for researchers in our desire for the European Union to be a top international research partner.
Today, through this proposal for a regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure, we are consolidating the creation of the fifth freedom in Europe: the free movement of knowledge. The current regulation will be a pillar of European research development as the European Research Infrastructure will guarantee scientific excellence in Community research and competitiveness of the Community's economy, based on medium and long-term forecasts and through effective support for European research activities.
In the current economic crisis, the quickest possible implementation of this regulation, combined with encouraging investment in research and development, establishing common standards in the knowledge sector, and modernising national education systems, will provide real solutions aimed at overcoming this crisis.
I feel that at this time, we need to promptly focus our attention on the existing differences in the area of developing an infrastructure for innovation and research between developed Member States and those with a developing economy so that we do not trigger a major migration of researchers from the economies of the states which have recently joined to the Member States whose economies are at the forefront of the global economy. Homogenous distribution of these infrastructures and of research opportunities within the European Union would be beneficial to the whole European Union and would help to combat the migration of scientists from East to West.
I would like to conclude by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Riera Madurell, and her colleagues from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their contribution in compiling this report.
Mr President, could you share the five minutes between the two applications that have been made? I would be interested in taking two minutes, if that was in order?
Well, you present me with a quandary. The Rules of Procedure state one minute. One minute.
Mr President, with the greatest respect, we have already wasted two minutes talking about it. There are five minutes from the floor under 'catch the eye'. I have participated in other debates where there were perhaps one, two or three speakers and we share the time. I want just two minutes - I do not know about the other colleagues.
Thank you for allowing me to trespass on your patience, Mr President.
I fully support the establishment of legal status for new European research infrastructures for pan-European research projects and pan-European funding.
I have two quick points. I have in front of me - and I would like to compliment the Commissioner and his staff - a publication entitled 'A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area: Science, Technology and Competitiveness key figures report 2008/2009'. I think the figures may be well out of date, given the collapse in GDP across the EU and elsewhere. I particularly pick up the point that public funding of R&D can be counter-cyclical, as happened in Japan and the US in the early 1990s and early noughties respectively. When there were collapses in their GDP, the public sector investment in R&D went up.
Could you extrapolate from what we are experiencing at the moment in the EU, with what we have available in FP7 and from Member States, in view of the collapse of economic growth throughout the EU at the moment - we are not alone globally - whether we will be able to compensate with increased public sector funding in R&D?
My second point concerns the frightening prospect as regards the EU's world share in patent applications, which has declined by an alarming figure. The high costs of patents in Europe, you say, might possibly explain this. In Europe, the costs and corresponding costs for patent applications are over 20% higher than in the US, 13 times higher than in the Japan Patent Office, while the costs of maintaining a patent protection in the 27 Member States is over 60 times higher in the EU than the US - frightening implications. Perhaps you could tell us, Commissioner, how we could resolve this as soon as possible?
I should like to congratulate you once again, Commissioner, on a fascinating publication.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work. I will refer here to a statement made by Mrs Doyle. At a time when we are experiencing economic collapse, we should not allow ourselves to make the mistake of neglecting research and development or the people who work in these areas. Therefore, I endorse the measures concerning the establishment of a legal framework for the European Research Infrastructure.
We must be aware that for the ERI, it is necessary to have legal frameworks and also adequate funding, but that this money cannot come from contributions made by individual regions, or even countries. The question of appropriate taxation is also important in this case. I also think that better cooperation is needed between research centres and the economy, including small and medium-sized enterprises. I am convinced that the ERI will also contribute, if it is properly correlated with the framework programmes, to improving the situation of the people who work in research, and especially young people, as Mr Gierek has said. This may also prevent a brain drain in Europe. We should remember that the Lisbon Strategy provides for a share of three per cent of GDP for expenditure on research and development. In the European Union today - my figures are for the year 2007 - that indicator stands at 1.84%. I trust, therefore, that the ERI will improve this situation.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank you for your support. I think we all understand how important it is that we talk. I may not follow the order of the questions but will try to respond briefly to what you asked.
Ms Doyle, as regards public funding, the experience of the past has shown that, in times of crisis, private financing most likely goes down. That is why public financing should not make the terrible mistake of following that pattern because that would be the way which, after the crisis, would lead us to a completely improper situation. That is why public financing has to act counter-cyclically and that is why, even in Europe, we have had that kind of example. Finland was the case at the beginning of the 1990s. I think we should do something like that and we should follow that path.
On the cost of patent application, it is very striking. I think there is no simple answer. 'Better' would certainly be an answer which would be more horizontal than anything which we could do. Last year, we tried to do our best by proposing to clarify this patent picture in relations between private and public institutions, but certainly that is not the answer to the depth of the problem which we are facing in patent application.
Now I turn to the proposal about the questions about the financing from the Seventh Framework Programme. What we have financed until now is the preparatory phase of the projects which are released. It is not intended that we finance institutionally the infrastructure. This will be done by the Member States and also Member States will decide, for example, where this will be located. When this is finished, however, we will certainly, as for any other infrastructure, finance the grants.
That is really the only way ahead. I can remind you that, when we discussed the issue of the budget of the research infrastructure, this was the budget which, in percentage points, was really mostly cut for the Seventh Framework Programme. I am, however, quite optimistic. We are well ahead, and I think that legislation is bringing good solutions.
Concerning VAT, I would like to be precise. We do not propose VAT exemption in the legislation. We believe that if more countries are joining in efforts to build a common infrastructure, say between Germany and Slovenia or the United Kingdom or anywhere, then at the end of the day, none of the countries will agree to pay VAT in that country. That is the case also today - but what exactly is the case today? Today, the countries are individually negotiating with the host country on that kind of exemption. What we are trying to do, via that legislation, is to guarantee the status of an international organisation which would, as a consequence, due to the VAT legislation which exists today, guarantee VAT exemption.
That would, in essence, be the end of the story anyway, but time was mentioned. Time is the crucial question here, so we are talking about whether we can speed up and simplify how we are building the research infrastructure together. Unfortunately, today's situation in research infrastructure is so complex that we are losing time and thus money also. In essence, that is the story.
I have forgotten cohesion. The answer is yes.
To finish, that is exactly the point which we have to underline. We need infrastructure. We need it as soon as possible. This is the step to speed up the whole process. I thank you for understanding that and I thank you for your support in that context.
Before giving the floor to our rapporteur, I would like to clarify something for Mrs Doyle. We have looked into the technicalities.
A little over a year ago, on 8 January 2008, you received a communication from the Deputy Secretary-General, on a decision of the Conference of Presidents of 27 October 2007. Point 3(B) very clearly states that 'catch the eye' time is a maximum of five minutes, and is limited to a maximum of one minute per speaker.
That is the rule, but it was such a pleasure to listen to you that we took great delight in hearing what you had to say. We now come to our rapporteur, Mrs Riera-Madurell.
Mr President, I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate for their contributions, and also I would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and say that I entirely agree with his very clear explanation regarding the VAT issue. To conclude, I would simply like to say that the majority of us are in agreement with the basics. The message is clear: excellence in research requires high quality research infrastructure and, basically due to high construction and operational costs, it is important to share a large proportion of this research infrastructure. In other words, it is more than reasonable to think about creating European infrastructure that can serve the whole European scientific community.
The roadmap drawn up by ESFRI was certainly a step forward towards better planning of research infrastructure at European level. What we need to do now is implement this roadmap. One of the main problems is certainly funding, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, because despite the increase in the funding allocated to the Seventh Framework Programme and the possibilities of support for the infrastructures in the cohesion policy programmes, which some of my colleagues have also mentioned, the European Union budget is not sufficient to fund all of the necessary infrastructure. It is therefore essential that we mobilise sources of funding, both national and private, as far as possible, especially from industry, although as the Commissioner rightly said, this is not a very good time.
Another difficulty, which is no less important, was the lack of a legal structure. This was the Commission's objective when putting forward this proposal: to establish a legal framework and the necessary conditions for developing European research infrastructures. This is a good proposal, which we are convinced has been strengthened by Parliament, as the Commissioner has already said.
I would like to ask the Council once again to listen to our message.
(DE) Mr President, may I ask that the heating be kept on until the end of the sitting, as it is too cold in the House.
We take note of this comment. Perhaps our evening debates should be more animated and more heated so as to warm up the atmosphere. It is true, though, that the Chamber is large.
On this fundamental issue, which will do a great deal to advance European research, the debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.
Written statements (Rule 142)
At times when the economy is in a downward spiral, the authorities are tempted to cut funds for research. However, I am pleased that by discussing this report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure, we are sending out an important signal that research remains a priority activity for the European Union.
I firmly believe that by establishing this institutional framework for supporting research activity, we will see results which will bolster the European economy. The reason for this is that research is not a fad, but a necessity which guarantees the European economy's competitiveness at a global level.
I would like to stress one extremely important area where research can play an important role. In the next 25 years, as a result of urbanisation, it is expected that almost 25% of land will be withdrawn from agricultural use. To compensate for this reduction in area, we need greater productivity from smaller areas, with a lower use of water or pesticides. The solutions may emerge through research, particularly biotechnology, bearing in mind, of course, the principle of food security.
This is yet another reason for supporting greater research activity and ensuring a uniform European framework.
I welcome the report on establishing a legal framework for the European Research Infrastructure (ERI), as well as the Commission's proposal for a regulation in this area.
ERI is a response to a real need on the part of European researchers and will undoubtedly help boost competitiveness in European science.
One of the important elements in this regulation is the opportunity for the European Union to hold a stake in an ERI type entity. This gives the Community the ability to participate in and guide Trans-European research policies.
Based on this element, I am calling on the European Commission to bear in mind three points when it comes to providing financial support for the ERI:
1) The Community's involvement exclusively in projects with an extremely high scientific potential.
2) Encouraging the formation of ERIs in regions which have traditionally been victims of the brain drain, both within and outside the Community.
3) Facilitating the access of companies in the private sector to the ERI.
Community policies in this area must combine scientific excellence with triggering an influx of researchers and effective infrastructures into countries, such as the new members of the European Union from the accession rounds in 2004 and 2007.
The report compiled by Teresa Riera Madurell is particularly important as it creates the legal framework required to develop research infrastructures.
Establishing European research infrastructures guarantees that research will reach a high level.
In addition, it will create new opportunities for closer collaboration between teams of European researchers which may also be joined by numerous students and technical staff, thereby helping attract young people into hi-tech research.
This legal framework must also ensure better cooperation between industry and academic research, thereby facilitating the implementation of innovations.
I support the rapporteur's proposal which asks the Commission to regularly report to the European Parliament on the status regarding the development of the European research infrastructures.
The cost of establishing large-scale research infrastructures requires several countries to join forces.
Establishing a common legal framework is absolutely necessary in order to facilitate and accelerate the development of these infrastructures.


Decision on urgent procedure
The next item is the vote on the use of the urgent procedure for the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the request for application of the urgent procedure put before us this morning, in implementation of Rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure, was submitted to us by the Council last week and relates, as you said, to the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.
The aim of this proposal is to implement the new recovery plan, as recommended for these areas by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas at its meeting last November.
As the Council pointed out in its request for application of the urgent procedure, this regulation needs to come into force before the start of the main fishing season on 15 April, which means that the obligatory consultation of this Parliament needs to be carried out in this plenary session so as to pave the way for a political agreement within the Council in the coming weeks.
In view of this, and of the fact that the European Union needs to meet its international commitments and to do its part in the crucial efforts to deal with the acute crisis in bluefin tuna stocks, the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries has unanimously approved this request for application of the urgent procedure. I therefore encourage you to confirm this approval in this morning's vote.
(PT) Madam President, just a brief point of order about the agenda for this week. Wednesday 11 March is the European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. This day was proposed in the first place by Parliament in a vote that took place on 11 March 2004. We were then debating an assessment of the area of freedom, security and justice. It was the day of the tragic attacks in Madrid. It was originally proposed for 11 September but, given the tragedy that occurred on that day, Parliament voted for it to be on 11 March.
Several days later, on 25 March if my memory serves me correctly, the European Council adopted this date as European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. Yet now, we have a plenary sitting tomorrow - 11 March - and I see from the agenda that there is not even a memorial of any kind. I would like to know if something of this sort is planned for this week's part-session.
Mr Ribeiro e Castro, it is my understanding that the President will make a statement tomorrow at the opening of the plenary about the day you refer to and the special circumstances. This will play a part in that regard.


5. Extension of scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection (


Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes


26. Competition Policy 2005 (vote)
- Ferreira report
-Before the vote
rapporteur. - (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, given that unforeseen transport difficulties prevented me and other MEPs from taking part in yesterday's debate, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the atmosphere of cooperation and compromise that enabled us to reach a broad consensus.
I should also like to thank the Commission services and, in particular, Mrs Kroes for her openness, the personal interest she has taken in this matter and her readiness to engage in dialogue. It has become particularly important today for there to be cooperation between the European institutions and for Parliament to be strongly involved, at a time when European competition policy covers strategic sectors such as energy and services of general economic interest, when it encompasses new areas such as the environment and when much competition has acquired a global dimension.
Consequently, we must go on updating competition policy and must keep up the spirit of cooperation evident during the process of drafting this report, for the benefit of Europe's citizens.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 09:05)


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